Net or From Social Work

¶ … net or from social work evaluation textbooks six examples of measurement tools used to evaluate service user change in a range of areas. i.e. self-esteem; caregiver stress; risk taking behaviour. Note in your learning journal the strengths and limitations of each of these scales including measures of reliability and validity.

Six Examples of Measurement Tools Used to Evaluate Service User Change

Measurement Tool

Strengths and Limitations

Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale

Measures patient perceived self-efficacy to cope with chronic arthritis.

Strengths: Internal reliability - .90; several studies confirm validity.

Applicable to a narrow range of clientele.

Redman, B.K. (2003). Measurement tools in patient education. New York: Springer.

PHQ-9

Five-item questionnaire.

Strengths: Proven to be valid and reliable; efficient to use.

Limitations: None identified.

Spitzer R, Kroenke K, Williams J. (1999). Validation and utility of a self-report version of the PHQ primary care study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 282, 1737-1744.

Comprehensive Assessment Tool (CAT)

Evidence-based social work assessment model.

Strengths: Allows social workers to prevent or reduce the potential for future self-harm.

Limitations: There are no currently available published, peer-reviewed research studies for the CAT.

Bagdasarian, S., Furman, W., & Franke, T. (2008). Implementing California's Differential Response model in small counties. Protecting Children, 23(1/2), 40-56.

Readiness to Change Questionnaire (RTCQ)

Twelve-item questionnaire.

Strengths: Easy to administer; particularly useful with hazardous or harmful drinkers who are not actively seeking treatment.

Limitations: Limited number of studies to establish reliability/validity.

Based on Prochaska & DiClemente's stages of change model

Depression Outcomes Module (DOM)

Fifty-three item questionnaire designed to assess the effectiveness and outcomes of care.

Strengths: Demonstrated reliability and validity.

Limitations: Not designed to serve as a screener or brief assessment tool in any setting.

Maruish, M.E. (2000). Handbook of psychological assessment in primary care settings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

SF-36

SF-36 subscales include General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role Limitations Due to Emotional Problems, and Mental Health.

Strengths: Provides valuable information concerning patients with physical health problems.

Limitations: None identified.

Maruish, M.E. (2004). The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

2.

In one of the supplementary readings about evaluation the following statement is made 'a client may report improvement that is not observable to significant others. This claim, at least, raises a question about the accuracy of the information the client provided' (Kirst-Ashman & Hull, 2006: 261). What sort of discourse can you identify in this statement? To what extent does this sentiment reflect (or not) principles of a strengths-based or anti-oppressive practice (AOP) paradigm?

The tendency for clients undergoing treatment to want to please their counselors is well documented, and this discourse reflects this; however, it is also well documented that self report measures can be misleading if care is not taken in interpolating the results of such measures. This tendency is reflected somewhat in the anti-oppressive practice paradigm because it involves personal self-knowledge factors that can lead to change.

3.

Write a list of all the different methods for collecting evaluation data you can think of. While doing this exercise think about individual sessions, groups or program evaluations you have been part of. Some of these methods will be qualitative and others quantitative. What does each method you identify measure best?

Table 2

Different Methods for Collecting Evaluation Data

Method

Best Applications

Surveys/questionnaires

Respondent self-reports

Participant observation

Individual behaviors within an environmental context

Interviews

In-depth assessments

4.

Locate and record a definition of formative and summative evaluation.

A.

Formative evaluation: Formative evaluations strengthen or improve the object being evaluated -- they help form it by examining the delivery of the program or technology, the quality of its implementation, and the assessment of the organizational context, personnel, procedures, inputs, and so on (Trochim, 2006, p. 3).

B.

Summative evaluation: Summative evaluations, in contrast, examine the effects or outcomes of some object -- they summarize it by describing what happens subsequent to delivery of the program or technology; assessing whether the object can be said to have caused the outcome; determining the overall impact of the causal factor beyond only the immediate target outcomes; and, estimating the relative costs associated with the object (Trochim, 2006, p. 4).