Improving the accuracy of social work judgements: A proof‐of‐concept study of a training programme

David Wilkins
{"title":"Improving the accuracy of social work judgements: A proof‐of‐concept study of a training programme","authors":"David Wilkins","doi":"10.1111/cfs.13146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Child and family social workers routinely make professional judgements involving significant legal and moral questions (e.g. whether a child has been abused) and more ‘everyday’ issues (e.g. will the child be re‐referred again if we close the case now?) Yet the world is capricious, and we rarely know with certainty what is going to happen in future or the likely impact of our different choices. Given the consequences of their judgements and decisions, it is imperative that social workers are provided with the best possible support. This paper reports a proof‐of‐concept study of a set of interventions to improve the judgemental accuracy of social workers: (i) a survey to identify respondents with above‐average existing abilities, (ii) training sessions on cognitive debiasing and (iii) structured group working and (iv) three methods for aggregating individual judgements. Findings indicate that it is possible to measure the accuracy of social work judgements in relation to case‐study materials and retrospective questions, while the feedback about the training was largely positive. Any future studies should aim to recruit a more diverse set of respondents, test judgemental accuracy in relation to prospective judgements and explore what types of questions would be most helpful for real‐world decision‐making.","PeriodicalId":503608,"journal":{"name":"Child & Family Social Work","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child & Family Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.13146","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Child and family social workers routinely make professional judgements involving significant legal and moral questions (e.g. whether a child has been abused) and more ‘everyday’ issues (e.g. will the child be re‐referred again if we close the case now?) Yet the world is capricious, and we rarely know with certainty what is going to happen in future or the likely impact of our different choices. Given the consequences of their judgements and decisions, it is imperative that social workers are provided with the best possible support. This paper reports a proof‐of‐concept study of a set of interventions to improve the judgemental accuracy of social workers: (i) a survey to identify respondents with above‐average existing abilities, (ii) training sessions on cognitive debiasing and (iii) structured group working and (iv) three methods for aggregating individual judgements. Findings indicate that it is possible to measure the accuracy of social work judgements in relation to case‐study materials and retrospective questions, while the feedback about the training was largely positive. Any future studies should aim to recruit a more diverse set of respondents, test judgemental accuracy in relation to prospective judgements and explore what types of questions would be most helpful for real‐world decision‐making.
提高社会工作判断的准确性:一项培训计划的概念验证研究
儿童和家庭社会工作者经常要做出专业判断,其中既涉及重大的法律和道德问题(如儿童是否受到虐待),也涉及更多的 "日常 "问题(如如果我们现在结案,儿童会不会再次被转介?鉴于社会工作者的判断和决定所带来的后果,我们必须为他们提供尽可能好的支持。本文报告了对一系列干预措施的概念验证研究,这些干预措施旨在提高社会工作者的判断准确性:(i) 通过调查确定现有能力高于平均水平的受访者;(ii) 关于认知去伪存真的培训课程;(iii) 结构化小组工作;(iv) 三种汇总个人判断的方法。研究结果表明,可以根据案例研究材料和回顾性问题来衡量社会工作判断的准确性,同时对培训的反馈也基本上是积极的。今后的任何研究都应着眼于招募更多样化的受访者,测试与前瞻性判断相关的判断准确性,并探索哪类问题对现实世界的决策最有帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信