{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025336500395882817, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003167062549485352, 'mean_word_length': 4.798165137614679, '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}}
Evidence-Based Practice or Evidence-Guided Practice: A Rose by Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet [Invited Response to Gitterman & Knight's “Evidence-Guided Practice”]

Gitterman and Knight (2013) expand upon the original model of evidence-based practice (EBP) by proposing an approach they label evidence-guided practice (EGP). They justify this by highlighting some supposed limitations of the original EBP model and by presenting some additional features to amend EBP into EGP. I attempt to show that the limitations they say characterize EBP are not actually a part of the real EBP model and are based upon either a misreading of the EBP literature, or by overlooking some of the features of EBP. I also try to demonstrate that most of the add-on elements to EBP they propose to label EGB are actually already present in the original model of EBP. One of their add-ons, an increased reliance upon formal theory as evidence, in addition to empirical research, seems to me a retrograde step and will perpetuate the harmful influence of some aspects of theory in social work practice. However, I judge their EGP model to be an improvement upon current social work practice, which largely tends to ignore empirical research findings to assist in decision making.