Social Work Research

Front 1

research

Back 1

knowledge building through logic and observation.

Front 2

social work research

Back 2

building knowledge for social work practice, compassionate, problem-solving and practical endeavor.

Front 3

research process

Back 3

develop hypotheses-> operationalize concepts-L> design your research-> collect data-> process and analyze data ->interpret the results-> write it up.

Front 4

ways of knowing

Back 4

common sense, authority, popular media, personal experience, scientific inquiry, tradition.

Front 5

scientific alternative

Back 5

a way of thinking about and investigating assumptions, most likely to help us do our jobs as social workers most effectively.

Front 6

features of scientific method

Back 6

produces tentative, provisional knowledge, empirical, strives for objectivity, employs certain rules, procedures and techniques and they are tranparent.

Front 7

flaws in scientifc inquiry

Back 7

inaccurate observations, overgeneralization, selective observation, ex post facto, and ego involvement.

Front 8

characteristics of pseudoscience

Back 8

extreme claims based on testimonials, overgeneralized, concoct, unusual and speculative explanations for its effectiveness, and they concoct jargon.

Front 9

types of scientific knowledge

Back 9

descriptive, predictive, prescriptive.

Front 10

philisophical paradigms of research

Back 10

positivism and constructivism

Front 11

research methods

Back 11

quantitative, qualitiative

Front 12

EBP

Back 12

a process which practitioners consider is the best scientific evidence available which is pertinent to a particular practice decision as an important part of their decision-making.

Front 13

EBP process

Back 13

questioning, serach for evdience, critically appraise the evidence, choose the msot appropriate one, use it, evaluate. QUESCC

Front 14

how to address feasibility obstacles to EBP

Back 14

planning out the scope, time, money and ethics.

Front 15

voluntary participation

Back 15

voluntary without coercion, intimidation, or promises or rewards.

Front 16

informed consent

Back 16

revealing all aspects of reserach that might influence a decision to participate. consent is a clear, usually written, agreement to participate.

Front 17

anonymity

Back 17

respondent may be considered anonymous when the researcher cannot identify a given response with a given respondent

Front 18

confidentiality

Back 18

researcher is able to identify a given person's responses but essentially promises not to do so publicly.

Front 19

dual relationship

Back 19

researcher and practitioner are the same. practitioner uses patients as study participants.

Front 20

withholding treatment

Back 20

not giving patients treatment to use them as a control group.

Front 21

use of placebos

Back 21

not giving patients actual treatment.

Front 22

Institutional Review Board

Back 22

are mandatory for research in agencies receiving federal money. researchers can try to ensure that their studies are ethical by obtaining the consent of an independent panel of professionals. the board panelists review research proposals involving human subjects and rule on their ethics.

Front 23

deductive process

Back 23

theory->hypothesis->observation->confirmation
THOC

Front 24

inductive process

Back 24

observation->pattern->hypothesis->theory OPHT

Front 25

hypothesis

Back 25

a tentative and testable statement about relationship between variables, translated from research questions.

Front 26

features of a good research question/hypothesis

Back 26

value-free, narrow, specific, clear, has more than one possible answer, testable, purposeful in policy and practice.

Front 27

attributes

Back 27

characteristics of persons or things.

Front 28

variables

Back 28

logical groupings of attributes.
gender-attributes are male and female.

Front 29

constants

Back 29

aspects of an experiment which does not change.

Front 30

independent variable

Back 30

influence, cause, or affect the phenomenon being studied; proceed the dependent variable in time; not determined within the system under investigation; the causes of them lie outside the system classic e.g. background characteristics of individuals, such as race/ethnicity, sex, age, region, gender).

Front 31

dependent variable

Back 31

variables most interesting to researchers, influenced by independent variables, determined within the system under investigation, e.g. student achievement scores.

Front 32

mediating variable

Back 32

a variable that comes between IV and DV in the causal chain.

Front 33

moderating variable

Back 33

not influenced by IV but that can affect the strength or direction of the relationship between IV and DV.

Front 34

confounding variable

Back 34

an extraneous variable whose presence affects the variables being studied so that the results you get do not reflect the actual relationship between the variables under investigation.

Front 35

control variable

Back 35

conclusions can be radically different when confounding variables or lurking variables aren't controlled. 'held constant' or partialled out.

Front 36

types of relationships between variables

Back 36

no relationship, correlational, causal, non-linear, linear

Front 37

no relationship

Back 37

indicates no relationship between two variables. a correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no correlation.

Front 38

correlational

Back 38

in both positive and negative correlation, there is no evidence or proof that changes in one variable cause changes in the other variable. A correlation simply indicates that there is a relationship between two variables.

Front 39

causal

Back 39

when one variable causes a change in another variable. these types of relationships are investigated by experimental research in order to determine if changes in on variable actually result in changes in another variable.

