Practice evaluation strategies range in style from the formal-analytic tools of single-subject designs, rapid assessment instruments, algorithmic steps in evidence-based practice, and computer software applications, to the informal-interactive tools of clinical supervision, consultation with colleagues, use of client feedback, and clinical experience. The purpose of this study was to provide practice researchers in social work with a more complete understanding of how and why social workers evaluate their practice the way they do.
Methods:
Questions about practice evaluation strategies were posed to 12 licensed clinical social workers in a 3-hour focus group.
Findings:
Drawing on advances in the cognitive and social neurosciences, the study identified among clinical social workers an informal-interactive tool preference that displays itself as a cognitively necessary, sufficient, and stand-alone preference that required neither the supplementation nor balance of formal-analytic tools.
Conclusions:
New directions in social work practice research are required and delineated.
AbellN.HudsonW. W. (2000). Pragmatic applications of single-case and group designs in social work practice evaluation research. In Allen-MearesP.GarvinC. (Eds.), The handbook of social work direct practice (pp. 535–550). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AuerbachC.SchudrichW. Z. (2013). SSD for R: A comprehensive statistical package to analyze single-system data. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 346–353. doi:10.1177/1049731513477213
3.
AuerbachC.ZeitlinW. (2014). SSD for R: An R package for analyzing single-subject data. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
BennerP. (Ed.). (1995). Interpretive phenomenology: Embodiment, caring, and ethics in health and illness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BickertonD. (1995). Language and human behavior. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
6.
BellamyJ. L.BledsoeS. E.TraubeD. E. (2005). The current state of evidence-based practice in social work: A review of the literature and qualitative analysis of expert interviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 3, 23–48. doi:10.1300/J394v03n01_02
7.
BloomM.FisherJ.OrmeJ. G. (2009). Evaluating practice: Guidelines for the accountable professional (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
8.
BrainerdC. J.ReynaV. F. (2001). Fuzzy-trace theory: Dual processes in memory, reasoning, and cognitive neuroscience. In ReeseH. W.KailR. (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 28, pp. 41–100). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
9.
BriggsH. E.FeyerhermW.GingerichW. (2004). Evaluating science-based practice with single systems. In BriggsH. E.RzepnickiT. L. (Eds.), Using evidence in social work practice: Behavioral perspectives (pp. 323–342). Chicago, IL: Lyceum.
10.
BrooksR. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 139–159. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(91)90053-M
11.
BrunswikE. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability. The Psychological Review, 50, 255–272. doi:10.1037/h0060889
12.
ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.). (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford.
13.
CharleswortS. J. (2000). A phenomenology of working class experience. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
14.
CoeJ. A. R.MennonG. M. (Eds.). (2000). Computers and information technology in social work education, training, and practice. New York, NY: TRC.
15.
CorcoranK.FisherJ. (Eds.). (2013a). Measures for clinical practice and research, Volume 1: Couples, Families, and Children. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
CorcoranK.FisherJ. (Eds.). (2013b). Measures for clinical practice and research, Volume 2: Adults. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
CournoyerB. R.PowersG. T. (2002). Evidence-based social work: The quiet revolution. In RobertsA. R.GreeneG. J. (Eds.), Social workers’ desk reference (pp. 798–807). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
18.
CrickF.KochC. (2003). A framework for consciousness. National Neuroscience, 6, 119–126. doi:10.1038/nn0203-119
19.
DavisD. A.Taylor-VaiseyA. (1997). Translating guidelines into practice: A systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 157, 408–416.
20.
DavisT. D. (2005). Beliefs about confrontation among substance abuse counselors: Are they consistent with the evidence?Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 2, 1–17. doi:10.1300/J394v02n01_01
21.
DavisT. D. (2006). Practice evaluation in social work: Theorizing practitioner preference. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 76, 67–92. doi:10.1300/J497v76n03_06
22.
DavisT. D. (2007). Why do MSW students evaluate practice the way they do? An evidence-based theory for clinical supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 26, 159–175. doi:10.1300/J001v26n01_11
23.
DehaeneS.ChangeuxJ. P. (2011). Experimental and theoretical approaches to conscious processing. Neuron, 70, 200–227. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.03.018
24.
DijksterhuisA.BosM. W.NordgrenL. F.van BarrenR. B. (2006). On making the right choice: The deliberation-without-attention effect. Science, 311, 1005–1007. doi:10.1126/science.1121629
25.
DriskoJ. W. (2001). How clinical social workers evaluate practice. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 71, 419–439. doi:10.1080/00377310109517638
26.
