SOCW 6311 WK 3responses 

Respond to at least two colleagues each one has to be answered separately name first then response 

Bottom of Form

Respond to at least two colleagues by doing all of the following:

· Offer an analysis of their evaluations and subsequent recommendation. Note both strengths and areas that could be improved.

· Identify areas where your own original recommendations or evaluation was similar to or different from your colleagues’ original evaluation and explain why.

·  

Instructor wants lay out like this:

Respond to at least two colleagues ( 2 peers posts are provided) by doing all of the following:

Identify strengths of your colleagues’ analyses and areas in which the analyses could be improved.

Your response

Address his or her evaluation of the efficacy and applicability of the evidence-based practice,

Your response

[Evaluate] his or her identification of factors that could support or hinder the implementation of the evidence-based practice,

Your response

And [evaluate] his or her solution for mitigating those factors.

Your response

Offer additional insight to your colleagues by either identifying additional factors that may support or limit implementation of the evidence-based practice or an alternative solution for mitigating one of the limitations that your colleagues identified.

Your response

References

Your response

PEER 1

Cedric Brown 

Cedric Brown 

RE: Discussion – Week 3

COLLAPSE

Post an evaluation of the proposed study design described in the case study file.

The proposed study design that was described in the case study file was a multiple-baseline, single-subject design. The study was explained to participants at the geriatric case management program and informed consent was required to participate (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). Also, the case managers used a rating scale that branched from the task-centered model. Before every session, the case manager and client would collaboratively evaluate how they think the tasks were met utilizing a 10-point scale. They would also evaluate the changes to problems the client had on a 10-point scale as well (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). Utilizing this would allow both parties to see growth and where they may need to focus more attention.

Explain whether the outcome of Chris’ study with her client George would lead you to adopt the model of case management with solution-focused and task-centered approaches.

After reviewing the two charts that were provided in the case study, my observation is that the client had made progress in the three areas that were assessed. I would adopt the model of case management with solution-focused and task-centered approaches for several reasons. One reason is that this particular research project yielded positive results. It is a collaborative effort, and when the client feels like they have stake in the treatment process, the outcomes tend to be better for the clients. Finally, I feel as if the use of the clinical rating scale allows for a clear indicator as to why the solution-focused and task-centered approach is working as shown by the numbers provided weekly.

Provide recommendations for improvements should Chris and her colleagues wish to submit the study to the evidence-based practice registry.

One improvement that I would suggest that could better the chances with the evidence-based practice registry is to have a definite design study to utilize. For example, since the project is new, the use of a One-group Posttest-Only Design is ideal because they are simple and take less time (Dudley, 2014). This design is also great at identifying if simple answers have an effect on the intervention (Dudley, 2014). Whether they choose this design or not, I think having a consistent design will help build validity within the program.

Cedric

Reference

Dudley, J.R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:

Lyceum Books.

Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social work case studies:

Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital

Source e-reader].

Peer 2

Katie Otte 

Katie Otte Initial Post-Discussion – Week 3

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

Post an evaluation of the proposed study design described in the case study file.

The study design presented in the case study is a multiple baseline, single-subject design (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014b).  A single-subject design involves establishing baseline data on the behavior or interest of change.  Next, an intervention(s) is introduced and the behavior or interest is observed to determine if there is any change (Mattaini, 2010).  In a multiple baseline study, more than one interest or behavior is being observed.  In the study design presented, the social worker chose three interests to observe.  These include mobility, home safety, and personal care.

The study was done over a 7 week period and used a critical rating scale to measure the tasks that were completed each week for each of the areas of interest (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014b).  Additionally, a critical rating scale was used to measure the success of the areas of change (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014b).  These were done collaboratively with the client providing feedback and the social worker providing observation.  

Explain whether the outcome of Chris’s study with her client George would lead you to adopt the model of case management with solution-focused and task-centered approaches, and substantiate your choice.

The outcome of the study provided me with adequate information to consider using a case management model with a solution-focused and task-centered approach.  First, I believe the collaborative approach in selecting the areas of interest is important for overall success.  Additionally, the study showed a correlation between increased task completions and an increase in the scores for those identified areas (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014b). According to Thyer Therefore, this study showed that a focus on tasks relating to specific areas resulted in positive changes.  

Provide recommendations for improvements should Chris and her colleagues wish to submit the study to the evidence-based practice registry. Include a rationale for your recommendations.

I believe the study, as it is currently designed, does not establish adequate rigor which is necessary for inclusion in the evidence-based registry.  One factor to determine rigor in SSR studies is the extent to which other alternative explanations can be ruled out (Mattaini, 2010).  This study, in my opinion, did not rule out other alternative explanations for the improvement in George’s circumstances, therefore, should not be included in the registry.   

References

Mattaini, M. A. (2010). Single-system studies. In B. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (2nd ed., pp.241–274). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social work case studies: Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader]. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *