Topic 7a) Research overlap with Single Subject Design
To approach the clinical process as a study is one way to ensure that a social worker's interventions are having a positive effect.
In previous classes we have seen that taking an evidence-based approach is a provident practice that not only leads to better care but better results.
Because clinical social work often involves one-on-one practice, single-subject designs are often used by social workers to track the efforts; it is much better and more effective than gut instinct or practice without feedback.
Therefore, it should be apparent that taking an evidence-based approach to clinical practice should lead to, if not better results, better and more informed decision making or responsiveness to therapies for a client's case. A single case can be defined as a single individual or family, couple, or group and this is the first biggest difference between a SSD and a research study, but there are more similarities than there are differences.
For example, step one to a single subject design is in identifying and assessing a problem area, before establishing mutually-agreed upon goals for the client. This is very similar to the process of research because the initial stage in a research plan is the one that requires me to argue and define a problem needing original research.
This plan is essential and becomes the independent variable to the study. The treatment can use the tools of research to track progress for a client. It can be seen that this process overlaps with what you would do for a research study with only a few, but specific differences. One of those differences is that in a SSD, The subject is both the treatment and control group.
We overlay a research methodology on top of the clinical process in order to assess whether the treatment was effective. In this way, it's kind of like evaluation research, but in this scale we are not interested in the effectiveness but for more than one client.
For this reason, SSDs are not easily applicable externally but they sure are great proven practice for internal validity!
And really it has to be reiterated the critical nature of establishing a baseline in order to make any conclusions. Having a baseline is imperative to later assess effects like experimental designs because it would give up a comparison point. Furthermore, another important criteria for success in a single subject design is that repeated measures are taken with and without treatment. Measuring the client's data before, after and during the study can lead to the best graphs and conclusions drawn. With the data, proof can be derived from practice.
As a "numbers guy" I don't have to be convinced that results are most influential to both the practice and to the client if they have evidence to back it up. This helps me understand the research overlap to single subject design. With that said, I will conclude with the following gif:
In previous classes we have seen that taking an evidence-based approach is a provident practice that not only leads to better care but better results.
Because clinical social work often involves one-on-one practice, single-subject designs are often used by social workers to track the efforts; it is much better and more effective than gut instinct or practice without feedback.
Therefore, it should be apparent that taking an evidence-based approach to clinical practice should lead to, if not better results, better and more informed decision making or responsiveness to therapies for a client's case. A single case can be defined as a single individual or family, couple, or group and this is the first biggest difference between a SSD and a research study, but there are more similarities than there are differences.
For example, step one to a single subject design is in identifying and assessing a problem area, before establishing mutually-agreed upon goals for the client. This is very similar to the process of research because the initial stage in a research plan is the one that requires me to argue and define a problem needing original research.
This plan is essential and becomes the independent variable to the study. The treatment can use the tools of research to track progress for a client. It can be seen that this process overlaps with what you would do for a research study with only a few, but specific differences. One of those differences is that in a SSD, The subject is both the treatment and control group.
We overlay a research methodology on top of the clinical process in order to assess whether the treatment was effective. In this way, it's kind of like evaluation research, but in this scale we are not interested in the effectiveness but for more than one client.
For this reason, SSDs are not easily applicable externally but they sure are great proven practice for internal validity!
And really it has to be reiterated the critical nature of establishing a baseline in order to make any conclusions. Having a baseline is imperative to later assess effects like experimental designs because it would give up a comparison point. Furthermore, another important criteria for success in a single subject design is that repeated measures are taken with and without treatment. Measuring the client's data before, after and during the study can lead to the best graphs and conclusions drawn. With the data, proof can be derived from practice.
As a "numbers guy" I don't have to be convinced that results are most influential to both the practice and to the client if they have evidence to back it up. This helps me understand the research overlap to single subject design. With that said, I will conclude with the following gif:
Pretty good. You would be surprised that many in the class are having difficulty understanding this content. You seem to have nailed it.
ReplyDelete