Complete Social Work Assignment NO PLAGIARISM

User Generated

ubzrjbexpbafhgyvat

Humanities

Description

only use peer reviewed references....at least 2 references not including the reading

Critique Single Subject Designs

Assignment Overview

By successfully completing this assignment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following EPAs and advance practice behaviors:

  • EPA 2.1.3: Apply critical thinking to inform and communicate professional judgments.
    • APB 2.1.3.A: Apply critical thinking in verbal and written communication through the use of leadership and technology with colleagues, individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities.
      • Related Assignment Criteria:
        • 4. Apply critical thinking in verbal and written communication through the use of leadership and technology.

Assignment Description

After reading the Whitfield article, "Validating School Social Work," you will answer a series of questions aimed at critiquing single subject designs.

Assignment Instructions

Read the Whitfield article, "Validating School Social Work: An Evaluation of a Cognitive-Behavioral Approach to Reduce School Violence," and answer the following questions in an APA-formatted document:

  • What was the purpose of this study?
  • What was the sample?
  • What dependent variable(s) were studied? How were the dependent variable(s) operationalized?
  • Why was a single-subject design used? What are the strengths of a single-subject design?
  • What were the key findings (the results of the data analysis)?
  • Critique the findings. What are limitations of a single-subject design?

Additional Requirements

The assignment you submit is expected to meet the following requirements:

  • Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message.
  • APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to APA style and formatting standards.
  • Length of paper: 2–3 pages, double spaced.
  • Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK Validating School Social Work: An Evaluation of a Cognitive-Behavioral Approach to Reduce School Violence Gary W. Whitfield Hopkins County Adolescent Day Treatment Program Objective: This study evaluated the effectiveness of anger control training with conductdisordered male adolescents at a day treatment program. Method: A multiple baseline singlesubject design across subjects was used to assess matched pairs of students (8 experimental and 8 control students). Combined visual analyses and group comparison methods were used in the assessment. Results: The experimental students significantly improved in their weekly selfreports of using better anger control and experiencing more positive management and expression of anger. The experimental students also significantly improved in their use of self-control as shown by a pretest through 6-month follow-up assessment. Conclusion: This research effort provides some evidence that a cognitive-behavioral approach is one method of effectively reducing school violence when compared with a nonspecific counseling approach alone. Recommendations for future research efforts are offered given some of the limitations of the study. Recently, the school social work literature has been concerned with documenting the effectiveness of social work services in schools. In this age of accountability, educational reform, and budgetary constraints, there is a growing concern that school social work may be left behind or even forgotten. Thus, school social work’s relevance as a profession and its influence on educational goals (e.g., grades, attendance, and classroom behavior) are crucial concerns (Allen-Meares, Washington, & Welsh, 1996; Bailey-Dempsey, 1997; Michals, Cournoyer, & Pinner, 1979). Empirical validation in the school social work literature regarding theoretically based interventions linked to educational goals and interests is limited. This is especially true concerning outcome studies for older adolescents (Bailey-Dempsey, 1997; LeCroy & Flynn, 1982; Sabatino, Timberlake, & Hooper, 1991). Yet, school social workers are often in an ideal situation to conduct theoretically based experimental research. School social work settings allow some flexibility for Author’s Note: Correspondence may be addressed to G. Whitfield, Hopkins County Adolescent Day Treatment Program, 5770 Anton Road, Madisonville, KY 42431. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of William Nugent in completing the statistical analyses for this research. Research on Social Work Practice, Vol. 9 No. 4, July 1999 399-426 © 1999 Sage Publications, Inc. 399 400 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE random assignment to experimental and control groups and to test different treatment approaches (Alexander & Curtis, 1995). A major interest of school social workers, educational staff, and policy makers is reducing violence in schools (Alexander & Curtis, 1995; AllenMeares et al., 1996; Astor, Behre, Fravil, & Wallace, 1997). In their review, Alexander and Curtis (1995) identified the conduct-disordered or aggressive behaviors exhibited by students as major underlying components and causes of school violence. Taken in this context, violent behavior in schools may involve students evincing the following behaviors: (a) disrespect to teachers, (b) cursing and threatening comments to staff and students, (c) criminal acts such as theft and vandalism, and (d) assaultive behavior, either toward staff or students. The above behaviors often denote a deficiency in self-control and anger control skills or an unwillingness by such students to use these skills when able to do so. This article reports the results of a study evaluating the effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioral intervention (i.e., anger control training) with explosive and conduct-disordered male adolescents in reducing school violence. In conducting this evaluation, a relatively new analytic strategy, hierarchical linear modeling, was used as a group comparison strategy. First, a brief review of the problems associated with conduct-disordered behavior in children and adolescents is undertaken. A brief description of some intervention efforts, such as day treatment services, to deal with these problems is also presented. The theoretical underpinnings in remediating the maladapting cognitive-behavioral products of aggressive youths are specifically highlighted. Finally, important research questions about the study are posited before outlining the actual research effort and results. LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS Conduct-disordered or aggressive behavior constitutes from one third to one half of all child and adolescent mental health referrals. Rates as to a clinical diagnosis of conduct disorder range from 4% to 10% for boys and about 2% for girls. As many as 3.8 million children show evidence for this disorder (Hinshaw, 1992; Kazdin, 1995). Child and adolescent antisocial or conduct-disordered behavior is also highly stable and resistive to treatment (Kazdin 1995; Loeber, 1991; McMahon, 1994). Antisocial behavior in childhood that goes untreated or is highly resistive to treatment greatly increases the risk for problems extending to adulthood. These problems include further criminal behavior, a diagnosis of Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK 401 antisocial personality and other psychiatric disorders, alcoholism and drug use, poor school adjustment and low educational attainment, marital and family disruptions, poor occupational adjustment, and poor physical health (Farrington, Loeber, & Van Kammen, 1990; Kazdin, 1995). The costs to society are difficult to precisely quantify but would seem to be exorbitant considering the expenditures involved in providing the various services engendered by antisocial behavior including mental health treatment, social services, juvenile adjudications and incarcerations, and special education programs (Kazdin, 1995). Vandalism and destruction of school property are estimated to cost more than $200 million annually, and the expense of vandalism to private property would seem to be even higher (Ziglar, Taussig, & Black, 1992). Also difficult to quantify is the personal misery and suffering of the victims of juvenile crime and the later victims of the juvenile delinquent as an adult perpetrator. Efforts to provide more effective school intervention for