Content uploaded by Stephen M Marson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen M Marson on Feb 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Social Work
Stephen M. Marson
University of North Carolina, Pembroke, North Carolina, USA
Glossary
action system A social entity (micro, mezzo, or macro unit)
that participates in an effort of planned systematic change
for a client system.
change agent system A social worker or other social entity
that spearheads a planned change for a client system.
client system A social entity (micro, mezzo, or macro
unit)
that establishes a contract for a positive change with
a change agent. Client system is often abbreviatedwith the
term "client."
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) The organiza-
tion held responsible by the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation for establishing and maintaining educational
standards for professional degrees in social work.
formative measures Usually a qualitative-based measure-
ment or observation that attends to the process of a change.
operationalization A process by which a social worker or
researcher moves from the abstract (concepts) to the
concrete (variables).
single system design Based on statistical concepts found in
control charts, it is the systematic measurement of change
over time that usually includes a statistical conclusion
regarding the effects of an intervention.
social worker A person who has successfully completed
a baccalaureate or master's degree from an academic
program adcredited by the Council on Social Work
Education.
I
summative measures Usually a quantitative-based measure-
ment that attends to the outcome of a change.
target system A social entity (micro, mezzo, or macro unit)
that is the
~bCUS
of a change by a change agent and other
socialsystems.
total institutihn An organization that mandates rigorous
interaction patterns among its participants. Total institu-
tions are particularly effective at maintaining accurate
records that can be used for measuring baselines. The term
was coined in Erving Coffman's
Asylums.
Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Volume 3 ©2005, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Beserved.
Social work has a rich history upon which social measure-
ment is an important foundation. Although the general
public often perceives social work as the delivery of
services to individuals, it is much more than that.
Graduates of Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) programs
and most Master in Social Work (MSW) programs receive
instruction in providing a wide range of services to highly
diverse client systems. The term client system is used to
stress the notion that clients can be individuals, social
groups, or organizations. Social measurement is a
critical dimension of all social work practice, regardless
of the sizes of client systems (micro, mezzo, or macro). In
studying social measurement in the history of social work,
it can be seen that the emphasis 100 years ago was placed
on all types of client system problems. In the last three
decades, micro and/or clinical practice dominate the lit-
erature of social work measurement. This recent trend
does not suggest that social measurement fails to be
a critical issue in macro practice; it merely indicates
that less is written in the area. Most importantly, recent
trends and future projects hint that social workers will see
more social measurement literature with an emphasis on
macro practice.
Introduction
Since the beginning of social work in the 19th century,
assessing change with client systems has been an integral
aspect of professional practice. Two dimensions of mea-
surement are at the heart of assessing social problems.
First is process. Here, social workers must gain insight
into the steps involved to resolve a social problem. The
measurement of a social problem can be addressed within
539
540 Social Work
the client system, change agent, or target system. Cur-
rently and historically, process has been the most prob-
lematic issue to address in terms of measurement
protocols. More creativity among social work practition-
ers and academicians is required within this arena.
Second is the issue of outcome. Unlike process,
outcomes are easily conceptualized in terms of quantity.
Thus, measurement of outcome is less problematic than
the more "qualitative" process. The tools for demonstrat-
ing effective outcome measurements are available and
learnable by social workers. This information comes to
social work from psychometrists and their literature of
tests and measures. In essence, social workers apply
psychological principles of reliability and validity to the
measurement of change within social problems.
History (Measurement Themes)
When first envisioning social work, one does not imme-
diately think of social measurement; rather, one is most
likely to picture the dissemination of welfare checks or
removal of children from an unsafe environment. More
recently, the delivery of psychotherapy as part of an
agency service or in private practice may be envisioned.
However, none of these visions captures the historical
foundation of social work. The birth of professional
social work practice can be found in social research
and social measurement.
Three phases or themes in the historical development
of the profession's linkage to social measurement exist. In
the first theme, the measurement of social problems was
the hallmark of social work activities. In the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, pioneer practitioners could not con-
ceive of their budding profession without the systematic
measurement of social problems at its heart; this was
a unifying theme. Second, as academic institutions be-
came the focus for the education of the social worker,
the departmentalization of knowledge arose. Splitting
or dividing a curriculum into educational components
or sequences has always been thought to make the edu-
cational experience more palatable for students and more
manageable for faculty. Thus, the importance of social
measurement and research was conceptually discon-
nected to the delivery of social services to needy clients.
Third, the final phase includes the realization that the
conceptual disconnection between social work practice
and social measurement is a fatal flaw in the education
of social work professionals. This is the current stage in
which the profession finds itself. Today, professionals are
beginning to realize that social work must reestablish itself
to promote the idea that social measurement and social
work practice must go hand-in-hand. Thus, social workers
are beginning to realize that we must return to the original
vision espoused in the later part of the 19th century.
Each of these three themes is briefly discussed in
this article.
Unified Theme (Amos Warner and
Mary Richmond)
To understand the historical relationship between mea-
surement and the emergence of professional social work
practice, the contents and contributions of the first social
work text books, three in particular, must be reviewed.
The first social work textbook was Amos Warner's Amer-
ican Charities, published in 1894. Warner received his
Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University. His
background led him to create a classification system for
establishing priorities for the delivery of social services
based on statistical measurements. Thus, this first widely
used textbook adopted by the first social workers was
empirically based on and emerged from the systematic
measurement and analysis of social problems.
The second widely used textbook was Mary Richmond's
1898 Friendly Visiting Arrwng the Poor. Compared to
American Charities, Richmond's book is considered to
have had less of a social science influence. Richmond
questioned the reasons for frequent failures found in
social work intervention. Her effort was to systematically
review failures on a case-by-case basis and draw conclu-
sions to improve the delivery of social work services.
This effort led to Richmond's landmark social work
textbook of 1917, Social Diagnosis. Within the pages of
Social Diagnosis, Richmond shifted her priorities and
took a strong stand on the use of social science inquiry
to identify and resolve social problems. Specifically, she
advocated the systematic measurement of social
problems. She warned her readers of the problems of
social measurement (e.g., illiteracy of clients, cultural
differences that produce different meanings for the
same item on a measurement scale). However, she un-
ambiguously contended that social measurement is
a critical tool for the social work practitioner. To empha-
sis this point, she included a wide range of measure-
ment protocols that could be employed by the social
worker for the identification and resolution of social
problems, including general family issues, the immigrant
family, widows with children, neglected children, un-
married mothers, blind persons, homeless men, persons
with intellectual limitations, and persons with a mental
illness.
Disunified Theme (Academic versus
Practitioners)
Although Richmond can be seen as a pivotal figure
in emphasizing social measurement for social work
practitioners, she is also a pivotal figure in a movement
to disengage from measurement as an integral aspect of
social work practice. With the publication of What Is
Social Case Work? in 1922, Richmond neglected to
note the importance of measurement, but rather placed
emphasis on casework as a method of practice. Why do we
see this major shift in Richmond's approach?
The answer to this question may lie in the unspoken
prestige that existed in the academic community at that
time. For example, during the first meeting of the Ameri-
can Sociological Society in 1905, a discussion on whether
to prohibit membership to "practical sociologists" (social
workers) can be found in the minutes. In the minutes of
the second meeting, there is a continuing discussion of
liabilities and merits of allowing social workers to join.
Eventually, social workers were permitted to join, but
they took a subordinate role in the society. At this
point in social work history, lines of division between
academic and practicing social workers began to form.
Lurie continued this theme in the Social Work Year
Book, published in 1929. Research completed by social
work practitioners was criticized for merely focusing on
specific needs of the agency. In addition, the quality of the
information generated by the representative agency was
based on its prestige within the community rather than
"measurement methods, process and results" (p. 418).
Lurie also contended that some of the worst studies
ever published came from practitioners rather than aca-
demicians, stating that such studies were "statistically du-
bious and showed an amazing ignorance oflogic and of the
scientific method" (p. 418). These strong words uninten-
tionally hid to a rift between the academic community and
the community of practicing social workers.
The issue becomes more apparent as one examines the
type of research being published by academicians. The
research questions relate to social problems, but do not
capture the essence of what was needed by practitioners.
The central problem, of course, was an issue first intro-
duced by Richmond-measurement of social problems.
Academicians were selecting research questions that in-
cluded elements in which measurement protocol
achieved social scientific standards. Practitioners wanted
research in areas in which concepts were difficult, if not
impossible, to measure. For example, Lurie cited a wide
range of research contributions produced by academi-
cians that were thought to be important to practicing
social workers. All of these cited studies offered
a degree of theoretical value, but offered little to no
use for the typical social worker, who asked the question,
"What should I do with this client [system]?"
Unified Theme (Integration of Academic
and Applied)
Issues of social measurement appear to be at the heart of
the schism between practice and scholarship. However,
Social Work
541
three Significant pieces of writing began to change the
direction of both social work practice and social work
scholarship. The first is a landmark textbook entitled So-
cial Work Practice: Model and Method, written by Pincus
and Minahan in 1973, which introduced a major paradigm
shift in conceptualizing social work practice. Not since the
publication of Richmond's Social Diagnosis has a text had
such a dramatic effect on the practice of social work. In
addition, Pincus and Minahan gained international atten-
tion and influenced the conceptualization of service de-
livery in both clinical psychology and psychiatry. In terms
of measurement, the central focus of this textbook was
outcome. The authors noted a distinction between client
system process and client system outcome. In addition,
they suggested that the system process is not measurable.
Thus, the authors asked social workers to concede that
some of the central ideas of measurement and evaluation
introduced by the founders of the
profession
were
misdirected.
Although Pincus and Minahan's observations do not
seem dramatic by today's standards, their framework re-
juvenated intellectual excitement within social work cir-
cles. In terms of measurement, these authors gave the
profession a coherent direction to follow. Following
this lead, Evaluating Practice: Guidelines for the Account-
able Professional, by Bloom and Fischer, was published in
1982. These authors began to systematically apply con-
cepts introduced by Pincus and Minahan. By employing
single system designs, they produced a tight focus on the
systematic measurement of outcomes in social services.
Single system designs gave practitioners what they
needed. First, these designs enabled practitioners to
systematically assess outcomes, resulting in a common
standard of successful outcomes. Such a standard never
existed in the history of social work. Second, subjective
impressions of successful outcomes were stripped away
from the social worker and/or supervisor. In the past, the
successful change of a target system was primarily based
on perception of the change agent. With single system
designs, successful outcomes were based on rejecting
a null hypothesis. The scientific dimension of social
work practice was no longer merely lip service. Change
agents were given a tool to apply the scientific method to
social work practice.
There are several serious drawbacks, however, in the
employment of single system designs. First, measurement
tools are necessary for the employment of single system
designs. Although counting problematic behaviors is an
appropriate approach for measuring, counting certainly
cannot be considered the only option available for prac-
titioners; rather, more sophisticated methods are re-
quired. Social scientific standards related to reliability
and validity must be met. These standards are necessary
not only for proper identification of a social problem,
but also as a basis for ethical intervention. Social work
542 Social Work
practitioners do not have the time, energy, or resources
to develop a measurement that complies with s?ci.al
scientific standards. This problem can be seen within
Richmond's Social Diagn;sis; she was aware that her
proposed measurements lacked scientific rigor.
To address this problem, in 1987 Measures for Clinical
Practice: A Sourcebook was published. The authors,
Corcoran and Fischer, searched the literature for instru-
ments that demonstrated practical and research applica-
tions. They studied and reported on the calibration issues
for each instrument that included scoring, sampling, re-
liability and validity. They offered enough information for
the change agent to answer the question "Should I use this
measurement for my client?" To support this critical prac-
tice question, most social work research textbooks include
sufficient instruction for BSW and MSW graduates in
the area of reliability and validity analysis. Although
there are numerous monographs that achieve the same
goal as the work of Corcoran and Fischer, their work
included instruments that both are directly relevant to
social work practice and research and have a great deal
of practical application. Social workers have demon-
strated such strong support that the book is in its third
edition; it now offers approximately 342 instruments for
clinical practice.
In terms of measurement, the introduction of single
system designs for social work practice has two major draw-
backs. First, the most worthy single system designs require
a baseline measure. In the real world of social work practice,
baselines may be either unethical or not possible. For
a victim of severe depression, the change agent would be
irresponsible to institute a baseline measurement. Clearly,
such a strategy would be a foundation for a malpractice
lawsuit. Second, real measurement (this excludes ex post
facto or reconstructive measures) is rarely available for
agencies that operate on an out-patient basis. On the
other hand, these designs and associated measurements
are clearly appropriate and most effective in total institu-
tions, such as schools, nursing homes, prisons, and hospitals.
Regarding the state of the art of measurement in
social work, the profession today seems to be facing
a measurement problem nearly identical to the one
faced at the beginning of the 20th century. In addition,
one important conclusion from measurement in social
work history can be drawn. The profession has made little
to no contribution to the social measurement knowledge
base. Essentially, social work researchers/academicians
and change agents have been adopting measurement
ideas (mostly from psychology) and applying these con-
cepts to social work research and practice. However, in
projecting from the past and examining current trends, it
appears that social work is on the threshold of making
a significant contribution to the social measurement
knowledge base. Perhaps this is the beginning of another
paradigm shift.
Current Standards of Practice and
Scholarship
Currently, there are two trends related to measurement in
the professional education of social workers, These trends
focus on research methods and the educational outcomes
for BSW and MSW graduates as articulated by the Coun-
cil on Social Work Education. On the BSW level, the
central focus is twofold. First, BSW social workers are
trained to be consumers of research. BSW graduates
are expected to use research findings of others to advance
their skills as a change agent. Thus, students are intro-
duced to social science research vocabulary and concepts
such as reliability and validity. Second, they are expected
to employ social science methods to the evaluation of
practice. Evaluation is measurement. On the MSW
level, we also see a twofold focus. First, MSWs are trained
to be research producers and are considered leaders of
the profession. Second, like the BSW students, they are
expected to apply social science knowledge to practice
evaluation. If research professors are earnest in their
efforts, the profession will witness huge cohorts of bud-
ding professionals developing strategies for the measure-
ment of social problems.
Operationalization
In teaching research methods with the focus described
above, professors stress the concept of operationalization.
In practice situations, social workers rarely intellectualize
on the concrete or variable level. However, funding
sources and record audits are demanding measurable
outcomes. In nursing homes, failure to comply with
this standard can lead to a penalty (fine). Thus, measure-
ment of social problems is a critical issue, and social work
professors attempt to address this issue by using models
similar to Fig. 1. Here, students are taught the relation-
ship between theory and research, concepts and propo-
sitions, and variables and hypotheses, and how to move
from abstract thought processes to concrete measurable
social problems. Without the discipline of thought
processes, social workers cannot demonstrate that client
systems are improving.
However, a critical problem remains. The focus of
the social work research curriculum assumes that social
problems must be quantified to be measured. In the real
Concept
----+~
Proposition
Operationalization
T T
Variable
----+~
Hypothesis
Figure 1
Central problem of measurement for social work
practice.
world of social work practice, this assumption is seriously
flawed. Two strategies from the academic side of social
work attempt to address the issue. In the first, DePoy and
Gitlin in 1998 introduced a non-traditional relationship
between quantitative and qualitative research methods.
They stated that the difference is not discrete, as most
other authors suggest, and took the position that there is
an interactive property. These authors made an obvious
point that is often disregarded by most social work re-
searchers: The nature of the research question guides the
method of measurement. Taken to its extreme, one can
assume that the various research strategies outlined in
their book will have an impact on conceptualizing mea-
surement of client system processes. As stated earlier, the
measurement of process was conceived as out of the realm
of possibility. Social workers need a new comprehensive
framework.
In 1991, Alter and Evans provided such a framework,
as shown in Fig. 2. This figure illustrates a common per-
spective shared with DePoy and Gitlin. Alter and Evans
discarded the notion that outcome is the only measurable
entity; rather, the change agent can measure introspec-
tively in the realm of process and outcome (Fig. 2, right
column). In addition, the change agent can measure client
and target system change in terms of both process and
outcome (Fig. 2, left column).
Alter and Evans advocated two different approaches to
achieve their goal. First, they endorsed the position of
DePoy and Gitlin. Here, they suggested that the issue
of the systemic analysis of qualitative information should
be revisited. Both DePoy and Gitlin and Alter and Evens
stressed that social workers have not spent adequate time
addressing the importance of qualitative analysis.
However, Alter and Evens provided a slightly different
twist when they contended that qualitative and quantita-
tive data are not discrete entities; rather, they fall on
a continuum. Second, they made systematic-efforts to
quantify qualitative information, advocating the use of
Central focus of measurement
Client system or
target system Change agent
system
Observations that Observations that
monitor process or monitor the actions/
activities of client or performance of the
target systems social worker
(usually qualitative) (usually qualitative)
A measurement of the A measurement of the
outcome of intervention level of success achieved
(usually quantitative) by the social worker
(usually quantitative)
~
'5h
!l Formative
g;
'"
-=
••
~
~ Summative
=s
Figure
2
Measurement options in social work practice.
Adapted from Alters and Evens (1990), P: 29.
Social Work 543
target problem scaling and goal attainment scaling as
methods of measuring process. Both of these methods
have the unique characteristic of placing a numerical
value on qualitative data (usually ordinal, but sometimes
nominal) in an effort to measure change over time. The
great strength of Alter and Evens and DePoy and Gitlin is
that their work has strong implications for measurement
for all social work practice-not just clinical and/or micro
practice.
Current Trends in Measurement
Three patterns of measurement strategies are com-
monly employed among practicing social workers and
social work academicians: consultation, construction, and
counting.
Consultation
Thousands of instruments are available and published
today. The developers of such instruments have calibrated
them to reach respectable levels of reliability and validity.
Social workers are trained to identify when an instrument
is usable for social work practice. Most importantly, many
of these instruments can be found in books and on the
Internet with a minimal investment of time, effort, and
cost. If traditional social work citations fail, the Mental
Measurements Yearbook can be explored. It is rare for
a social worker to employ a concept that has not been
operationalized.
Construction
Although it is unlikely that a social work practitioner or
researcher cannot locate an instrument that is needed,
that event is a distinct possibility. In addition, an instru-
ment may be available, but the level of reliability and
validity may be unacceptable. Reliability and validity of
instruments become a critical issue for judges during
a hearing. In such a case, the social worker must design
an instrument. Instrument construction is an academic
enterprise. Under normal circumstances, it takes well
over a year for an instrument to reach a threshold of
reasonable level of reliability and validity. Construction
of new instruments is not recommended for full-time
practitioners, but in some cases, no other alternative
will be available.
Counting (Monitoring Designs)
For decades, social workers have been counting observa-
tions over time. Summaries of the reliability and validity of
this strategy can be found in the behavior modification
literature. Counting or monitoring is completed by the
change agent (includes agency staff), the client system, or
a combination of both. Although counting is normally an
exercise to assess an outcome, if creative, a change agent
544
Social Work
can employ monitoring to address issues of process. Fol-
lowing is a case illustration:
A nursing home patient was referred to a social worker
because of a severe and life-threatening weight drop for
which medical staff could not identify a cause. The social
worker completed a psychosocial' assessment that
included the geriatric depression scale. There was no in-
dication of depression or terminal drop. First, as illus-
trated in Fig. 3, the social worker examined the pattern
of weight loss over time. From the data, it is clear that
Significant weight loss occurred between March 3 and
April 4. To assess eating patterns, Fig. 4 was constructed.
Several graphs were developed prior to Fig. 4. The earlier
versions were difficult to read because of the huge amount
of data. In Fig. 4, the mean percentage of food consumed
per day is presented (an example of data reduction). From
Fig. 4, it can be seen that March
22
and March
31
are the
last dates on which acceptable levels of food were
consumed.
Examining every event that occurred within the time
frame (March
22-31)
eliminated a psychosocial cause for
the weight loss. Every note in the patient's chart was
examined. Finally, the staff discovered that the patient
received a new prescription to reduce blood pressure. The
Physician's Desk Reference stated that the drug worked as
an appetite suppressant for some patients. The critical
weight loss problem was resolved by simply changing
medications. No one realized that the medication was
the cause of the life-threatening problem until food intake
and weight were measured over time.
This example illustrates that in some cases, the mea-
surement of client process is a fruitful endeavor.
However, many of the rules for graph making were vio-
lated. In Fig. 3, for example, the
x
axis does not include
equal intervals of time. A student would have received
a poor grade on such a graph. However, in the non-aca-
demic world, data is not clean. Despite the problematic
data housed in the graph, the measurement was helpful in
solving a real problem.
Measuring Social Work Competence
Nationally
Currently all 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Co-
lumbia, and Canada regulate the professional practice of
social work. Most of these political entities employ the use
of an instrument to ensure that these professional social
workers attain a minimum level of competency. Since
1983, the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB)
has been developing and maintaining respectable levels
of validity and reliability of such an instrument. ASWB has
four social work examinations that test BSW graduates,
MSW graduates, and MSWs with two years of post-
graduate experience, both generalist and clinical. For
each exam, ASWB employs a national job analysis to de-
termine relevant skills and knowledge of currently prac-
ticing social workers. From the job analysis, a blue-print
for items is developed. Items are formulated in the pro-
portion and frequency as indicated by the blueprint. From
there, each item undergoes five to eight stages in which
content validity is assessed. The minimum standard for
establishing a respectable level of content validity costs
the agency approximately $900 per item. With a test bank
that includes several thousand items, attaining respect-
able levels of reliability and validity (for any measure-
ment) is not only an intellectual enterprise, it is also
a costly one. ASWB does the most thorough job of
addressing measurement issues of reliability and validity
for the practice of social work.
110 108.2 108.2 107.4
108
106
104
-;;;-102
@.
1:
100
hi)
98.2
~
98 96.6 96.6
96
I
94 93
92.6
92
902-2 3-6 5-6 5-19 6-3
2-20
4-4
5-13 5-27 6-16
Dates
Figure
3
Weight change.
lOOl
80
J;l
.s
.5
60
-e
0
<B
~
'",
""
40
.•..•
0
!l'"
"
oj
o
::E
20
Social Work 545
O~
l- ~ ~~~~
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Days
Figure
4
Food intake.
Other Issues
Issues of reliability and validity will always emerge in
social work practice. For example, there is a surprisingly
skewed distribution among 50 surveys addressing client
satisfaction. It would be expected that the distribution of
satisfaction among social service clients would be nor-
mally distributed. Among these 50 studies, the mean per-
centage of satisfaction is 78%. Essentially, this means that
all 50 social service agencies are doing an excellent job.
While this outcome is certainly possible, it is highly
improbable. To most observers, such a finding is highly
unlikely and probably is a result of the wording of the
items. This, of course, is an issue of face validity. It should
be acknowledged that the stakeholders are constructing
the measures.
To address this and other issues related to measure-
ment, the profession is moving to examine measurement
in a more systematic manner. Two strategies are currently
employed. First, the Council on Social Work Education is
requiring BSW and MSW accredited programs to focus
on the evaluation of practice. Such a program objective
traverses the social work curriculum and facilitates resolv-
ing the problem noted earlier in our discussion of history
of measurement in social work. With each succeeding
cohort of graduates, greater insight into measurement
problems will be solved.
Second, education is not enough. Professors and prac-
titioners must have a forum to systematically address is-
sues related to measurement. In this respect, social
workers lag behind other academic disciplines and
professions. During the fall of 2000, the inaugural issue
of The Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation
was published. This journal focuses on issues of measure-
ment and instrument development related to the delivery
of social work services. The editors emphasize the impor-
tance of accepting manuscripts that include both quanti-
tative and qualitative themes. If the journal remains true
to its mission, there will be advances in the quality of
measurement and in turn, the quality of service delivery.
Future of Measurement in
Social Work
The best manner in which to assess the future of mea-
surement in social work is to look at the profession's
history. Several themes in this history are apparent.
The first theme emerges from the work of Richmond.
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of
the 20th, Richmond was well aware of the importance
of accurate measurement in the effective delivery of social
services to the indigent. Initially, she did not departmen-
talize measurement skills until the academic community
demonstrated the lack of scientific rigor found in the
measurements developed by practitioners. Although ten-
sion between the academic and practice arms of the pro-
fession still exists, the advent of inexpensive personal
computers is diminishing its effects. However, unlike in
the past, quantitative analysis of measurement may not be
the central issue in social work.
The problem of social work measurement rests in
the systematic examination of process. This includes client
system process and change agent process. Over the past
100 years, very little work has been accomplished in this
critical aspect of social work measurement. In fact, process
only began to receive serious consideration during the
1990s. At this point, there is a consensus among researchers.
Qualitative analysis is a legitimate approach for scientific
546
Social Work
inquiry. The profession will move forward with increased
interest and energy measuring social processes by
employing qualitative methodologies. One critical area of
analysis is the social history. The study of the social worker's
social history is a desperately neglected area of study. The
value of the qualitative measurement must receive greater
scrutiny among practitioners and academics.
In terms of quantitative methods, social work will con-
tinue on its current path. Academicians will pursue social
work concepts and operationalize them for use in practice,
and practitioners may do the same. The Council on Social
Work Education must continue its standards in the area of
evaluation of practice. Social work scholars must provide
a venue for the discussion and dissemination of measure-
ment research.
See Also the Following Articles
Measurement Theory • Research Ethics Committees in the
Social Sciences
Further Reading
Alter, C., and Wayne, E. (1990). Evaluating Your Practice.
Springer, New York.
Corcoran, K (1995). Psychometries. In The Encyclopedia
of Social Work (R. Edwards, ed.), Vol. III, pp. 1942-1947.
National Association of Social Workers, Washington, D.C.
Corcoran, K., and Fischer,
J.
(2000). Measures for Clinical
Practice. Volume
1:
Couples, Families and Children. Free
Press, New York.
Corcoran, K, and Fischer,
J.
(2000). Measures for Clinical
Practice. Volume 2: Adults. Free Press, New York.
Cortina,
J.
M. (1993). What is coefficient Alpha? An
examination of theory and applications.
J.
Appl. Psychol.
78,98-104.
Fischer,
J.,
Bloom, M., and Orme,
J.
G. (2002). Evaluation
Practice. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Kyburg,
H.
E. (1984). Theory and Measurement. Cambridge
University Press, London, UK
Plake, B. S., Impara,
J.
C., and Spies, R. A. (2003). Mental
Measurements Yearbook. 15th Ed. Buros Institute of
Mental Measurements, Lincoln, NE.
Sajatovic, M., and Ramirez, L. F. (2001). Rating Scales in
Mental Health. Lexi-Comp Inc, Hudson, OH.
Tripodi, T. (2000). The contemporary challenge in evaluating
social services: An international perspective.
J.
Soc. Work
Res. Eval. 1,5-16.
