A Logic Model for Model Building in Social Work

Jane Gilgun Descriptions of Issues of Interest Examinations: Descriptions by Others Reformulations: Descriptions

Comparison: Descriptions

Identification: Intervention Points

Examinations: Interventions of others

Comparisons: Interventions

Reformulation: Interventions

Plan for Pilot

Implement Pilot

Monitor Pilot: Descriptions & Interventions

Reformulations: Descriptions & Interventions

RCT/Field Test: Descriptions & Interventions

Monitoring RCT/Field Test: Descriptions & Interventions

Continual Updating, Testing, Monitoring, & Reformulation: Descriptions & Interventions

Overview
This schematic is a logic model of how to develop a model of intervention in social work. The present logic model is based primarily on the work of Rothman and Thomas on intervention research (Rothman, 1989, 1991; Rothman & Thomas, 1994; Thomas, 1978a & b; 1984, 1989, 1994) and my own experience as a researcher (Gilgun, 1996; 1999; 2005; 2011). In addition, evidence-based practice (APA, 2005; Gilgun, 2005) reflective practice practice (DCruz, Heather, Gillingham, & Melendez, 2007; Schn, 1983), and the common factors model (Drisko, 2004; Lambert, 1992) also are part of the background of the present model. There are different kinds of logic models. Most of them show a picture of how programs or other action plans work (Alter & Egan, 1997; Renger & Hurley, 2006). They often are used in program evaluation, but they can also be used in the development of programs (Kaplan & & Garrett, 2005; Kellogg Foundation, 2004.). In general, models are descriptions of how things work (Jacard & Jacoby, 2010). Models are composed of theory, research, professional experience, experiences of persons for whom the models are intended, and any other sources of relevant information. Typically, models are based upon implicit or explicit values, such as justice and respect for dignity and worth of persons. Social work is a value-based applied discipline with several foundational assumptions. These assumptions are Values are the foundation of action. These values include justice, care, respect for the worth, dignity, and autonomy of individuals; Understanding persons is central; understanding persons is inseparable from understanding persons in their environments; Understanding persons involves talking and listening to them and hearing their values, preferences, wants, expectations, experiences, stories, and world views; Understanding environments involves understanding multiple points of view including the ideologies and values that are embedded in these points of view and how these ideologies and values play out in widespread beliefs, policies, programs, and other practices, interventions, and actions; Social workers and many others have power over others, and this leads to the centrality of reflection upon and challenges to our points of view, values, ideologies, respect for worth, dignity, and autonomy; the necessity of their understanding themselves so they do not impose their values, ideologies, and beliefs on others in ways that disrespect the dignity, worth, and autonomy of others.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MODEL

The following discussion is based upon my experience as a researcher and teacher. The scholarship of others is behind this discussion. The scholarship of others, however, is so integrated into my own thinking that I have no citations in this section. In addition, much of what is in this section is part of an oral tradition in scholarship. Scholars have not yet written down every bit that is related to scholarship. The section at the end of this essay on references and other writings section contains some of the work that is behind my own in this essay. Descriptions of the Issues The first step is the development of a logic model is the formulation of descriptions of issues. The sources of these descriptions are relevant research that the developers of the model have done including preliminary studies and informal conversations, descriptions of their relevant professional experience, and descriptions of their relevant personal experience. In social work, step one includes descriptions of multiple points of view. The most significant points of view are those whom the intervention-to-be-planned will affect. Other points of views are those of researchers, professionals who work with populations of interest, policy Descriptions of the Issues as Others Have Formulated Them Once model builders have formulated their own descriptions, they then review what others have said and written about the issues. They then compare their descriptions with the descriptions of others. Sometimes Comparisons of the two Descriptions Model developers next compare their own descriptions of the issues with what others have said. Sometimes they see this part of model building provides additional dimensions to their own descriptions. Sometimes model developers discover that their descriptions are quite different. makers, the general public, and anyone else who has perspectives on the issues under consideration. These descriptions include statements of the significance of the issues and also of the value bases on which the descriptions are based. Important in the development of descriptions is definition of terms. In my own work, I am developing a model of the development of violent behaviors, a term I must define for the sake of clarity. I also need definitions of violence, sexual violence, and physical violence.

that they have to explain in some detail how their descriptions differ from those of others and how what they came up with also may have similarities.

Reformulation of Descriptions Based on the review of how others view the issues, model developers typically reformulate their own descriptions to incorporate dimensions that their original descriptions did not address and possibly to modify their original descriptions.