Front 40

linear

Back 40

proportional-positive and negative

Front 41

non-linear

Back 41

curvilinear: a relationship in which the nature of the relationship changes at certain levels of the variables.

Front 42

limitations of correlational analysis

Back 42

truncated or restricted range, bivariate outliers (outliers that throw off the correlation they weren't controlled for therefore made a correlation impossible.

Front 43

degrees of imposed control

Back 43

experimental, quasi-experimental, pre-experimental, non-experimental

Front 44

experimental

Back 44

a research method that attempts to provide maximum control for threats to internal validity by 1. randomly assigning individuals to experimental and control groups. 2. introducing the independent variable (which typically is a program or intervention method) to the experimental group while withholding it from the control group. and 3. comparing the amount of experimental and control group change on the dependent variable.

Front 45

quasi-experimental

Back 45

diesings that attempt to control for threats to internal validity and thus permit causal inferences but that are distinguished from true experiments primarily by the lack of random assignment of participants.

Front 46

pre-experimental

Back 46

pilot study designs for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions that do not control for threats to internal validity.

Front 47

non-experimental design

Back 47

just observation no intervention etc.

Front 48

number of subjects in a study

Back 48

group v.single subject

Front 49

nature of data

Back 49

quantitative, qualitative, mixed

Front 50

quantitative

Back 50

things that are quantifiable (temperature, weight, etc).

Front 51

qualtitative

Back 51

data that are not easily reduced to numbers, meanings (transcript of focus group, face-to-face in depth interviews),

Front 52

mixed

Back 52

a design for collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies to understand a research problem. improves generalizability with deep and contextual understanding of the phenomenon of interest.

Front 53

time dimension

Back 53

cross-sectional and longitudinal

Front 54

cross-sectional

Back 54

examines a phenomenon by taking across section of it at one time and analyzing that cross section carefully.

Front 55

longitudinal

Back 55

to describe processes occurring over time conducting observations over an extended period. data could be collected at one point in time but data correspond to events that occur at different chronological points, it is still longitudinal. better for single -cases because it varies the IV.

Front 56

major purpose of the study

Back 56

exploratory, explanatory, descriptive, evaluative.

Front 57

exploratory

Back 57

to provide a beginning familiarity iwth the topic/area, typical when a researcher is examining a new interst, when the subject is relatively new and unstudied, usually with a small sample, non-representative (insufficient to provide conclusive answers to research questions).

Front 58

descriptive

Back 58

to describe situations or events.

Front 59

explanatory

Back 59

takes the description further and explains why

Front 60

evaluative

Back 60

to evaluate social policies, programs, and interventions, could be done via exploration, description, and explanation.

Front 61

construct an instrument

Back 61

to develop test measurement instruments that can be used by other researchers or by practitioners as part of the assessment or evaluation aspects of their practice, teh question at hand is whether a measurement instrument is useful and valid to be applied in practice and research.

Front 62

when to use single case evaluation design

Back 62

the primary treatment goal is change in some clinet's behavior, attitude, or perception. the target for change can directly influence through work with client. change is something the practioner can directly influence through work with the client. useful in evaluating interventions and programs, useful in monitoring client progress.

Front 63

key characteristics of single case evaluation

Back 63

single case, time is how IV varies

Front 64

steps in single case evaluation

Back 64

define IV and DV, decide how to measure DV, conduct baseline phase, conduct the intervention phase, graphing and analyzing data.

Front 65

triangulation

Back 65

measuring more than on indicator of target problem using multiple instruments. (self-report corroborated by significant other).

Front 66

measurement and data collection issues

Back 66

what, when, how to meausre, and who should measure.

Front 67

stability and discontinuity

Back 67

want stability within phases and discontinuity between (change).

Front 68

types of single case design

Back 68

AB, ABAB,multiple baseline, multiple component (ABCD).

Front 69

AB

Back 69

basic single-case design

Front 70

ABAB

Back 70

withdrawal/ reversal design-taking away intervention and reintroducing it.

Front 71

multiple baseline

Back 71

different people (disjointed interventions), different behaviors, different settings.

Front 72

multiple component

Back 72

attempt to determine which parts of an intervention package really account for the change in target behavior.

Front 73

complicating factors

Back 73

incomplete data, ethical issue, client's awareness, carry over effect.

Front 74

ways to enhance generalizability

Back 74

direct replication, clinical replication, systematic replication.

Front 75

direct replication:

Back 75

repetition of intervention by same practitioners.

Front 76

clinical replication

Back 76

repeating an intervention package to serve clients in the same setting to multiple problems that cluster together.

Front 77

systematic replication

Back 77

vary the setting, practitioners, problems or a combination.

