157Families in society the Journal of contemporary social.docx

157
Families in society: the Journal of contemporary social services
©2012 alliance for children and Families
issn: Print 1044-3894; electronic 1945-1350
2012, 93(3), 157–164
Doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.4220
http://www.familiesinsociety.org/showabstract.asp?docid=4220
Practitioner Perspectives of Evidence-Based Practice
tracy c. Wharton & Kathleen a. Bolland
social work practitioners decide when and how to use evidence
in their practice. there remains, however, little evidence
to date about social workers’ perspectives about and
implementation of evidence-based practice (eBP). this survey of
a
national sample of social workers adds to our knowledge about
how social workers locate information, how they deter-
mine the usefulness of the information, what barriers exist for
the use of an eBP process, and whether their workplaces
are oriented toward eBP. Findings suggest that barriers may be
more complex than previously reported, but that social
workers find evidence, read the professional literature, and
consult with peers and mentors, often despite poor workplace

support. suggestions for dissemination of information are made,
and a model of evidence use in practice is proposed.
imPliCations For PraCtiCe
• Practitioners generally first consider the proximal
similarity of information and the trustworthiness of the
source before directly translating research into their
clinical practice, thus demonstrating the importance of
clarity and transparency.
social work practitioners determine when and how to use
evidence in their practice; so it is practitio-ners who determine
whether a new intervention
becomes embedded in practice, no matter how strong
the evidence base. Certainly policy and other external
pressures may influence the choices social workers
make, but for interventions to remain viable options,
the social workers and their clients must deem them
useful and feasible. although top-down pressure may
be embedded in the workplace, “individual acceptance
of an innovation is proposed to rely on both organi-
zational and individual factors” (aarons & sawitzky,
2006, p. 62).
The national institutes of health (nih) has identi-
fied critical goals related to understanding “the nature
and impact of clinical practice dissemination and im-
plementation of social work services and interventions
with proven effectiveness” (nih, 2007). additionally, the
educational Policy and accreditation standards of the

Council on social Work education (CsWe, 2008) make
it clear that social work practitioners are expected to be
evidence-based practitioners. two competency state-
ments highlight this emphasis:
2.1.3: social workers distinguish, appraise, and
integrate multiple sources of knowledge, including
research based knowledge and practice wisdom.
2.1.6: social workers use practice experience
to inform research, employ evidence-based
interventions, evaluate their own practice, and use
research findings to improve practice, policy, and
social service delivery. (Council on social Work
education, 2008)
although there is a substantial body of work debating
relative merits of evidence-based practice (ebP) and pro-
posing models of practice and implementation, there is a
surprising gap in direct feedback from the front lines of
service—the “swampy lowlands of practice” (Crawford,
brown, anthony, & hicks, 2002, p. 289). There is little
clarity about what is considered as evidence by social
work practitioners, how evidence is being accessed and
applied, and what the barriers are to implementation of
research-supported best practices (bellamy, bledsoe, &
traube, 2006). Proctor (2007) pointed out that, histori-
cally, research findings have not been used much in the
delivery of services, and that social work education, at
least through 2006, has been inadequate to prepare prac-
titioners to implement an ebP process in clinical settings.
regardless, there has been growing pressure on agencies
and practitioners to use empirically supported treatments
and to practice in an “evidence-based way,” with a num-
ber of state legislatures moving toward requiring a cer-

tain level of evidence for all mental health interventions
(glisson & schoenwald, 2005; rapp, goscha, & Carlson,
2010; sheehan, Walrath, & holden, 2007).
Defining EBP in Practice
although in its infancy, there is a growing body of re-
search on practitioners’ perspectives and practices about
ebP (aarons & sawitzky, 2006; Mullen, bledsoe, & bel-
lamy, 2008; Manuel, Mullen, fang, bellamy, & bledsoe,
2009; Mullen & bacon, 2004; olsson, 2007; Proctor, 2007;
regehr, stern, & shlonsky, 2007). although some have ad-
vocated for implementing practices with a strong evidence
base (e.g., see glisson & schoenwald, 2005; sheehan et al.,
2007), currently the call is for adoption of ebP as a process.
grounded in the sackett definition: “The conscientious,
explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in mak-
ing decisions about the care of individual patients…inte-
grating individual clinical expertise with the best avail-
http://www.familiesinsociety.org/ShowAbstract.asp?docid=4220
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1606%2F1044-
3894.4220&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-05-03
Families in society | Volume 93, no. 3
158
able external clinical evidence from systematic research”
(sackett, rosenberg, gray, haynes, & richardson, 1996,
p. 71), ebP is being defined in social work as “a decision-
making process integrating best research evidence, practi-
tioner expertise, and client or community characteristics,
values, and preferences in a manner compatible with the
organizational systems and context in which care delivery

occurs” (Manuel et al., 2009, p. 614) and as “a process of
lifelong learning that involves continually posing specific
questions of direct practical importance to clients, search-
ing objectively and efficiently for the current best evidence
relative to each question, and taking appropriate action
guided by evidence” (gibbs, 2003, p. 6). Proctor (2007) de-
scribed the process approach required for implementing
specific interventions:
evidence must be accessed, and potential ebPs
need to be identified; the utility and advantages of
ebPs must be accepted, and processes of critical
thinking about evidence must be adopted; practices
deemed most effective and appropriate need to be
implemented with fidelity; and the effectiveness of the
practices must be evaluated. (p. 584)
such definitions incorporate the language used by prac-
titioners and touch on issues identified in this study as
critical to consider, such as context, values, preferences,
and efficiency. our study explored the definitions held
by participants, in light of descriptions of ongoing efforts
to engage practitioners in a process-oriented ebP model:
regehr et al. (2007) eloquently noted that a “major chal-
lenge includes continued education efforts to reconcile the
(process-based) ebP model…with the complexity of popu-
lations and issues dealt with by social work practitioners
and agencies” (p. 415; emphasis added).
based on an extensive review of english-language lit-
erature and a preliminary pilot study of mental health
practitioners, this internet-based survey yielded both
quantitative and qualitative data. The purpose was to in-
crease knowledge about definitions of ebP currently used
in social work practice settings, exploring the barriers and
benefits to the uptake of an ebP practice model, social

workers’ general feelings toward ebP, and the realities of
enactment in practice.
a number of studies merit particular note. one (Manuel
et al., 2009) investigated the barriers and facilitators to ebP
enactment, comparing perceptions of ebP before and af-
ter a training intervention at three sites. six studies used
surveys with large samples. one investigated attitudes and
beliefs about treatment manuals (addis & Krasnow, 2000);
one investigated feelings about training and research skills
(booth, booth, & falzon, 2003); one looked at views about
practice guidelines (gerdes, edmonds, haslam, & Mc-
Cartney, 1996); one examined evaluation of practice (Mul-
len & bacon, 2004); one explored the relationships among
mental health providers’ opinions about organizational
culture and climate and ebP (aarons & sawitzky, 2006);
and one study, conducted in the united Kingdom, inves-
tigated the attitudes, skill levels, and professional devel-
opment opportunities related to research use in practice
(sheldon & Chilvers, 2002). in another study, researchers
conducted focus groups to explore attitudes and imple-
mentation challenges toward ebPs in two community
mental health centers (nelson, steele, & Mize, 2007), and
in a similar study, researchers explored the perspectives of
agency directors on the same topic (Proctor et al., 2007).
a small mixed-method longitudinal study of an intensive
program to embed a new cultural perspective in a group of
community mental health practitioners followed 14 social
workers at various levels of training in a single community
mental health outpatient clinic for 2 years (gioia & dzi-
adosz, 2008).
all the studies noted poor workplace support, specifi-
cally for development of skills and encouragement of ap-
plication of research. in all the studies, time, concerns

