Attitudes, Self-Efficacy, and Feasibility: Exploring Social Work Students’ Perceptions of Evidence-Based Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The literature on evidence-based practice (EBP) in social work indicates a complex relationship between practitioners' attitudes, views on feasibility, and self-efficacy related to EBP implementation. METHOD: Qualitative interviews and a self-report questionnaire were completed with 8 social work students. A conceptual framework of their perceptions was developed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported mixed EBP attitudes, as both a practice "ideal", but also oppressive, rigid, and dehumanizing. Low confidence regarding research skills affected participants' self-efficacy. Resource constraints impacted feasibility through organizational culture and available practice-relevant research. DISCUSSION: EBP misconceptions critically impacted educational practices, organizational culture, and practitioners' attitudes. Comprehensive education mindful of professional identity may address misconceptions and enhance self-efficacy. EBP-enabling organizational change and practice-relevant research may alleviate resource constraints. CONCLUSION: Research should expand on how EBP attitudes and social work identity intersect, the impact of research skills on self-efficacy, and EBP barriers and facilitators in education and organizations.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".