Michigan State University

School of Social Work

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROFESSIONAL
PERFORMANCE OF TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
SOCIAL WORKERS IN TWO MICHIGAN STATE

MENTAL HOSPITALS

By Paul M. Kapsch
1962

 

llllfilllll/lllllllIIII/lllllllllllllllllI/l/llllll

 

3 1293 10429 7142

 

 

 

A COMPARATIVE AJALYEIS OF PROFESSIOJKL
PERFURMRECE OF TPmINED RED URTRAIEED
SOCIAL WORKERS IN TWO MICHIGAH STATE

MENTAL HOSPITALS

A PROJECT REPORT

submitted to the School of Social Wofik
Mich gan State University
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of

MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK

June 1932

Z; /{Ix’ flfi~

Approved:

 

 

ACKE OEI'JLEDGEFEKTS

The author wishes to accord a profound note of
thanks to those wh so assistance has made the completion
of this project a reality. Tb mm. Arnold Gurin and Dr.
Max Bruck for their timely and pertinent supervision and
consultation. To the fiireotors and supervisors of the
Pontiac and Ypsilanti State Hospitals' social aorvice
departments for their cooooration in dealing with a
delicate subject. And to my wife. Marge. for her

apport. patience and forbearance.

ii

TABLE C}? (20‘7“?st

ACKNOE‘JLEDGB 1‘st o o o

LIST OF TABLES . . o .

Chapter

I . EWRSL‘UCTI ON 0

II. SJEESARY 0.? Pszii-..m"‘ LITE

METdODS A319 FROG
STUDY . o I

III .

sour- as Emu-.0239 m

0

R.’.'I.'U RE

O

0

IV. PRES ENTATION AHD Ali’XLY'SIS OP 31ml?” .48 .

Vi; IMRLICATIQRS CI" TIES-SE FINDINGS

VI 0 PEG OFJENEATIONS

AP?SJDT"“S
A. araums OF

B. EDUL- ATIOE an SUI-73

"ATING ITE 33B .

EAR? AI'D RP TIES

C. FREQIENCY DISTMBIMGZI TABLES

BELIOGRr E?! . o o o .

iii

11!

8 O C
O O I
O O O

Page
ii

iv

16
21
38

45

48
66
70

86

2.

3.

4.

5.

7.

8.

10.

11.

12.

13.

WOrk Aasig daments by Level of Train . . . . .
8m“ECTED RECSEFCY’DI RInJTiOW TB - RES

Knowleége and Uhders tanding of the Pr M1 ifles of
Human Growth and Behavior . . . . . . . . .

Knowledge and 016 crstanding of Social Work
Principles, Processes and Techniques . . . .

management of? “Vnonsioilities . . . . . . . . .
Rficording..........’.........

Assisting in Evaluating Need 3 of Haleasefl
Patients for Further Care . . . . u . . . .

Interpre tatfi on to Staff Mfimbers of the Social
m1 Role in Patient Treatmen . . . . . . .

Preparation of VLrbal. Writte an azd St tistical
Exports (othor than cage recordincg) . . . .

a:

Degree to W1ich WorVez Eereeiveo Cl iezt's
Feelings About Problem. Emotional Eflsponse
tosjbtuatiOnoooo«090000000000

Worker's Under standin-3 of Relationship With
CiientQOQoooooococooooooo

Degree to 11ich worker Per veived Client's
Social and Fconomic Need . . . . . . . . . .

Degree to inicn hochr Perceivea laterastion of
FamilYGrOLlbuouoooooooooaoo

WOr1e r' a Atteimyt to Engage Particigstion of
Relatives. Friends or Others . . . . . . . .

iv

26

26

27

27

28

29

29

31

31

33

Table Page
14. Worker's Handling of Client's Peeling about
Environmental. or Interpersonal or
Emtional PrObleln o o o a o o o o o I o o o 33

15. Worker's Activity in Giving Professional Guidance.
Advico or Information . . . . . . . . . . . 34

15. Worker's Professional Puzposofulness in
Interv.ieW§QOOOOOOO00.0.0... 34

17. U33 Of SEiP-en’ision o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o 36
18. Use of Profosaional Literature . . . . . . . . . 36

19. Over—all Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . 37

CEE‘J’TER I

The profession of social work has long been faced
with a dire shortage of fully trained personnel. The
reader need not be reacqpainted with the statistics in this
mntter for we read and hear about it from numerous and varied
sources. The Journals abound with available positions and
the frequent reoccurrence of listings attests to the
difficulty in locating qualified people. Campaigns to
attract undergraduate college and high school students into
the profession have become more numerous and intense.
Conferences and conventions are witness to proeelyting by
agencies concerned by the need to acquire trained workers
in order to maintain profeseional standards.

The profession of social work is continually
attempting to deal with the problem of staff shortages and

he problem of providing competent social work service.

, 1
These ”interrelated problems of service and start shortages”

 

lVern Weed and William H. Denham. “Toward More
Effective Use of the Nonprofessional Worker: A Recent
Experiment.“ c131 Work. vol. VI (October. 1961}. p. 34.

     

are frequently thought to be in a cause-effect relationship.

There is universal agreement that the ultimate
solution to these problems will be achieved when an
adequate supply of professional manpower exists to
fill all positions requiring full graduate training.
This aim of complete professionalizetion represents
a primary commitment for the field. Progress toward
this goal calls for vigorous. creative and sustained
efforts to increase both the supply and productivity
of professional staff.2

Complete professionalization is not possible in
the forseeable future. however.-and

. . . social work must place greater emphasis on its
responsibilities for attending coverage. meking
greater use of all personnel-including those without
professional training-~nnd encouraging maximum develop-
ment now of the best if not the ideal service
possible.3

This. then is the frame of reference from which this
project was derived. This study was undertaken as an
exploratory effort to identify the areas in which trained
and untrained workers respectively might be able to function
most effectively. within the setting of the neuro-psychiatric
hospital. 'hat should the role of an untrained4 worker in

such a setting be? How does he perform in contrast to his

.._ _4_r
-'—

2

bid,

31bid.

4”Untrained“ in the sense that the worker has not
completed two years or graduate social work study.

trained counterpart? Can we begin to effectively delineate
trained and untrained roles on the basis of such a comparison?
This study was designed with the hope of establishing a
format upon which such a delineation could be considered.

The author first became impressed with this general
problem while serving a ninety day traineeshiy at a veterans
Administration neurprsychietrio hospital. During this
period it was learned that the administration of the social
service department was convinced that the untrained worker
could be used effectively in such a setting. Bound by formal
regulations. they were unable to test their hypothesis beyond
a ninety day period. Their contention wee based on a highly
successful experience in training undergraduate college
students.

The author's state hesnital experience. subsequent
to the above. served to point out an entirely different
point of view. that became a paradox in practice. Before
receiving the position a verbal agreement'wes made that the
worker would continue his graduate social work education
after a one to two year period. It was clear that although
this hospital'was free to hire untrained workers. they did
so only because of their inability to acquire fully trained

personnel. waever. the nuthor'beceme engaged in a level of

practice clearly beyond the generally accepted level of an
untrained worker. It was the author's impression that he
had been.hired primarily because there were no trained
‘workers available but needed to aaeume the responsibilitien
of a trained worker due to the overwhelming pressures
caused by insufficient staffing.

. Can the untrained social worker assume an effective
role in mental hospitals and if so. how?

We have referred to the role of the untrained worker
and need to consider the role of the trained worker. During
the author's experience as a student and worker in three
mental hospitals. unsolicited. disparaging remarks were
frequently heard from trained workers regarding the content
of their everyday responsibility. '1 don't get a chance to
really do casework”: “I feel like a glorifiied cl rt”: and
”fly graduate social work training is being wasted.“ were
some of the less favorable cammenta heard. hese attitudes.
although not unanimous. appeared to be by far the greatest
single Objection to the position.

Can the trained worker assume a more effective
role in mental hospitals? From all outward appearances
at least. trained workers do not aeem.to be making full

use of their training and untrained workers could vary well

be overstepping their training limitations.

The above mantioned experience served to formulate
two asaumgtiana for this atuéy. One: trained and untrained
‘wurkexs perform essentially the 83mm tafiks in a state mental
hosgital setting. Tan: the quality cf social service is
increased when the responsibilities of each worker is
geared to take aflvantaga of his particular level of training.

Eha general hypothesis that determined the focus of
the Btudy is that there is a difference in 32 level 0:
performance of trained and untrained wntkers. The consenfiua
among prmfeasional social wcrkers indicates that this is to
be assumed but it was the express yurpoae of this gaper to
paint out theae differences and the relative dfigree to Which
they are exhibited in vaxioua areas of responsibility.

Due ta extenuating circumstances. tha asaumption
was alsa mafia that other factors. that mivzt affect competency.
sufih as experience. age, emgtional stability. etc.. are
evenl" diatributed amoig both grcuys.

The subjects fer the study wgre the aocial workers
of twa Michigan atata mental hoapitals, Pontiac and Ypsilanti.
locétefl in those respective cities an tha periphery of
metrwyolitan Detroit. W1 kin the practical limitations of

his study. it was mat fea$ibla to uaa mare than two

zoepitals. On the other hand. it was not possible to use
only one hospital because of the inadeouacy of representation
of either trained or untrained workers. Pontiac and Ypsilanti
were chosen because between them.they offered a small but
fairly adequate sample population of 16 trained workers and
10 untrained workers.

