- Offer an analysis of their evaluations and subsequent recommendation. Note both strengths and areas that could be improved.
- Identify areas where your own original recommendations or evaluation was similar to or different from your colleagues’ original evaluation and explain why.
The case study of George, the social worker meets the criteria for a single-case design, because the focus is on a single person (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). The study objective was to test the efficacy of one intervention with multiple target problems (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). The research design is a multiple baseline design (MB), which means that the intervention presented to George in the case study was applied to each sequential target problem and allowed time to assess the impact of the intervention on each issue before introducing it to the next challenge. There were no specific tasks given, but it is stated that there were two personal care tasks completed, two mobility tasks and three home safety tasks. Progression was monitored on each visit using a 10-point assessment scale (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). I would support the use of the clinical rating scale in the case study, as it was shown that this type of measurement scale is one that is commonly used. In the design of a single system and was effective and reliable as well as desirable by several other researchers dealing with unique device designs (Mattaini, 2010). The Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) can be an effective form of assessment, as it would measure multiple targets for a particular adult such as George, considering his mobility, health, and personal care (Mattaini, 2012; Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). Another valuable measurement tool would be a Rapid Assessment Instrument (RAI), which would allow data to be gathered rapidly and routinely (Mattaini, 2012). This enables the monitoring and recognition of incidents within a case through its functional relationships (Mattaini, 2012).
The case study did not provide details about the methods they used. Without these specific details, it is unclear whether the operation and the research were ethically undertaken (Plummer, Makris, & Brocksen, 2014). I did notice substantial changes in George’s home safety conduct when assessing the social worker’s use of a strategy composed of case management and solution-focused and task-centered methods. I have observed significant improvements in his behavior in personal care and a slight increase in his mobility. These results suggest that the strategy chosen has been successful in maintaining home health, effective in strengthening personal care and helping to improve mobility. Given the importance of addressing these issues in my neighborhood and the lack of funding at this moment, I will advocate a tailored case management intervention program for home health, personal care, and mobility. Chris and her collaborators will need to prove that the research and the findings can be repeated and applied to other populations to be considered as evidence based and therefore, to be considered for submission to the registry (Tankersley, Cook, & Cook, 2008). To do this, I recommend identifying the measures used in the treatments and how they were performed based on length, and location. Through providing detailed data, other researchers are more able to replicate the sample to see if it can be used with different populations to show generalizability and to see if outcomes are like the original analysis for replication.
References
Mattaini, M. A. (2010). Single-system studies. In B. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (2nd ed., pp. 241-273). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (PDF).
Plummer, S. -B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social work case studies: Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader].
Tankersley, M., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2008). A preliminary examination to identify the presence of quality indicators in single-subject research. Education & Treatment of Children, 31(4), 523-548.
