Communicating Research Evidence within the Therapeutic Space: A Competency Framework for Graduate Social Work Education
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
Although social work, as a profession, has increasingly emphasized the importance of evidence-based practice (EBP), social work students do not consistently learn to infuse EBP as a process in their daily practice, contributing to low EBP uptake in the field. Communicating evidence to clients is an ethical imperative for informed consent and a precondition for shared decision-making; however, students are not adequately trained to talk to clients about research evidence as part of intervention planning and contracting. This article describes the development of a competency framework for communicating research evidence within the therapeutic relationship, in support of a teaching and learning innovation aimed at cultivating holistic competence in Master of Social Work students as they learn about and perform EBP. The competency framework draws on models and practices from social work, medicine, nursing, psychology, and related disciplines. The development of competencies in the communicative process within EBP is part of an evolving pedagogical approach that may serve to enhance EBP education in social work.
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 | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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