The main contribution of this article is to critically analyze the use of single-case evaluation by social work practitioners in Finland and England and to assist in the development of this methodology in practice. We examine the experiences from both countries where attempts were made by academic researchers to encourage social workers to use single-case designs in the evaluation of their practice. The interventions used by the researchers in the universities at Tampere in Finland and Huddersfield in England to promote the use of single-case evaluation by practitioners are described in detail to enable replication and to develop the potential to learn from the interventions used by others.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AskelandG. A.ChristiansenK. U. (1989). Single system designs: Research and practice meet each other. Nordiski Socialt Arbete, 9, 23–37.
2.
BarlowD. H.HersenM. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed). New York: Pergamon.
3.
BloomM.FischerJ. (1982). Evaluating practice: Guidelines for the accountable professional. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BloomM.FischerJ.OrmeJ. (1995). Evaluating practice: Guidelines for the accountable professional (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
BlythE.KaziM. A. F.MilnerJ. (1994). Education reform and education social work in Britain. Social Work in Education, 16, 129–134.
6.
BlytheB. J. (1995). Single-system design. in EdwardsR. L. (ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., pp. 2164–2168). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
7.
BlytheB. J.RodgersA. Y. (1993). Evaluating our own practice: Past, present, and future trends. Journal of Social Service Research, 18, 101–119.
8.
BlytheB. J.TripodiT. (1989). Measurement in direct practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
BlytheB. J.TripodiT. (1989). Measurement in direct practice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
BriarS. (1990). Empiricism in clinical practice: Present and future. in Videka-ShermanL.ReidW. J. (eds.), Advances in clinical social work research. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
11.
CheethamJ.FullerR.McIvorG.PetchA. (1992). Evaluating social work effectiveness. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
12.
CorcoranK.FischerJ. (1987). Measures for clinical practice: A source book. New York: Free Press.
13.
FischerJ.CorcoranK. (1994). Measures for clinical practice: A source book (Vols. 1-2). New York: Free Press.
14.
KazdinA. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford University Press.
15.
KaziM. A. F. (1996a). The Centre for Evaluation Studies at the University of Huddersfield: A profile. Research on Social Work Practice, 6, 104–116.
16.
KaziM. A. F. (1996b). Single-case evaluation in the public sector. Evaluation, 2, 85–97.
17.
KaziM. A. F.WilsonJ. T. (1996). Applying single-case evaluation methodology in a British social work agency. Research on Social Work Practice, 6, 5–26.
LewisR. E. (1991). What are the characteristics of intensive family preservation services? in FraserM. W.PecoraP. J.HaapalaD. A. (eds.), Families in crisis: The impact of intensive family preservation services (pp. 93–108). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
20.
MantysaariM. (1995, September). Single-system designs in the evaluation of social work in Finland. Paper presented at the international conference Evaluation of Social Work Practice at the Centre for Evaluation Studies, University of Huddersfield, England.
21.
O'HanlonW. H.Weiner-DavisM. (1989). In search of solutions: A new direction in psychotherapy. New York: Norton.
22.
PartonN. (1996). Social theory, social change, and social work: An introduction. in PartonN. (ed.), Social theory, social change and social work. London: Routledge.
23.
RobinsonE. A. R.BronsonD. E.BlytheB. J. (1988). An analysis of the implementation of single-case evaluation by practitioners. Social Service Review, 62, 285–301.
24.
RostilaI. (1996, October). Single-case evaluation: Family Preservation Service's experience. Paper presented at STAKES Workshop at the University of Helsinki.
25.
SaamioP.AareskoskiK.KojoS.KoskinenH.LehtoP.TamminenM.TulensaloH.YlänenT. (1996). About effects of training to solution oriented therapy. Pe$heterapia, 12, 22–28.
26.
SheldonB. (1988). Single case evaluation methods: Review and prospects. in LishmanJ. (ed.), Evaluation (2nd. ed., pp. 40–57). London: Jessica Kingsley.
27.
SmithGCantleyC. (1988). Pluralistic evaluation. in LishmanJ. (ed.), Evaluation (2nd. ed., pp. 118–136). London: Jessica Kingsley.
28.
ThyerB. A. (1993). Single-system research designs. in CrinnellR. M. (ed.), Social work research and evaluation (4th. ed., pp. 94–117). Itasca, IL: Peacock.
29.
TuuralaT (1992). The opening of the institutional care The first year of developing the stepwise services in child welfare. Helsinki, Finland: Suomen Kaupunkiliitto.
30.
WilliamsA.KaziM. A. F. (1995, September). Experience of single-case evaluation in a small agency. Paper presented at the international conference Evaluation of Social Work Practice at the Centre for Evaluation Studies, University of Huddersfield, England.
