Suchergebnisse

This keynote address argues that in order for baccalaureate and masters degree students to apply research to make better judgments and decisions in their life-affecting practice and in response to the information revolution, the helping professions need to redesign (from the bottom up) not overhaul (make a few changes in) the way research methods classes are taught. An alternative would perhaps be to integrate an entirely new evidence-based practice course into their curricula. Factors include the following: increasing Internet speed and access by practitioners, increasing access to bibliographic databases and full-text documents, organizations that synthesize evidence for practitioners, and new knowledge and skills for accessing and evaluating evidence specific to well-built practice questions.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of clients. The authors describe and offer counterarguments to objections to EBP. These objections could result in premature dismissal of this new form of practice and education that offers potential benefits to social work and its clients. Objections to EBP fall into six categories: (a) arguments from ignorance about the nature of EBP, (b) misinterpreted professional standards, (c) arguments appealing to tradition, (d) ad hominem arguments, (e) arguments on ethical grounds, and (f) philosophical arguments. Reviewing objections to EBP may help us to increase our understanding of barriers to use of practice-related research findings in the helping professions and honoring related requirements described in our code of ethics.

Leonard W.H. Gibbs, chairman. ; At head of title: Legislative document (1921) no. 20. State of New York. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article describes a measure that assesses ability to think critically about whether to adopt a treatment method. The measure is called PRIDE1 (Principles of Reasoning, Inference, Decision-Making and Evaluation). PRIDE1 takes about 80 minutes to administer an emotional audiovisual argument and to obtain written responses. Scoring each response takes expertenced raters from 2 to 10 minutes. Pearson's r interrater reliability on 5 trials range from. .78 to 96. There was no statistically significant correlation between responses on PRIDE1 and research knowledge, as measured on the Kirk-Rosenblatt Research Knowledge Scale. This study suggests that there may be little or no association between research knowledge and ability to think critically about practice.