如何评估量身定制的社会工作干预措施?一些基于实践的单案例设计解决方案。

Willem Landman, Stefan Bogaerts, Marinus Spreen
{"title":"如何评估量身定制的社会工作干预措施?一些基于实践的单案例设计解决方案。","authors":"Willem Landman,&nbsp;Stefan Bogaerts,&nbsp;Marinus Spreen","doi":"10.1080/26408066.2023.2192709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>With the increased attention to the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP), social workers are challenged to adapt their daily interventions accordingly when treating clients. They usually work with individual clients, all with their own specificities. Single-Case Experimental Designs (SCEDs) can be used to inform a social worker about the effectiveness of an intervention at the individual client level. In everyday social work practice, however, it is difficult to meet methodological requirements of SCEDs to find causal explanations. A concern is that repeated measurements prior to an intervention are required in most situations. This study aims to provide researchers with alternatives to repeated measurement when using the logic of SCED to apply EBP in their everyday practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, we reviewed published single-case designs between January 1 and December 31, 2019, on types of SCEDs in the social domain, and how is dealt with baseline conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SCEDs and quasi-experimental alternatives are hardly published in situations when baseline data are not available. Four underused quasi-experimental strategies that can be employed when repeated measurement during baseline is not possible are as follows: retrospective baselines, theoretical inference, multiraters, and triangulation with qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>The suggestions to work with single-case designs with quasi-experimental elements are meant to enable social workers to evaluate their interventions in a way that enhances mere narrative evaluations of the experiences of an intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":73742,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)","volume":"20 5","pages":"595-622"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to Evaluate a Tailor-made Social Work Intervention? Some Practice-Based Solutions with Single-Case Designs.\",\"authors\":\"Willem Landman,&nbsp;Stefan Bogaerts,&nbsp;Marinus Spreen\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/26408066.2023.2192709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>With the increased attention to the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP), social workers are challenged to adapt their daily interventions accordingly when treating clients. They usually work with individual clients, all with their own specificities. Single-Case Experimental Designs (SCEDs) can be used to inform a social worker about the effectiveness of an intervention at the individual client level. In everyday social work practice, however, it is difficult to meet methodological requirements of SCEDs to find causal explanations. A concern is that repeated measurements prior to an intervention are required in most situations. This study aims to provide researchers with alternatives to repeated measurement when using the logic of SCED to apply EBP in their everyday practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, we reviewed published single-case designs between January 1 and December 31, 2019, on types of SCEDs in the social domain, and how is dealt with baseline conditions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>SCEDs and quasi-experimental alternatives are hardly published in situations when baseline data are not available. Four underused quasi-experimental strategies that can be employed when repeated measurement during baseline is not possible are as follows: retrospective baselines, theoretical inference, multiraters, and triangulation with qualitative data.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>The suggestions to work with single-case designs with quasi-experimental elements are meant to enable social workers to evaluate their interventions in a way that enhances mere narrative evaluations of the experiences of an intervention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)\",\"volume\":\"20 5\",\"pages\":\"595-622\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2023.2192709\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evidence-based social work (2019)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26408066.2023.2192709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:随着对循证实践(EBP)原则的日益关注,社会工作者在治疗客户时面临着调整日常干预措施的挑战。他们通常与个人客户合作,每个客户都有自己的特点。单案例实验设计(SCEDs)可以用来告知社会工作者在个体客户层面干预的有效性。然而,在日常的社会工作实践中,很难满足sced寻找因果解释的方法论要求。值得关注的是,在大多数情况下,干预前需要重复测量。本研究旨在为研究人员在日常实践中使用SCED逻辑应用EBP时提供替代重复测量的方法。方法:在本研究中,我们回顾了2019年1月1日至12月31日期间发表的关于社会领域sced类型的单例设计,以及如何处理基线条件。结果:在没有基线数据的情况下,SCEDs和准实验替代方案几乎不发表。当无法在基线期间重复测量时,可以采用以下四种未充分利用的准实验策略:回顾性基线、理论推断、多因子和定性数据三角测量。讨论和结论:建议使用带有准实验元素的单一案例设计,旨在使社会工作者能够以一种增强对干预经验的单纯叙事评估的方式来评估他们的干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How to Evaluate a Tailor-made Social Work Intervention? Some Practice-Based Solutions with Single-Case Designs.

Purpose: With the increased attention to the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP), social workers are challenged to adapt their daily interventions accordingly when treating clients. They usually work with individual clients, all with their own specificities. Single-Case Experimental Designs (SCEDs) can be used to inform a social worker about the effectiveness of an intervention at the individual client level. In everyday social work practice, however, it is difficult to meet methodological requirements of SCEDs to find causal explanations. A concern is that repeated measurements prior to an intervention are required in most situations. This study aims to provide researchers with alternatives to repeated measurement when using the logic of SCED to apply EBP in their everyday practice.

Methods: In this study, we reviewed published single-case designs between January 1 and December 31, 2019, on types of SCEDs in the social domain, and how is dealt with baseline conditions.

Results: SCEDs and quasi-experimental alternatives are hardly published in situations when baseline data are not available. Four underused quasi-experimental strategies that can be employed when repeated measurement during baseline is not possible are as follows: retrospective baselines, theoretical inference, multiraters, and triangulation with qualitative data.

Discussion and conclusion: The suggestions to work with single-case designs with quasi-experimental elements are meant to enable social workers to evaluate their interventions in a way that enhances mere narrative evaluations of the experiences of an intervention.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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