behaviordisordered and delinquent youths include day treatment programs. These programs provide community-based services and are seen as alternatives to institutionalization. The specific structure of these programs and the types of services offered vary greatly. Very little specific outcome research has been reported regarding school-sponsored day treatment programs (Comer, 1985; Epstein & Maragos, 1983; Franklin, 1992). More specifically, cognitive-behavioral training or treatment has been recommended as a microintervention strategy to reduce school violence and address its underlying causes (Alexander & Curtis, 1995). Cognitivebehavioral training is an attempt to alter a youth’s maladaptive cognitions and in the process change the affective component and the dysfunctional overt behaviors (Finch, Nelson, & Moss, 1993). Research has shown that aggressive and antisocial youths display serious cognitive distortions and deficiencies. Aggressive youths present attributional biases that distort their perceptions of social situations. They value aggression more and are less skilled with assertive and prosocial responses as means to solve conflict than their nonaggressive peers. Selfmanagement of interfering emotional arousal, appropriate use of selfcontrol, and initiation of problem-solving skills are particularly troublesome for conduct-disordered youths (for reviews, see Crick & Dodge, 1994; Finch et al., 1993; Kendall, 1993). Cognitive-behavioral training is effective in reducing aggressive behavior in children and adolescents when compared with other interventions, although the effects have not always been uniform or maintained in follow-up for all samples, measured outcomes, and settings (Durlak, Fuhrman, & 402 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Lampman, 1991; Kendall, 1993). Feindler and her colleagues (Feindler, 1979, 1991; Feindler & Ecton, 1986; Feindler, Marriott, & Iwata, 1984) found evidence that specific anger control training as a cognitive-behavioral approach reduces the disruptive behavior and improves self-control with aggressive adolescents in various settings including residential centers, hospital programs, and public schools. The treatment efficacy of anger control training as a cognitive-behavioral intervention for aggressive children and adolescents has been well documented in other studies as well, ranging from residential to school settings (Dangel, Deschner, & Rasp, 1989; Glick & Goldstein, 1987; Hains, 1989). Thus, many challenges are present with testing a theoretically based intervention and documenting school social work’s relevance in addressing a crucial educational concern such as school violence. With these challenges in mind, I conducted a study at a day treatment program serving conductdisordered students. Three relevant research questions helped to guide this study: One, what is the effectiveness of a cognitive-behavioral school social work intervention in reducing school violence (i.e., aggressive behaviors of students)? Two, can a specific approach be more effective than a general counseling approach in improving anger control and general self-control among a targeted group of students? And three, can treatment gains be maintained at a 6-month follow-up assessment? METHOD Participants Students attending an adolescent day treatment program in a public school system were the target population. This was essentially a sample of convenience and therefore the generalizability of the findings is compromised somewhat. The specific participants included in this study were the male students that I served as the principal school social worker in the facility. I selected participants for the study who were referred to the program because of demonstrated problems with self-control. Students earn a successful completion of the program by adhering to the program’s rules, reaching certain point totals as prescribed by individual treatment plans, and exhibiting a general reduction of the problematic behaviors that caused the initial placement. Thus, the time of exit from the program is open-ended and individually determined. Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK 403 Research Design As the school year progressed, 8 pairs of male participants who were part of my caseload and had consented to participate were matched as closely as possible on the following variables: (a) age, (b) self-control abilities as indicated by total problem scores on the Self-Control Rating Scale (Kendall & Wilcox, 1979), (c) parent- and teacher-rated aggressive and delinquent characteristics as signified by externalizing problem scores on the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991a) and the Teacher’s Report Form (Achenbach, 1991b), and (d) general cognitive abilities or deviation IQ as measured by the Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability (revised) (French, Lamke, & Nelson, 1973). The above standardized measures are well-validated instruments with high reliabilities. For instance, the widely used Achenbach scales have test-retest reliabilities ranging from .89 to .92 and the correlations with other behavior problem rating scales are significant, generally in the .80s (Achenbach, 1991a, 1991b; Pellegrini, Galinski, Hart, & Kendall, 1993). Additional information on the Self-Control Rating Scale and data generated on these measures are reported later. I used a single-subject, multiple baseline design across subjects as the main research design. An additional evaluation included an extended assessment using the Self-Control Rating Scale measure. The research plan called for yoked and matched pairs of appropriate students (i.e., permission obtained and placement in the program due to problems with anger control and aggression) to be selected for assessment and intervention. Following baseline assessment, one of the students in each pair was randomly chosen to begin treatment sessions. These 8 male clients comprised the main study. The other 8 students not chosen for participation in the experimental or intervention program were used as control clients for the group comparison analyses. These comparison students continued to be assessed in the same manner as the treatment clients. The complete selection and assessment process is detailed in the original research (Whitfield, 1996). Intervention Program A 12-session Anger Control Training program as outlined by Feindler and her colleagues was implemented as the independent variable in this study. They have developed a cognitive-behavioral training program with five basic components that include self-instruction, self-assessment, self-evaluation, arousal management, and adaptive skills development. 404 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Some of the specific skills covered in the training include brief relaxation training, deep breathing exercises, active and passive progressive muscle relaxation training, and autogenic relaxation training. Anger reducers such as backward counting, pleasant imagery exercises, and self-talk cue statements are also reviewed. Assertion techniques and role-playing are heavily emphasized as well as the modeling of these skills and subsequent behavioral rehearsals. Additional self-instructional training includes thought-stopping techniques and use of selfguiding speech. Instruction in problem-solving skills and extensive discussions of hypothetical and actual anger-provoking situations are also covered in the training. A more detailed description of the procedures and techniques is outlined in a treatment manual (Feindler & Ecton, 1986). This intervention involved 1-hour individual training sessions with each client that occurred one to two times per week. All of the students in the study continued to receive day treatment services as usual. This included crisis intervention, individual counseling, group counseling, family counseling, and other interventions as needed. The day treatment staff, including teachers, were not aware of which students actually received this more focused intervention. Thus, the participants’ progress and release from the program followed individual treatment plans and program guidelines irrespective of their participation and status in this study. Outcome Measures Two self-report measures and a behavioral count or measure of acting-out behaviors were the dependent variables assessed weekly. Parent observations were originally included in the study but proved to be unreliable measures (Whitfield, 1996). The State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Spielberger, 1991) was completed each week by the students. This inventory consists of 44 items and several scales, but only two scales—Anger Control and Anger Expression—were used as self-report measurements. Higher scores on the Anger Control scale indicate more investment by the person in monitoring and preventing the experience and expression of anger, generally something lacking with these students. Conversely, higher scores on the Anger Expression scale show intense angry feelings that may be suppressed or expressed in explosive behavior. Thus, lower scores on this scale show better internal management of anger and less suppression or the acting out of anger. Anger Control scale scores range from 8 to 32 and Anger Expression scale scores range from 0 to 72. Median reliability (alpha coefficients) for all of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory scales is about .82 with a reliability of .84 for the Anger Control scale and .78 for the Anger Expression scale. Face validity is reported to be good (Biskin, 1992). These two scales were used to Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK 405 obtain a client perspective of progress and to assess whether the specific cognitive and affective instructions of the Anger Control Training (or lack of) would be reflected in the self-reported cognitive responses of the participants. The Staff Daily Report (Whitfield, 1996) was also another weekly repeated measurement. This measurement was patterned after the Parent Daily Report (Chamberlain & Reid, 1987), a well-established clinical tool emanating from the Oregon Youth Study research project. Essentially, the Staff Daily Report was a behavioral count of the aggressive episodes and the specific instances of rules violations. In calculating these scores, the severity of the offense was not being rated but whether a specific problem occurred or not. The daily scores were aggregated each week to make the total problem scores. Lower scores would, of course, indicate less behavioral and aggressive problems by the students. A more global and longer-term assessment included the Self-Control Rating Scale measure as a dependent variable. Besides being used for matching purposes, it provided a measure in which to evaluate self-control evinced by the students before intervention (pretest), at the end of Anger Control Training (posttest), and at 6-month follow-up assessment. Day treatment program teachers, blind to the treatment status of the students, completed this rating scale for the pretest and posttest assessments. For the students that returned to a regular school placement, the regular school teachers completed the 6-month follow-up assessments. The efficacy of using different raters at follow-up from the initial raters for standardized measures was recently demonstrated in a major National Institute of Mental Health research project (Glisson, 1994). Self-control ability and impulsivity as measured by this scale pertain to how the student regulates his or her behavior to attain certain goals. This regulation of behavior involves being able to generate and evaluate behavioral alternatives and refraining from acting on discarded options while engaging the selected alternative (Pellegrini et al., 1993). The Self-Control Rating Scale is a well-validated 33-item scale with high internal consistency (alpha = .98) and test-retest reliability estimated at .84. Interrater reliability is reported at .66, and significant correlations with observed frequency counts and other similar psychological indices are present as well. Total problem scores range from 33 to 231. The higher the total problem score, the greater the lack of self-control (Kendall & Wilcox, 1979; Pellegrini et al., 1993). Both the Staff Daily Report measure and the Self-Control Rating Scale were used to assess the effects of the intervention in the natural school environments of the participants. Further evidence of Anger Control Training’s effects beyond the self-reported domain is needed. Generalization of the 406 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE intervention’s benefits to extratherapeutic contexts such as school and maintenance of those effects have not been readily apparent in the research literature (Feindler, 1991). Data Analysis Visual analysis of the weekly time-series data was conducted for the 8 Anger Control Training clients. This was aided by graphing separate mean lines and regression (slope) lines for baseline and intervention phases for each weekly repeated measure for each student to discern any discontinuities in the within-subject data and to determine the magnitude and directionality of each data set (see Bloom, Fischer, & Orme, 1995, for a description of visual analysis procedures). For the purposes of this article, only the raw observations are provided. The complete and extensive graphs with the plotted mean and regression lines for each client are outlined in the original research (Whitfield, 1996). Hierarchical linear modeling (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1987, 1992) was used as the group comparison method for this study to discern between-subject differences. Thus, data from both the 8 treatment clients and the 8 comparison clients were used for the analyses. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to assess any differences in the overall intervention trends of each weekly measurement for the two groups. A similar hierarchical linear model was used to compare the overall trend of the Self-Control Rating Scale data for both groups. Based on the previously outlined research questions, four statistical hypotheses were tested at the .05 alpha levels (two-tailed tests). Regarding the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory scores, it was posited that the students receiving Anger Control Training would have higher Anger Control scale scores and lower Anger Expression scale scores relative to the control students’ self-reports for these two measures. It was also posited that the Anger Control Training students would have lower Staff Daily Report total problem scores relative to the scores of the comparison students. In addition, Anger Control Training students were expected to show greater self-control (lower Self-Control Rating Scale total problem scores) following Anger Control Training relative to the comparison students’ ratings. The complete hierarchical linear modeling procedures and statistical analyses are found in the original research (Whitfield, 1996). Some sample attrition for the Self-Control Rating Scale 6-month follow-up hierarchical linear modeling analysis occurred. All of the participants had data for the posttest (end of Anger Control Training) evaluation. However, only 9 students were in a school program (either day treatment or Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK 407 regular school) at the 6-month follow-up assessment. These included 5 Anger Control Training students and 4 comparison students. RESULTS Anger Control Results Figures 1 through 4 provide the raw weekly data for the 8 intervention clients for the Anger Control scale scores (see the original research for other descriptive and statistical analyses for each client data set for each weekly measure). Data for Client 1 (Figure 1) indicated a pattern of improvement (i.e., increasingly higher Anger Control scale scores during intervention). Data for Client 2 (Figure 1) indicated a pattern of very little change from baseline to intervention phase. The data for Client 3 (Figure 2) were highly variable for both the baseline and intervention phases. A pattern of deterioration was evident with this participant. Client 4’s data (Figure 2) indicated slight improvement from baseline to intervention phase. Observations for Client 5 (Figure 3) indicated a general pattern of improvement. Client 6’s data (Figure 3) reflected basically a pattern of little change from baseline to intervention phase. A pattern of improvement from baseline to intervention phase was present for Client 7’s data (Figure 4). The highly variable data for Client 8 (Figure 4) contributed to an ambiguous pattern generally. In summary, patterns of improvement (i.e., higher Anger Control scale scores) with this self-report data were evident with 4 Anger Control Training clients. One experimental student displayed a negative pattern of change from baseline to intervention phase and 3 students’ data patterns were ambiguous or unchanged. The hierarchical linear modeling analysis revealed that the difference between treatment status was a significant predictor for the trend for the Anger Control measure. With the introduction of Anger Control Training, the intervention trend was 0.57 units per week larger than the trend associated with control group status. This was a significant difference with t(15) = 2.44, p = .03. Thus, the Anger Control Training students significantly improved in their self-reports as to their use of anger control in a positive direction compared with the control students. There was, however, significant parameter variance associated with the intervention trend with the residual parameter 2 variance estimated at 0.15 and χ (14, N = 16) = 55.43, p = .00. This suggested that other variables besides Anger Control Training may have been (text continues on p. 412) 408 Figure 1: RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Weekly Anger Control scale scores for Clients 1 and 2. Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK Figure 2: Weekly Anger Control scale scores for Clients 3 and 4. 409 410 Figure 3: RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Weekly Anger Control scale scores for Clients 5 and 6. Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK Figure 4: Weekly Anger Control scale scores for Clients 7 and 8. 411 412 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE functioning to produce different client responses to treatment. The estimate of the proportion of explained variance was 28%. Anger Expression Results Figures 5 through 8 present the raw repeated measures data for the 8 participants for the Anger Expression scale scores. Overall, a pattern of improvement from baseline to intervention phase (i.e., decreasing Anger Expression scale scores) was evident for Client 1 (Figure 5). Due to the change in the levels of data, a steady pattern of improvement was also present for Client 2 (Figure 5). Client 3’s overall pattern (Figure 6) indicated a slight deterioration when assessing the impact of intervention. Client 4’s data (Figure 6) were much more variable in the intervention phase than in the baseline phase. Some extreme scores were evident. Some improvement was present with the change in the levels of data. The data were highly variable for both phases for Client 5 (Figure 7). However, a slight pattern of improvement was discerned in the overall pattern for this client. Overall, a pattern of deterioration was present for Client 6 (Figure 7). Client 7’s general pattern of data (Figure 8) was unchanged, although some instability in the data was observed in the baseline phase. The data pattern for Client 8 (Figure 8) was also relatively stable across both phases. In summary, 4 Anger Control Training students presented favorable response patterns (i.e., decreasing Anger Expression scale scores). Two clients displayed general patterns of deterioration. The other 2 participants’ data reflected unchanged patterns of data with these self-reports. Similar to the