Theory of Self-Efficacy

 

Critique the Theory of Self-Efficacy using the Internal and External Criticism Evaluation Process

The purpose of this study is to provide a critical evaluation and critique of the self-efficacy perspective. Self-efficacy is a mindset in which people are confident in their abilities to carry out the actions that will lead to desired results. Nurses’ interactions with patients and other staff members will form the basis of the self-efficacy hypothesis. Professional nurses must have faith in the ability of their patients to benefit from treatment (Ramezani et al., 2019). Nurse practitioners may better serve their patients by being abreast of the latest developments in best practices in the healthcare industry. As a result, nurses may find it challenging to engage with patients who have developed less trust in their medical treatment plans. Dialysis patients are the ones who will need the most attention. Considering that they would have to endure dialysis for the rest of their lives, some patients lose hope. The non-compliance of certain patients is a severe issue in treating chronic conditions. Patients worry they will not have the strength to endure the dialysis treatment.

According to the external critique on the issue, psychological processes are required to forecast changes in behavior connected with a lack of belief in what one can do to improve one’s health outcomes. Cognitive behavioral theory (CBT) is helpful for nurses in dealing with patients who do not adhere to dialysis therapy. CBT successfully modifies patients’ desired behaviors (Sekhon et al., 2018). Self-efficacy theory, which has its roots in CBT, has been widely used across various nursing contexts, most notably in treating chronic conditions. Convergence shows that those who question their talents are more likely to give up when faced with difficulties. At the same time, those who are more confident in their abilities will make the necessary efforts to accomplish their goals despite any obstacles.

This insight is grounded in truth, as it explains why so many highly successful people share accounts of the hardships they overcame on their path to success. However, effectiveness varies widely from person to person (Karimy et al., 2018). The principle of self-efficacy is a powerful tool for nurses because it allows them to tailor their treatment to each patient based on their strengths and weaknesses. The theory’s applicability is enhanced by its specificity to the nursing field. However, the approach has several flaws, such as the impracticality of distinguishing between result expectation and effectiveness expectation. Without considering the ensuing anticipation, defining self-efficacy is challenging. That is why it is crucial to describe the theory in terms of the outcomes and benefits that people might reasonably anticipate. Self-efficacy theory is also heavily influenced by the context in which people find themselves. As a result, effective treatment techniques cannot be created without first comprehending the impact on the environment.

Sample Solution

tion the harm does not lead to war, it depends on the extent or proportionality, another condition to jus ad bellum (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314). Frowe, however, argues the idea of “just cause” based on “Sovereignty” which refers to the protection of political and territorial rights, along with human rights. In contemporary view, this view is more complicated to answer, given the rise of globalisation. Similarly, it is difficult to measure proportionality, particularly in war, because not only that there is an epistemic problem in calculating, but again today’s world has developed (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6).
Furthermore, Vittola argues war is necessary, not only for defensive purposes, ‘since it is lawful to resist force with force,’ but also to fight against the unjust, an offensive war, nations which are not punished for acting unjustly towards its own people or have unjustly taken land from the home nation (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to “teach its enemies a lesson,” but mainly to achieve the aim of war. This validates Aristotle’s argument: ‘there must be war for the sake of peace (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). However, Frowe argues “self-defence” has a plurality of descriptions, seen in Chapter 1, showing that self-defence cannot always justify one’s actions. Even more problematic, is the case of self-defence in war, where two conflicting views are established: The Collectivists, a whole new theory and the Individualists, the continuation of the domestic theory of self-defence (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). More importantly, Frowe refutes Vittola’s view on vengeance because firstly it empowers the punisher’s authority, but also today’s world prevents this action between countries through legal bodies like the UN, since we have modernised into a relatively peaceful society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Most importantly, Frowe further refutes Vittola through his claim that ‘right intention cannot be used as an excuse to wage war in response to anticipated wrong,’ suggesting we cannot just harm another just because they have done something unjust. Other factors need to be considered, for example, Proportionality.
Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its t

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.