A rating schedules was conetructeé. comyoeed of 43
items of a fairly comprehensive nature and administered by
each of the supervisors in each hosyital for each of their
respective supervieees. The workers' ratings and educational
badkground were recorded on an additional sheet.6 These
'will be discussed further in Chapter III.

In summary it may be said that this study arose
out of the need for additional social work staff in mental
hospitals. It is an attempt to explore the role theuntrairxefi
worker may play in alleviating this need. It is also an
attempt to delineate those areas in whidh the trained and
untrained worker performs meet aéeqnately. The practical
value in such delineatione rests in the hope that edmlnieo
tratore could use them as a guifle-line by Which to

differentiate the reeponeihilitiee of a trained worker firom

w—

5See Appendix A.

6
See Appendix B.

those of an untrained worker. he over-all objective being
one of elevating the level of service being offered by the
department.

hapter II will survey tho literature pertinent to
the study and discuss briefly some of the current thought
given to the problem.

Chapter III will elaborate on the methods and pro~
cedures employed in thia study.

Chapter I? is a presentation and analysis of the
data gathered.

Chapter V discusses the implications of the stuay
findings.

Finally Chapter VI will summarize these imolicationa
in light of their significance to the agencies involved in

the study and to the profession as a whole.

CHAPTER II

smmmr or re emolu- err earns

Social work is practiced in many various settings.
all of which to some degree suffer from lack of adequate
pereonnel. Perhaps the area of practice that feels this need
the greatest is public wolfare. Public assistance agencies
have long been concerned with this problem. no a result they
have probably contributed more to our somewhat meager
understanding of how we may make the best use of various
levels of training than have other areas of practice.
Demonstration projects such as one conducted by the Hdnnesota
chartmont of Public Welfare have been designed to free the
more highly trained worker from routine duties to allow‘him
more time for casework Egg fig, Workers with lens training
than assume the less demanding. routine chores.

Institute and conference proceedings as well.
roElect public welfare'a concern over this matter. At an
institute held in Chicago in 1953 regarding the development
of competent staff in public welfare the expreaeed consensus

was that "there is a close relationship between educational

level reached and competence."7 who atoremsntionod demon-
stration projects were then a practical application of this
conviction. in order to provide a better quality of service.
”Educational level." however. has greater significance
than indicating the relative degree to which an indiviaual
acquires knowledge and skills pertinent to the practice of
social work. Tnomas and ficLeod introduce the concept of
”ethical commitment” as applied to a study done with A.D.c.
worlzers regarding in~eervice training and reduced work:
loads in the State of Michigan. They state. 'A.D.C. workers
were not as committed to the ethics of helping people as
were those professional workers who had had poategraduate
training in schools of social work. On a test ethical
commitment. it was found that the A.D.c. workers scored
lower than their supervisors. and the supervisors earned

lower scores than a sample of professionally trained social

workers.“8 From this we could speculate that whereas it is

possible for persons with lesser training to perfiorm

 

“*— ————-— —v

 

Summary of Material Presented by All Participants in an
Institute Sponsored by the American Public Welfare Association
(Chicago: Rockefeller Brothers Fund. 1958). p. 51.

8Edwin J. Thomas anfi Donna F. MbLeod. Ln;§§xzigg,
Relucefl workloacs (New York: Russell Sage

Foundation. 1960).

 

10

concrete services as adequabely (in relation to meeting
certain minimum égency objectives) a: do more highly trained
persona: that tho mora highly trained person is likely to
carry into his work a greater degree of ethical responci~
bility that goes beyond those minimum agency objectives.
The author did not include an ethical commitment test in
this stufly. The concoct 13 introduced to point out to the
reader that differences batween trainmd and untrained
workers can involve more than the mere assessment of ger-
formance in basic social aervicea.

It is not lways poasibla to apply éirectly the
expcrience of social welfare agencies to social cervice in
mantal hospitals. Whom social welfare agencies cgeak of
improving the educational level of their pcraonnel. for
instance. they are often looking first to elevating their
minimum efiucational requirement to an A.B. degree.9 On
the other hand. the level of training thought to be necessary
in the area of mental health is a Ehster'e degree in
social work. For example. a position paper on the
professional education for social work in Canada states:

A flcster of Social Work degree is a desirable
minimum for professional practice in social work-and

9American Public welfare Association. op, gig.

11

particularly in the mental health services. It is
patently evident that there in an acute ehorage of
qualified social workers in Canada and that the
shortage is very serioue in the mental health services.
We do. however. believe that. whenever possible.

social work positions in mental health serVicea should
be filled by persons who hold the HBW‘dcgree (or its
equivalent) and are fully qualified . . . full
membership as a treatment team calls for full

professional training and a senior quality of
performance.10

This does not mean that social service departments

in mental hospitals cannot benefit from the experience and

research of social welfare agencies. Nor doee it neceesarily
indicate that mental hospitals cannot effectively utilize

social workers with a full range of formal education. from

the high school diploma to the MSW degree and beyond. In
this respect we might well apply the theoretical scheme

developed by William Richan for determining the roles of

professional and non-professional workers. He identifies

the two variables of "worker automony' and ”client vulner—

ability'll as the determinants of the educational level of

staffing necessary. Worker autonomy is determined by the

'ladk of explicit and concrete guides requiring the exercise

of discretionary judgment by the worker: low visibility.

10

Edger A. Perretz, 'The Principles Intolved in the

Development of the Social Work Component in Ontario Ilntal
Health Services.“ "he Soc'

9. 54.

 

el worker. Vol. XXIX (April. 1961).

11William C. Richan. “A Theoretical Scheme for Dcturmin-
ing Roles of Professional and Nonprofesaional Perlonnolo'
figsfiguhjggmagg vol. V1 (October. 1961).

 

12

and thus lack of external control. of what the worker is

doing: and lack of support for protonsional standard. in
the agency itself .

. . . Client vulnerability can he Dunn
divided into two types;

that resulting from the nature of

the client and his situation and that arising from the nature
of the service."12 In this theoretical scheme responsibilities

involving a relatively high degree of both variables should

be assigned only to the professional worker. Responsibilities
involving a high degree of client vulnerability and low

degree ot'worker autonomy would be relegated to a “specialist.'
a person who through in-service training or other means is

crpable of performing aoecielized tasks with a good deal

of regulation and supervision. An example of the specialist

in some agenciea might be an intake worker. for example.
Reeponeibilities entailing a low degree of client vulner-
ability with a high degree of worker autonomy would be
assigned to the 'eubnprofeseionel.' An example of this
'might be income budgeting in a public assistance agency if

the clientele in relatively well adjusted and the worker

relies quite a bit on his own discretion. Routine taekl

involving u low degree of both variables could then be

12m" pp. 24-27.

 

 

13

assigned to an “aids.“

The consensus of the profession indicating that the
ultimate goal in social service staffing of mental hospitals
is the hiring of only fully trained social workers places
severe limitations on the practical application of the above
scheme. Administrators are more likely to direct their
efforts toward hiring fully trained personnel at the possible
expense of not taking full advantage of available untrained
personnel. We are then still faced with the problem of
provifling as high a level of service possible under the
existing shortage of trained workers.

Weed and Donham summarize their experiment in making
more effective use of non—professional workers in child-
placing agencies with the following statement: “The ex~
perience of this project suggests that wo have underestimated
both the potentialities of this reservoir of workers and
our ability to help realize their potentialities through
the proviSion of onwthe-job training.'13 This might very
[well be the case in the area of mental hospital social work
as well.

The importance of employing to greatest afivantago

an individual'o abilities applies to trained workers. as

w 4 A. _A A .4 _._...

13

ll . i, , 7 ‘V—

Weed and DQRthg 02.. cit.. ‘p. 33.

14

well as to the untrained.

with the traditional methods of assigning
professional staff in a hospital that of giving each
worker total social service responsibility in a
particulsr clinic or service. a professionally
trained caseworker performs a variety of services
which may or may not require his full Skills. Such
utilization of staff is not economical. Underutilisation
of the trained woraer‘s full skills not only lessens
effectiveness. but the best interests of the patients
as a whole may not be served.14

Margaret Heyman thus conducted a study in a general hospital
involving the assignment of cases according to four levels

of staff skill. The specific criteria for assigning cases
were grouped under the headings of requiring advanced case-
work skills. requiring casework skills. not requiring
casework skills and requiring neither casework skills not
medical-social data. Assignments were then made respectively
to advanced caseworkers. caseworkers, case aides and
secretaries. She concludes. ”In briei the new case assign-
ment was found to increase the productivity or the department
from the point of View of both the quantity and quality of

its social aervice.”15

14Hargaret M. Heyman.‘%.5tudy of Effective Utilisation
of Social Workers in s Hosgital Setting." 5035“
v: (April. 1961). p. 36.

15Margaret M. Ecyman. “A Study of Effective Use of

Social Workers in a Hospital. Sggigl Service Reviggp vsi.
XXX? (December. 1961). p. 418.