hierarchical linear modeling analysis for the Anger Control data, the difference between treatment status was a significant predictor for the intervention trend for the Anger Expression weekly time-series data. With the introduction of Anger Control Training, the intervention trend was 1.07 units per week less than the trend associated with the control group status. This was a significant difference with t(15) = –2.19, p = .04. Thus, Anger Control Training participants significantly improved (decreasing direction) their Anger Expression scale scores compared with the control students. As with the Anger Control scale scores, however, there was significant parameter variance associated with the intervention trend with the estimated 2 residual parameter variance estimated at 0.71 and χ (14, N = 16) = 70.81, p = .00. This suggested again that other variables may have contributed to the different client responses in addition to group status. The estimate of the proportion of explained variance was 26%. (text continues on p. 417) Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK Figure 5: Weekly Anger Expression scale scores for Clients 1 and 2. 413 414 Figure 6: RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Weekly Anger Expression scale scores for Clients 3 and 4. Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK Figure 7: Weekly Anger Expression scale scores for Clients 5 and 6. 415 416 Figure 8: RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Weekly Anger Expression scale scores for Clients 7 and 8. Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK 417 Staff Daily Report Results Figures 9 through 12 provide the raw weekly data for the 8 participants for the Staff Daily Report total problem scores. These scores represent the behavioral incident scores at the day treatment program. Observations for Client 1 (Figure 9) displayed an ambiguous pattern of change. Client 2’s data (Figure 9) indicated a highly variable pattern for the intervention phase as there were several extreme scores. The overriding impression was a lack of improvement for this client. Observations for Client 3 (Figure 10) indicated very little change overall from baseline to intervention phase. Client 4’s data (Figure 10) presented some discontinuity between phases. Some outliers affected the general pattern with some deterioration present. A stronger general pattern of deterioration was present with Client 5 (Figure 11). A general pattern of improvement was seen with the data for Client 6 (Figure 11). Client 7’s levels of data (Figure 12) were basically the same for both the baseline and intervention phases. Generally, however, a pattern of moderate improvement was present when assessing the trends of the data. Overall, a stronger pattern of improvement was present with the data for Client 8 (Figure 12). In summary, the visual analysis of the Staff Daily Report data indicated clear improvement (i.e., decreasing Staff Daily Report total problem scores or behavioral incidents) for 3 experimental clients. General patterns of deterioration in behavior were present for 3 Anger Control Training students. The other data results were negligible or ambiguous for the 2 other clients in the study. As was the case for the two State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (Anger Control and Anger Expression) measures, the data from the hierarchical linear modeling analysis confirmed much of the within-subject visual analysis for this dependent variable as well (see the original research for details, Whitfield, 1996). The hierarchical linear modeling analysis revealed that with the introduction of Anger Control Training, the intervention trend was 0.56 units per week less than the trend associated with the control group status for the Staff Daily Report total problem scores. This approached a significant difference with t(15) = –2.05, p = .055. Thus, the Anger Control Training students reduced their acting-out or aggressive episodes at the day treatment program at a nearly significant level compared with the control participants. There was, however, significant parameter variance associated with the intervention trend with the estimated residual parameter variance at 2 0.12 and χ (14, N = 16) = 25.72, p = .03. Thus, other variables may have been (text continues on p. 422) 418 Figure 9: RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Weekly Staff Daily Report total problem scores for Clients 1 and 2. Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK Figure 10: 419 Weekly Staff Daily Report total problem scores for Clients 3 and 4. 420 Figure 11: RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Weekly Staff Daily Report total problem scores for Clients 5 and 6. Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK Figure 12: 421 Weekly Staff Daily Report total problem scores for Clients 7 and 8. 422 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE influential in differentiating the two groups besides treatment status. The estimate of the proportion of explained variance was 40%. Self-Control Rating Scale Results Table 1 gives the pretest, posttest, and 6-month follow-up Self-Control Rating Scale total problem scores data for the Anger Control Training clients and the comparison clients. Pretest scores for both groups were essentially the same, however, there was a 7-point difference at the posttest measurement and a 57-point difference at the 6-month follow-up measurement with the Anger Control Training students having the lower group averages. Consult the original research (Whitfield, 1996) for detailed results of the hierarchical linear modeling analysis of the trend from pretest through 6-month follow-up for the Self-Control Rating Scale data. With the introduction of Anger Control Training, the trend was 1.49 units less per assessment interval than the trend associated with control group status. This was a significant difference with t(14) = –2.51, p = .03. Thus, the difference between treatment status influenced the self-control behaviors of the students with the Anger Control Training students showing greater improvement. Also, there was not significant variation in the trend, with the estimated residual parame2 ter variance at 0.06 and χ (13, N = 15) = 9.21, p = .50. This indicated a good fit of the model to this data with the estimate of the proportion of explained variance at 54%. DISCUSSION AND APPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE The combined visual and hierarchical linear modeling analyses suggest that a majority of the Anger Control Training students improved in their weekly self-reports of using better anger control and experiencing more positive