Content uploaded by Bridget E Weller
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bridget E Weller on Nov 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [111.47.206.15]
On: 22 August 2015, At: 01:45
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Click for updates
Social Work with Groups
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wswg20
Applying Evidence-Based Practice in
Group Work at an Alternative High
School
Bridget E. Wellera, Jessica Huanga & Sinaida Cherubina
a Duke Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham,
North Carolina, USA
Published online: 30 Jan 2015.
To cite this article: Bridget E. Weller, Jessica Huang & Sinaida Cherubin (2015) Applying Evidence-
Based Practice in Group Work at an Alternative High School, Social Work with Groups, 38:2, 122-135,
DOI: 10.1080/01609513.2014.965871
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01609513.2014.965871
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Social Work with Groups, 38:122–135, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0160-9513 print/1540-9481 online
DOI: 10.1080/01609513.2014.965871
Applying Evidence-Based Practice in Group
Work at an Alternative High School
BRIDGET E. WELLER, JESSICA HUANG, and SINAIDA CHERUBIN
Duke Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Social workers often are reluctant to use evidence-based prac-
tice in group work. Part of this reluctance is because of the
perceived rigidity of the process and its emphasis on research.
However, social workers can rely on the four cornerstones of
evidence-based practice—research, clinical experience, personal
views, and client’s perspective—to provide an evidence-based group
intervention. In this article, the authors illustrate how social work-
ers used the four cornerstones at one alternative high school to
provide an evidence-based group intervention. These cornerstones
were used from the beginning of the process, which started with
choosing the type of intervention, through the end of the process,
which concluded with assessing the intervention. In this article,
the authors show that it is possible for social workers to provide
an evidence-based group intervention, while remaining flexible,
thereby contributing to social workers’ knowledge of how to use
evidence-based practice with groups.
KEYWORDS evidence-based practice, social work with groups,
clinical experience, client’s perspective
Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a clinical practice method that was first
developed in the medical field as a way to build critical assessment skills
and add scientific merit to physician decision making (Mullen, Bledsoe, &
Bellamy, 2008). EBP refers to the “conscious, explicit, and judicious use
of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual
patients” (Sackett, Rosenberg, Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996, p. 71).
EBP consists of the following five stages: (1) creating questions that reflect
Received July 17, 2014; Revised September 7, 2014; Accepted September 11, 2014.
Address correspondence to Bridget E. Weller, Duke University, 2608 Erwin Road,
Durham, NC 27705-4596. E-mail: bridget.weller@duke.edu
122
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
Evidence-Based Practice 123
the need for information; (2) researching the best available evidence to
answer the questions; (3) analyzing the validity and relevance of the evi-
dence; (4) integrating clinical expertise, client values, and relevant evidence
to generate an intervention; and (5) evaluating the methods and outcomes
of the service, with a focus on client assessment and problem resolution
(Sackett, Strauss, Richardson, Rosenberg, & Haynes, 2000).
In recent years, EBP has gained attention from health care professionals
(Edmond, Megivern, Williams, Rochman, & Howard, 2006; Nolan & Bradley,
2008), and some social work professionals see its merit (e.g., Gambrill, 1999;
Gilgun, 2005). EBP encourages social workers to commit to the best interests
of their clients by seeking out and employing the most empirically supported
approaches as opposed to the more traditional approaches (Gitterman &
Knight, 2013) such as “authority-based” methods (Grambrill, 1999). EBP also
encourages social workers to constantly learn as the field changes (Gitterman
&Knight,2013). The innate value of EBP is in the accumulation of experi-
ences by practitioners and the reintegration of these experiences into practice
(Edmond et al., 2006).
Social work professionals who conduct group work have contributed
to the mentioned accumulation of experience by documenting their use of
EBP (Pollio & Macgowan, 2011). For example, using a quasi-experimental
design, researchers found that the Supporting Tempers, Emotions, and Anger
Management intervention was positively associated with changes in parent
and teacher reports of youth behavioral and emotional issues (Bidgood,
Wilkie, & Katchaluba, 2011). In spite of such research, the number of articles
documenting the use of EBP in group work remains scarce (Mullen et al.,
2008).