   

 

15

The criteria16 by which the cases were assigned has
greatest relevance when agplied to the specific setting in
which the study took place. Tue following chapters will
describe a beginning attempt to delineate the criteria by
which responsibilities may be assigned to two levels of

staff skill at two Michigan state mental hospitals.

_....__.

C

l‘Mergaret M. Hbyman. ”Criteria for the Allocation
of Cases According to Levels ofi Staff Skill."§pcia;
Cesemrk. Vol. X1311 (July. 1961).

CHAFTER III

.METHDES AND PRQCEDURES EfiwLOYED IN THIS STUDY

Th- social work literature ffered little help in
designing this study because a project such as this does
not appear to have been done before. Practical time and
expense considerations further limited the deeign. In
addition the exploratory nature of the study greytly cur-
tailed the use of more exacting research methodology.

The sociil service populations of Pontiac and Ypsilanti
State Hospitals were welocted on the basis of the geographic
location of the two host settings. An additional factor
for tbeir selection was that those host sottingo offered a
fairly reasonable balance of trained and untrained workers.
Samyling the total populations of social service staffs in
all the state mental hospitals would have offered data that
would have permitted more confident generaliZJtions.
»Practical footers prohibited such an effort.

The schedule of 43 items by which the workers were
rated. included in its entirety as Appendix A. attempted to
include specific reoponeibilitios as well as general items

of pertinent social work knowledge and skills.

16

17

Section 1. consisting of four items. relate. to the
'workcr'o knowledge and understanding of Eclen Harris Perlman'a
”person. problem. place and process.“17 as applied to the
setting under consideration.

Section 11. consisting of three items. relates to
the'worker'a ability to.manage his responsibilities and to
handle his recording and correspondence duties.

Sections 111 and IV are specific responsibilities
taken directly from the position aescription for the
Psychiatric Social Work Trainee Ia. and the Psychiatric
Social Work II. an compileo by tie Michigan Civil Service
Commission. Section III relates to responsibilities con~
cerning patients about to be released and Section IV to
interpretive. educative responsibilities.

The items in Sections V. VI and VTII are taken from
Margaret Shubert'l article. "Field Work Performances
Achievement Levels of First-Year Students in Selected
Aspects of Casework Service.'.§ociel Servicewgpview. June.
1958. pages 120-37.

The four items in Section V’were grouped under the

general hlading of Clienthorker Relationships and 13 items

fir...-

lTflblen Harris Perlmen. (Ch16890'

The Univeriity of Chicago Press. 1957). pp. 3-63.

 

18

in Section.VI attempted to rate the worker regarding various
general casework functions and processes.

The seven items in Section VII were designed to
determine the frequency with which worker. made use of various
educational resources in order to improve their professional
knowledge. efficiency and comeetency. It Was thought such
questions might provide a guide to the planning of in~
service training programs that are most responsive to the
reflected needs of trained and untrained workers.

The last section. VIII. consists of a single item
regarding the over-all quality of the worker's performance.

The schedule was an attempt to comerehensively
samgle the various components of a psychiatric social work
position. It is not.known if this was accomyliehed. To
do so might very well entail research of its own.

The ratings for each item vary from a three to a six
point scale. he nature of the rating varying with the item.
One of the pitfalls of such a scale is the tendency of
raters to group the ratings around the average or acceptable.
Another difficulty is that we are arbitrarily recuiring that
the rater select certain points along a continuum when in
actuality the more accurate rating may lie in between certain

of these points.

19

Each worker was rated by his immediate supervisor.
The more acceptable and generally used method of ratings
made by impartial judges on the basis of recorded material
was not possible due to the lack of sufficient recording.
The workers might also have been asked to complete a
'written examination designed to test their level of knoww
ledge and understanding and skills in their various
responsibilities. Such an instrument would not really be
sensitive to his actual performance on the job. the very
focus of this study.

The problem in the method finally used is the element
of supervisor bias. It is apparent that to some degree
at least. each supervisor will carry subjective feelings
into his ratings. To filter out these subjective feelings
in order to evaluate the worker objectively would indeed
be difficult. The supervisors were instructed to select
the rating for each item that most closely approximated the
worker's actual performance. They were also instructed
that the worker's potential ability was not to be considered.

All workers other than the two directors and five
supervisors were rated. Family care home visitors. who
operate essentially on an aide level. were not included in

this study. As a result. seven fully trained social workers

20

rated. among them. ten untrained social workers and 16 trained
social workers. For purposes 0: this project. a trained
worker was one who had completed two years of graduate social
'work training: an untrained worker was one who had completed
less than two years of graduate social work training.
Unfortunately the data derived by the above described
method does not lend itself to statistical analysis. lflany
nonoperametric measures were investigated for their applica-
bility but were found to be of little or no value. Frequency
tables were computed for each of the items and can be found

in Appendix C.

. '2—‘1 “iv—r,”

CEFLPTER N
p assurance 2‘ an MAL '18): s or mine 122-: or;

The ten workers classified as untrained for purposes
of this study demonstrate a wide range of educational ex~
periences. Five of the ten held the B.A. degree. one with
a concentration in pre-professional social work and another
in social psychology. Two others held B.A. degrees plus
some courses from a school of social work. One had completed
one year of a graduate social work curriculum. The two
remaining workers held the M.A. degree. one in sociology
and the other with a concentration in guidance and
counsel ing. I

Of the 16 trained workers.'l4 held the M.S.W. degree
or its equivalent and two had completed two full years of
graduate social work education but did not possess a graduate
degree. No indication was given of any of these people
having any social work education beyond this.

The work assignments of the 26 workers varied
considerably. Some were assigned to a specific service
within the hospital. such as the geriative service: or

within the social service department. such as the family

21

22

(foster) care unit. Some were assigned to specific wards
hroughout the hospital. Others had Word assignments in
addition to outnpatient clinic work. The range of assignments
can be seen in Table 1.
The table illustrates a balance between trained and

untrained workers reoresented on the geriatric services.
in admissions and intensive treatment and with general ward
assignments. However. no untrained workers were assigned
to children's services or out-patient clinics. while 8
trained workers were involved in these areas. On the other
hand. five untrained workers were assigned to family care

and vocational placement with only two trained workers.

TREE 1

Work Pssignments by Level of Trrining

 

‘ on-.. _. —+‘ .v: ‘4‘ ".1. w A

Assignment Trained Untrained

 

Geriatric Service 2
Admissions and Intensive Treatment 2
General Nerd Assignments 2
Children's Service 3
Out-patient Clinic 1
Out-patient Clinic and General Ward
Assignments 4
Family C:re 0
Family Cnre and Vecetionel Placement 2

lUNO CCU-“MN

Total 16

g..-
0

23

These figures reflect a definite trend in the place-
ment of trained and untrained workers within the hospital.
The out—patient clinic and children's servico assignments
are generally thought to‘be more demanding of a worker's
professional competence and it is significant to note that
no untrained workers were placed in these areas. Tho
positions in family care were dominated by untrained workers.
perhapg because more of the responsibilities there tend to
be less demanding in terms of intensive casework treatmant.

Ebwcver. no such delineation in assignments appoared
in the ratings made in this study. Almoot all of the
workers were rated on all but a few items. The supervisors
'wore allowed to indicate that they were unable to make a
rating when the worker did not assume a specific respon-
sibility. The fact that thorn was no significant difference
between the number of trained and untrained workers not
rated appears to indicate that both groupa do ossentially
the some work. At least there apgaars to be a common
donominator in the rating itams uned in this study.

No method of statistical correlation was found that
suited tho data collected. due to the small sample size and
the rating method used. It was considered to dichotomize

the rating scale itself at a point conaidered to be a 'desirable"

24

level oi competency. This is not aggropriate in that most
ratings tend to be concent.ated in the upper two or threo
categories. To use an examglo. Item Ono is concerned with
the workers' knowledgo and understanding of the principles
of human growth and behavior. If we were to diohotomize

on an excellentvlesa than excellent basis we would find that
five out of 16 trained workers would be classified as excel-
lent whereas only one out of ten untrained workers would be
no claoslfiad (3l% to 10%). However. if we wore to
dichotomize on a goofi-lesa than good basis, we find that 12
or 73% of the trained workers are in the prior category
compared to 8 or 80%»03 the untrained workers. It would
be quite simple. therefore. to suaoort the study‘bypothesls
for this particular item that trained workers are more
knowledgeable than are untrained workers by using the one
Gichotomization of the two montioned that yields the
highest score for that groug. There is no basis upon
which this can justifiably be done.

As illustrated. it would be possible to construe
the some material to the benefit of either groug. The
trained group. quite consistently. had a greater range of
scores and if wo were to diohotomize a scale based on the

lower end of the ratings such as fair—better than fair.

25

we would find the untrained group scoring consistently better
than the trained. We must. therefore. be cont; nt to compare
the frequency distributions without the benefit of statistical
nalysis.

The data reveals no distinct 81w ifi mo tdifferencea
in performance by the two grout a of trained an nd untralnod
workers. This analysis will attempt to point out those
itcrs mnero differences. however Blight. are greatest.

Unless otherwise indicated. such analysis will be based
upon atddy of the in omzuncy distributions.

As might have been anticipated the greatest differences
in Section I are with tho preponderance of excellent rating:
received by trained workers regarding the knowledgo and
understanding of the principles of human growth and behavior
and 05 social work princiylos. processes and techniques.
0f the two. knowledge and understanding of social work
principl.es. proceose a and tochniqxes Shows tlze greatest
difference.

A lasso rdifforon co is soon in the workers' knowledge
and nnd-rst anding of tlo hos nnital's and social aervico
department's organization. unction. rules. rcgn L1tlons. and
proccdnrns. The last item in his section concc~ning‘knowledcc
and um: crstanding of “a"c1041thology. probably shows the

letct difference hetwccn the two groans. if any.

25

Ififimfi 2

ITEM 1: Knowledge and understanding of the Principles of
Human Growth and Behavior

.- —~ _

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained
1. Excellent 5 l
2. Good 7 7
3. Adequate 4 2
4 0 Pair
5 0 Poor
A. Unable to rate _fi
Total 16 10
TABLE 3

ITEM 3: Knowledge and Understanding of Social Work Principles.
Processes and Techniques.

 

v V

Untrained

Trained

 

w W ——,--7 v

 

 

Rating

1. Excellent 6
2. Good 5 5
3. Adequate ‘ 5 5
4. Fair
5. Poor
A. Unable to rate _

Total 16 10

section II relates to the common. basic functions of
management of responsibilities. recording end correspondence.
The untrained group scored somewhat better in.their manage-
ment of reeponeibilities and recording and both groups were

rated essentially alike on correspondence.

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4
ITEM 5: Managemnt of Responsibilitiea
_. II _ V ‘ , :'=: -
Rating Trained Untrained
1. 6005 7 6
2. Adequate 9 4
3. Poor
A. Unable to rate
Total 16 10
TABLE 5
ITEM 6: Recording
_*_ Rating Trained I untrained
1. Good 6 6
2. Adequate 7 2
3. Poor 2 l
A. Unable to rate 1
Total 15 10

Section III consists of five responsibilities con-

cerning patients about to be released from the hospital.

Item 11. locating and approving employment opportunities

for patients. was not a reegonsibility for 19 of the 26

workezs and so there is no basis for comparison.

Items 80

9. and 10) determining home and community circumstances

prior to release from hospital: assisting medical staff in

determining patient'e readineee for release and assisting

 

 

 

28

patients and relatives in locating and taking advantage of
community services available. showed little difference
between the two groups. The untrained group. however. was
rated better in assisting in evaluating needs of released

patients for further care.

TABLE 6

ITEM 12: Assisting in Evaluating Needs of Released Patients
for Further Care.

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained
1. Appropriate 7 7
2. Moderately Appropriate 8 2
3. Somewhat Appropriate l

4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. very Inappropriate 1
A. Unable to rate

 

Total 16 10

 

Section IV is comprised of five interpretive.
educative responsibilities. The greatest differences in
this section was the trained group's greater ability to
interpret to staff members the social work role in patient
treatment and in the preparation of verbal. written and
statistical reports other than case recording.

Trained workers were slightly better in counseling
family care therapists. relatives. employers and others

regarding patients' welfare: and also showed some slight

ITEM.13: Interpretation to Staff Nowhere of the Social Work
Role in Patient Treatment.

 

w-w— fi W
.L * ._ _ . ._
7.. w

 

 

 

Rating Trained untrained
1. Appropriate 9 3
2. moderately Appropriate 3 3
3. Somewhat Appropriate l l
4. Somewhat Inappropriate 1 2
5. Very Inappropriate
A. Unable to rate 2 1
Total 16 10

 

TABLE 8

ITEM 16: Preparation of Verbal. Written and Statistical
Reports (other than case recording).

 

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained
1. Appropriate 9 3
2. Mbdorately Appropriate 4 5
3. Somewhat Appropriate 2 2
4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. Vbry Inappropriate
A. Unable to rate 1

 

Total ‘ 16 10

superiority in participation in meetings. conferences and
committees. The two groups showed little difference in
their ability to interpret mental illness to relatives.

friends and others and in their participation in education

30

and consulting services for furthering mental health.
Section V’connists of four items related generally
to the worker-client rolationship. Trained workfira were
found to score better in their perception of clients'
feelings about problems, emotional response to situations

and in understanding their relationship with clients.

TABLE 9

ITEM 20: Degree to Which Wofkar Perceived Client's Feelings
About Problam, Emotional Response to Situation.

 

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained

1. very high degree of perception 7 2
2. High degree of perception 4 5
3. Moderate degree of perception 4 3
4. Low fiegree of porcoytion l
5. Very low degree of perception
A. unable to rate .7

Total 16 10

TABLE 10
ITEM.22: Worker's Understanding of Relationship With Client.

 

~ A __.._
—-—-—r w. T vvr—

 

 

 

Rating. Trained Untrained

l. 5

2. 6 7

3. 2 l

4. l

5. 1

A. unable to rate 2 1
Total .. 16 10

g‘ .
v—w—vv

 

9See Appendix A for description of numerical ratings.

31

untrained workers were rated slightly better in their
perception of cliente' social and economic need and their

perception of the interaction of family groups.

ThELE ll

ITEM 19: Degree to Which Worker Perceived Client's Social
and Economic Need.

A A__ A!“ M

L —“ “ A + =—.—-Mub

Rating Trained Untrained
1. very high degree of perception 7 6
2. High degree of perception 5 2
3. Moderate degree of perception 3 2
4. Low degree of perception

 

 

5. Very low degree of perception l
A. Unable to rate _r _
Total 16 j 10
TEELE 12

T:M.21: Degree to Which worker Perceiveo Interaction of
Family Group.

 

W ‘— V W ' A * Arw+ m
-— t“ w

Rating Trained Untrained

 

1. very high degree of perception 7 5
2. High degree of perception 3 3
3. moderate degree of perception 6 2
4. LOW'degree of perception

5. very low degree of perception
A. unable to rate

Total 16 10

 

Section VI contains 13 iteme grouped under the heading
Of general caseworf functions and processes. If we are to
take into consideration he total range for each group and
compute mean ratings in order to allow a more accurate
discernment of any differences not apparent otherwise. it
is found that the trained group scores higher on only two
items but only by one-tenth of one point. me differences
are. therefore. f no significance. The untrained group.
however. scored higher on four items with a difference of
four-tenths of a point in each. This group was judged more
capable in tneir attempts to engage the participation of
relatives. friends or others: they were better able to
handle the client's feelings about environmental. intern
personal or emotional problems: they were better able to
be appropriately active in giving professional guidance.
advice or information and their professional purposeful-
nese in interviews was more evident. appropriate and

individualized.

33

TABLE 13

ITfiM 25: Workefh Attempt to Engage Participation of
Relatives. Friends or Others.

._ L .
A .L

Eating Trained Untrained

 

l. hygroyriato 8 7
2. Moierately Appropriate 6 2
3. Somewhat hpyropriato 1 l

4. Suaewhat Inappropriat
5. vary Inappropriate
A. viable to rate 1

Total 16 10

?AELE 14

ITEH.28: WOrker's Handling of Client's Feeling about
Environmental. or Interpersonal or Emotional

 

 

 

Problem.
Rating Trained Untrained

1. Appropriate 5 3

2. Moéerately Appropriate 5 6

3. Somewhat Appropriate . 4 l

4. Somewhat Inappropriate

5. Vsry Inapprogriato l

A. Uhabla to rate 1

 

Total 16 . 10

34

TABLE 15

ITEM 30: Worker's Activity in Giving Professional Guidance.
Advice or Information.

 

m

 

 

 

 

Rating Trained Uhtrainefli

1. Appropriate 5 4
2. Mbderately Appropriate 9 6
3. Somewhat Appropriate l
4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. vary Inappropriate 1
A. Unable to rate A

Total 16 10

TABLE 16

ITEM 35: Worker's Profaaaional Purposefulneas in Interviews

 

W

 

—..—_..

 

 

Rating‘ Trained Untrained
lo 7 3
2. 4 5
3. 1 2
4. l
5. 3
6.
A. Unable to rate V
Total 16 10

*See Appendix A for description of numerical ratings.

The remaining items showed no noticeable differences.

'I'ney are 3

ITEM 23: Worker's Explanation of Hospital Policies and
Services to Patients. Relatives or Othera..

ITEM.24: Worker's Attempt to Engage Patient's Participation.
ITEM 26: Worker‘s Exploration of the Facts of the Problem.

ITEM 27: Worker’s ERploration of Client's Feeling About the
Problem.

ITEM 2

l0
uJ

Worker's Handling of Client's Foaling About Worker
and/or Agency.

ITEM 31: Worker's Activity in Giving Recognition to Client‘s
Capacity. as Shown in Current and Past Competence.

ITEM 32: Worker's Verbalizations to the Client about the
Severity and Solubility of the Problems.

ITEM.33: Worker's Activity in Directing Focus.
ITEM 34: worker's Professional Self-discipline.

Section VII contains seven items regarding various
resources a worker may take advantage of to better the level
of his professional competency. 0f the seven. three items
offer no basis for comparison due to the insufficient number
of workers being rated. They were: “Formal course work”;
“Social work and related organizations.” and “Other.“ an
item designed to make the section inclusive. Consultation
and in-service training were used about as frequently by

both groups. The greatest differences shown were the

untrained workers' more frequent use of supervision and the

trained workers' use of the professional literature.

b)
03

TABLE 17

ITEM 36: Use of Sugervision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating Trained untrained
1. VEry Frequent 5 4
2. Frequent 2 l
3. .Moderately Frequent 4 3
4. Seldom 1
5. Very seldom 3
A . Unable to re ta 2 1
Total 16 ‘ 10
TBEfiE 18
ITEM.40: Use of Professional Literature.
Rating Trained Untrained
1. Very Frequent 2 l
2. Frequent . 5 l
3. Mbfieretely Frequent 5 5
4. Seldom i
5. very Seldom 2 1
A. Unable to rate 2 1
Total 16 10

Section VIII is a single item rating each worker on
the over-all quality of his performance. When considering
the total distributions this item offers as great a dif-
ference as seen on any single item in the study. with the

untrained group performing better on the average. The

37
difference lies in the range of scores. the untrained workers
being grouped in the three top categories of moderately
good, high and very high: whereas the trained group has one
each in the weak and very poor ratings. Even with those

Skewed ratings the difference is not great.

TEBLE l9

ITEM 43: Over-all Quality of Service

A 4 AL A ‘— ‘ A...‘
A; 'wv-v '—

 

Rating Trained Untrained
1. Very high 6 2
2. Rig} 3 5
3. Moéerately good 5 3
4. Weak 1
5. Poor
6. Very poor 1

A. Unable to rate “A
Total 16 10

 

CHAPTER V

IMPLICATIORS OF THESE FINDINSS

The hypothesis of this study reflected the prior
conviction of the author that there is a difference between
the performance of trained and untrained social workers in
state mental hospitals. It must further be indicated that
such differences were expected to be significantly in favor
of those workers with graduate social work training. It was
ex ected that those differences would vary in intensity from
item to item.dependent primarily upon the relative competency

f the untrained group. Assuming such differences to be
demonstrated it was thought that we could derive clues
there from by which to consider differential assignments of
responsibilities. taking greater advantage of the relative
competencies of each group.

In none of these instances have the study goals been
fulfilled.

Careful consideration of the frequency distributions
of ratings indicates that there are very minor differences
between the two groups in all aspects of the study. A

closer lock tells us that the average rating is more frequently

39

than not in favor of the untrained group. In light of this.
we most reject the stated hypothesis and accept what would
have been the null hypothesis. had one been tested for by
means of statistical analysis. There in then no significant
disparity between the performance of trained and untrained
social workers. in the two state mental hospital; included
in this study. At least. there is no such difference in the
ratings made by the supervisors.

Having coneiflered the lack of significant differences
in the degree to which the two groups performed. we look
new at the differences. however slight. in the various areas
of responsibility. Did the untrained worker perform better
than the trained worker in area: representing concrete.
basic social services? Did the trained'worker perform
better in areas involving more subtle and demanding skills
such as his perception of and activity in a therapeutic or
counseling relationship? Such does not appear to be the
case in either instance.

In some of the more notable flifferencee manifested
by this etuéy untrained workerS'were better able. to
engage the participation of relatives and others: in exploring
the facte of the client's problems: in giving professional

guidance. advice and information: in appropriately verhulising

40

to the client the severity and Iolubility of his problems
and mogt important perh~ps. in his demnnstratad prafesaional
purpoaafulnass» Trained wsrkers, on the other hand, were
better able to perceive tfie clients‘ feelings about problems
and their emotianal responses to situations: to understand
their relationship with the client: to counsel family care
theragista. relatives and others regarding the patient's
welfare: and to interpret the role of the social worker in
patient treatmento

This ladk of any definable pattern of relative
competence holds true for the performance of tha twa groups
regarding basic. more clearly defined responsibilities. The
groups scored essentially alike on most of such items with
the untrained group somewhat better able to manage his over-
all resyonsibilities and his recording.

The group with grafiuate training did possaas a greater
:nawledge and unflerstanding of the principles of human
growth and behavior and of social work principles. processes
and techniques. The trained warkers interpretnd more
nppropriataly the social wart rala in patient treatmant.
They commanded a greater understanding of the'worker-client
relationship. although they did net alwaya ag3ear to be

better able to apgly this ufiderstanéing in practicev Their

41

preparation of reports other than recording and their
participation in meetings. conferences and committees was
also somewhat superior. Appropriate performance in these
items might require. some more than others. a greater academic
backgrounfl than for some of the other items.

The results of this study are in definite contra-
diction to the generally accepted idea that performance can
be correlated to the worker's level of social work education.
The contradiction is even more pronounced when we consider

hat of all areas of social work practice. psychiatric social
‘work is probably most convinced of this.

The greatest contribution of this study is not
reflected in the results as much as it is reflected in the
fact that the study was cone at all. Research on a mush
more sophisticated level must be conducted in order to gain
any significant level of validity and reliability. It is
interesting. however. that such research has not been done.
to this writer's knowledge.

It is fully recognized that it is the consensus of
the profession that graduate training is necessar' for the
most successful practice of social work. sis does not
mean. however. that we should be content with consensus.

This stucy merely begins to investigate what.we have come

42

to accept at face value. Tbs result. are challenging. Can
this study be justified in terms of good research methadology7
It becames imperative to review the methodology in order

to assess the findings.

The procedure by which the workers were rated is
lacking in many respects. It was necessary to introduce
the sneervisors as judges. hereby considering them 'experts'
in this sense. It is obvious that such cannot be assumed.
The supervisors were not rating a piece of recording. author
unknown. but rather a .rson with wbom they baa likely
shared many cups or coffee and heurs of casual csnversation.
This introduces a bias of unknown proportions and unknown
ramifications. In addition. many ratings on certain items
were likely to have been made on the basis of meager infor—
mation. for even the best cf supervisors is not fully
ec44einted with all aspects of the wcrk and competency of
his supervisees.

The rating schedule itself. mnreovsr. we: by no means
all—inclusive. Many items could have been added. a few
might have been deleted. as criteria. such as various
levels of appropriateness. might well have been expanded to
include a greater range and allow for mere precise ratings.

The basic assumgticns at the stufly might also be

challenged. Did both groups. in fact. have a comparable

43

length of experience in the field? Exigencies involved in
conducting this study did not allow for gathering this data.
Perhaps the untrained group had a significantly greater length
of experience. If so. it might be wise to study the

question of whether experience or formal training is the

more essential factor in.preparing one for this type of
position.

It might be possible that the untrained workers
are an older group and perhaps carried into their work a

reater level of personal maturity. a question that could
bear some investigation.

We could also consider the possibility that trained
workers want to perform duties which demand and utilize
their professional skills. Perhaps professionally trained
workers are content to meet routine requirements on a minimum
basis. If such is the case and if the untrained worker is
at the same time continually attempting to imsreve himself
to justify his challenged position. this might help to
explain the better performance of untrained workers in some
areas. untrained workers were found to make greater use of
supervision and to a lesser degree. of consultation. The
nature of tne position might be such that it challenges the

initiative of the untrained while allowing little freedom

44

for the trained to take full advantage of his training.
Both are pure speculation and this study does not investi-
gate tness matters: but they could be vital considerations
in future research.

All of these factors illustrate the mead to

investigate the matter more thoroughly. The results of

this study can be validated or invalidated in no other

precise manner.

CiflPTER VI
REC wormmmxora

There are no definite conclusions that can be drawn
from this study that might be of immediate use to the
directors of the two social service departments involved.
There are certain recommendations. however. that might be
made for examining the study problem more cloeely.

Is the quality of service rendered by each group of
a satisfactory nature? Only close scrutiny by an adminis-
tration. that is well aware of the numerous problems of
social work practice in a “host" setting. can adequately
aesees this. Such problems in a very practical sense are
large determinants of the goals that can be realistically
set for departmental objectives and performance. For
example. if the medical staff feels that social service has
no right to involvement in direct patient therapy. it would
indeed be difficult to implement a program of intensive
casework treatment. This is given merely as an example
and this study did not investigate the wetter.

Should the quality of service rendered not be at the

:most desirable level. what might be done to enhance its

45

performance?. Should trained workers make more frequent use
of supervision and consultation than is indicated by this
study? Should untrained workers be more involved in in-
service training?

If practical problems such as are illustrated above
are at a minimum. consifieration might be given to defining
more clearly the roles of the trained and untrained workers.t
a suggestion by margaret Heyman previously quoted.~ Are
trained workers given the oyportunity to take full advantage
of their training? Would they perform better if assigned
responsibilities more demanding of their level of training?
In considering this. departmental responsibilities as a whole

est be re—examined. Are the basic functions of the department
designed to make the greatest and most effective use of what
social work has to offer? Could some timemconsuming.
clerical~type responsibilities be reassigned to other
departments? Do the efforts expended by the staff in meeting
such functions eventually have significance to the ultimate
objective of helping the patient through social work practice?
Again this study does not consider such matters. but merely
implies that they might be examined.

A.trcnd toward the exclusive hiring of trained

workers in mental hospitals is in evidence. Can this be

47

justified in View of the atudy results? Perhaps the limita-
tions of this study negato the results. But even if trained
workers did perform significantly better: it does not neces~
sarily mean that the untrained worker cannot competently
assume a role in social service departments of mental
hospitals.

This question has pertinence not only to two Michigan
state mental hospitals. but to all mental hospitals as well.
Tgere is a definite need for future research investigating
the proper roles for both trained and untrained workers.

The immense problem of shortage of trained personnel might
be alleviated significantly through the use of he untrained
group. and departmental performance might be enhanced
oignificantly by taking greater advantage of the trained
workers' professional education.

The study also suggests that the field must continually
re—evaluate its graduate school curricula as well as investi-
gate as closely as pogsiblo what the salient factors at? in
assuring success in social work practice. If a practitioner
‘without graduate training can perform as well as one with
graduate training. we need to know why.

If this study has done no more than to provoke others
to conduct investigations that will in 30mg may shed further

light on the subject. it has then accomplished a purpose.

 

AP
PENDIX A

 

 

49

Schcfiule of Rating Items

Procedure: After each item or group of items will be
found a set of descriptive ratings varying from three to
six choices. Select the rating that in your estimation
most nearly areroximates your thinking and circle the
corresponding number on the rating sheet opposite the
item number. All items include a choice (signified by
the letter 'A') that indicates you are unable to make a
rating for that particular item. If you m at use this
choice. please specify the reason you are unable to
rate tne worker on this item. For example. the w~rker
may not be responsible for certain tasks asked to be

rated.

By 'client' is meant any patient. relative. friend or
other person with whom the worker comes in contact in
order to discharge his duties.

Item 1. Knowledge and understanding of the principles
of human growth and behavior.

Item 2. Knowlefige and understanding of the hospital's
and social service éepartment's organization.
function. rules. regulations and procedures.

Item 3. Knowledge and understanding of social work
princiyles. processes and techniques.

Item 4. Knowledge and understanding of psychopathology.
etiology and individual. familial and environ-
mental ramifications.

1. Excellent

2. Good
3. Aflequate
4. Pair
5. 930:

Section II:

 

Item 5: Management of Resoonsibilities

Item 6.

Item 7:

2.

(J
0

Good: worker is able to efficiently evaluate
priority needs and determine a course of
action that should effectively moot such
neeas. Ho adapts to extenuating circum-
stances without undue neglect to ongoing
responsibilities and manages to plan his
activity so as to allow most efficient and
comoetht service unéer the circumstances.

Adequate: worker is able to organize his
work, evaluate priorities and act upon
them in an adequate manner. but not without
some loss of efficiency and competency
necessary to maintaining good management

of his caseload.

Poor: worker. for tho most cart is not
able to organize his work and spends too
much time on trivial or .nncrficial matters
while more important matters are frequently
noglcctod.

Recording

1.

3.

Goon: wrrksr rccorfis within a rccnorahlc
period of time. The recording reflects
clarity. appropriateness, concisensos,
accuracy. beimum benefits can be derived
by those using the recorded material.

Adequate: worker records in a manner
adequate to fulfilling the purpose of the
same. but lacking in some manner from
allowing it to be hotter than adequate.

Poor: worker's recording is less than
adequato in that it is too late. inaccurate.
unclear. inappropriate or too lengthy or
brief to be of sufficient value to moot

its need.

Correspondence

1.

Good: worker answers correspondence within

a reasonable period of time. The correspondence
reflects clarity and a basic grasp of
grammatical construction. Information is
presented in an accurate and thorough manner

and is nooropriato. so as to be of maximum
service to the receiver.

Section 111:

Item 8:

Item 9:

Item 10:

tom 11:

Item 122

51

2. Aéequate: ‘worker manages and writes his
correspondence in a manner somewhat 10.!
than of good quality but fulfills his
obligation adequately.

3. Poor: worker is likely to allow his corres~
pondenco to become outdated. to misinterpret.
misrepresent.

Responsikilitirs Concogninquoticnts Ahggg_§g
pkg Relccscd.

Determining home and community circumstances
prior to release from hospital.

Assisting medical staff in determining patient's
readiness for release.

Assisting patients and relatives in locating
and taking advantage of community services
available.

Locating and approving employment opportunities
for patients.

Assisting in evaluating needs of released
patients for further care.

1. Appropriate: the worker has a thorough and
accurate understanding of the patient's needs
and home and community circumstances and is
able to comncnicate this to others. He is
fully aware of the appropriateness and .
availability of community resources and is
effective in assisting. insofar as is
possible. the patient and others to take
advantage of the same.

2. Moderately Appropriate: the worker operates
essentially as described above. but lacking
somewhat in one or more respects from being
fully appropriate.

 

Section IV}

Item 13:

Item 14:

Item 15:

Item 16:

Item 17:

Item 18 a

52

3. Somewhat Appropriate: the worker‘s activity
is not inappropriate but meets only a minimal
level of competency required for successful
execution of the task. and no harm is
rendered in the process.

4. SomaWhot Inappropriate: the worker is
likely to fall short of minimum competency
necessary and may plan in a manner harmful
to those concerned.

5. Very Inappropriate: the worker consistently
misunderstands or misrepresents and is
likely to cause considerable difficulty for
those involved in his planning.

 

Icte
,. w ,

 

Interpretation to staff. mmbera of the social
work role in patient treatment.

Interpretation of mental illness to relatives.
friends. others.

Participation in education and consulting
services for furthering mental health.

Preparation of verbal. written and statistical
reports (other than cane recording).

Participation in meetings. conferences and
committees.

Counseling family care therapiats. relatives.
employers and others regarding patient'a
welfare.

1. Appropriate: the worker has a good grasp
of the principles of social work and human
growth and behavior and is able to transmit
his thoughts to others appropriately.
efficiently and effectively as it applies
to the item being rated.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Section V: glieggmwozkcr Re]

53

Moderately appropriate: the worker's under-
standing. effectiveness and efficiency is
somewhat less than is desirable for competent
performance of this item.

Somewhat Appropriate: the worker's under-
standing. effectiveness and efficiency is
at a minimal level of competency but is
generally of a positive. helping nature.

Somewhat Inappropriate: the worker's
understanding. effectiveness and efficiency
is less than competent and is at times
deleterious.

very Inappropriate: the worker misunder-
stenfls. is ineffective and inefficient and
generally incompetent in accomplishing this
task 0

-ticnshi

   

Item 19: Degree to which worker perceived client's
social and economic need.

Item 20: Degree to which worker perceived client's
feelings about problem. emotional response to

situation.

Item 21: Degree to which worker perceived interaction of
family group.

1.

3.

Very high degree of perception: imaginative.
individualized. relevant. with full recognition
of the obvious and some recognition of less
obvious factors in the situation.

High degree of perception: for the most
part. inaividualized and relevant. with
recognition of obvious factors.

Moderate éegree of perception: sometimes
inoividualized and relevant. with recognition
of obvious factors. but somewhat limited.

Item 22:

Section VI:

Item 23:

Item 24:

4.

S.

54

Low degree of perception: some inconsistency
in individualization. relevance. and recog~
nition of obvious factors: definitely
lmtfildo

very low degree of perception: recognition
of obvious factors is absent. or evidence
is misinterpreted. or perception is
distorted.

Worker‘s unéerstanding of relationship with
client:

1.

3.

4.

5.

Understands full implications of client-
worker relationship. including transference
and counter~transference phenomena when
these exist.

Understands that worker has meaning to
client as a helping person. can evaluate
this. and has some perception of worker's
contribution to the relationship.

Understanding of the relationshig in
superficial and/or stereotyped.

Understanding is somewhat fiistorted: e.g..
evidence may be misinteroreted. relation-
ship may sometimes be valued as gratifying
to worker. worker may have some tendency
to personalize the relationship.

Understanding is grossly éistorted: e.g..
evidence may be misinterpreted. relationship
may frequently be values as gratifying to
worker. worker may show strong tendency to
personalize the relationship.

~er*‘ stfwofik Functions ?Rd Proccsscs

GC'
‘.
..i

(A .a.

 

Worker's explnnetion of hospital yolicies and
services to patients. relatives or others.

Wgrker.3 nttompt to engage patient's participation.

55

Item 25: Worker's attempt to engage participation of
relatives. friends or others.

Item 26: Worker's exploration of the facts of the problem:

1.

2.

Pppropriate: Worker seeks facts (in

accor ance with client's cspacity and readi-
n33) about onset of problem. circumstances
surrounding onset. effects of problem on
client' a functioning and life situation.
ouration and severity of these effects
client's efforts to cope with problem and
degree of success. Seeks relevant history.
or encourages client's effort to give
himtory. with a good sense of timing.
That is. worker gets enoug 11 history soon
enough to enhance the possibility of
helping client. Worker does not become
preoccupied 31 th history whioa is

'intores ting" but which should not be
explored either because of its irrelevance
or because it would fruitlessly increaaa
client's distress.

Hoderately spgropriate: Worker seeks facts
predominantly as above. but may not always
accurately evaluate client's capacity and
readiness: or may not be so consistently
accurate in timing his search for. or
encour333no t of. historical material.

Somewhat 3§propriatez Worker seeks facts
but limits his exploration to the obvious;
may not have much perception of client's
cap ci y and readiness to give f::cta: m3 y
neglect explore tion of some of the f;1ct3.
Somewhat inappropriate: Worker seeks facts
in 3 acntt.er33 way. often 33333 irreleva.nt
inform tion or fails to perceive client' a
cap3city: or m;y be somewh1 t ri3io in
securing certain facts. wilet 33: or not
the33 are import.3 nt in a particular case
or required by 393ncy: or m3y 0333sionally
becomo unwisely preoccuyied with history.