DriskoJ. W.GradyM. D. (2012). Evidence-based practice in clinical social work. New York, NY: Springer.
27.
ElksM.KirkhartK. (1993). Evaluating effectiveness from the practitioner perspective. Social Work, 38, 555–563. doi:10.1093/sw/38.5.554
28.
EpsteinI. (2010). Clinical data-mining: Integrating practice and research. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
29.
EpsteinI.FisherM.JulkunenI.UggerhojL.AustinM. J.SimT. (2015). The New York statement on the evolving definition of practice research designed for continuing dialogue: A bulletin from the 3rd International Conference on Practice Research (2014). Research on Social Work Practice, 1–4. doi:10.1177/1049731515582250
30.
EpsteinS.PaciniR. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 462–482). New York, NY: Guilford.
31.
FeldmanR. A. (2010). Critical infrastructures for social work practice research: Pondering the past, framing the future. In FortuneA. E.McCallionP.Briar-LawsonK. (Eds.), Social work practice research for the twenty-first century (pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
32.
FergusonM. J.MannT. C.WonjnowiczM. T. (2014). Rethinking duality: Criticisms and ways forward. In ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 578–594). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
FischerJ. (1993). Empirically-based practice: The end of ideology?Social Service Research, 18, 19–64. doi:10.1300/J079v18n01_03
34.
FodorJ. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35.
FortuneA. E.McCallionP.Briar-LawsonK. (2010). Building evidence-based intervention models. In FortuneA. E.McCallionP.Briar-LawsonK. (Eds.), Social work practice research for the twenty-first century (pp. 279–295). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
36.
FraserM. W.RichmanJ. M.GalinskyM. J.DayS. H. (2009). Intervention research: Developing social programs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
GambrillE. (1997). Social work practice: A critical thinker’s guide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
GambrillE. (1999). Evidence-based practice: An alternative to authority-based practice. Families in Society, 80, 341–350. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.1214
39.
GambrillE. (2012a). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
40.
GambrillE. (2012b). Propaganda in the helping professions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
GarbH. N. (1998). Studying the clinician: Judgment research and psychological assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
42.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
43.
GawronskiB.ShermanJ. W.TropeY. (2014). Two of what? A conceptual analysis of dual-process theories. In GawronskiB.ShermanJ. W.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
44.
GerdesK.EdmondsR.HaslamD.McCartneyT. (1996). A statewide survey of licensed clinical social workers’ use of practice evaluation procedures. Research on Social Work Practice, 6, 27–39. doi:10.1177/104973159600600102
45.
GibbsL. E. (2003). Evidence-based practice for the helping professions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
46.
GigerenzerG.ToddP. M. (Eds.). (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
47.
GilbertD. T. (1999). What the mind’s not. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 3–11). New York, NY: Guilford.
48.
GilesS. (2003). Transformations: A phenomenological investigation into the life-world of home hemodialysis. Social Work in Health Care, 38, 29–50. doi:10.1300/J010v38n02_02
49.
GingerichW. J. (1982, 3). Teaching students to use single-case evaluation methods: Enhancing generalization from classroom to practice settings. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council of Social Work Education, New York.
50.
GrobmanL. (Ed.). (2011). Days in the lives of social workers: 58 Professionals tell real-life stories from social work practice (4th ed.). Harrisburg, PA: White House Communications.
51.
GrobmanL.BourassaD. (Eds.). (2007). Days in the lives of gerontological social workers: 44 Professionals tell stories from real-life social work practice with older adults. Harrisburg, PA: White Hat Communications.
52.
HepworthD.RooneyR.RooneyG.Strom-GottfriendK. (2012). Direct social work practice: Theory and skills (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
53.
HiggsJ.JonesM. (2000). Clinical reasoning in the health professions. Clinical reasoning in the health professions (2nd ed., pp. 3–14). Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.
54.
HogarthR. M. (2001). Educating intuition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
HowardM. O.GarlandE. L. (2015). Social work research: 2044. Journal of Society for Social Work and Research, 6, 173–200. doi:10.1086/681099
56.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
57.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, slow and fast. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
58.
KahnemanD.SlovicP.TverskyA. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
59.
KaziM. (2000). Contemporary perspectives in the evaluation of practice. British Journal of Social Work, 30, 755–768. doi:10.1093/bjsw/30.6.755
60.
KaziM. (2003). Realist evaluation for practice. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 803–818. doi:10.1093/bjsw/33.6.803
61.
KellerC.KellerJ. D. (1996). Thinking and acting with iron. In ChaiklinS.LaveJ. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 125–143). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
62.
KirkS. A.ReidW. J. (2002). Science and social work: A critical appraisal. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
63.
