A Report on Progress in the Development of Research Resources in Social Work

Objective: This study examined the extent to which conclusions of published outcome studies contain phrases that could be misconstrued as implying more empirical support than is warranted. Methods: All articles (N = 138) reporting outcome studies from 2000 to 2005 in two social work research journals and two topical database searches were assessed regarding research design, findings, and wording of conclusions. Substantial interrater agreement was indicated by kappa values of .95 for research design, 1.00 for nature of findings, and .70 for wording of conclusions. Results: Of the articles, 70% used designs that do not warrant making conclusive causal inferences, and 60% of articles with those designs contained phrases that could be misconstrued or exploited as implying an inflated evidence-based status. Conclusion: To prevent evidence-based practice from becoming a meaningless shibboleth, authors, reviewers, and editors should become vigilant in avoiding wording that could be misconstrued as implying more empirical support than is warranted.

Section: Discussion and Applications To Researchsupporting

confidence: 60%

Problematic Phrases in the Conclusions of Published Outcome Studies

Rubin

Parrish

2007

“…Building on recent work by Rubin and Parrish (2007), which linked design to outcome studies and evidence-based practice (EBP), and also earlier reviews assessing various aspects of published social work journals (Austin, 1999;Glisson, 1995;Kirk & Reid, 2002;Rosen, Proctor, Marrow-Howell, & Staudt, 1995;Task Force on Social Work Research, 1991), it appears that social work continues to use designs of limited internal validity but frequently draws unsupported conclusions from them. The current study sought to examine this and some additional basic elements of research designs used in a sample of published social work journals.…”

Section: Social Work's Design Legacymentioning

confidence: 99%

What Types of Designs are We Using in Social Work Research and Evaluation?

Holosko

2009

This article addresses a void in the literature about social work research and evaluation (R&E) designs, in particular related to the quality of its published work. Data were collected by reviewing three empirically oriented journals, Research on Social Work Practice, Journal of Social Service Research, and Social Work Research over three publication years 2005, 2006, and 2007. A total of N = 329 articles were content analyzed accordingly: research versus nonresearch, designs used, design objectives, sample sizes, primary statistics used, and outcomes. Main findings were (a) social work’s R&E is uniquely characterized by a cohort of nonresearch studies, which assist in understanding our empirically published work; (b) the most frequently used designs were preexperimental (82.2%) and least frequently used were experimental (2.3%); (c) design objectives were equally dispersed across exploration, variable relationships, instrument development, and program/evaluation; (d) primary statistics used were parametric (82.2%); and (e) 96.7% of the studies specified outcomes within them. Implications are directed to better understanding the context of where social work R&E is conducted, not apologizing for the designs the author uses, and how one can and should strengthen our study designs to offset their concerns.

“…Despite these limitations, this study answers the call for social work researchers to test empirically supported treatments in routine community settings and, in doing so, offers important practical information to social workers who comprise 60% of mental health professionals in the United States and typically serve vulnerable populations, like those receiving community mental health services (Austin, 1999;Brekke, Ell & Palinkas, 2007;Proctor & Rosen, 2008). The gap between what is known about efficacious interventions and the actual use of empirically supported treatments in routine practice settings remains wide and persistent (Fixen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005;Gonzalez, Ringeisen & Chambers, 2002;Panzano & Herman, 2005;Torrey & Gorman, 2005).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Effects of Structural Family Therapy on Child and Maternal Mental Health Symptomatology

Weaver

Greeno

Marcus

et al. 2013

Objective: This pilot study examined the effect of structural family therapy (SFT) on children's impairment and depressive symptomatology and mothers' depressive symptomatology and anxiety for 31 families served by a community mental health clinic. Method: A one group predesign/postdesign, with a baseline and two follow-up time points, was used. Results: A series of repeated measures analyses of variance showed significant improvement for mothers' depression, F(2, 36) ¼ 6.93, p ¼ .003, Z 2 ¼ .278, and anxiety, F(2, 34) ¼ 6.44, p ¼ .004, Z 2 ¼ .275. Mothers' ratings of their children's impairment significantly improved, F(2, 42) ¼ 6.27, p ¼ .005, Z 2 ¼ .270, though children's self-rated impairment and depressive symptomatology did not change. Results were confirmed using random regression analyses. Conclusion: SFT has promise for simultaneously addressing mothers' and children's needs in community mental health settings. However, structural barriers impacting feasibility were identified and discussed.