Cognitive and Affective Elements of Practice Confidence in Social Work Students and Practitioners
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Confidence has been identified as both a positive outcome of social work education and as a factor which in excess (defined as overconfidence) can lead to diagnostic error. This study sought to better understand the nature of professional confidence and investigate factors that might be associated with confidence in performance in a clinical interview among social work students and experienced social work practitioners. In this study, thirty-seven final-year Masters of Social Work (MSW) students and thirty-four experienced social workers who participated in two simulated interviews rated their confidence in their performance in the interviews and discussed their subjective views of the interview. Factors associated with confidence fell into three themes: emotional self-regulation; the acquisition and application of knowledge; and relational skills which are the intersection of knowledge and emotional regulation. Emotional regulation appears as a primary factor that differentiates high and low confidence as it affects participants’ perceived ability to continue to draw upon knowledge and integrate client reactions into their assessment. Social work education that focuses on self-awareness and the regulation of emotional responses may contribute to increased abilities to manage high-anxiety clinical experiences.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it