A cognitive model of PTSD Sample Clauses

A cognitive model of PTSD. Xxxxxx and Xxxxx (2000), in their cognitive model of PTSD, propose that PTSD becomes persistent in individuals whose processing of the event leads to a sense of serious current threat as a result of disturbances in autobiographical memory and idiosyncratic negative appraisals of the traumatic event and/or its sequelae. The threat can be either internal (e.g., a threat to one’s core view of oneself as a capable and/or acceptable person who will be able to achieve life’s important goals) or external (e.g., the world is a dangerous place, people are dangerous). The sense of current threat is accompanied by intrusions, arousal, and strong emotions such as anxiety, anger, shame, or sadness. These negative appraisals also lead to a series of dysfunctional cognitive and behavioural responses that have the short-term aim of reducing distress, but have the long-term consequence of preventing cognitive change and therefore maintain the disorder. As outlined above, Xxxxxx and Xxxxx (2000), in their cognitive model of PTSD, place great importance on the role of excessively negative appraisals of traumatic events and/or their sequelae, in the onset and maintenance of the disorder. Three types of negative trauma event appraisals have been distinguished by Foa, Ehlers, Xxxxx, Xxxxxx, and Xxxxxxx (1999) including, negative cognitions about the self, negative cognitions about the world, and self-blame. These have been found to be associated with PTSD symptom severity in cross-sectional (e.g., Xxxx, Xxxxxxx, & Xxxx, 2006; Xxxxxx & Xxxxx, 2003) and prospective analyses (e.g., Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx, & Xxxxxxxxx, 2008; X’Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, & Xxxxxxx, 2007). Consistent with the PTSD model, negative cognitions about the self and world, and self-blame have been found to correlate with the severity of posttraumatic stress symptoms experienced by informal carers of stroke survivors (Xxxxx et al., 2010) and by parents of children with a serious illness (Xxxxxx, XxXxxxx, & Xxxxxxx, 2012). Furthermore, self-blame, conceptualised as a coping strategy has been associated with posttraumatic stress symptoms in informal carers of patients with a life-threatening illness (Noble & Xxxxxx, 2008). In carers of people with psychosis, coping through self-blame has been associated with higher levels of distress (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx, & Xxxxxx, 2005). Xxxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, and Xxxxxxx (1996) also found that those relatives of people with psychosis who made self-blaming attributions experienced higher ...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to A cognitive model of PTSD

  • DEVELOPMENT OR ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS REQUIREMENTS/ STATEMENTS OF WORK Firms and/or individuals that assisted in the development or drafting of the specifications, requirements, statements of work, or solicitation documents contained herein are excluded from competing for this solicitation. This shall not be applicable to firms and/or individuals providing responses to a publicly posted Request for Information (RFI) associated with a solicitation.

  • RECOGNITION OUTCOMES The receiving institution commits to provide the sending institution and the student with a Transcript of Records within a period stipulated in the inter-institutional agreement and normally not longer than five weeks after publication/proclamation of the student’s results at the receiving institution. The Transcript of Records from the receiving institution will contain at least the minimum information requested in this Learning Agreement template. Table E (or the representation that the institution makes of it) will include all the educational components agreed in table A and, if there were changes to the study programme abroad, in table C. In addition, grade distribution information should be included in the Transcript of Records or attached to it (a web link where this information can be found is enough). The actual start and end dates of the study period will be included according to the following definitions: The start date of the study period is the first day the student has been present at the receiving institution, for example, for the first course, for a welcoming event organised by the host institution or for language and intercultural courses. The end date of the study period is the last day the student has been present at the receiving institution and not his actual date of departure. This is, for example, the end of exams period, courses or mandatory sitting period. Following the receipt of the Transcript of Records from the receiving institution, the sending institution commits to provide to the student a Transcript of Records, without further requirements from the student, and normally within five weeks. The sending institution's Transcript of Records must include at least the information listed in table F (the recognition outcomes) and attach the receiving institution's Transcript of Record. In case of mobility windows, table F may be completed as follows: Component code (if any) Title of recognised component (as indicated in the course catalogue) at the sending institution Number of ECTS credits Sending institution grade, if applicable Mobility window Total: 30 ….. Where applicable, the sending institution will translate the grades received by the student abroad, taking into account the grade distribution information from the receiving institution (see the methodology described in the ECTS Users' Guide). In addition, all the educational components will appear as well in the student's Diploma Supplement. The exact titles from the receiving institution will also be included in the Transcript of Records that is attached to the Diploma Supplement. Steps to fill in the Learning Agreement for Studies P Additional educational components above the number of ECTS credits required in his/her curriculum are listed in the LA and if the sending institution will not recognise them as counting towards their degree, this has to be agreed by all parties concerned and annexed to the LA

  • Development Milestones In addition to its obligations under Paragraph 7.1, LICENSEE specifically commits to achieving the following development milestones in its diligence activities under this AGREEMENT: (a) (b).