Part of the rationale for the dearth in the literature on EBP group work
is because, though some social workers see its merit (e.g., Gambrill, 1999;
Gilgun, 2005; Pollio & Macgowan, 2011), others have found that social work-
ers are reluctant to adopt it (Mullen et al., 2008). Like other professions
(Nolan & Bradley, 2008), some social workers posit that EBP might not be
useful when providing psychosocial intervention because it limits the ability
to incorporate the client perspective. They also perceive the process as rigid
and are concerned it will lead to fewer personalized interventions (Edmond
et al., 2006). This supposition is predicated on the belief that EBP favors a
mechanistic approach to interventions that does not allow for the integra-
tion of implicit knowledge gained from practice experience (Edmond et al.,
2006).
Social workers may also be reluctant to use EBP because they per-
ceive the methods used to evaluate practices (such as experimental designs)
as not useful for social work because these methods tend to reduce
multidimensional problems into quantifiable variables that can be mea-
sured (Plath, 2006). In particular, experimental designs are not responsive
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
124 B. E. Weller et al.
to the complex and diverse settings, which are also often in flux, most
often served by the profession (Gray & McDonald, 2006). Some further
argue that by focusing only on well-defined and quantifiable variables of
a client rather than viewing the client as a whole person, providers can
only offer temporary solutions that do not solve the core issue (Gitterman
&Knight,2013). Thus, many believe social workers should use qualita-
tive methods, rather than experimental methods, to address the diverse
needs of the clients receiving social work services (Addis, Wade, & Hatgis,
1999).
Social workers are also reluctant to use EBP because they view it as a
one-size-fits-all approach that is conceptually narrow and theoretically lim-
ited, especially in view of the constant developments in social theory (Gray
& McDonald, 2006). EBP is considered to be a linearized problem-solving
model and commonly criticized for oversimplifying real-world problems that
are embedded in a larger social context (Gitterman & Knight, 2013). In fact,
social workers note concerns that widespread practice of evidence-based
treatment will limit and delay the development of new theories and alterna-
tive interventions (Addis et al., 1999). They further contend that the social
work field is diverse and our understanding of the social phenomena too
mercurial to be able to be encompassed by current evidence (Addis et al.,
1999).
To address these concerns, Gilgun (2005) presented a more fluid
approach to EBP that relies on four general cornerstones rather than a
step-by-step process. The four cornerstones, one of many approaches to
EBP, includes the following: (1) evidence and theory; (2) clinical expertise,
which includes professional values and lessons learned from experiences
with clients; (3) the practitioner’s personal views, beliefs and assumptions;
and (4) the clients’ perspective or, in other words, how the clients themselves
contribute to the intervention (Gilgun, 2005). Although the cornerstone
model has utility, other models exist (Macgowan, 2008).
These four cornerstones encompass the basic principles of EBP. Indeed,
both the five stages of EBP and the four cornerstones emphasize the same
principles: research and integration of this research with clinical expertise
and client perspective (Edmond et al., 2006; Sackett et al., 2000). However,
the application of the four cornerstones is less rigid than the five stages
because, as opposed to a step-by-step process, the cornerstones can be
interwoven. Consequently, the four-cornerstone approach is a more flexible
implementation of the EBP process in clinical practice.
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the flexibility of the four
cornerstones in providing an EBP group intervention. In this article, we
show that it is possible to provide a personalized evidence-based interven-
tion. In particular, we illustrate how two social workers applied the four
cornerstones at an alternative high school.
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
Evidence-Based Practice 125
CHOOSING THE TYPE OF INTERVENTION
In determining the type of intervention needed, as consistent with the group
planning model (Northen & Kurland, 2001), the social workers began by col-
laborating with school staff and students to assess the needs of their clients.
The social worker’s research on working with schools influenced this choice
(Comer, 1988); their clinical expertise, which taught them that forming strong
relationships provided a foundation for having a positive intervention; and
their personal belief that forming a positive relationship with the clients dur-
ing this initial phase of the intervention would be beneficial in meeting the
clients’ needs.
Based on these cornerstones, the social workers interviewed the prin-
cipal and guidance counselor using the following questions: “How can we
best help your school? What do your students need? What has worked in the
past? What didn’t work? What would you recommend that we do?” The prin-
cipal and guidance counselor reported that a group intervention would best
serve their students because (1) a majority of the students might have diffi-
culties talking to one person and (2) a group intervention would serve more
students. Thus, in this initial phase of the intervention, the social workers
were able to use the elements of EBP to direct their choice of intervention
by intertwining elements from all four cornerstones.
Following the decision to have a group intervention, the social work-
ers utilized a planning model as developed by Roselle Kurland (1978)asa
general framework to guide them in the development of a successful group
intervention. This framework suggests practitioners working with adolescents
to focus on components such as need, purpose, composition, structure, con-
tent, pregroup contact, and social/agency context as he or she prepares
to provide the group services (Malekoff, 2014). Keeping these guidelines in
mind, the social workers again used a combination of the client’s perspective
and their personal views to direct their decisions regarding the topics to be
covered in the group intervention. First, they interviewed the principal and
counselor for possible group topics, and the following list was generated:
anger management, multitopic concerns for girls, and interpersonal commu-
nication. The school staff members reported the most interest in an anger
management group because a majority of the students had been referred
to the school for behavioral problems, which is consistent with referrals to
other alternative high schools (Foley & Pang, 2006).
Drawing on the indicated rationale, the social workers met with school
staff and discussed the possibility of surveying the students to assess which
group topic was of most interest to the students. Initially, the principal was
hesitant about surveying the students; however, the social workers advocated
for administering a survey because (1) the school staff reported that the
students often declined to participate in social work services at the school
and (2) the social workers’ practice wisdom led them to believe that if the
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
126 B. E. Weller et al.
students’ provided their opinion about which group intervention they were
most interested in attending, then the students would be more likely to
participate in the group. Based on this rationale, the principal agreed to
have the students complete a survey.
Next, the social workers developed a survey that included the three
topics and a space requesting students to suggest other topics. The social
workers administered the survey to all students attending school on one day
by going to each classroom. The social workers explained to the students the
reason for the survey—to gather their opinions on possible group topics—
and how to complete the survey. While administering the survey, several
students asked if participation in the group was required upon completing
the survey. The social workers informed the students that they would not
be required to participate. Also, the social workers stated that the students’
responses were anonymous and, at a later date, the social workers would
ask students to volunteer if they wanted to participate. The students reported
interest in an anger management group. Girls expressed interest in a girls-
only group. Both were provided; however, this article focuses only on the
anger management group.
In sum, the social workers used the four cornerstones of EBP as a guide
for choosing the type of intervention to provide and for their selection of
group topics. The social workers were able to find common ground with
their clients (school staff and students) and identified the clients’ unique
concerns, to which they tailored their intervention. By applying the EBP
processes in this way, the social workers were able to understand and
accommodate the clients’ values—that is, their expectations, concerns and
preferences—to the best of their abilities (Gilgun, 2005).
SELECTION OF GROUP MEMBERS
Once it was determined that an anger management group intervention would
be provided, the social workers assessed the clients’ perspectives while
incorporating their personal beliefs, clinical expertise, and known research
to select group members, which is also consistent with the social work with
groups planning model (Kurland, 1978; Malekoff, 2014; Northen & Kurland,
2001). They gained insight from their clients by reaching out to the school
staff to discuss recruitment strategies. Based on their recommendation, the
social workers went to each classroom to request students to make a self-
referral to the group. All interested students completed a semistructured
interview lasting 30 minutes with one social worker during which time
the students reported information about their mental health and reason(s)
for participation. After the interviews with the students, the social workers
shared a list of individuals who volunteered to participate with the guidance
counselor (the principal was unavailable because of scheduling constraints).
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
Evidence-Based Practice 127
The social workers selected group members based on their level of
need, motivation, and the staff members’ input—a method consistent with
the Standards of Social Work Practice with Groups (Association for the
Advancement of Social Work with Groups, 2006). In addition to the staff’s
recommendation and the students’ self-selection, the social workers used
personal views and assessment of the needs of the students to decide whom
to include. In particular, the school staff described one student as the most
in-need of the group but also “immature.” Because he was seen as “imma-
ture,” the school staff recommended that he not be included in the group
but stated that the choice to include him was ultimately the decision of the
social workers. Based on their clinical expertise in working with individuals
with behavioral challenges, the social workers believed that having only one
student in the group who could be potentially challenging would not disrupt
the group and that the student could benefit from learning from the more
“mature” members of the group.
In selecting the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of the group
members, the social workers followed EBP by utilizing information from
research, their practice wisdom, and personal views, all the while keeping
their clients’ needs in mind. Consistent with the average size of groups con-
ducted in schools (Garrett, 2004), the social workers selected a total of six
students to participate in the group. The choice to have a heterogeneous or
homogenous group was complex. From the research perspective, the evi-
dence is mixed. For example, one study showed that diversity improved
group interaction and efficiency (Earley & Mosakowski, 2000), whereas
another showed the diversity to have negative effects on social integra-
tion and communication (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Another study made
a distinction between the type of diversity and found racial diversity to be
positively correlated with emotional conflict whereas age diversity is nega-
tively correlated with emotional conflict (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999).
Further, studies have also shown that heterogeneous groups might have a
negative impact on adolescents (Kaminer, 2005).
However, from a personal perspective, the social workers thought het-
erogeneity would be ideal. One of the leaders was a multiracial female and
the other was a Black female, and they knew from their personal experi-
ences that being the only one from a racial group could decrease the group
members’ ability to participate in the group because they could feel discom-
fort or undue pressure. The social workers decided to put more emphasis
on their personal views based on their past experiences and created racially-
and gendered-heterogeneous groups. Participants consisted of four males
and two females, who were between ages 15 and 18. Two identified as
African American (both males) and the rest as Latino (including two females).
By using the four cornerstones in combination, the social workers were able
to reach a decision on group composition.
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
128 B. E. Weller et al.
Besides considering the client’s needs, EBP also involves the “conscien-
tious, explicit, and judicious application of best research evidence to ( ...)
interventions whose purposes may be therapeutic, rehabilitative, or preventa-
tive” (Gilgun, 2005, p. 52). Therefore, to further personalize the group to the
client’s needs, the social workers gathered relevant research related to alter-
native high school students. Research has shown that students who attend
alternative high schools tend to have more issues with drug use and legal
problems than students attending traditional schools (Grunbaum, Lowry, &
Kann, 2001; Lehr, Tan, & Ysseldyke, 2009). As indicated by research, among
the group members, two endorsed recreational drug use and three reported
past and/or current legal problems. Additionally, the group members had
mental health disorders, which are also consistent with research (Foley &
Pang, 2006). For example, 50 alternative school directors and principals
reported that approximately 50% of their students had such disorders (Foley
&Pang,2006). Also supported by research (Grunbaum et al., 2001), one
male student was a parent and expecting another child and another male
was expecting the birth of his first child.
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
In accordance with the EBP process, the social workers conducted research
on anger management to develop a curriculum for the group that considered
the clients’ needs and the available research. The planning for the curriculum
is discussed below; however, it is important to note that though the social
workers established a curriculum for the intervention, they planned to also
remain flexible and responsive to the group members’ needs. The social
workers conducted extensive research, as evidence of efficacy is the premise
of evidence-based group work (Macgowan, 2008).
The social workers first developed a clear purpose statement: for group
members to learn how to use anger as a tool for change. The purpose was
based on Fein’s (1993), five-stage plan for dealing with anger. The stages are
as follows: (1) maintaining emotional safety, (2) experiencing and coping
with intense emotions, (3) understanding the objectives of anger, (4) becom-
ing objective and realistic about anger, and (5) using it to accomplish
goals.