Development of Intervention Points and Interventions From their descriptions, model developers identify the intervention points that are implicit in their descriptions. For example, in my on-going descriptions of the development of violent behaviors, I have seen how ideologies are central to how people become violent. That appears to be the one constant across the hundreds accounts I have of men and women who have committed Description of Interventions as Others Have Formulated them. Model builders then review intervention sites and interventions as others have formulated them. They pay attention to the descriptions on which the interventions are based as well. As with examinations of information on issues, examination of information on intervention sites and interventions of others may result in a reformulation of the model under development. While examining issues related to interventions, model developers also observe the implicit and/or explicit construction of the issues that the interventions are meant to target. physically and sexually violent acts. Thus, one of my intervention points or sites will have to do with ideologies. The question to deal with after the identification of intervention points is, How can we identify and change ideologies that are connected to committing acts of violence? So, in this step of the development of a model, the task is to develop intervention strategies that are suitable for the intervention sites.

Comparisons of Intervention Points and Interventions Comparisons may show whether models under development have left out an important dimension or if the developing model is looking at something that previous interventions have not. If the other models leave out important dimensions of the issues, then the interventions are likely to leave out important interventions points. For example, if a description of high unemployment rates in certain areas of a city is the issue overlooks significant contributors to unemployment, then the interventions designed to redress unemployment are unlikely to work. 4

Reformulation of the Intervention The comparisons of the intervention points and the interventions of the developing model with what others have done may lead to a reformulation of the model under Planning for the Pilot Piloting usually takes place on small samples that are representative of the populations of interest. This step include Pilot the Intervention and Monitor How it Works Piloting helps model developers identify elements of the model that dont work. What doesnt work could be in the conceptualization of the issues and the interventions or could be how implementers implement the model. Reformulation of the Issues and the Interventions Piloting typically leads to minor and sometimes major reformulations of the issues and the interventions and also of Field Test or a Randomized Controlled Trial of the Interventions Once model developers are satisfied with formulations of issues and interventions and with the implementation procedures, the model is ready for a test on a larger sample. This phase of the development requires two or more groups, one of which receives the intervention under development while the other group(s) receive(s) another intervention. Ethical issues are of concern here in terms of who gets what intervention. This testing is either an experiment or quasiexperiment. Outcome measures can be qualitative and quantitative. Even at this later stage of development, model developers model how the implements implement, how implements experience the implementation, and how recipients 5 implementation procedures. Pilots are usually done on small samples. Monitoring the experiences of implementers and those who are subject to the intervention are also part of piloting. Model developers expect to change something about the model or the implementation of the model through piloting. developing procedures and materials about recruitment, how and what to monitor, and who will orchestrate the pilot. development. Reformulation can involve adding to, deleting, or rewriting.

experience the intervention. Furthermore, there is to be learned about the issues themselves during this phase. Remember the old saying: If you want to understand something, try to change it. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches can help with Reformulate the Issues and Interventions Based on what model developers learn, they change their formulations of the issues and/or the interventions

gathering information on which to base any changes to the model.

and also may change implementation procedures or their expectations for implementation.

Continue Testing, Reformulation, Implementation, and Monitoring Models of practice require on-going monitoring of the conceptualizations of the issues, of the intervention, and of the procedures of implementation.

DISCUSSION
This is a first go-around of an attempt to clarify for myself and perhaps for others how to develop a model for the development of interventions. What I mean by intervention is a set of procedures intended to address a social issue. The model of the development of interventions in its present formulation is abstract, and the abstractness is an invitation to others to elaborate upon the model. About the Author Jane F. Gilgun, PhD, LICSW, is a professor, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA. Her research interests are resilience, the development of violent behaviors, the meanings of violence to perpetrators, and how programs work. She has published widely in academic journals and for the general public for Kindle, iPad, Nook, and other readers. Much of work is also available in paperback books on Amazon. I think that this model draws upon a great deal of scholarship mine and othersas well as my experience of being a researchers. I think it is an elaboration of the ideas of Rothman and Thomas (1994) on intervention research. I dont think the model is easy to understand but requires some thought and testing. I welcome suggestions as to how to further develop the model. This is the first time I have developed a logic model.