about professional autonomy, power or control issues, and
the sometimes questionable applicability of research find-
ings to particular clients were noted as obstacles to use of
research. The studies agreed, in general, that while practi-
tioners may feel positively about the idea of ebP, there are
varying degrees of workplace support for them to imple-
ment such models; sheehan et al., (2007) found that 62% of
the respondents in their study had no agency requirements
to provide ebP. additionally, these studies agreed that is-
sues such as population diversity and productivity require-
ments may affect attitudes, and that rather than support-
ing innovation, clinical supervision is usually focused on
risk-management and administrative issues. all studies
supported further research about practitioners’ behaviors
and feelings about ebP.
Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to increase knowledge about
the current state of ebP in real-life social work practice
settings. in the beginning of the survey, we did not define
ebP for respondents, choosing instead to explore attitudes
and beliefs about how it was being conceptualized and
operationalized before providing a definition for respon-
dents to use when responding to later survey questions.
The definition we provided halfway through the survey
was: “evidence-based practice is a process of including the
best available research evidence alongside practice wisdom
to make clinical decisions, and evaluating the outcomes of
your decisions.”
This exploratory study was framed by the four following
research questions:
1. What is being considered as evidence by social work
practitioners and how are they defining effective prac-
tice in real-life settings?

2. What are the barriers that practitioners encounter in
Wharton & Bolland | Practitioner Perspectives of Evidence-
Based Practice
159
accessing research evidence, and is there a difference
between actual and perceived barriers?
3. is the social work practice environment oriented
toward evidence-based practice?
4. What is the attitude of practitioners toward the con-
cept of implementing an ebP model?
Sampling and Recruitment
This study focused on master’s-level social workers prac-
ticing in the united states. unfortunately, it is impossible
to get a list of names and contact information or even the
number of master’s-level social workers practicing in this
country. one report, published by the national associa-
tion of social Workers (nasW) Center for Workforce de-
velopment, noted that there may be as many as 840,000
practitioners, depending on the definition being used
(nasW, 2006). a research service with the u.s. Postal
service (usPs) has more than 600,000 individuals self-
identified as social workers in the united states (Collins,
personal communication, 2009). to reach a broad sample,
we used three recruitment methods: direct email, social
networking site invitations, and direct mail. a list of email
addresses was obtained from nasW which contained

5,556 individuals having a master of social work (MsW)
degree in the “education” category. of these, 1,666 had
valid email addresses and had not opted out of surveys
with survey Monkey. an initial email included informa-
tion and a hyperlink; a reminder email was sent in the next
month, and an email containing a thank-you for partici-
pation and a reminder of the hyperlink was sent approxi-
mately one month later. an invitation to participate in this
research was posted on several social networking sites (e.g.,
facebook, linkedin). Where possible, the text used in the
email invitations was used; where a simple, short post was
required, a two-line invitation stating “Please help with re-
search about social work practice. www.ebPsurvey.com”
was posted. Posts were made on the same time schedule as
the email invitations (i.e., whenever a post was sent to the
email list, a social network post was made).
a mailing list was purchased from usPs, and postcards
were created for a mailing using the usPs Click2Mail ser-
vice. a usPs staff researcher pulled 1,000 random entries
of people who self-identified as social workers. The list was
scanned by that researcher to ensure that there were no du-
plicates, and mailing addresses were provided. The usPs
staff researcher indicated that her search returned indi-
viduals identified as working in a variety of types of social
work practice fields (e.g., school, medical, child, gerontol-
ogy), as well as a geographically diverse sample. The search
universe was reported as approximately 600,000 people.
one thousand records were purchased and uploaded di-
rectly to the postcard service, where 4 × 6 postcards were
printed and mailed. of these, 144 were returned as unde-
liverable; we presume the remaining 856 were delivered.
a total of 228 individuals logged on to take the survey.
of these, 69 were excluded as a result of nationality other
than united states or because it was not clear that they had

earned an MsW, leaving a total of 159.
The Survey
The survey consisted of 32 closed-response questions and
four open-ended questions. There were comment fields af-
ter each question, and a comment field at the end of the
survey. respondents could skip questions or stop and
return later to complete the survey. it was posted online
using survey Monkey after institutional review board ap-
Table 1. Descriptive Information of Sample (N = 159)
Characteristics M range
age 58 28–77
Year of MsW 1982 1957–2009
Caseload size 27 1–90
n %
gender
female 124 78
Male 29 18
no response 6 4
race/ethnicity
White 137 86
non-White (all categories) 17 11
no response 5 3

Practice setting
Private practice 77 48
nonprofit 25 16
government/public 19 12
Medical/palliative 13 8
education (all types combined) 11 7
other 5 3
Works with more than one type of
population
109 69
has a workplace policy about ebP 22 14
regularly reads journal articles 115 72
regularly consults with peers 114 72
regularly consults with
supervisors/experts
111 70
regularly gets practice information
from the internet
110 69

subscribes to a professional mailing
or e-list
77 48
uses professional org. websites to
find practice info
71 45
uses popular search engines to find
practice info
65 41
uses WebMd to find practice info 54 34
www.EBPsurvey.com
160
proval was obtained. during survey development, consul-
tation was sought from several social work practitioners
to ensure that jargon was kept to a minimum and that
language use was appropriate. after a pilot test (n = 89),
several changes were made to streamline and shorten the
survey as much as possible.
findings
Who Responded to the Survey?

The convenience sample (n = 159) consisted of experienced,
licensed social workers from across the united states, with
a mean age of 58 years, which is somewhat older than
respondents in other available studies (Whitaker & ar-
rington, 2008). They tended to have obtained their MsW
degrees in the early 1980s. They were more likely than not
to be female and White. They generally had access to the
internet at home and work, and were highly likely to be
subscribed to electronic discussion groups or organiza-
tional email lists. in general, this group worked in one or
two settings, with nearly half working in a private practice
setting at least part of the time. They worked with more
than two types of client population groups and had a mean
caseload size of 27, ranging from an average of 26 in private
practice to 53 in public settings. see table 1 for a summary
of descriptive information.
How Do Social Workers Make Practice-Related
Decisions and How Do They Feel About EBP?
Consistent with previous findings (nelson et al., 2007),
respondents to this survey were more likely to consult
with peers or mentors than to seek relevant research
before making practice decisions. They relied on their
training and experience and they were influenced heav-
ily by clinical observation and common sense, being
more likely to rely on a comparative, intuitive approach
to thinking about research than on an empirical evalu-
ation of applicability. Practice-based evidence appeared
to guide most of their practice decisions, because they
believed that research is often produced outside of real-
life settings.
ebP appeared to be perceived as more technical (i.e.,
the use and application of specific practices) than pro-
cedural—a finding that is consistent with previous re-
search indicating that perceptions of ebP may be a bar-

rier to uptake (Manuel et al., 2009; regehr et al., 2007).
although practitioners may be making decisions based
on subjective criteria, they are not opposed to a procedur-
al approach to ebP, where several types of information
(such as practice wisdom, client preference, and contex-
tual issues) are considered alongside empirical evidence.
respondents indicated that they had skills and access
to literature, as well as an inclination to stay current on
available research, despite, as one respondent put it, “how
boring it is” to read.
Where Do Social Workers Get Evidence
for Practice?
nearly 70% of respondents (111 of 159) indicated that
they consult with supervisors or experts; 114 respondents
indicated that they regularly consult with peers, and 104
of these did so frequently. Consulting with peers, men-
tors, supervisors, or experts was a distinctly preferred op-
tion for decision making in practice, over other choices
such as accessing journal articles or research databases,
although searching the internet using popular search en-
gines, WebMd, or professional organizational informa-
tion pages was common.
few people (n = 13) indicated that accessing a database
would be their first or second choice for getting informa-
tion about treatment decision making, although a sub-
stantial number of people (n = 94) indicated that they had
accessed one, with only 20 people indicating that they
never had. a majority of the respondents (n = 77) were
subscribed to an organizational mailing or e-list, and
more than two thirds of the sample (n = 110) indicated
that they conducted internet searches regularly for prac-
tice-related information. The most popular places for ob-
taining information seemed to be portals of professional
organizations, such as the nasW, american evaluation

association, and american Psychological association
(n = 71), with standard, popular search engines such as
google, Yahoo, or university-based search engines (n =
65), and WebMd (n = 54) also quite popular.
How Do Social Workers Determine the Utility of
Evidence and the Validity of Expertise?
respondents to this survey reported that they make these
determinations by applying practice wisdom; consider-
ing the context in which they work; comparing client
details to those found in research; and consulting with
peers, mentors, and experts. as consulting with experts
appears to be a deeply embedded behavior for the practi-
tioners in this survey, the perception of what constitutes
an expert is important. respondents to the survey ques-
tion “What do you think makes someone an expert?”
were definitive in their assertion that practice experience,
preferably over an extended period of time, is critical. in
addition, an ability to understand and conduct research,
backed up with appropriate training and credentials, was
noted as an important quality.
Are Workplaces Oriented Toward EBP?
although many respondents to this survey were private
practitioners, their practice environment is as important
as the environment of agency-based practitioners: The im-
pact of a variety of systems, such as insurance and billing
requirements, client needs or preferences, and political
or professional pressure may be constantly in play. over-
whelmingly, respondents indicated they had internet ac-
cess at work, as well as access to research databases and
Based Practice

161
journal articles. They generally consulted with supervisors
or experts at least monthly, with a few indicating that they
did not engage in this behavior. They endorsed behaviors
related to continuing education. only 22 people indicated
that their workplace had a policy related to ebP. although
this sample is heavily weighted toward private practice,
this same trend can be seen in respondents from nonprofit
and government/public settings; there may be differences
in policy implementation across types of practice fields,
although the small sample size in this study prevented
deeper investigation of this point. These data suggest that
social workers in private practice are less likely than oth-
ers to be asked to justify treatment choices or to be asked
specifically about evidence-based or research-informed
practice, although this is not universally true. The heavy
bias toward private practice in this sample precluded solid
examination of this area.
in general, this group of people regularly accessed super-
visors or experts, although a significant segment of private
practitioners indicated that they received no formal super-
vision, but consulted with experts or mentors as needed.
They participated in continuing education opportunities
and attended conferences at least annually, tended to have
no imposed policies related to ebP, were not frequently
asked about ebP concepts, and were not often asked to jus-
tify their treatment choices. Their work environments ap-
peared to offer access to research information and the time
to consume it, although there was little encouragement to
use research findings.
Barriers to Uptake
There appeared to be some difference between barriers per-

ceived to be problematic for the profession as a whole and
barriers actually experienced by the people who responded
to the questions (see table 2). although lack of time to ac-
cess literature was endorsed by respondents as a barrier to
ebP in the profession as a whole, when asked specifically
about the frequencies of those behaviors, the majority of
this sample indicated that they did have time in their work
schedule to access and read research. More than half of the
respondents indicated that they read journal articles and
other professionally oriented material at least monthly. The
issue here may be more closely related to time management
than to the simple provision of time. family commitments
was also both endorsed and perceived as a barrier to con-
suming research, which may be related to the issue of time
management, because family responsibilities may burden
the ability to manage time for searching and reading.
access and cost were recognized as important barriers,
although not substantially so. respondents’ reports that
they regularly read research literature and attend con-
tinuing education and conferences seem to indicate that
these are not substantial barriers. Perhaps there are unseen
trade-offs; while some access is clear, given less cost or in-
creased opportunity, greater engagement might occur. it
seems logical that if people endorse cost and lack of access
as barriers, but demonstrate that they engage in associated
behaviors anyway, there must be some decision points sur-
rounding trade-offs regarding accessing information.
both lack of knowledge and overwhelmingness (i.e., re-
search is overwhelming to read) were perceived to be more
significant barriers to the profession as a whole than to the
individuals who responded to the question, although most
people did not find them to be important issues. These find-
ings are supported by narrative data, which indicate that

there is a general feeling that social workers have the skills
to consume research and do not find it overwhelming, al-
though they may find it “boring” or not relevant to their
clinical practice. experience with research, or the ability
to understand and interpret it, though, were identified as
qualities in an expert; so it seems likely that although most
respondents felt sufficiently able to engage with research on
their own, they felt that there were people who could do it
better than they. given that consulting with others is an
embedded practice, relative ability to access and consume
research information might be less important. if practitio-
ners had regular access to experts, they might not need to
have the expertise to understand complicated data, since
there would be support available to help it make sense.
Implications for Social Work Practice
The William t. grant foundation (2010) identified sever-
al different types of evidence use, based on Weiss, nutley,
and davies’s definitions of evidence. Instrumental use de-
scribes information used directly in practice; conceptual
use describes instances where understanding is changed
by exposure to information; and imposed use describes
instances where use of information is mandated by
Table 2. Barriers Toward Utility of
Evidence-Based Practice
Problem for
profession
Problem
personally
barriers M (SD) M (SD)
significant

difference
time 1.54 (0.73) 1.76 (0.93) .004**
access 2.59 (1.07) 2.73 (1.03) .152
Cost 2.18 (0.99) 2.54 (1.16) <.001**
skills/lack of
knowledge to
interpret
2.63 (0.99) 3.21 (0.88) <.001**
research is
overwhelming
2.45 (0.97) 3.04 (0.96) <.001**
family
commitments
2.05 (0.88) 2.23 (0.99) .045*
lack of workplace
support
2.23 (1.17) 2.84 (1.22) <.001**
Note. scale: 1 = very important to 4 = definitely not important
(higher score
= less important). two-tailed test: *significant at 0.05;
**significant at 0.01.

162
policy. Most respondents to this survey seemed to ap-
proach information use as conceptual, expecting research
information to change how they understood something.
relatively rarely did the respondents apply information
instrumentally—directly translating research into their
clinical practice—without first considering its proximal
similarity or trustworthiness and consulting other sourc-
es. it also appeared that there was concern, both in the
literature and among respondents to this survey, that use
of evidence would be imposed, forcing practitioners to
give up flexibility and to sacrifice client preference, points
that are identified as deeply embedded aspects of social
work practice (nelson et al., 2007; regehr et al., 2007).
such concerns are well founded, as some states have be-
gun to restrict the types of interventions and practices
that can be used with some populations to include only
“evidence-based” ones, and there is pressure from some
research and academic sectors to reduce practice to ap-
proaches that can be empirically measured and proven
effective (institute for the advancement of social Work
research, 2007; rapp et al., 2010).
Consistent with previous research, there was concern
among these respondents about “lack of fit of the evi-
dence with the complexities of…practice, including the
diversity of clients, situations, and circumstances” (Man-
uel et al., 2009, p. 623). although attitudes about ebP
were fairly positive in general, there was concern about
research being created by sources outside the practice
field. This finding has an important implication for re-
searchers: Knowing that practitioners consider the proxi-

mal similarity of the data and the trustworthiness of the
source, making these things clear and transparent could
assist practitioners in translating research to practice.
additionally, the dissemination of information with an
eye toward the locating mechanisms being used by prac-
titioners could assist in increasing reach. The knowledge
that peer consultation, continuing education, and inter-
net searches through professional networking sites and
popular search mechanisms are the preferred means of
getting information for practice is quite valuable. by tar-
geting the dissemination of empirical evidence through
these channels, a broader access may be facilitated than
by compiling collections of systematic reviews in less fa-
miliar or inaccessible databases, a sentiment consistent
with previous findings (Mullen et al., 2008; nelson et al.,
2007). although respondents indicated that lack of skills
was not an issue, the extent to which this is actually true
is unclear, and it is possible that limited or rusty skill sets
related to database use may have limited the inclination
to use research-oriented search engines or databases,
when easier and faster approaches were readily available.
although practitioners in this study had access to the
internet and to research information, it is important to
recognize that few workplaces have policies related to the
use of an ebP practice model, and that practitioners are
not frequently asked to justify their treatment choices.
Figure 1. Instrumental and conceptual evidence use in practice.
Training and
experience

Setting
context
Political or
external
pressure
Resources
Instrumental use
of evidence
Conceptual use
of evidence
Intermediary
organizations
Acquisition &
interpretation of
research evidence
Proximal similarity &
trustworthiness of
source
Interactions with
peers & experts
Based Practice

163
although access is a necessary first step, explicit support
within the work environment would have direct practice
implications in this area. no matter the personal orienta-
tion of a social worker, if the workplace is not supportive of
good practice habits such as supervision, continuing edu-
cation, clear formulation of treatments, and use of research
findings, there is little chance that behaviors will become
embedded in the worker’s practices. additionally, barriers
to ebP in clinical settings, such as skills, time, and access,
might be mitigated by other factors; time management
and lack of agency support, for example, can be addressed
through formal or in-service education as administrators
become aware of these issues.
findings from this study can be framed in a model to
describe how practitioners use evidence (see figure 1). This
model includes two ways evidence might be used: instru-
mental use (directly putting something into action) and
conceptual use (changing the way information is under-
stood). in this model, all factors but one related to instru-
mental use of evidence are routed through a decision point
about proximal similarity and trustworthiness of source.
evidence may be acquired through training and experi-
ence, from interactions with peers, experts, or intermedi-
ary organizations (such as the nasW); these in turn are
influenced by political or external pressures and setting
context. The same routes of information acquisition ap-
ply to the conceptual use outcome, with the exception that
practitioners may not feel the need to decide the proximal
similarity or trustworthiness of source in the same way, as
this outcome is primarily concerned with a conceptual un-
derstanding and not a direct translation of research into
action. The model acknowledges that there are instances
in which political pressures may change settings and influ-

ence resources, which may have a direct impact on the in-
strumental use of evidence in practice, circumventing the
judgment of individual practitioners.
Limitations and Proposed Future Research
The small sample size limits the consideration of contrib-
uting details, such as practice environment, and use of a
convenience sample limits the generalizability of the con-
clusions. although respondents resembled “typical” social
workers in many ways (see section “Who responded to
the survey?” and table 1), they tended to be a little older;
younger social workers, educated since the 1980s, might
have somewhat different attitudes and practices with re-
spect to ebP. one might also speculate that social workers
less inclined to respond to internet surveys might also be
less inclined to use the internet to seek evidence regarding
practice, but we hesitate to make such a suggestion, absent
evidence. Certainly the findings suggest trends that call for
further investigation.
a more in-depth investigation of the differences be-
tween private practice and other fields of social work prac-
tice is clearly called for by this research. Just as previous
research uncovered differences across settings (Manuel et
al., 2009; Mullen & bacon, 2004; nelson et al., 2007), in-
formation that sheds light on the uniqueness of work in the
private sector and the factors at work in such environments
could be extremely valuable to the profession. similarly,
as consultation with peers, experts, and mentors is clearly
indicated as a source of information and support among
practitioners in this study, further investigation of this phe-
nomenon is called for. finally, with ever-increasing and un-
precedented global access to information, consideration of
the differences in acquisition and interpretation of research
evidence is needed. While social workers are faced with

similar tasks and professional parameters, the contexts in
which they practice, the political and external pressures,
and the resources available vary widely. how research in-
formation is obtained, how utility of information is deter-
mined, and how decisions are made about client treatment
are important pieces of information that could introduce
better ways of disseminating information and supporting
the technical needs of social workers in practice.
References
aarons, g., & sawitzky, a. (2006). organizational culture and
climate
and mental health provider attitudes toward evidence-based
practice. Psychological Services, 3(1), 61–72.
addis, M. e., & Krasnow, a. d. (2000). a national survey of
practicing
psychologists’ attitudes toward psychotherapy treatment
manuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(2),
331–339.
bellamy, J., bledsoe, s., & traube, d. (2006). the current state of
evidence based practice in social work: a review of the
literature
and qualitative analysis of expert interviews. Journal of
Evidence-
Based Social Work, 3, 23–48.
booth, s. h., booth, a., & falzon, l. J. (2003). the need for
information and research skills training to support evidence-
based social care: a literature review and survey. Learning in
Health and Social Care, 2(4), 191–201.
Council on social Work education. (2008). Educational policy
and

accreditation standards handbook. alexandria, Va: author.
Crawford, P., brown, b., anthony, P., & hicks, C. (2002).
reluctant
empiricists: Community mental health nurses and the art of
evidence-based praxis. Health and Social Care in the
Community,
10(4), 287–298.
gerdes, K., edmonds, r., haslam, d., & McCartney, t. (1996). a
statewide survey of licensed clinical social workers’ use of
practice evaluation procedures. Research on Social Work
Practice,
6(1), 27–39.
gibbs, l. (2003). Evidence-based practice for the helping
professions.
Pacific grove, Ca: brooks/Cole.
gioia, d., & dziadosz, g. (2008). adoption of evidence-based
practices
in community mental health: a mixed-method study of
practitioner experience. Community Mental Health Journal, 44,
347–357.
glisson, C., & schoenwald, s. (2005). the arC organizational and
community intervention strategy for implementing evidence-
based children’s mental health treatments. Mental Health
Services
Research, 7(4), 243–259.
institute for the advancement of social Work research. (2007).
Partnerships to integrate evidence-based mental health practices
into social work education and research. report from april 12,
2007 symposium sponsored by the national institute of Mental
health. Washington, dC: author.

164
Manuel, J., Mullen, e., fang, l., bellamy, J., & bledsoe, s.
(2009).
Preparing social work practitioners to use evidence-based
practice: a comparison of experiences from an implementation
project. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 613.
Mullen, e. J., & bacon, W. (2004). a survey of practitioner
adoption
and implementation of practice guidelines and evidence based
treatments. in a. r. roberts & K. Yeager (eds.), Evidence based
practice manual: Research and outcome measures in health and
human services (pp. 210–218). new York, nY: oxford
university.
Mullen, e., bledsoe, s., & bellamy, J. (2008). implementing
evidence-
based social work practice. Research on Social Work Practice,
18(4), 325–338.
national association of social Workers. (2006). licensed social
workers in the united states, 2004. supplement: Chapter 2: Who
are licensed social workers? NASW Membership Workforce
Study.
Washington, dC: nasW Center for health Workforce studies.
national institutes of health. (2007). Research on Social Work
Practice
Concepts in Health (R01), PA-07–292 (funding opportunity
announcement). Washington, dC: retrieved from http://grants.

nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/Pa-07-292.html
nelson, t., steele, r., & Mize, J. (2007). Practitioner attitudes
toward
evidence-based practice: themes and challenges. Administration
of Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research,
33,
398–409.
olsson, t. (2007). reconstructing evidence based practice: an
investigation of three conceptualisations of ebP. Evidence and
Policy, 3(2), 271–285.
Proctor, e. (2007). implementing evidence-based practice in
social
work education: Principles, strategies, and partnerships.
Research
on Social Work Practice, 17(5), 583–591.
Proctor, e., Knudsen, K., fedoravicius, n., hovmand, P., rosen,
a., &
Perron, b. (2007). implementation of evidence-based practice
in community behavioral health: agency director perspectives.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 34, 479–488.
rapp, C., goscha, r., & Carlson, l. (2010). evidence-based
practice
implementation in Kansas. Community Mental Health Journal,
46, 461–465.
regehr, C., stern, s., & shlonsky, a. (2007). operationalizing
evidence-
based practice: the development of an institute for evidence-
based social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(3),
408–416.

sackett, d., rosenberg, W., gray, J., haynes, r., & richardson, W.
(1996). evidence-based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t.
British Medical Journal, 312(7023), 71–72.
sheehan, a., Walrath, C., & holden, e. W. (2007). evidence-
based
practice use, training and implementation in the community-
based service setting: a survey of children’s mental health
service
providers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 169–182.
sheldon, b., & Chilvers, r. (2002). an empirical study of the
obstacles
to evidence-based practice. Social Work & Social Sciences
Review,
10(1), 6–26.
Whitaker, t., & arrington, P. (2008). social workers at work.
NASW
Membership Workforce Study. Washington, dC: national
association of social Workers.
William t. grant foundation. (2010). understanding the
acquisition,
interpretation, and use of research evidence in policy and
practice (request for research proposals). Research Use RFP
2010. Washington, dC: author.
Tracy c. Wharton, PhD, lCsW, senior research specialist, Va
ann
arbor Healthcare system Geriatric research, education and
Clinical
Center. kathleen A. Bolland, PhD, assistant dean, educational
Pro-
grams and student services, University of alabama school of
social

Work. Correspondence: [email protected]; Veterans administra-
tion GreCC, 2215 Fuller road (11G), ann arbor, mi 48105.
Authors’ note. We wish to thank Christy Gabany for her
assistance in
the preparation of this manuscript. the opinions expressed
herein are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.s.
government or any of its agencies.
manuscript received: september 13, 2011
revised (1): november 25, 2011
revised (2): march 7, 2012
accepted: march 9, 2012
Disposition editor: susan e. mason
Executive-, Senior-, and Management-Level Positions
H uMan SErvicES
coMPEnSation
in the United StateS
The Latest competitive Data
to attract and Retain the Best talent
20
12
Questions: 414-359-6578
alliance1.org/pubs/compensation
©2012 Alliance for Children and Families. All Rights Reserved.
12-117

Report provides data about compensation for management
positions, including:
• Current compensation practices and packages
with details about salaries, benefits, and
personnel practices
• Compensation data breakdowns by
organization budget category, organizational
structure, geographic region, individuals’
educational degree, and years in the human
services industry
• Information pertaining to level of education
(New to 2012 report)
12-117 ERS 2012 Comp Report Ad.indd 1 7/19/12 1:47 PM
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-07-292.html
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-07-292.html
mailto:[email protected]
79
Families in society: the Journal of contemporary social services
©2013 alliance for children and Families
issn: Print 1044-3894; electronic 1945-1350
2013, 94(2), 79–84
Doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.4283
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”]
Bruce a. thyer
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.
i
t is encouraging to see such distinguished social workers
as Alex Gitterman and Carolyn Knight (2013) address the

issue of evidence-based practice (EBP), try and identify
some of the shortcomings of EBP, and propose some con-
structive improvements for the model of EBP, resulting in
a related perspective they label “evidence-guided practice”
(EGP). In their article I find a number of points about EBP
and its supposed limitations that have appeared in the social
work literature, as well as a number of new ideas. Their goal
is admirable—to improve upon the practice models which
can promote social workers’ efforts to improve practice
outcomes. I share this goal and it is in this spirit that I will
try and address what I believe to be some misconceptions in
their presentation of EBP—misconceptions which, once cor-
rected, demonstrate that EBP already possesses most of the
features of their proposed alternative, evidence-guided prac-
tice. It goes without saying that I appreciate their willingness
to engage in this dialog, as well as the invitation from the
co-editors of Families in Society to author this response. It
is worth noting that the first article introducing the topic of
evidence-based practice to a social work audience appeared
in this journal (Gambrill, 1999).
to begin my response in a simplified manner, it seems
to me that gitterman and Knight (2013) make some
claims about the model of ebP and say it is associated
with certain limitations or undesirable features, which
i will generically call features abC. They propose their
alternative model, egP, which is said to possess the
more desirable attributes of features XYZ. What i will
try and do in this response is to demonstrate that the
undesired features abC said to characterize ebP, are
actually not a part of the ebP model. Moreover, i will try
and demonstrate that the desired features XYZ are ac-
tually already present in ebP. Thus, there is no need for
any modification or amplification of ebP as it is pres-

ently construed in the primary sources of information
about this practice model.
Undesired Features Said to be Associated
with Evidence-based practice
evidence-based proponents argue that social
workers should base their practice decisions on a
critical review of available intervention strategies
for particular client’s challenges and difficulties. the
intent is to identify and employ those techniques
that have been found to help an individual, family,
or group with a specified problem. the social
worker selects the most relevant, empirically verified
approach. (gitterman & Knight, 2013, p. 70)
This misrepresentation asserts that the social worker
selects the intervention based on the research evi-
dence. There is no apparent role for client input or
consideration of other factors, such as environmental
considerations. in reality, ebP is much more holistic
than that. so that the reader has a clear understand-
ing of what ebP really is, i provide the definition pub-
lished originally in Evidence-Based Medicine (now in
its fourth edition):
evidence-based medicine (ebM) requires the
integration of the best research evidence with our
clinical expertise and our patient’s unique values
and circumstances....by patient values we mean the
unique preferences, concerns and expectations each
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1606%2F1044-
3894.4283&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-05-03

80
patient brings to a clinical encounter and which
must be integrated into clinical decisions if they are
to serve the patient....by patient circumstances we
mean their individual clinical state and the clinical
setting. (straus, glasziou, richardson, & haynes,
2011, p. 1, emphasis in original)
understanding this definition of real ebP is cru-
cial to avoid any implication that ebP is only about
research evidence. it is equally about client values,
expectations, and circumstances. research does not
trump these other considerations—they are all equally
and compellingly important. This is largely ignored in
presentations on ebP which appear in the social work
literature and convey the impression that in ebP one
merely selects the best supported treatments. This is a
massive distortion and its repetition is likely respon-
sible for some of the resistance to this approach.
since the professions of social work and medicine
have different functions, social work’s renewed
reliance on medical tenets is puzzling. (gitterman &
Knight, 2013, p. 71)
This is the hoary canard that ebP is a medical model.
it is not. it originated in medicine, but is itself atheo-
retical with respect to etiology (biological or psychoso-
cial), neutral with respect to who provides the services
(physicians versus social workers), and neutral with
respect to what those services should be (e.g., biologi-
cal or psychosocial). in contrast, the medical model
asserts that a given condition has a biological etiology,

interventions are focused on biological interventions
such as drugs or surgery, and the service providers
should be physicians. ebP possesses none of these fea-
tures of the medical model. ebP is a broadly scientific
model but its origins in medicine need no more imply
adherence to a medical model than the use of split-plot
factorial studies in social work research means that
one is following an agricultural model (from whence
r. a. fisher derived this type of experimental design
in statistical science). The disciplinary backgrounds of
the founders of a model need have no direct bearing on
that model’s applicability to social work. ebP is being
widely adopted across all the health care and human
service professions because of its utility in operation-
alizing a more scientific approach to practice, not be-
cause it is somehow intrinsically medical.
evidence-based practice proposes that specific
interventions exist to solve most types of problems,
and social workers can find them and then use the
most effective—the “best”—intervention. (gitterman
& Knight, 2013, p. 71)
no, ebP requires one to search the current best litera-
ture to find out what methods of assessment and inter-
vention possess the greatest amount of scientific sup-
port. There is no a priori assumption that the answer
already exists, only the mandate that one seek out the
available evidence. and there is no assertion that one
must use the “best” evidence, if the most promising in-
terventions are somehow unsuitable. amputation of the
hands of convicted thieves might effectively deter na-
scent criminals from stealing, but the ethics and laws
of our country prohibit cruel and unusual punishment.
if a client is clinically depressed, the research might
well indicate that cognitive behavior therapy (Cbt) is

a well-supported treatment. if, however, the client was
intellectually disabled and unable to comply with the
self-monitoring and homework exercises required of
Cbt, the evidence-based social worker may suggest an
intervention less well-supported. a practitioner can still
adhere to the original ebP model while not offering the
best research-supported interventions if there are con-
flicting or counterproductive ethics, client preferences
and values, or environmental considerations present.
This flexibility is inherent in the approach.
Complex social problems do not lend themselves
to narrow and discrete interventions that are the
foundation of evidence-based practice. (gitterman &
Knight, 2013, p. 71)
it depends. sometimes complex social problems require
complex interventions, and sometimes they respond
well to simple interventions. ebP lends itself equally well
to simple as well as complex interventions. Witness the
large amount of work being undertaken in the field of
social policy using the traditional ebP model (boruch,
2012; bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010; Vanlandingham
& drake, 2012) and the fine work of the Coalition for ev-
idence-based Policy (see http://coalition4evidence.org).
a review of the completed systematic reviews available
on the websites of The Campbell Collaboration (http://
www.campbellcollaboration.org) and The Cochrane
Collaboration (http://www.cochrane.org) reveals many
examples of complex health and social problems (e.g.,
the effectiveness of welfare-to-work programs) which
have been extensively investigated using high-quality
research studies. What alternative to evidence-based
practice do we have to tackle complex social problems?
The status quo?

evidence-based social work practice emphasizes
studies that typically involve brief, cognitive, and
skill-focused interventions...less straightforward,
harder-to-measure problems and interventions are
excluded. (gitterman & Knight, 2013, p. 71)
http://coalition4evidence.org
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org
http://www.cochrane.org
Thyer | Evidence-Based Practice or Evidence-Guided Practice:
A Rose by Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet
81
similar complaints have been registered with respect
to the application of randomized controlled trials
(rCts) in general. if the advocates of longer term and
more complex interventions fail to undertake cred-
ible evaluations of their own methods, whose fault is
that? are we surprised that a new model such as ebP
is initially explored with simpler practice issues rath-
er than more complex ones? There is a natural pro-
gression to the types of intervention research studies
needed to investigate the effectiveness of treatments,
usually from simpler to more complex problems, in-
terventions, and environments. This can take many
years. but it is being done.
There is nothing with the original model of ebP to
preclude more complex studies. in any event, this sup-
posed limitation is being overtaken by events since
rCts, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews are being
conducted on complex problems and interventions. to

illustrate, the december 2011 issue of the Clinical Social
Work Journal contains a number of articles discussing a
widely cited meta-analysis of the effectiveness of long-
term psychodynamic psychotherapy. see also rosebor-
ough, Mcleod, and bradshaw (2012) for an innovative
social work outcome study on psychodynamic psycho-
therapy, and drisko & simmons (2012) for a compre-
hensive survey of the evidence base for psychodynamic
psychotherapy. ebP places no limitations on the types
of problems investigated or interventions tested. if an
intervention can be applied, its outcomes can be evalu-
ated. if client functioning can be validly measured, the
potential impacts of intervention can be assessed. More
complex interventions and problems increase the diffi-
culty of the task but they do not preclude it.
the realities of contemporary social work practice
work against a purely evidence-based orientation.
Most social workers simply do not have access
to bibliographic databases and the peer-reviewed
literature, both of which are required to practice
from an evidence-based foundation...practicing
social workers lack the skills and expertise necessary
to operate from an evidence-based foundation.
(gitterman & Knight, 2013, p. 72)
The increasing ease of access to these databases and
literature is rendering this point moot. Much useful
information is available via open-access electronic
sources (see, for example, gary holden’s wonderful
resource information for Practice, available at http://
ifp.nyu.edu/); government-maintained websites, such
as the national registry for evidence-based Programs
and Practices, supported by the substance abuse and
Mental health services administration (see http://
www.nrepp.samhsa.gov); and the national Coalition

for evidence-based Policy, cited above. greater num-
bers of colleges grant library access privileges to their
alumni. at one point, office computers were said to be
too expensive to be made widely available for use by
social workers. time took care of that problem. The
problem of limited access to the research literature is
similarly being taken care of. regardless, this limita-
tion is one that is shared with gitterman and Knight’s
alternative, egP, which also requires access to such da-
tabases and literature.
it is embarrassing and limiting for us to assert that
our graduates lack the skills and expertise necessary to
operate from an ebP perspective. again, if true, whose
fault is this? are social workers any less intelligent or re-
search-trained than, say, nurses, public health workers,
or other largely bachelor’s- and master’s-level profes-
sions which have widely adopted ebP? We have barely
begun focusing our professional training in the research
skills needed to effectively engage in ebP (shlonsky,
2009)—namely how to formulate answerable questions
(gambrill & gibbs, 2009), track down the best available
literature (rubin & Parrish, 2009), critically analyze it
(bronson, 2009), apply any lessons learned to our work
with our own clients, and evaluate our effectiveness in
carrying out ebP. instead, we teach a wide array of re-
search methods with little connection to those needed
to carry out ebP (e.g., how to conduct a survey study),
in lieu of how to conduct outcome research on our own
practice—a crucial skill needed for ebP.
Desired Features Said to be Associated with
Evidence-guided practice
We intentionally use the term evidence-guided to refer

to an approach to practice in which interventions
are suggested, rather than prescribed, by research
findings...it also recognizes the uniqueness of the
individual and the inherent dignity and worth of
the person. evidence-guided practice reinforces
client empowerment and clients’ right to self-
determination...it adopts an ecological view of client
problems and worker interventions. (gitterman &
Knight, 2013, p. 72–73, emphasis in original)
Yet, these features are also true of ebP. The evidence in
ebP is only used as a guide, and taken into account when
considering clients’ preferences and values, professional
ethics, and clinical and environmental circumstances.
it only takes a reading of the primary sources describ-
ing ebP to realize this. for example, here is what the
founder of the term evidence-based medicine, gordon
guyatt, asserted as central to this model:
as a distinctive approach to patient care, ebM
involves two fundamental principles. first, evidence
alone is never sufficient to make a clinical decision.
http://ifp.nyu.edu
http://ifp.nyu.edu
http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov
http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov
82
decision makers must always trade the benefits
and risk, inconvenience and costs associated with
alternative management strategies, and in doing so

consider the patients values. (guyatt & rennie, 2002,
p. 8, emphasis added).
Knowing the tools of evidence-based practice
is necessary but not sufficient for delivering the
highest quality of patient care. In addition to clinical
expertise, the clinician requires compassion, sensitive
listening skills, and broad perspectives from the
humanities and social sciences. these attributes allow
understanding of patient’s illnesses in the context
of their experience, personalities and cultures...for
some of these patients and problems, this discussion
should involve the patient’s family. for other
problems-attempts to involve other family members
might violate strong cultural norms. (guyatt &
rennie, 2002, p. 15, emphasis added)
understanding and implementing the sort of
decision-making process patients desire and
effectively communicating the information they
need requires skills in understanding the patient’s
narrative and the person behind that narrative...
Most physicians see their role as focusing on health
care interventions for their patients....they focus on
individual patient behavior. However, we consider
this focus too narrow....Physicians concerned about
the health of their patients as a group, or about the
health of the community, should consider how they
might contribute to reducing poverty (guyatt &
rennie, 2002, p. 16, emphasis added)
any presentation of ebP that solely focuses on ap-
plying research evidence to make important practice
decisions and ignores the unique features of indi-
vidual clients or larger societal or contextual issues
is either a mischaracterization, a misunderstanding,

or uninformed.
unlike evidence-based practice, egP explicitly
recognizes relevant theory. theories, as well as
research, provide significant guidelines for practice....
evidence-guided practice reflects...a solid grounding
in theory. (gitterman & Knight, 2013, p. 74)
This is a legitimate observation, but i consider the
atheoretical nature of ebP to be a strength, not a limi-
tation to this approach. although nothing in the ebP
model precludes a judicious consideration of relevant
theory as possibly pertinent to one’s searching for evi-
dence, in terms of helping to make practice decisions
it posits a decided preference for relying on sound
data-based studies in lieu of theoretical conceptualiza-
tions. Though there is nothing as practical as a good
theory, there is also nothing as harmful as a bad one
(Thyer, 2012). Many theories in social work have been
and are actively injurious to practitioners and clients.
They waste our time, most are not well-supported
empirically, and many have led to the development
of interventions which do not work and in some cas-
es are harmful. give me a good empirical study over
theoretical speculation any time. given how academic
social work has traditionally prized theory develop-
ment and extension (Thyer, 2002), i suspect that the
relative lack of focused attention on theory in ebP is
a source of much resistance to this model, as it flies in
the face of some our most cherished views. Yet egP
provides no guidance on how to select theory—surely
all theories are not equally valid? ignoring this issue
leaves the field wide open to every wildly speculative
conceptualization proposed by someone. We now have
social workers being taught reiki (using one’s hands to

realign a client’s supposed invisible body energies) by
our academic programs (i am not making it up), as if it
were a legitimate model of practice for our field. Why?
because it is an appealing theory to some.
When social workers rigidly adhere to prescribed
interventions, they are unable to be authentically
present or actively listen to clients’ verbal and
nonverbal responses. [gitterman and Knight go on to
critique the use of practice manuals.] (gitterman &
Knight, 2013, p. 75)
first off, practice manuals and guidelines are an en-
tirely different model of practice than ebP, having pre-
ceded it by many years. There is nothing in the ebP
literature that elevates practice manuals above any
other form of evidence; rather, manuals would still
need to be located, critically reviewed, and used only if
the evidence is sufficiently supportive. ebP is actually
rather suspicious of practice guidelines, since so many
of them are of poor quality. for example, straus et al.
(2011) note:
While substantial advances have been made in the
science of guideline development, less work has been
done to enhance the implementability of guidelines.
often, recommendations lack sufficient information
or clarity to allow clinicians, patients, or other
decision-makers to implement them. and guidelines
are often complex and contain large numbers of
recommendations with varying evidential support,
health impact and feasibility of use in practice and
decision making...ideally, guidelines should include
some mentions of values, who assigned these values
(patient derived or author derived) and whether
they came from one source or many sources. the

Thyer | Evidence-Based Practice or Evidence-Guided Practice:
A Rose by Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet
83
values assumed in a guideline, either explicitly or
implicitly, may not match those of our patient or our
community. (pp. 128–129)
are gitterman and Knight correct in their cautions
about the role of practice guidelines and treatment
protocols? indeed, and in doing so they share views
identical with those of ebP and reservations which i
have expressed elsewhere (Thyer, 2003).
Summary
it is very important that social workers who wish to
learn more about evidence-based practice take the
time to read the original sources on this innovative
and influential model. Much of the social work litera-
ture on ebP relies on second- and third-hand inter-
pretations. sackett, straus, richardson, rosenberg,
and haynes (2000); straus, glasziou, richardson, and
haynes (2011); and guyatt and rennie (2002) are good
places to begin.
it is particularly important to recognize that ebP is
independent from, and has nothing to do with, other
similar-sounding initiatives (Thyer & Myers, 2011),
such as the empirically supported treatment (est)
initiative of division 12 (society of Clinical Psychol-
ogy) of the american Psychological association, or

the empirical clinical practice model developed within
social work (Jayaratne & levy, 1979). Yet ebP is often
confused with the est model which does rely solely
on lists of “approved” treatments for various disorders,
or upon the earlier and continuing practice guideline
movement which describes intervention protocols for
clients with various conditions. ebP does not designate
any treatment as “evidence-based.” doing so would
elevate the research elements of the model above the
other equally important ones, such as clinical exper-
tise, client’s personal values, expectations, and situa-
tion. as i have written earlier, there are no such things
as evidence-based practices (Thyer & Pignotti, 2011).
nowhere in the primary ebP literature will you find
lists of approved treatments or practice guidelines, yet
this is the common conception of the model and one
seemingly shared by gitterman and Knight. abandon
this misconception, carefully read the real ebP liter-
ature, and you will find that it shares almost all the
features proposed by gitterman and Knight in their
evidence-guided practice model.
eileen gambrill, who introduced to the concept of
ebP into the social work literature (1999), has recently
used the phrase evidence-informed practice in lieu of
ebP, in part due to her concern that the phrase evi-
dence-based inadvertently perpetuates the misconcep-
tion that ebP ignores other nonresearch factors in ar-
riving at decisions (gambrill, 2010; gambrill & gibbs,
2009). now gitterman and Knight suggest the term
evidence-guided practice, in part for the same reason.
good luck with that. The ebP train has left the station
and it will prove very difficult to amend this crucial
phrase. however, it makes little difference to me, ebP
or egP, so long as the five steps of the original ebP

model (straus et al., 2011) are adhered to, perhaps with
some additions. i believe that this is the case with git-
terman and Knight’s practice model. With apologies
to William shakespeare, let me close by paraphrasing
Juliet from Romeo and Juliet:
o ebP, ebP! wherefore art thou ebP?
deny thy father and refuse thy name;
’tis but thy name that is my enemy;
thou art thyself, o, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet;
so ebP would, were he not ebP call’d,
retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. ebP, doff thy name;
and for that name, which is no part of thee,
take all myself.
References
bogenschneider, K., & Corbett, t. J. (2010). Evidence-based
policymaking. new York, nY: routledge.
boruch, r. (2012). deploying randomized field experiments in
the
service of evidence-based crime policy. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 8, 331–341.
bronson, d. e. (2009). Critically appraising studies for evidence-
based practice. in a. r. roberts (ed.), Social workers’ desk
reference (2nd ed.; pp. 1137–1141). new York, nY: oxford
university Press.
drisko, J. W., & simmons, b. M. (2012). the evidence-based for
psychodynamic psychotherapy. Smith College Studies in Social
Work, 82, 374–400.

gambrill, e. (1999). evidence-based practice: an alternative to
authority-based practice. Families in Society: The Journal of
Contemporary Human Services, 80, 341–350. doi:10.1606/1044-
3894.1214
gambrill, e. (2010). evidence-informed practice: antidote to
propaganda in the helping profession. Research on Social Work
Practice, 20, 302–320.
gambrill, e., & gibbs, l. (2009). developing well-structured
questions for evidence-informed practice. in a. r. roberts
(ed.), Social workers’ desk reference (2nd ed.; pp. 1120–1126).
new York, nY: oxford university Press.
gitterman, a., & Knight, C. (2013). evidence-guided practice:
integrating the science and art of social work. Families in
Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 94(2),
70–78. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4282
guyatt, g., & rennie, d. (eds.). (2002). Users’ guides to the
medical
literature: Essentials of evidence-based clinical practice.
Chicago,
il: american Medical association.
Jayaratne, s., & levy, r. l. (1979). Empirical clinical practice.
new
York, nY: Columbia university Press.
roseborough, d. J., Mcleod, J. t., & bradshaw, W. h. (2012).
Psychodynamic psychotherapy: a quantitative, longitudinal
perspective. Research on Social Work Practice, 22, 54–67.

84
rubin, a., & Parrish, d. (2009). locating credible studies for
evidence-based practice. in a. r. roberts (ed.), Social workers’
desk reference (2nd ed.; pp. 1127–1136). new York, nY: oxford
university Press.
sackett, d. l., straus, s. e., richardson, W. s., rosenberg, W., &
haynes, r. b. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice
and teach it (2nd ed.). new York, nY: Churchill livingstone.
shlonsky, a. (2009). evidence-based practice in social work
education. in a. r. roberts (ed.), Social workers’ desk reference
(2nd ed.; pp. 1169–1176). new York, nY: oxford university
Press.
straus, s. e., glasziou, P., richardson, W. s., & haynes, r. b.
(2011).
Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach it (4th
ed.).
new York, nY: Churchill livingstone.
thyer, b. a. (2002). the role of theory in research on social work
practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 37, 9–25.
thyer, b. a. (2003). social work should help develop
interdisciplinary evidence-based practice guidelines, not
discipline-specific ones. in a. rosen & e. K. Proctor (eds.),
Developing practice guidelines for social work intervention:
Issues, methods, and research agenda (pp. 128–139). new York,
nY: Columbia university Press.
thyer, b. a. (2012). the potentially harmful effects of theory in
social work. in b. a. thyer, C. n. dulmus, & K. M. sowers

(eds.), Human behavior in the social environment: Theories for
social work practice (pp. 459–487). new York, nY: Wiley.
thyer, b. a., & Myers, l. l. (2011). the quest for evidence-based
practice: a view from the united states. Journal of Social Work,
11, 8–25.
thyer, b. a., & Pignotti, M. (2011). evidence-based practices do
not
exist. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39, 328–333.
Vanlandingham, g. r., & drake, e. K. (2012). results first: using
evidence-based policy models in state policymaking. Public
Performance and Management Review, 35, 550–563.
bruce A. Thyer, phD, lCsW, professor, Florida state University.
Cor-
respondence: [email protected]; College of social Work, Florida
state
University, 296 Champions Way, tallahassee, Fl 32306.
invited response submitted: December 21, 2012
accepted: January 9, 2013
invited response editors: Jessica strolin-Goltzman and
susan e. mason
Practice & Policy Focus
Unique perspectives on social work
Each free e-issue of Practice & Policy Focus, the newsletter
supplement to Families in Society, provides an in-depth guide
to
practice recommendations, policy analysis, historical
perspectives, and emerging research models.
alliance1.org/ppf

The latest newsletter focuses on trauma-informed practice,
including:
• influences of personal trauma on professional viewpoints
• strengths-based models for self-healing
• social supports and coping with trauma
• survival capabilities of children who experience abuse
• exploratory therapy used to overcome childhood trauma
Recent topics delved into
issues such as:
• considering immigration issues in
social work
• strengthening supports in LGBTQ families
• understanding spirituality in practice
• examining the intersection of poverty and gender
Practice &
Policy Focus
13-066 P&PF FIS ad 6x3.indd 1 3/18/13 4:07 PM
mailto:[email protected]

157Families in society the Journal of contemporary social.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 157Families in society the Journal of contemporary social.docx

Similar to 157Families in society the Journal of contemporary social.docx (19)

More from drennanmicah

More from drennanmicah (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

157Families in society the Journal of contemporary social.docx