management and expression of anger. Also, these analyses reveal that, generally, the Anger Control Training students presented fewer behavioral problems on a weekly basis at the day treatment program when compared with the students not receiving Anger Control Training. Barring any serious problems with the statistical model, the hierarchical linear modeling analysis also suggests that the Anger Control Training students fared much better with their school behavioral adjustment (improved teacher-rated self-control) following the Anger Control Training than did the comparison students. Treatment status in this case accounted for a fairly high proportion of explained variance at 54%. Thus, evidence is present that some treatment gains for Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK TABLE 1: 423 Means and Standard Deviations for the Self-Control Rating Scale Total Problem Scores at Pretest, Posttest, and 6-month Follow-Up Assessments for Each Group Anger Control Training Pretest Posttest Six months Control M SD M SD 163.63 145.00 111.00 22.48 19.84 34.07 163.88 152.00 168.00 45.56 24.84 17.68 NOTE: n = 8 for each group for the pretest and posttest assessments, n = 5 for the Anger Control Training group, and n = 4 for the control group for the 6-month follow-up assessment. some Anger Control Training students were maintained over several months and generalized to regular school. Other client developmental and environmental variables influence treatment outcomes with this type of problem and clientele, however. Treatment status explained relatively modest proportions of variances for the two State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory scales (28% and 26%) and a somewhat higher proportion at 40% for the Staff Daily Report measure. The analyses for the weekly time-series data suggest that other variables may have affected the variation with the clients’ responses. With this type of limited sample, many moderating and mediating variables (e.g., amenability to treatment, drug and alcohol use, and family characteristics) could not be controlled for, either through the design or statistically. A more discriminating and fine-grained hierarchical linear modeling analysis would be possible with larger samples and with additional hierarchical ordering of levels of analysis (e.g., assessing several school programs across two or more school systems). This study is one answer to the calls in the literature for more outcome research on specific, theoretically based interventions linked to educational goals and interests. These results suggest that a focused, cognitivebehavioral approach coupled with a general, relationship-oriented counseling is more effective in improving anger control and general self-control than a nonspecific, relationship-oriented counseling approach alone. Thus, evidence is present that a cognitive-behavioral approach is one method of effectively addressing and reducing the problems associated with school violence. This is a qualified appraisal, however, as the regular counseling component was not operationalized for this study. 424 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Relatively rudimentary research designs (e.g., survey and descriptive designs) and limited statistical analyses have dominated the professional literature of social work (Glisson, 1995) and school social work in particular (Bailey-Dempsey, 1997; Sabatino et al., 1991). This study attempts to move beyond these limited research efforts. Several researchers (e.g., Allen-Meares, 1988; Bloom et al., 1995; Nugent, 1987) have advocated time-series, multiassessment, and multimethod research designs for social work investigations, and the use of hierarchical linear modeling is an effective analytic strategy in exploiting the strengths and compensating for some of the problems associated with integrated evaluation approaches. The external validity of this study, however, is limited due to a relatively circumscribed sample. Research as to treatment outcomes involving other samples of youths in similar school social work settings is greatly needed. Efforts need to be directed toward finding out what works best with these conduct-disordered youths in redirecting their negative patterns of behavior in school and in the community. The psychological, social, and physical costs to these individuals, the general misery engendered by antisocial behavior, and the monetary costs to society are too great to ignore research in this area. REFERENCES Achenbach, T. M. (1991a). Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M. (1991b). Manual for the teacher’s report form and 1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Alexander, R., Jr., & Curtis, C. M. (1995). A critical review of strategies to reduce school violence. Social Work in Education, 17, 73-82. Allen-Meares, P. (1988). Interrupted time series design and the evaluation of school practice. In J. G. McCullagh & P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), Conducting research: A handbook for school social workers (pp. 103-115). Des Moines: Iowa State Department of Education. Allen-Meares, P., Washington, R. O., & Welsh, B. L. (1996). Social work services in schools (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Astor, R. V., Behre, W. J., Fravil, K. A., & Wallace, J. M. (1997). Perceptions of school violence as a problem and reports of violent events: A national survey of school social workers. Social Work, 42, 55-68. Bailey-Dempsey, C. (Ed.). (1997, April). NASW school social work section practice effectiveness series (Practice Effectiveness Paper No. 1). Washington, DC: NASW School Social Work Section. Biskin, B. H. (1992). Review of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, research edition. In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp. 868869). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Bloom, M., Fischer, J., & Orme, J. G. (1995). Evaluating practice: Guidelines for the accountable professional (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Whitfield / VALIDATING SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK 425 Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 147-158. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. (1987). Parent observation and report of child symptoms. Behavioral Assessment, 9, 97-109. Comer, R. (1985). Day treatment of adolescents: An alternative to institutionalization. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 74-76. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101. Dangel, R. F., Deschner, J. P., & Rasp, R. R. (1989). Anger control training for adolescents in residential treatment. Behavior Modification, 13, 447-458. Durlak, J. A., Fuhrman, T., & Lampman, C. (1991). Effectiveness of cognitive-behavior therapy for maladapting children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 204-214. Epstein, N., & Maragos, N. (1983). Treating delinquent-prone adolescents and pre-adolescents. Social Work, 28, 66-68. Farrington, D. P., Loeber, R., & Van Kammen, W. B. (1990). Long term criminal outcomes of hyperactivity-impulsivity-attention deficit and conduct problems in childhood. In L. N. Robins & M. Rutter (Eds.), Straight and devious pathways from childhood to adulthood (pp. 6281). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Feindler, E. L. (1979). Cognitive and behavioral approaches to anger control training in explosive adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, Morgantown. Feindler, E. L. (1991). Cognitive strategies in anger control interventions for children and adolescents. In P. C. Kendall (Ed.), Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures (pp. 66-97). New York: Guilford. Feindler, E. L., & Ecton, R. B. (1986). Adolescent anger control: Cognitive-behavioral techniques. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Feindler, E. L., Marriott, S. A., & Iwata, M. (1984). Group anger control training for junior high school delinquents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 299-311. Finch, A. J., Jr., Nelson, W. M., III, & Moss, J. H. (1993). Childhood aggression: Cognitivebehavioral therapy, strategies, and interventions. In A. J. Finch, Jr., W. M. Nelson III, & E. S. Ott (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral procedures with children and adolescents: A practical guide (pp. 148-205). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Franklin, C. (1992). Alternative school programs for at-risk youths. Social Work in Education, 14, 239-251. French, J. L., Lamke, T. A., & Nelson, M. J. (1973). Examiner’s manual for the Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability. Chicago: Riverside Publishing. Glick, B., & Goldstein, A. P. (1987). Aggression replacement training. Journal of Counseling and Development, 65, 356-362. Glisson, C. (1994). The effect of services coordination teams on outcomes for children in state custody. Administration in Social Work, 18(4), 1-23. Glisson, C. (1995). The state of the art of social work research: Implications for mental health. Research on Social Work Practice, 5, 205-222. Hains, A. A. (1989). An anger control intervention with aggressive delinquent youths. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 4, 213-230. Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Academic underachievement, attention deficits, and aggression: Comorbidity and implications for intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 893-903. 426 RESEARCH ON SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE Kazdin, A. E. (1995). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kendall, P. C. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral therapies with youth: Guiding theory, current status, and emerging developments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 235-247. Kendall, P. C., & Wilcox, L. E. (1979). Self-control in children: Development of a rating scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 1020-1029. LeCroy, C. W., & Flynn, J. P. (1982). Journal reports of school social work practice and research. In R. T. Constable & J. P. Flynn (Eds.), School social work: Practice and research perspectives (pp. 29-37). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Loeber, R. (1991). Antisocial behavior: More enduring than changeable? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 393-397. McMahon, R. J. (1994). Diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of externalizing problems in children: The role of longitudinal data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 901917. Michals, A. P., Cournoyer, D. E., & Pinner, E. L. (1979). School social work and educational goals. Social Work, 24, 138-141. Nugent, W. R. (1987). Information gain through integrated research approaches. Social Service Review, 61, 337-364. Pellegrini, D. S., Galinski, C. L., Hart, K. J., & Kendall, P. C. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral assessment of children: A review of measures and methods. In A. J. Finch, Jr., W. M. Nelson III, & E. S. Ott (Eds.), Cognitive-behavioral procedures with children and adolescents: A practical guide (pp. 90-147). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Sabatino, C. A., Timberlake, E. M., & Hooper, S. N. (1991). Research in school social work: Charting the future. In R. Constable, J. P. Flynn, & S. McDonald (Eds.), School social work: Practice and research perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 403-418). Chicago: Lyceum Books. Spielberger, C. D. (1991). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Whitfield, G. W. (1996). An evaluation of anger control training with male adolescents in a day treatment program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Ziglar, E., Taussig, C., & Black, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention: A promising preventative for juvenile delinquency. American Psychologist, 47, 997-1006.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Assignment completed

Running Head: SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK

Validating School Social Work
Student Name
Course Title and Number
Professor Name
Date of Submission

1

SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK

2
Validating School Social Work

The past few decades’ accountabilities in all economic sector, education reforms and
issues revolving around budget constraints have been a major topic. However, school social
work has been neglected and it is crucial that social workers and policymakers strive at
publicizing school social works to reduce school violence (Whitfield, 1999). In most cases,
school violence will often involve various behavioral characteristics among students. When
students become disrespectful, cursing and making threats to teachers, this may result in
violence. In addition, school violence could result from criminal behaviors such as vandalism as
it results in a deficiency in self-control and anger management. Further, student may refrain from
using such skills and opt to become violent. The article by Whitfield explores the effectiveness
of cognitive-behavioral interventions as an effort to reduce school violence. The article identifies
a new model where an analysis of issues associated with ...


Anonymous
Great! Studypool always delivers quality work.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags