{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025233644859813085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001869158878504673, 'mean_word_length': 5.7784810126582276, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Why Do MSW Students Evaluate Practice the Way They Do?

Abstract Practice evaluation strategies range in style from the formal-analytic tools of single-subject designs, software applications such as Singwin, rapid assessment instruments, case notes, and evidence-based practice algorithms, to the everyday informal-interactive tools of clinical supervision, consultation with colleagues, use of client statements, and experience. Studies have suggested that social work students, who are still in training and under clinical supervision, prefer and use most often informal-interactive tools to evaluate practice effectiveness. Despite three decades of promulgating formal-analytic tools in social work education, researchers have yet to develop a theoretical framework to help clinical supervisors interpret the informal-interactive tool preference among social work students. Drawing on advances in the cognitive sciences, the purpose of this study is to use a dual-process theory to interpret the informal-interactive tool preference among 87 second-year MSW students.