KleinG. (1998). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
64.
KleinW. C. (1995). Practice wisdom. Social Work, 40, 799–807. doi:10.1093/sw/40.6.799
65.
KnightC. (2015). Social work students’ use of the peer-review literature and engagement in evidence-based practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 51, 250–269. doi:10.1080/10437797.2015.1012924
66.
LaveJ. (1996). The practice of learning. In ChaiklinS.LaveJ. (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
67.
LaveJ.MurtaughM.RochaO. D. L. (1984). The dialectic of arithmetic in grocery shopping. In RogoffB.LaveJ. (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 67–94). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
LevinsonS. C. (1995). Interactional biases in human thinking. In GoodyE. (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction (pp. 221–260). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
69.
LiebermanM. D. (2000). Intuition: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 109–137. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.109
70.
LiebermanM. D. (2003). Reflexive and reflective judgment processes: A social cognitive neuroscience approach. In ForgasJ. P.WilliamsK. R.HippelW. V. (Eds.), Social judgments in implicit and explicit processes (pp. 44–67). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
71.
LindblomC. E.CohenD. K. (1979). Usable knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
72.
LuhrmannT. M. (2000). Of two minds: The growing disorder in American psychiatry. New York, NY: Knopf.
73.
LynchM. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
74.
MadjarI.WaltonJ. A. (1999). Phenomenology and nursing. In MadjarI.WaltonJ. A. (Eds.), Nursing and the experience of illness (pp. 1–16). London, England: Routledge.
75.
ManenM. V. (2001). Professional practice and ‘doing phenomenology’. In ToombsS. K. (Ed.), Handbook of phenomenology and medicine (pp. 457–474). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
76.
MarinoR.GreenR. G.YoungE. (1998). Beyond the scientist-practitioner model’s failure to thrive: Social workers’ participation in agency-based research activities. Social Work Research, 22, 188–192. doi:10.1093/swr/22.3.188
77.
MarthinsenE.JulkunenI. (Eds.). (2012). Practice research in Nordic social work: Knowledge production in transition. Forest Hill, England: Whiting and Birch.
78.
Martinez-BrawleyE. E. (1995). Knowledge diffusion and transfer technology: Conceptual premises and concrete steps for human services innovators. Social Work, 40, 670–682. doi:10.1093/sw/40.5.670
79.
MaynardD. W. (2003). Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
80.
Merleau-PontyM. (1962). Phenomenology of perception (SmithC., Trans.). London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
81.
MetcalfeJ.MischelW. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of will power. Psychological Review, 106, 3–19. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.3
82.
MullenE. J.BaconW. (2004). Implementation of practice guidelines and evidence-based treatment: A survey of psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers. In RobertsA. R.YeagerK. R. (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and human services (pp. 210–218). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
83.
NuriusP. S.KempS. P.GibsonJ. W. (1999). Practitioners’ perspectives on sound reasoning: Adding a worker-in-context component. Administration in Social Work, 23, 1–27. doi:10.1300/J147v23n01_01
84.
OkpychN. J.YuJ. L.-H. (2014). A historical analysis of evidence-based practice in social work: The unfinished journey toward an empirically grounded profession. Social Service Review, 88, 3–58. doi:10.1086/674969
85.
OrmeJ. G.Combs-OrmeT.OrmeJ. G. (2011). Outcome-informed evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Pearson.
86.
OrrJ. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
87.
O’SullivanT. O. (2005). Some theoretical propositions on the nature of practice wisdom. Journal of Social Work, 5, 221–242. doi:10.1177/1468017305054977
88.
ParrishD. E.OxhandlerH. K. (2015). Social work field instructors’ views and implementation of evidence-based practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 51, 270–286. doi:10.1080/10437797.2015.1012943
89.
PenkaC. E.KirkS. A. (1991). Practitioner involvement in clinical evaluation. Social work, 36, 513–518. doi:10.1093/sw/36.6.513
90.
PignottiM.ThyerB. A. (2009). Use of novel unsupported and empirically supported therapies by licensed clinical social workers. Social Work Research, 33, 5–17. doi:10.1093/swr/33.1.5
91.
PollioH. R.HenleyT. B.ThompsonC. J. (1997). The phenomenology of everyday life: Empirical investigations of human experience. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
92.
PollockJ. L. (1991). OSCAR: A general theory of rationality. In CummingsJ.PollockJ. L. (Eds.), Philosophy and AI: Essays at the interface (pp. 189–213). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
93.
