Disability Competency in Social Work Education: Tools for Practice Teaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social work education has been slow to integrate the intersectionality of disability, even though the prevalence of social work practice with disabled persons is increasing. The profession has historically prescribed to a medical model of disability and struggles with how best to support service users in the disability community. Social workers’ attitudes toward disabled persons is an essential component to the rapport and working relationship with persons with disabilities. As most social work graduates will encounter persons with disabilities in their practice, training and field education must incorporate assessment tools to assist in student evaluations with this population. Evidence suggests that field instructors need additional assessment tools for evaluating students’ preparedness for the field (Vinton & Wilke, 2011). This paper has three objectives: 1) to review disability competence within the social work profession in the North American context, 2) to compare the validity, practicality, and theoretical frameworks of two disability attitudinal scales as potential assessment tools for student evaluations, and 3) to offer recommendations for the implication of social work education and practice.
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".