Once the purpose of the group was clearly defined, the social workers
integrated the research to generate a plan for the first phase of the inter-
vention. Namely, consistent with the Standards for Social Work Practice with
Groups (Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, 2006),
the social workers decided that the first phase would begin with a discus-
sion with the group members on the purpose of the group and the social
worker’s role as facilitator, as well as assist the group in establishing consen-
sus around ground rules including responsibilities as group members. They
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
Evidence-Based Practice 129
also planned to provide psychoeducation on cognitive and behavioral com-
ponents of anger. This approach has been supported by research that shows
that such interventions were associated with decreased self-report of aggres-
sion as well as reported improvement of oppositional behaviors (e.g., Kellner
& Bry, 1999; Murrihy, 2012). The decision behind the goal setting activity,
though research based (McWhirter, & Page, 1999), also stemmed from the
social workers’ personal views that having a concrete goal to work toward
would help students be invested in their own improvement. Therefore, the
plan for this initial phase was first to have students identify personal goals
for the intervention. This step was conducted by directing students to answer
questions such as, what does anger management mean to them, what do
they want out of these meetings, and how will they know when they have
achieved their goals.
Additionally, consistent with the purpose of the intervention, the social
workers planned to facilitate dialogue among group members on the notion
that anger is a tool used to communicate and motivate other individuals
(Fein, 1993). Furthermore, they planned to aid group members to identify
triggers, calming techniques, and safe items and places (Davis, Eshelman, &
McKay, 1995). Thus, the social workers planned to have sessions focused on
how the students used anger to transmit messages to others. Following the
information provided by Fein (1993), the students would then explore this
notion and identify alternative solutions to conveying the same message.
The social workers also planned to focus the first stage of the interven-
tion on helping students learn and practice-specific behavioral strategies to
help them to manage anger (Davis et al., 1995). In particular, the social work-
ers planned for the students to learn relaxation techniques such as breathing
and creating a safe place. The idea was for them to interweave the calming
techniques with the concept of “anger as a tool,” to develop personalized
coping techniques as suggested by Fein (1993).
Additionally, based on their personal view and research (Lochman,
Barry, & Pardini, 2003), the social workers decided that cultivating group
cohesion should start from the beginning of the intervention. To accom-
plish this task, the social workers planned to have the group members
share their problems and successes with one another as well as review their
progress toward their goals. The rationale for placing emphasis on cultivat-
ing group cohesion was based, in part, on previous research that has shown
that students who attend alternative high schools are often self-reliant and
use avoidant coping strategies (May & Copeland, 1998), both of which may
result in anger management issues.
The social workers planned, for the second phase of the intervention,
to focus on using the techniques that were introduced in the first phase, to
work toward individual goals. Further, they planned to discuss the issue of
forgiveness. This choice was made because research has shown that forgive-
ness can assist with anger management (Davis et al., 1995). According to
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
130 B. E. Weller et al.
Davis et al. (1995), the process of forgiveness and the resulting change in
perspective makes is an important therapeutic tool for dealing with anger.
Therefore, the social workers planned to integrate a process of forgiveness
into the intervention as another means to achieve the goal of anger manage-
ment. By introducing the concepts of forgiveness and anger as a tool, and by
educating the students on the impacts of anger and forgiveness on the body,
the social workers sought to teach the students to cognitively counteract their
anger.
The social workers planned for the final phase of the intervention to
focus on the lessons students learned and how the group affected all group
participants. From their personal views, the social workers planned to pro-
vide each student with a calming stone to use as a safe object when they
feel angry, to emphasize the foundational beginning phase topic. Further,
the idea behind the stone was to provide the students with a transitional
object, which has been suggested by some as a way to provide individuals
with support after treatment concludes (Arthern & Madill, 1999).
IMPLEMENTING AND REFINING CURRICULUM COMPONENTS
While implementing the intervention, the social workers remained flexible
by using a mixture of practice wisdom, personal views, and client perspec-
tive to adjust their curriculum as needed. In the beginning phase, the social
workers used their practice wisdom to facilitate group discussion on ground
rules while modelling desired behaviors (e.g., active listening and talking
respectfully to group members and each other). As part of the discussion,
group members discussed cultivating a safe and trusting environment, issues
of attendance, and confidentiality. The social workers allowed group par-
ticipants to reach a final decision on each topic because of their personal
view (i.e., doing so would engage students and promote their commitment
to the intervention). Further, to foster group cohesion in this phase, the social
workers asked group members to share with each other their experiences
with anger. Also, the social workers asked group members to share any
techniques that they used to help them manage their anger.
In the middle phase, the social workers assisted the group members in
progressing toward their individual goals and further promoted group cohe-
sion by encouraging members to share how they handled issues with anger
that occurred between group meetings (Steinberg, 2004). The group mem-
bers engaged in role-playing and monitoring their goals while also providing
mutual aid (Steinberg, 2004). Further, group members assisted group mem-
bers with using problem-solving techniques (Northen & Kurland, 2001). For
example, one member was angry with his employer because of the lack
of hours he was receiving. He stated that he had become very angry with
his boss and that he wanted his boss to understand that he was upset. He
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
Evidence-Based Practice 131
was able to use the group session to problem solve solutions and reported
that he was able to use the tools discussed in the group, in particular, tak-
ing a deep breath to help him calm down and talking respectfully with his
employer.
Also during this phase, the youngest member of the group (the member
described as immature by school staff) became disengaged and pretended to
be asleep during one group meeting. From their personal views, the social
workers’ decided to let group members vote democratically for what steps to
take to deal with this behavior. The social workers viewed this experience as
an opportunity for group members to feel empowered in the group process.
A group vote was taken, and it was decided that he should be removed
from the group for one session. When the student returned to the group,
he acted within the ground rules and participated actively. During a later
session, he volunteered to share his experiences using deep breathing and
walking away from a physical altercation as anger management techniques.
He also reported feeling very proud of himself and excited to tell the group
of his actions.
During the final phase, the social workers encouraged an open dialog
in discussing what lessons they had learned from the group and how the
group affected them. The social workers asked students to consider how
they changed, what they found helpful, and how the program can improve.
The group members also discussed their growth and change over the course
of the group intervention.
In sum, the social workers flexibly used their personal views, client per-
spective, and their practice wisdom during the implementation of an EBP
group; they adjusted their plans according to the response from the group.
They encouraged group cohesion and facilitated conversation, allowing stu-
dents the freedom to direct the flow of conversation. For example, the topic
of forgiveness ended prematurely when student input lulled, so the social
workers moved on to a different topic.
ASSESSMENT AND REFLECTION
Consistent with EBP (Sackett et al., 2000), the social workers assessed group
members’ and the principal’s views on the intervention (the guidance coun-
selor was not available due to time constraints). Because of the small sample
size and single-group design, the social workers used qualitative methods
to assess the participants’ experience with the group rather than to eval-
uate the effectiveness of it. The social workers did not have a budget for
audio recorders or to hire a transcriptionist, they therefore used field notes
to record data. Although limitations with this method exist (Padgett, 1998), it
served as the most feasible method available within the social worker’s finan-
cial constraints and the given sample size. The social workers hand-coded
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
132 B. E. Weller et al.
the data and used conventional content analysis to analyze the data (Hsieh
& Shannon, 2005) as well as memoing (Padgett, 1998). The social workers
collected data throughout the process of providing the EBP, with the majority
of the data collected during the final group session.
In general, the students reported that they felt better able to manage
their anger because of their experience with the group. They found that
being able to rely on group members to help them problem solve was
helpful. They also reported that interweaving the concept of “anger is a
tool” with calming techniques was beneficial (Fein, 1993). Several students
inquired as to whether the social workers would return the next year to
facilitate a group intervention, expressing their interest in continuing partic-
ipation. They further recommended that the social workers provide more
group sessions.
Although the group members and principal’s assessment of the group
is informative, several limitations exist. First, the small sample size limits the
ability to generalize the results (Padgett, 1998). Further, the social workers
completed the assessment, and it is possible that group members felt uncom-
fortable with sharing negative views about the group because the social
workers’ presence (Royse, Thyer, & Padgett, 2009). Third, the social workers
collected a limited amount of qualitative data and were unable to use meth-
ods, such as triangulation, to increase the confidence of the findings from
the assessment. Fourth, when selecting the group topics, the social workers
relied primarily on the principal’s perspective. Therefore, the student voice
was minimized when selected the topics. Focus groups with students may
have revealed a preference for students to discuss past life stressor or possi-
ble traumas. Nonetheless, this article helps fill a gap in the literature as few
have described using EBP in group work with alternative schools.
In addition to the group members and principals’ perspective, the social
workers also reflected on their experience with using the EBP process.
Because the social workers did not have previous experience with con-
ducting a group intervention at an alternative high school, they found the
four cornerstones of EBP to be a helpful approach to providing clinical care.
They also found that by remaining flexible and using the four cornerstones,
they could assess clients’ needs and provide care within a framework that
was responsive to those needs. Their experience also helped them gain
additional practice wisdom to use in other clinical settings.
CONCLUSION
This article demonstrated how the EBP process could be implemented in
a group intervention using four cornerstones: research, clinical experience,
personal views, and client’s perspective (Gilgun, 2005). Social workers can
use these four cornerstones to provide an EBP anger management group
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
Evidence-Based Practice 133
that is personalized and flexible. Moreover, the ability to use cornerstones
in any combination or order allows the process of providing an EBP to flow
naturally and adjust quickly to real world changes.
REFERENCES
Addis, M. E., Wade, W. A., & Hatgis, C. (1999). Barriers to dissemina-
tion of evidence-based practices: Addressing practitioners’ concerns about
manual-based psychotherapies. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,6,
430–441.
Arthern, J., & Madill, A. (1999). How do transitional objects work?: The ther-
apist’s view. British Journal of Medical Psychology,72, 1–21. doi:10.1348/
000711299159754
Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups. (2006). Standards
for social work practice with groups (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for
the Advancement of Social Work with Groups, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.
aaswg.org/standards-social-work-practice-with-groups
Bidgood, B. A., Wilkie, H., & Katchaluba, A. (2011). Releasing the steam: An
evaluation of the Supporting Tempers, Emotions, and Anger Management
(STEAM) program for elementary and adolescent-aged child. In D. E. Pollio
& M. J. Macgowan (Eds.), Evidence-based group work in community settings
(pp. 160–174). New York, NY: Routledge.
Comer, J. P. (1988). Educating poor minority children. Scientific American,259,
42–48. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1188-42
Davis, M., Eshelman, E. R., & McKay, M. (1995). The relaxation & stress reduction
workbook (4th ed.). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
Earley, C. P., & Mosakowski, E. (2000). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical
test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal,43,
26–49. doi:10.2307/1556384
Edmond, T., Megivern, D., Williams, C., Rochman, E., & Howard, M. (2006).
Integrating evidence-based practice and social work field education. Journal
of Social Work Education,42, 377–396. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2006.200404115
Fein, M. L. (1993). I.A.M.: A common sense guide to coping with anger. Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Foley, R., & Pang, L. (2006). Alternative education programs: Program and student
characteristics. The High School Journal,89, 10–21. doi:10.1353/hsj.2006.0003
Gambrill, E. (1999). Evidence-based practice: An alternative to authority-based
practice. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services,80,
341–350. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.1214
Garrett, K. J. (2004). Use of groups in school social work: Group work and group
processes. Social Work with Groups,27, 75–92. doi:10.1300/J009v27n02_06
Gilgun, J. F. (2005). The four cornerstones of evidence-based practice in social work.
Research on Social Work Practice,15, 52–61. doi:10.1177/1049731504269581.
Gitterman, A., & Knight, C. (2013). Evidence-guided practice: Integrating the science
and art of social work. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Services,94, 70–78. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4282
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
134 B. E. Weller et al.
Gray, M., & McDonald, C. (2006). Pursuing good practice? The limits of evidence-
based practice. Journal of Social Work,6, 7–20. doi:10.1177/1468017306062209
Grunbaum, J. A., Lowry, R., & Kann, L. (2001). Prevalence of health-related behaviors
among alternative high school students as compared with students attend-
ing regular high schools. Journal of Adolescent Health,29, 337–343. doi:
10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00304-4
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analy-
sis. Qualitative Health Research,15, 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
Kaminer, Y. (2005). Challenges and opportunities of group therapy for adolescent
substance abuse: A critical review. Addictive Behaviors,30, 1765–1774. doi:
10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.07.002
Kellner, M. H., & Bry, B. H. (1999). The effects of anger management groups in a
group day for emotionally disturbed adolescents. Adolescence,34, 646–651.
Kurland, R. (1978). The neglected component of group development. Social Work
with Groups,1, 173–178. doi:10.1300/J009v01n02_06
Lehr, C. A., Tan, C. S., & Ysseldyke, J. (2009). Alternative schools: A synthesis of
state-level policy and research. Remedial and Special Education,30, 19–32.
doi:10.1177/0741932508315645.
Lochman, J. E., Barry, T. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2003). Anger control training for aggres-
sive youth. In A. E. Kazin & J. R. Weisz (Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies
for children and adolescents (pp. 263–281). New York, NY: Guilford.
Macgowan, M. G. (2008). Evidence-based group work. In A. Gitterman & R. Salmon
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of social work with groups (pp. 131–136). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Malekoff, A. (2014). Group work with adolescents: Principles and practice (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford.
May, H. E., & Copeland, E. P. (1998). Academic persistence and alternative high
schools: Student and site characteristics. High School Journal,81, 10–20.
McWhirter, B. T., & Page, G. L. (1999). Effects of anger management and goal setting
group interventions on state-trait anger and self-efficacy beliefs among high risk
adolescents. Current Psychology,18, 223–237. doi:10.1007/s12144-999-1030-2
Mullen, E. J., Bledsoe, S. E., & Bellamy, J. L. (2008). Implementing evidence-
based social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice,18, 325–338. doi:
1049731506297827
Murrihy, R. C. (2012). Social competency CBT-based group training for youth in
alternative school settings. In R. C. Murrihy, A. D. Kidman, & T. H. Ollendick
(Eds.), Clinical handbook of assessing and treating conduct problems in youth
(pp. 295–332). New York, NY: Springer.
Nolan, P., & Bradley, E., (2008). Evidence-based practice: implications and con-
cerns. Journal of Nursing Management,16, 388–393. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2834.
2008.00857.x
Northen, H., & Kurland, R. (2001). Social work with groups (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
Padgett, D. K. (1998). Qualitative methods in social work research: Challenges and
rewards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An anal-
ysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly,44, 1–28. doi:10.2307/2667029
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
Evidence-Based Practice 135
Plath, D. (2006). Evidence-based practice: Current issues and future directions.
Australian Social Work,59, 56–72. doi:10.1080/03124070500449788
Pollio, D. E., & Macgowan, M. J. (2011). Evidence-based group work in community
settings. New York, NY: Routledge.
Royse, D., Thyer, B., & Padgett, D. (2009). Program evaluation: An introduction.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Sackett,D.L.,Rosenberg,W.M.C.,Gray,J.A.M.,Haynes,R.B.,&Richardson,
W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t: It’s about
integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence. British
Medical Journal,312, 71–72. doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71
Sackett, D. L., Strauss, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg, W., & Haynes, R. B.
(2000). Evidence based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone.
Steinberg, D. M. (2004). The mutual-aid approach to working with groups: Helping
people to help each other (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations:
A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior ,20,
77–140.
Downloaded by [111.47.206.15] at 01:45 22 August 2015