.‘n—orvv — 7’ ‘1: t—F—T. *‘

U!
C“

Very inzppropriatez Korker consistently
Beaks irrelevant facts. or fails to perceive
client's capacity: or may be predominantly
rigid in form of exploration: or may Show
strong tendency to become preoccugied with
11 rclezvont h.istory. In g€x1er;l. the
saplorr tion tenfis to cor .fus e the situation
ani obstruct progress. “at 6: than to
clarify situation and ease progress.

Item 27: Worker' 3 exploration of client's feeling about
he pr6533wu

l.

2.

DJ
0

5.

H
'1 {2' '5:

l‘
'J U.) u}
6

-: Kafka” is imagir ativ- and

'n eyploring clues to client' a

Rs approprizte qaw stions, about
t nos exploration wa.11. permits

My unburdening but coca not on. cour=ge
ossive or guilt-producing unl.urdeningo

t;
k

(f
(‘0

you
Q .
{D .
s...

m“:-
{5'11

:t- '37) H “5.;-

h tham
0-“ 0

fr.

:{fi

NH!
M

l}

:m

m
{a
a .

(D :3
Rm
:1 "i

-r: tely appropria=te: Works I usuad 1y
c3 cbvioua clues. u;u:.1 y asks
Hi to questions. etc.

Qropriate: WorLe rr is somewfirt
:t in the timing and quality of
.on. but does someti.mes explore

obvioufi clues. and does not predomina;tly
engage in .”r<-levant or unwise exploration.

Som~'vhat inappropriate: Wozker is somewhat
inconsistent in the timing and quality of
exgm or. :ion. but there is more tendency
towaro poor selection of clues, poor timing
and irralevant or unwise exglorrtion.

\
vary inayproprin*e: Worker sh ws a strong
te.dsusy to select clues in““fl”op iately.
.sk inoppropriate quest ions, employ poor
timing. permit excessive and gu lt-
profiuo'ng unburceninge

I ...em 28 8

Item 29:

57

Worker's handling of client‘s feeling about
environmental. or interpersonel or emotional
problem: '

1. Appropriate: Worker handles client's
feeling consistently in terms of client‘s
need. snows empathy but not damaging over—
identification.

2. Moderately appropriate: warker usually
handles client's feeling as above.

3. SomeWhat appropriate: worker handles client‘s
feeling somewhat inconsistently. but is not
predominantly'worker-oriented (in contrast
to client—oriented): nor does worker pre~
dominantly overidentify; there is some
indication of empathy. ‘

4. Somewhat inappropriate: Worker handles
client's feeling someWhat inconsistently.
but the general tendency is to respond
without much sensitivity to client's need.
or some tendency toward either over-
identificetion or lack of empathy.

5. Very inappropriate: Worker handles client's
feeling predominantly in terms of his own
rather than the client's needs. There may
be a strong tendency to overifientify: there
may be gross lack of empathy.

Worker's hanéling of client's feeling about
worker end/or agency:

1. Appropriate: Worker elicits feeling and/or
responds to it consistently in terms of
client's need: when the expression in
hostile. worker is able to accent this
without defensiveness. argument. hostility.
eto.: worker does not provoke hostile
expression unnecessarily.,and is able to
set some limits when indicated. When the
expression is unrealistically positive
(overly grateful. fawning. etc.) worker

Item 29: Con

4.

5.

58

8C3.

responds in terms of the meaning of the
expression. does not take personal grati-
fication in it: worker does not show need
to crew forth such unrealistically positive
expression. When there is no indication
that client has any significant feeling
toward worker and/or hospital. worker makes
no irrelevant or unwise attempts to elicit
feeling.

Ebfiorately appropriate: Worker usually
elicits feeling and/or responas to it in
terms of client's need (as above). though

“his may not be completely consistent.

Somewhat appropriate: Worker’s activity is
somewhat inconsistent. but4worker does not
predominantly respond to hostility with
defensiveness. etc. Worker may sometimes
misinterpret hostility. gratitude. or
realistic appreciation. and hence respond
inappropriately. Worker may occasionally
make somewhat irreleVEnt or unwise attempts
to elicit feeling.

Somewhat inappropriate: Worker's activity
is somewhat inconsistent. but there is e
tendency toward difficulty in accepting
hostility or in dealing with.unrealistically
positive expressions. Worker may inhibit
expression of feeling. or misinterpret it.
‘Wofiker may tend to make somewhat irrelevant
or unwise attempts to elicit feeling.

Very inappropriate: Worker consistently

tend to respond to hostility with defensive-
ness. ergwment. or open hostility: and/er
takes personal gratification in the expression
of unrealistically positive feeling.

worker may make strong effort to inhibit

all expression of feeling. and/or avoid any
responses. Worker may make grossly irrelevant
or unwise attempts to elicit feeling.

 

Item 30:

Item 31:

59

Worker's activity in giving professional guidance.
advice or information.

1.

3.

Ayyrogriate: Worker voluntarily or in
response to client's request. given specific
advice or guidance. This is consistently
oriented to client's need and capacity.
Worker does not give advice excessively

or irrelevantly: does not seek to 'manage‘
clicnt through advice.

Moderately ayproyriatex Worker usually.
but not completely consistently. offers
advice as above.

Somewhat appropriate: Worker's activity
in giving advice or guidance is somewhat
inconsistent: advice may sometimes be

quits relevant but there is an occasional
tendency toward giving excessive advice.

or toward trying to “manage“ client through
advice. .

Somewhct inappropriate: Worker's activity
is somewhat inconsistent: but there is a
tendency tQWard giving exceasive and/or
irrelevant orinwise advice, and/or toward
trying to “manage“ client through advice.

very nappr0priate: Worker shows strong
and fairly concistent tendency toward

giving advice inappropriately. without
orientation to client's needs: there may

be a strong tendency toward giving excessive
or irrelevant or unwise advice. and/or
toward trying to “manage” client through
advice.

Worker's activity in giving recognition to
client's capacity. as shown in current and past
competence:

1.

Appropriate: Worker's activity in imaginative.
wellntimcd. individualized. clearly designed
to encourage client's confidence in hie

own capacity. realistic.

Item

"*i
0.1:.

8

60

2. Rbderately appropriate: worker’s activity
usually. but not ontirely concistently. as
above.

3. Somewhat e.ppropriatex Worker's activity
sonnwi-t inconsistent: it may be less well-
timod less adequately individualized, less
realistic. But it is not predominantly
poo 1y timed or at ereotypod. or unrealistic.

4. Somewhat inappropriate: Worker's activity
somewhat iv consistent. and occasionally
mt? l2e well h. .ndled: but there is a
tcnfiency tomerd giving recocnition in a
poorly timed or stereotyped or unrealistic
way.

5. Very inoyjrcpriate: Worker's activity
Shons m: rkod and fairly consistent
tonccncy toward being inappropriate; it
may he so poorly timed. so stereotyped. or
so unrealistic that it would tend to
discou.ago rather than encourage client's
corliu.. in ris own capacity. Many
opportunities for giving recognition may
be miosed.

3

Worker's vorbalizationa to the client about
the severity and solubility of the problems.

1. rooro priate: Worker's Verbalization is
consis ten tlyo oriehted to client' 5 need.
is realia tic. is well-timed: here is
no tendency to minimize or exaggerate
prohlam.

2. Zoflerately appropriato: worker's Verbali-
zation is usually. but not completely
consistontly. oriented to client' a need

(as above,.

3.

4.

61

Somewhat appropriates Worker's vurbalization
is somewhat inconsistent. but it in not
predominantly undertaken without any
orientation to the client's need. nor in

it predominantly unrealistic or poorly

timed: there may be some minimization or
exaggeration of problem. but this is not
predominant.

Somewhat inappropriate: Worker‘s Verbali-
zation is somewhat inconsistent. and oc-
casionally it may be client-oriented: however.
there is a predominant tendency for worker’s
activity to be inadequately oriented to
client's need: it is frequently unrealistic
or poorly timed; there is some tendency

to distort the severity of the problem--
e.g.. to keep things “smooth" and ”nice'

an “hopeful" even when this View is not
'warranted: or to exaggerate severity of
problem. Worker's activity may reflect

his wishful thinking about making a
“success“ of the case. aough this is not
so grossly unrealistic as in (5).

very inappropriate: Werker's Verbalization
is consistently poorly oriented to client's
need. and may serve more to reassure or give
hope to the worker than to the client: it

is apt to be unrealistic. poorly timed:
there may be a tendency to minimize

problem or exaggerate it.

Item 33: Worker's activity in directing focus:

1.

Appropriate: Worker directs the focus of
the interviews. or encourages the client's
effort to focus. in a way which is highly
individualized and relevant. constituting
part of an orderly procedure in problem-
solving process. Worker helps client focus
on part of problem in accordance with
client's capacity and readiness. The
method of directing the focus. and the
content of the material worker tried to
focus on. are highly appropriate. When
client seems unable to focus. worker
consistently and imaginatively continues his
efforts to focus appropriately.

62

2. Moderately appropriate: Worker's activity

is usually as above. but not completely
consistently so.

