{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02333804809052334, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.902439024390244, '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}}
Practice Evaluation Strategies Among Social Workers: Why an Evidence-Informed Dual-Process Theory Still Matters

ABSTRACT Practice evaluation strategies range in style from the formal-analytic tools of single-subject designs, rapid assessment instruments, algorithmic steps in evidence-informed practice, and computer software applications, to the informal-interactive tools of clinical supervision, consultation with colleagues, use of client feedback, and clinical experience. The purpose of this article is to provide practice researchers in social work with an evidence-informed theory that is capable of explaining both how and why social workers use practice evaluation strategies to self-monitor the effectiveness of their interventions in terms of client change. The author delineates the theoretical contours and consequences of what is called dual-process theory. Drawing on evidence-informed advances in the cognitive and social neurosciences, the author identifies among everyday social workers a theoretically stable, informal-interactive tool preference that is a cognitively necessary, sufficient, and stand-alone preference that requires neither the supplementation nor balance of formal-analytic tools. The author’s delineation of dual-process theory represents a theoretical contribution in the century-old attempt to understand how and why social workers evaluate their practice the way they do.