Front 78

visual analysis

Back 78

level-change in level is discontinuity, stability, trends, improvement, deterioration or no change).

Front 79

strengths of single case design

Back 79

inexpensive, little time, understandable, instantaneous feedback.

Front 80

weaknesses of single case design

Back 80

client's measurement, support of supervisors and administration, findings are vulnerable to misuse by supervisors and administration.

Front 81

purpose of program evaluation

Back 81

assess success of programs, problems in implementation of program, to obtain information needed to program planning and development, practical purpose, depending on purpose. summative or formative.

Front 82

politics of program evaluation

Back 82

people with vested interests, due to the pressure from these people, research on program evaluation could be influenced.

Front 83

internal evaluators

Back 83

greater access to program information, feasible, involved staff could be more open, could be less objective.

Front 84

external evaluators

Back 84

not always free of politics.

Front 85

barriers to address pitfalls in PE

Back 85

intervention infidelity, contamination of control condition, general resistence of staff, resentment to the case management protocol, client recruitment and retention.

Front 86

how to address pitfalls of PE

Back 86

involve agency staff, bring food, don't use jargons, make brief and simple, use graphs, illustrations, strategy. minimize interaction between control and experimental group members use on-going recruitment, reimburse them, do a pilot study to assess intervention fidelity, potential areas of problems, etc.

Front 87

types of PE

Back 87

goal attainment and monitoring program implementation

Front 88

goal attainment

Back 88

mostly quantitative, is it effective program?

Front 89

monitoring program implementation

Back 89

did they adhere to the implementation protocols? or how to best implement and maintain the program.

Front 90

cauality

Back 90

what caused the effecsts, were desired effects reached?

Front 91

experimental research validity

Back 91

can observed changes be attributed to your program or intervention and not to other possible causes.

Front 92

requirements in a causal relationship

Back 92

temporal precedence, co-variation of IV and DV, and no alternative explanations.

Front 93

temporal precedence

Back 93

the cause preceds the effect in time.

Front 94

co-variation of IV and DV

Back 94

IV and DV should correlate with each other.

Front 95

internal validity threats

Back 95

maturation, history, statistical regression, instrument change, testing, selection bias.

Front 96

history

Back 96

extraneous event that occurs during the course of the research which then influences the outcome.

Front 97

maturation

Back 97

normal growth between pretest and posttest and then would have lerned these concepts anyway, even without program.

Front 98

testing

Back 98

the effect on the posttest of taking pretesting may have primed participant answers

Front 99

instrument changes

Back 99

any change in test from pretest to posttest

Front 100

statistical regression

Back 100

statistical phenomenom that occurs whenever you have a nonrandom sample from a population and two measures that are imperfectly correlated, the pretest average will appear to improve even if never given treatment.

Front 101

selection bias

Back 101

any factor other than the program that leads to postest differences between groups.

Front 102

external validity

Back 102

determines generalizability, refers to the extent to which intervention could apply to larger population.

Front 103

types of experimental design-experimental family

Back 103

pre-/post-test control group, post-test only control group design, solomon four-group design, alternative treatment design with pretest, dismantling studeies. SAPPD

Front 104

quasi-experimental family tests

Back 104

nonequivalent comparison groups design, time series design.

Front 105

pre-experimental family tests

Back 105

one-shot case study, one-group pre-post test design, posttest only with nonequivalent groups, pilot.

Front 106

randomization

Back 106

askign voluntary participation, internal validity.

Front 107

random sampling

Back 107

picking participants randomly, helps with external validity- not present in single case designs.

Front 108

measurement bias

Back 108

the research/rater to improve the results of the experiment in favor of the hypothesis

Front 109

research reactivity

Back 109

controls might learn about the treatment from treated people.

Front 110

diffusion of treatment or imitation

Back 110

a threat to the validity of an evaluation of an intervention's effectiveness when practitioners who are supposed to provide routine servies to a comparision group implement aspects of the experimental groups intervention in ways that tend to diminish the planned differences in teh interventions received by the groups being compared.

Front 111

compensatory equalization

Back 111

practitioners in the comparison, routine treatment condition compensate for the differences in treatment between their group and teh experimental group by providing enhanced services that go beyond the comparison treatment regimen for their clients.

Front 112

compensatory rivalry

Back 112

practitioners in comparison group decide to compete with practitioners in the experimental group by improving extra efforts.

Front 113

resentful demoralization

Back 113

client in comparison group becomes resentful that they don't get to receive the treatment and drop out.

Front 114

attrition

Back 114

experimental mortality; HIV test; patient dies of HIV.
Obesity study, client dies of heart attaache. non-random dropout.

Front 115

trend

Back 115

study changes with some general population over time.

Front 116

cohort studies

Back 116

examine more specific sub populations as they change over time.

Front 117

panel studies

Back 117

examines the same set of people each time.