社会工作者的实践评估策略:为什么循证双过程理论仍然重要。

Thomas D Davis
{"title":"社会工作者的实践评估策略:为什么循证双过程理论仍然重要。","authors":"Thomas D Davis","doi":"10.1080/23761407.2017.1367344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Practice evaluation strategies range in style from the formal-analytic tools of single-subject designs, rapid assessment instruments, algorithmic steps in evidence-informed 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 article is to provide practice researchers in social work with an evidence-informed theory that is capable of explaining both how and why social workers use practice evaluation strategies to self-monitor the effectiveness of their interventions in terms of client change. The author delineates the theoretical contours and consequences of what is called dual-process theory. Drawing on evidence-informed advances in the cognitive and social neurosciences, the author identifies among everyday social workers a theoretically stable, informal-interactive tool preference that is a cognitively necessary, sufficient, and stand-alone preference that requires neither the supplementation nor balance of formal-analytic tools. The author's delineation of dual-process theory represents a theoretical contribution in the century-old attempt to understand how and why social workers evaluate their practice the way they do.</p>","PeriodicalId":90893,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evidence-informed social work","volume":"14 6","pages":"389-408"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23761407.2017.1367344","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Practice Evaluation Strategies Among Social Workers: Why an Evidence-Informed Dual-Process Theory Still Matters.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas D Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23761407.2017.1367344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Practice evaluation strategies range in style from the formal-analytic tools of single-subject designs, rapid assessment instruments, algorithmic steps in evidence-informed 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 article is to provide practice researchers in social work with an evidence-informed theory that is capable of explaining both how and why social workers use practice evaluation strategies to self-monitor the effectiveness of their interventions in terms of client change. The author delineates the theoretical contours and consequences of what is called dual-process theory. Drawing on evidence-informed advances in the cognitive and social neurosciences, the author identifies among everyday social workers a theoretically stable, informal-interactive tool preference that is a cognitively necessary, sufficient, and stand-alone preference that requires neither the supplementation nor balance of formal-analytic tools. The author's delineation of dual-process theory represents a theoretical contribution in the century-old attempt to understand how and why social workers evaluate their practice the way they do.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":90893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evidence-informed social work\",\"volume\":\"14 6\",\"pages\":\"389-408\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/23761407.2017.1367344\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evidence-informed social work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2017.1367344\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/9/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evidence-informed social work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2017.1367344","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/9/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

实践评估策略的风格多种多样,从单一主题设计的正式分析工具、快速评估工具、循证实践中的算法步骤和计算机软件应用,到临床监督、与同事协商、利用客户反馈和临床经验等非正式互动工具。本文的目的是为社会工作的实践研究者提供一种循证理论,能够解释社会工作者如何以及为什么使用实践评估策略来自我监控他们在客户改变方面的干预措施的有效性。作者描述了所谓的双重过程理论的理论轮廓和结果。利用认知和社会神经科学的证据,作者在日常社会工作者中发现了一种理论上稳定的、非正式互动的工具偏好,这是一种认知上必要的、充分的、独立的偏好,既不需要补充也不需要平衡形式分析工具。作者对双过程理论的描述代表了一个世纪以来试图理解社会工作者如何以及为什么以他们的方式评估他们的实践的理论贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Practice Evaluation Strategies Among Social Workers: Why an Evidence-Informed Dual-Process Theory Still Matters.

Practice evaluation strategies range in style from the formal-analytic tools of single-subject designs, rapid assessment instruments, algorithmic steps in evidence-informed 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 article is to provide practice researchers in social work with an evidence-informed theory that is capable of explaining both how and why social workers use practice evaluation strategies to self-monitor the effectiveness of their interventions in terms of client change. The author delineates the theoretical contours and consequences of what is called dual-process theory. Drawing on evidence-informed advances in the cognitive and social neurosciences, the author identifies among everyday social workers a theoretically stable, informal-interactive tool preference that is a cognitively necessary, sufficient, and stand-alone preference that requires neither the supplementation nor balance of formal-analytic tools. The author's delineation of dual-process theory represents a theoretical contribution in the century-old attempt to understand how and why social workers evaluate their practice the way they do.

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
期刊最新文献
Freeing Chinese Abused Women From Stereotype: A Pretest-Posttest Comparison Study on Group Intervention in Refuge Centers. Making and sustaining change from psychotherapy: A mixed methods study. Toward evidence-based anti-human trafficking policy: a rapid review of CSE rehabilitation and evaluation of Indian legislation. Developing your communication skills in social work. The new social work.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1