  • For Product Development Projects and Project Demonstrations  Published documents, including date, title, and periodical name.  Estimated or actual energy and cost savings, and estimated statewide energy savings once market potential has been realized. Identify all assumptions used in the estimates.  Greenhouse gas and criteria emissions reductions.  Other non-energy benefits such as reliability, public safety, lower operational cost, environmental improvement, indoor environmental quality, and societal benefits.  Data on potential job creation, market potential, economic development, and increased state revenue as a result of the project.  A discussion of project product downloads from websites, and publications in technical journals.  A comparison of project expectations and performance. Discuss whether the goals and objectives of the Agreement have been met and what improvements are needed, if any.

  • Development Plan document specifying the work program, schedule, and relevant investments required for the Development and the Production of a Discovery or set of Discoveries of Oil and Gas in the Contract Area, including its abandonment.

  • Performance indicators and targets The purpose of the innovation performance indicators and targets is to assist the University and the Commonwealth in monitoring the University's progress against the Commonwealth's objectives and the University's strategies for innovation. The University will report principal performance information and aim to meet the innovation performance indicators and targets set out in the following tables.

  • Performance Indicators The HSP’s delivery of the Services will be measured by the following Indicators, Targets and where applicable Performance Standards. In the following table: n/a meanç ‘not-appIicabIe’, that there iç no defined Performance Standard for the indicator for the applicable year. tbd means a Target, and a Performance Standard, if applicable, will be determined during the applicable year. INDICATOR CATEGORY INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD Organizational Health and Financial Indicators Debt Service Coverage Ratio (P) 1 c1 Total Margin (P) 0 cO Coordination and Access Indicators Percent Resident Days – Long Stay (E) n/a n/a Wait Time from LHIN Determination of Eligibility to LTC Home Response (M) n/a n/a Long-Term Care Home Refusal Rate (E) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2/3 INDICATOR CATEGORY Quality and Resident Safety Indicators INDICATOR P = Performance Indicator E = Explanatory Indicator M = Monitoring Indicator Percentage of Residents Who Fell in the Last 30 days (M) 2019/20 PERFORMANCE TARGET STANDARD n/a n/a Percentage of Residents Whose Pressure Ulcer Worsened (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents on Antipsychotics Without a Diagnosis of Psychosis (M) n/a n/a Percentage of Residents in Daily Physical Restraints (M) n/a n/a SCHEDULE D — PERFORMANCE 2.0 LHIN-Specific Performance Obligations 3/3

  • Design Development Phase Services 3.3.1 Based on the Owner’s approval of the Schematic Design Documents, and on the Owner’s authorization of any adjustments in the Project requirements and the budget for the Cost of the Work, the Architect shall prepare Design Development Documents for the Owner’s approval. The Design Development Documents shall illustrate and describe the development of the approved Schematic Design Documents and shall consist of drawings and other documents including plans, sections, elevations, typical construction details, and diagrammatic layouts of building systems to fix and describe the size and character of the Project as to architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical systems, and other appropriate elements. The Design Development Documents shall also include outline specifications that identify major materials and systems and establish, in general, their quality levels.

  • RECOGNITION & SCOPE 1.1 The Employer recognizes the Union as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for all employees of the Employer, including part-time, casual and temporary employees in accordance with the decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board dated January 11, 2001, and the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Ottawa Transition Board and all predecessor bargaining agents dated October 18, 2000, regarding bargaining unit scope. See Appendix A.

  • Aggravating and Mitigating Factors The penalties in this matter were determined in consideration of all relevant circumstances, including statutory factors as described in CARB’s Enforcement Policy. CARB considered whether the violator came into compliance quickly and cooperated with the investigation; the extent of harm to public health, safety and welfare; nature and persistence of the violation, including the magnitude of the excess emissions; compliance history; preventative efforts taken; innovative nature and the magnitude of the effort required to comply, and the accuracy, reproducibility, and repeatability of the available test methods; efforts to attain, or provide for, compliance prior to violation; action taken to mitigate the violation; financial burden to the violator; and voluntary disclosure. The penalties are set at levels sufficient to deter violations, to remove any economic benefit or unfair advantage from noncompliance, to obtain swift compliance, and the potential costs, risks, and uncertainty associated with litigation. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger depending on the unique circumstances of the case.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!