ReamerF. G. (1995). Malpractice claims against social workers: First facts. Social Work, 40, 595–601. doi:10.1093/sw/40.5.595
94.
ReidW. J.ZettergrenP. (1999). A perspective on empirical practice. In ShawI.LishmanJ. (Eds.), Evaluation and social work practice (pp. 41–62). London, England: Sage.
95.
RosenA.ProctorE. K. (2003). Social work practice guidelines: Directions for research. In RosenA.ProctorE. K. (Eds.), Developing practice guidelines for social work intervention: Issues, methods, and research agenda (pp. 271–289). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
96.
RubinA. (2008). Practitioner’s guide to using research for evidence-based practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
97.
SchatzkiT. R. (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In SchatzkiT. R.CetinaK. K.SavignyE. V. (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1–14). London, England: Routledge.
98.
SchonD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
99.
ScribnerS. (1984). Studying working intelligence. In RogoffB.LaveJ. (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context (pp. 9–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
100.
ShawI. (1998). Practicing evaluation. In CheethamJ.KaziM. A. F. (Eds.), The working of social work (pp. 201–223). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
101.
ShawI. (2012a). Logics, qualities and quality of social work research. In ShawI.Briar-LawsonK.OrmeJ.RuckdeschelR. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social work research (pp. 246–263). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
102.
ShawI. (2012b). Places in time: Contextualizing social work research. In ShawI.Briar-LawsonK.OrmeJ.RuckdeschelR. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social work research (pp. 210–227). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
103.
ShawI.ShawA. (1997a). Game plans, buzzes and sheer luck: Doing well in social work. Social Work Research, 21, 69–79. doi:10.1093/swr/21.2.69
104.
ShawI.ShawA. (1997b). Keeping social work honest: Evaluating as profession and practice. British Journal of Social Work, 27, 847–869.
105.
SheldonB.ChilversR. (2000). Evidence-based social care: A study of prospects and problems. Dorset, England: Russell House.
106.
ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.TropeY. (Eds.). (2014). Dual-process theories of the social mind. New York. NY: Guilford Press.
107.
SlomanA. S. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.3
108.
SmithE. R. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–131. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_01
109.
StanovichK. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
110.
StanovichK. E. (2003). The fundamental computational biases of human cognition: Heuristics that (sometimes) impair decision making and problem solving. In DavidsonJ. E.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 291–342). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
111.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–726.
112.
StanovichK. E.WestR. F.ToplakM. E. (2014). Rationality, intelligence, and the defining features of type 1 and type 2 processing. In ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 80–91). New York, NY: Guilford.
113.
SteinE. (1996). Without good reason: The rationality debate in philosophy and cognitive science. Oxford, England: Clarendon.
114.
SuchmanL. A. (1996). Plans and situated action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
115.
TaylorC.WhiteS. (2000). Practicing reflexivity in health and welfare: Making knowledge. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
116.
TaylorC.WhiteS. (2001). Knowledge, truth, and reflexivity: The problem of judgement in social work. Journal of Social Work, 1, 37–59. doi:10.1177/146801730100100104
117.
TaylorS. E. (2002). Tending instinct: How nurturing is essential for who we are and how we live. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
118.
ThyerB. A.MeyersL. L. (2007). A social worker’s guide to evaluating practice outcomes. Alexander, VA: CSWE Press.
119.
ThyerB. A.PignottiM. G. (2015). Science and pseudoscience in social work practice. New York, NY: Springer.
120.
ToombsS. K. (2001). Introduction: Phenomenology and medicine. In ToombsS. K. (Ed.), Handbook of phenomenology and medicine (pp. 1–26). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
121.
TsuiM. S. (2005). Social work supervision: Contexts and concepts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
122.
VahabzadehP. (2003). Articulated experiences: Toward a radical phenomenology of contemporary social movements. New York: State University of New York Press.
123.
VentimigliaJ. A.MarschkeJ.CarmichaelP.LoewR. (2000). How do clinicians evaluate their practice effectiveness? A survey of clinical social workers. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 70, 287–306. doi:10.1080/00377310009517593
124.
VinzantJ. C.CrothersL. (1998). Street-level leadership: Discretion and legitimacy in front-line public service. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
125.
WeinsteinJ.WhittingtonC.LeibaT. (2007). Collaboration in social work practice. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
126.
WelchG. (1983). Will graduates use single-subject designs to evaluate their casework practice?Journal of Education in Social Work, 19, 42–47.
127.
WilsonT. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
128.
ZeiraA.RosenA. (2000). Unraveling “tacit knowledge”: What social workers do and why they do it. Social Service Review, 74, 103–123. doi:10.1086/514459
