Social Workers Strive To Make Informed Decisions

Social Workers Strive To Make Informed Decisions About The Interventio

Social workers strive to make informed decisions about the interventions they implement. These decisions should be driven by what the research data say. As a result, social workers have been called to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions they implement. A common way to evaluate interventions is to use a single-subject design. This involves monitoring an outcome for an intervention implemented for one client.

After a social worker works with the client to determine the outcome to be measured, the following steps to the evaluation might look like this: Administer the instrument before the intervention is implemented, implement the intervention, administer the same instrument after a specified time period, and monitor to determine if there have been any changes in the outcome. In this discussion, you use the lens of resiliency theory when reflecting on a case from your fieldwork, and then you consider how to measure the effectiveness of a possible intervention. To prepare, read this article listed in the Learning Resources: Smith-Osborne, A., & Whitehill Bolton K. (2013). Assessing resilience: A review of measures across the life course. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(2), 111–126. doi:10.1080/.2011.597305

Paper For Above instruction

During my fieldwork experience, I encountered a teenage client who had recently experienced the loss of a parent and was showing signs of emotional distress, withdrawal from peers, and declining academic performance. Applying resiliency theory to this case could have provided valuable insights into the client’s capacity to adapt and recover from adversity, allowing for more tailored interventions that strengthen their resilience rather than solely focusing on their problems.

The presenting problem in this case was the client’s emotional distress following personal loss, leading to social withdrawal and decreased academic engagement. An effective intervention I would implement is a strengths-based resilience-building program that emphasizes developing coping skills, social support, and self-efficacy through individual counseling sessions combined with peer support groups. This intervention aims to enhance the client’s existing resilience factors, helping them navigate their grief while fostering a sense of hope and personal strength.

To evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention, I would select the "Resilience Scale for Adolescents" (READ), as described in the Smith-Osborne and Whitehill Bolton’s article. This instrument is designed specifically for adolescents, making it appropriate for my client’s age group. The READ measures various components of resilience, including personal competence, social competence, and family cohesion, which are relevant to this case. Its comprehensive coverage of resilience factors allows for a nuanced assessment of changes over time, providing clear indicators of whether the intervention is successful in increasing the client’s resiliency.

The choice of the READ was based on its suitability for adolescents and its psychometric robustness, including reliability and validity documented in the literature. Additionally, administering this instrument is feasible within clinical settings, as it is relatively quick to complete—typically taking less than 15 minutes—and is cost-effective, requiring no specialized technology. Its self-report format is accessible for clients, promoting honest responses and engagement in the assessment process. Overall, the READ’s design aligns well with my goal of monitoring resilience levels systematically and efficiently throughout the intervention period.

References

• Smith-Osborne, A., & Whitehill Bolton, K. (2013). Assessing resilience: A review of measures across the life course. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2011.597305
• Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82.
• Friborg, O., Barlaug, D., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Hjemdal, O. (2003). Resilience in relation to personality, coping, and post-traumatic growth: A systematic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(3), 531–542.
• Herrman, H., Stewart, D. E., Diaz-Granados, N., et al. (2011). What is resilience? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(5), 258–265.
• Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562.
• Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238.
• Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165–178.
• Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist, 18(1), 12–23.
• Southwick, S. M., Bonanno, G. A., Masten, A. S., et al. (2014). Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: Illustrative examples from the military. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 5, 1.
• Olson, J. L., & Masten, A. S. (2017). Resilience in children and youth: A review of research and practices. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 26(4), 683–703.