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.
- Must contain at least 1 reference and citation. Can us the reference in the original post
Colleague #1 – Brodrick Thompson
RE: Discussion – Week 3
Top of Form
Post an evaluation of the proposed study design described in the case study file.
In the social work research; Single Subject text, Christ is a geriatric case manager (Plummer, et al., 2014). Christ and the team uses solution-focused and task centered methods as an approach to integrate case management methods when working with geriatric clients. George, is the participant in the study. George was married for 45 years to his wife who passed away two summers ago due to cancer (Plummer et al., 2014). George has a history of back pain and occasional flare ups of his arthritis. George worked through grief from the passing of his wife. It was found that George needed assistance with daily living arrangement and home safety (Plummer et al., 2014).
Explain whether the outcome of the Chris’ 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.
In the study, Chris and the collaborators met the criteria for a single case design because they focus on one person. Dudley (2020) tells us that a single-system design is a variation of a time-series design on a practice level, in that it involves several measures of the outcome variable both before and while an intervention is being introduced. A single-system design (SSD) is a practice evaluation tool that measures whether there is a casual relationship between the practitioner’s intervention and a client’s outcome measure (Dudley, 2020). After identifying George’s needs, Chris and his collaborators were able to use the intervention to address George’s issues and meet George’s needs. After the study, it was found that the intervention was successful in assisting George in maintaining health, effective in strengthening personal care, and helping to improve mobility.
Provide recommendations for improvements should Chris and his colleagues wish to submit the study to the the evidence-based practice registry. Include a rational for your recommendations.
Chris and his colleagues should conduct another study with the same hypothesis with different participants and compare the results with the first study that was conducted. Chris should ensure that the intervention is beneficial for different populations. For the next study, it important that the staff ensures to assess what is observed by staff and what is being self-reported by the participants. It is important to compare what is observed and what is reported to better understand the effectiveness of the intervention. Self-monitoring is also a useful approach for data collection,as well as the use of rating scales and rapid assessment instruments (Mattaini 2010). When conducting a study, it is important to conduct multiple studies to verify the results of the study. Changing some identifying measures and testing multiple approaches will allow Chris and his colleagues to determine what is beneficial for the participants in the study.
Dudley, J R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press
Mattaini, M. A. (2010). Single-system Studies. In B. Thyer (ED.), The handbook of social work research methods (2nd ed., pp. 241-273). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (PDF)
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].
Bottom of Form
Colleague #2 Exon Valdez
RE: Discussion – Week 3
Top of Form
According to Tankersley et al. (2008), effective single-subject research has several components. First, the participants within the study are described with detail (age, ethnicity, education, income, symptoms, etc.), and the process of selecting participants is also described in detail (Tankersley et al., 2008). This detail allows other researchers and practices to be replicated more easily and for practitioners to understand for whom the treatment/practice is effective for (Tankersley et al., 2008). The dependent and independent variables should also be described in detail and measured at multiple moments in the treatment process (Tankersley et al., 2008). For example, pre- and post- assessments should be given to be able to measure the effects or changes after treatment or intervention. Again, this allows practitioners to understand under which circumstances the treatment/practice should be given. Additionally, experimental controls should be explained in detail so readers can determine internal validity and understand specifics regarding setting, atmosphere, and implementation (Tankersley et al., 2008).
Plummer et al. (2014) describes the setting and process for a practice evaluation in a geriatric setting using a multiple-baseline, single-subject design. Information provided on the study is vague, a limitation in understanding how the study design should be replicated. To improve the study, I would recommend more detail in several areas of the study. First, detail into the “initial assessments” and participant identification is warranted (Plummer et al., 2014). It would be helpful to know how clients are assessed, with which measurements, and what symptoms/needs are explored. This way, future practitioners can replicate the study’s design and understand what to look for in clients. Additionally, the way participants are selected is not explained (Plummer et al., 2014). It would be difficult to know which clients are ideal for the task-centered and solution-focused methods the case managers use. Finally the interventions used to improve the clients conditions are not specific (Plummer et al., 2014). In order to replicate the study, practitioners need to know which models and interventions are used. Plummer et al. (2014) only notes that through “collaborative work, most needs were at least partially addressed.” I would be curious to know what constitutes the measure of “most” and “partially met” as well as how dependent and independent variables were assigned and controlled. To conclude, the study’s design may be of quality, but the author does not provide sufficient detail.
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].
Tankersley, M., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2008). A Preliminary Examination to Identify the Presence of Quality Indicators in Single-subject Research. Education & Treatment of Children, 31 (4), 523-54
Bottom of Form