Core methods | about 45 minutes | free
Elicit contrasting meanings, make a small reflective map, and revise an inference about another person's position.
An original introductory rehearsal using the publicly described INFORMED framing and personal-construct orientation. It is not Marguet's complete taught protocol, a personality assessment, or a validated repertory-grid diagnosis. Use supervised teaching for the fuller approach.
This is original learning material, not a reproduced official course. Mechanical checks have determinate answers within the stated case. Worked comparisons for open judgements show defensible reasoning, not the only possible model. Specialist pedagogical review is not recorded.
Fictional case: three managers are choosing how to improve an advice service. Aisha supports a shared portal because residents should not have to repeat their story. Ben supports named advisers because difficult cases need continuity. Cara supports walk-in access because a portal-only service could exclude people. A meeting note labels Aisha 'efficient', Ben 'resistant' and Cara 'emotional'. No manager has agreed with those labels. Options are P: portal only; N: named adviser with telephone access; H: a hybrid service with named continuity and assisted digital access.
Use paper, your own drawing tool or the notes below. Attempt each step before opening its comparison. Describe a diagram in words when that is more accessible.
Produce: One neutral follow-up question for each manager.
Ask Aisha for an example of harmful repetition, Ben for an example where continuity changed a result, and Cara for an example of exclusion. Ask what would count as an improvement in each story. Do not ask 'Why are you resistant?' because that imports the meeting note's untested explanation.
Produce: Three distinctions, with a note that the speaker must validate them.
Possible contrasts are 'tell the story once / repeatedly start again', 'continuity / fragmented hand-offs', and 'accessible assistance / exclusion at entry'. These are analyst proposals based on the supplied statements, not constructs actually elicited from the people. Avoid replacing them with generic categories such as 'pro-change / anti-change'.
Produce: A matrix of P, N and H against the three contrasts, retaining unknowns.
A plausible first map marks P as potentially reducing repetition but uncertain on continuity and poor on assisted access; N as potentially supporting continuity and telephone access, with repetition across other services unknown; H as potentially supporting all three, subject to design and resources. These are hypotheses. No supplied evidence justifies precise scores or the conclusion that H is automatically best.
Produce: A revised account and a question that could expose a real disagreement.
The managers may all seek better access but distinguish its conditions differently. Ask what each would preserve or refuse in H, including costs, privacy and staffing. Genuine conflict may remain. The exercise succeeds when it improves inquiry, not when it manufactures consensus or claims to read minds.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
The facilitator invents three personality scores and uses them to explain why one manager must be excluded from the decision.
Return to statements, stories and participant-validated distinctions. Keep tentative inferences visible and invite correction. This rehearsal does not authorise psychometric claims or exclusion based on inferred motives.
Ben now says he supports the portal provided a resident can retain a named adviser. Revise the account.
His objection was not necessarily to technology. Continuity may be the relevant distinction. Update the option map and ask how the portal would preserve it. Retain any new concerns rather than declaring the disagreement permanently resolved.
A different model can be defensible when its purpose, assumptions and reasoning are explicit. A contradiction, incorrect unit, invented fact or unacknowledged change of purpose needs repair. Keep both your first attempt and revision.
No sign-in or submission is required. Notes are not sent by this practice tool. Use fictional information, not identifiable client or learner data. Saving stores this page's attempt only in this browser; clearing browser data can remove it. Export a copy to keep it elsewhere.
The complete original case above is free. Links below distinguish exercises from explanations, recordings, software and paid study. Reading a page or drawing in a tool is not itself a model check.
Use for orientation and source discovery. It is not a free self-check workbook; use the original exercises here.
Method descriptions and linked talks/books inspected. Provider claims about success rates are not adopted by this pack.
Ground the distinction between individual constructs, group interaction and organisational decisions. The exercise here is an introductory rehearsal, not the author's complete protocol.
University thesis record and abstract inspected; full thesis not represented as fully reviewed.
Follow the connection between personal constructs, repertory grids and organisational choices. Do not infer motives from a grid alone.
Resource description and video link inspected, not the full recording.
Ask for practice with feedback in the named approach, rather than assuming every recording includes assessment.
The page lists coverage including CONAN, INFORMED and multi-methodology. Availability and individual tutor feedback require an enquiry.
Choose another practice area · Task-only version · Worked-answer version