A standards-based inventory of foundation competencies in social work with groups: An empirical test in Scotland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This paper describes the application and testing in Scotland of a measure of foundation competencies in groupwork, derived from standards for social work practice with groups. Developed by the International Association for the Advancement of Social Work with Groups (IASWG), the IASWG Standards have not been widely used outside of Canada or the U.S.A. A 70-item inventory based on the Standards was developed to measure two domains, how important each item is for successful groupwork, and how confident the respondent is about demonstrating the skill in practice. The first study, with a mostly North American sample, reported excellent reliability and good validity. This paper reports new findings on the reliability and validity of the inventory from data collected from students and practitioners across Scotland (N = 161), and includes qualitative impressions from participants. The results indicated excellent internal consistency for both the importance and confidence subscales, with low standard errors of measurement. An item analysis revealed high respondent ratings, supporting content validity. Significant correlations between the subscales and validators supported the measure’s concurrent, construct-convergent, and criterion known-groups validity. The findings suggest the cross-national applicability of the inventory (and the Standards represented by the inventory), while also illuminating areas for refinement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".