REFERENCES & FURTHER READING

Abell, Neil & David Wolf. (2003). Implementing intervention research in doctoral education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 23(1), 3-19. Alter, Catherine & Marcia Egan. (1997). Logic modeling: A tool for teaching critical thinking in social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(1), 85-102. APA Taskforce on Evidence-Based Practice (2005). Evidencebased practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271-185. Block, Ellen (2012). Thats what I see: Enhancing AIDS intervention research through deep ethnography. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(4), 379-394. Brydon-Miller, Mary (2003). Using participatory action research to address community health issues. In M. Murray (Ed.), Health Psychology Practice (187-202). London: Palgrave. http://www.uc.edu/arc/documents/Critical_Health_Psych ology_Chapter_final_version.pdf Comer, Edna, Andrea Meier, & Maeda J. Galinksky (2003). Development of innovative group work practice using the intervention research paradigm. Social Work, 49(2), 250260. Daley, Andrea (2010). Reflections on reflexivity and critical reflection as critical research practices. Affilia, 25, 6882). DCruz, Heather, Phillip Gillingham, & Sebastian Melendez (2007). Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work: A critical review of the literature. British Journal of Social Work, 37(1), 73-90. Fraser, Mark W., & Maeda J. Galinsky (2010). Steps in intervention research: Designing and developing social programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 459466. Gilgun, Jane F. (1996). Human development and adversity in ecological perspective: Part 1: A conceptual framework. Families in Society, 77, 395-402. Gilgun, Jane F. (1999). CASPARS: New tools for assessing client risks and strengths. Families in Society, 80(5), 450459. Gilgun, Jane F. (2005). The four cornerstones of evidence-based practice in social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(1), 52-61. Gilgun, Jane F. (2008). Lived experience, reflexivity, and research on perpetrators of interpersonal violence. Qualitative Social Work, 7(2), 181-197. Gilgun, Jane F. (2010, November). The nature of practice in evidence-based practice. Paper presented at the Theory Construction and Research Methodology Pre-Conference Workshop, National Council on Family Relations, Minneapolis, Minnesota, November 3. Gilgun, Jane F. (2011). The NEATS: A child and family assessment (3rd ed.) Amazon. Gilgun, Jane F. & Roberta G. Sands (2012). The contributions of qualitative approaches to developmental intervention research. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(4), 349361. Gray, Mel & Leanne Schubert (2010) Turning base metal into gold: Transmuting art, practice, research, and experience into gold. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 2308-2325. Hunter, David E. K. (2006). Using a theory of change approach to build organization strength, capacity and sustainability with not-for-profit organizations in the human services section. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 193-200. Jacard, James & Jacob Jacoby (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. New York: Guilford. 7

Kaplan, Sue A. & Catherine E. Garrett (2005). The use of logic models for community-based initiatives. Evaluation and program planning, 28, 167-172. Maxwell, Joseph (2004). Using qualitative methods for causal explanation. Field Methods, 16, 243-264. Mokuau, Noreen et al (2008). Development of a family intervention for native Hawaiian women with cancer: A pilot study. Social Work, 53(1), 9-19. Renger, Ralph & Carolyn Hurley (2006). From theory to practice: Lessons learned in the application of the ATM approach to developing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning (29), 106119. Rothman Jack (1989). Intervention research: Application to runaway and homeless youths. Social Work Research and Abstracts 25(1), 1318. Rothman, Jack (1991). A model of case management: Toward am empirically based practice. Social Work, 36(6), 520528. Rothman Jack & Edwin J. Thomas (Eds.) (1994) Intervention research: Design and development for human service. New York: Haworth. Schilling, Robert F. (1997). Developing intervention research programs in social work. Social Work Research 21(3): 173180. Schn, Donald A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic.

Thomas, Edwin J. (1978a). Generating innovation in social work: The paradigm of developmental research. Journal of Social Service Research 2(1), 95115. Thomas, Edwin J. (1978b). Mousetraps, developmental research, and social work education. Social Service Review 52, 468483. Thomas Edwin J. (1984). Designing interventions for the helping professions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Thomas Edwin J. (1985) The validity of design and development and related concepts in developmental research. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 21(2), 5055. Thomas, Edwin J. (1989). Advances in developmental research. Social Service Review, Tannenbaum, Sandra J. (2004). Evidence-based practice as mental health policy: Three controversies and a caveat. Health Affairs, 24(1), 163-173. W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). Logic model development guide: Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action. http://ww2.wkkf.org/DesktopModules/WKF.00_DmaSupport/ ViewDoc.aspx?fld=PDFFile&CID=281&ListID=28&Ite mID=2813669&LanguageID=0 Unicef (n.d.). Participatory action research on adolescents right to know. http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/RTK_Nigeria.pdf