3. Somewhat appropriate: Worker's activity
may be somewhat inconsistent. but is more
apt to be individualized than stereotyped.
to be relevant than irrelevant. Worker
may miss some opportunities for appropriate
focus. or may occasionally misdirect the
’focus. When client seems unable to focus.
worker may be somewhat unimaginetive in his
efforts to direct the focus.’ But worker
does not interfere with client's appropriate
efforts to focus.

4. Somewhat inappropriate: Worker's activity
may be somewhat inconsistent. but it is
more apt to be stereotyped than individualized.
or to be irrelevant than relevant) it may
be somewhat inadequately oriented to client's
need. When the client seems unable to focus
worker's efforts to direct the focus may
be minimal. or stereotyped. or poorly timed.
werker may occasionally interfere with
client's efforts to focus.

5. very inappropriate: The activity as a
whole is marked by serious look of focus
or by consistently inappropriate focus.
due to worker's failure to direct the
focus or to respond appropriately to
client's efforts to focus. There is a
strong tendency for the worker's activity
to be inappropriete--stereotyped. irrelevant.
inadequately oriented to client's need.

Item 34: Worker's professional self—discipline:

l. Worker does not impose own opinions and
feelings on client.

3. Worker is at least moderately successful
in his attempt to avoid imposition of own
opinions and feelings.

Item 35:

Item 36:
Item 37:
Item 38:
Item 39:
Item 40:

Item 41:

63

5. Worker imposes own needs. feelings. opinions.
or value Judgaenta on client. either
consciously or unconsciously.

Worker's professional purposufulnesa in
interviews:

1. Purpoeefulnesa consistently evident.
appropriate and individualized.

2. Purposefulness usually evident. and usually
app: ooriate and individualized.

3. Purposefulness usually evident but there
is some indication that it is stereotyped
or that individualization is inconsistent.

4. Purpose Winona evident and consistently
stereo ped or rigid.
5. Purpm fulnesa usually not evident:

client may talk relevantly. but there is
no evidence that this is because of anytning
work er has done.

6. Purpoeefulness absent or distorted: worker
may engage in social chat.indulge in idle
curiosity.

Items bel ow relate to the workers use of various

resources with the intent to imorove hi5

professional knowledge. eff riciency and
competency. when such resources are available.

Supervision

Consultation

In-ae =rvice training

Formal course work

Profeesional literature

Social work and related organizations

64

Item 42: Other (Specify)

1.

2.

3.

4.

Section VIII:

 

0V

errl’

Vbry frequent: worker makes maximum use
of this resource. is highly motivated to
benefit from its use. actively seeks
partici ation in and realizes fully the
benefits that may be derivefl therefrom.

Frequent: worker will often seek out such
a resource and most often will participate
actively and fully on his own.

Moficrately frequently: worker's use of
his resource will tend to be inconsistent.
{is participation may vary in its appro~
priateness. Reece encouragement but upon
suggestion will tend to comply with its
use.

Se‘dom: worker seléom uses this resource

on his own initiative: may only occasionally
seek it out. may also moéerately resist

this resource when it is pointed out to

him although he may go through the motions

a O
' 1

l comelying to suggestion.

ery saloon: worker essentially rejects
resource: does not initiate any such
contacto on his own. Actively resists
using such resource but may comply with
the underotanding that it it against his
will.

III!

  

R:ting_of Worker's Performance

Item 43: Over-all quality of service:

1.

Very h gt: exceptionally fine service:
the social service department's maximum
services are offered.

High: substantially good service: it is
clear that the service offers benefits
to the client.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.

4.

6.

65

Moderately good: the client has not been
damaged: has probably benefited somewhat:
tangible sarvices are adequately offered.

Weak: no significant damage has been done
to the client: minimum social work services
have been offered.

Poor: though minimum tangible aervicea

have been extended to the client. even

these tend to be given without much perception
of the client's needs and feelings: some
damage has been done to the client. either
actively or passively.

Vary poor: performance is consistently
poor. definitely damaging. clearly
unprofessional.

APPENDIX B

II:

67

Educationalv Summaiy and Ratings

g
ff

Educational Summary:

List below the 9} mt n.t of the wmr ar's social wgfik

education. includ.i?; 3 deg: ees held. List also an
g “

additional education 1 not trained in SQCial Wm?»
again indicating degrees held“ -~o

Rating Sheet:

Item loooooooooulwuog

eo.3.c.4.a.5...fi:
Item 2..........l...2~..3...4...55.,A;
Item 3........,~1...2u..3...4.”as...A:
Item 4.........ol«9.2“..3.n.4...5¢.ohg
Itam 5.........ulo..2,..3.“.A:

Item 6.........ol...2...3...Az

Item 7..........1...2...3o..A:

Item 8..........l...2...3...4a..50..lz
Item 9..........l...2.¢.3...4...5...Az
Item lO..........l..~2...3...4...53..A:
Item 11..........l...2..93...4...5...Az
Item 12........«.1...2...3...4...5...A:
Item 13..........l...2...3...4n..5...fi:
Item l4..........l°..2...3o..4...5...R:

Item 150-000-000‘1900200030004ocosoooA3

Item 16000000000010002n003-oo4u.05..¢A8

Item 17.000....001...2¢0.30.I46095¢.0A:

 

68

Rating Sheet. Censinued.

Itam 1800-0000oooloOQZouo3oco4-ooSooQAI

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

Item

19..q...oo..l...2..o3...4...5...Az
20...o.o....l...2...3...4...5...A:
21......o...1...2...3...4...5...A:
22..........1...2...3...4..¢5...A:
23..........l...2...3...4...5...A:
24..........1...2...3...4...5...A:
25..........l...2...3.e.4..;5...Aa
26..........1...2...3~..4;..5;..Aa
27..§.......l...2...3.§.4..;5...A:
2800000000001.0.2000300040005000A2
29......o...l...2u..3...4...5...B:
30..........l...2n..3..}4...5...Aa
31..coo-o...l...2..o39..4n..5...A3
32.......o..l...2...3...4»..5...A:
33..........1...2”..3...4...5...Az
34..........l.......3.......5...As
35..........1...2...3...4...5...5...A.
360.000.00.0100020.030004000500-A:
37..........l...2...3...4...5...A:
38..........1...2...3...4...5...A:

3900.00.00.wloho20093ooo40005000A3

 

 

69

 

Rating Sheet:

Item 0. h! 1 2...
40 .O...... ... 3....4OICO5O. A:
.. 9..5...A:
2 .......‘l...2...3...4..'.'.55. A.

Item 43.o...-.§..l...2...3.t;4 5 6
to. 0.. ...A;

 

‘iomu

.a-

"P'TS'Q-

v

 

 

71

ITEM 1: Knowledge and understanding of the Principle: of
Human Growth and Behavior

 

 

 

 

 

 

~— r 42=====$1 ‘ fl $=======
Rating Trained untrained
1. Excellent 5 1
2. 6005 7 7
3. Adequate 4 2
40 Pair
5. Poor
A. unable to rate
Total 16 10

 

ITEM.21 Knowledge and Unfierstanfling of the Hospital's and
Social Service Department's Organization. Function
Rules. Regulations and Procedurea.

ww— _'_

 

j T—

 

 

 

Rfiting Trained Untrained

1. Excellent 9 4
2. Good 5 3
3. Adequate l 3
4. Fair 1
5. Poor
A. unable to rate

Total ' 16 10

 

ITEM 3: Knowledge and Understanding of Social Work Principles.
Processes and Techniques.

 

 

 

Rating Trained untrained
'1. Excellent 5
2. Good 5 S
3. Adequate 5 5
4. Fair
5. Poor

 

A. Unable to rate ._

Total 16 10

72 .

ITEH.4I Knowledge and understanding of ?sychopathologyo
Etiology and Individual. Familial and Environmental

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ramifications.
rw *W ' ‘ ~a======::+ , 71’ j=======
Rating Trained Untrained
1. Excellent 4 2
2 o 6006 9 6
3. Adequate 1 2
4. Pair 2
5. Poor
A. unable to rate V
Total 16 10
ITEM 5: Management of Reaponsibilities
Rating Trained untrained
2. Adequate 9 4
3. Poor
A. unable to rate f:
Total 16 10
ITEM 6 3 Recording
M Rating Trained Untrained
1. Good 6 6
2. Adequate 7 2
3. Poor 2 l
A. Unable to rate 1
16 10

Total

73

ITEM 7: Correspondence

 

Rating Trained untrained

 

 

1. Good 8 5
2. Adequate 8 4
3. Poor 1
A. Unable to rate

Total 16 10

ITEM.8: Determining'flbme and Community Circumatancea Prior
to Release from fieepital.

 

 

 

 

Rating Trained untrained

1. Appropriate 7 4

2. Moderately Appropriate 7 5

3. Somewhat Appropriate l

4. Somewhat Inappropriate

5. Very Inappropriate 1

A. unable to rate 1
Total 16 10

 

ITEM 9: Assisting Medical Staff in Determining Patient's
Readiness for Releaee.

_“ A - 4A A .L .- ‘ A_—_I __ _ _ -_-
W fi V m—

 

Rating Trained Untrained

 

l. Apgropriate 9 5
2. moderately Appropriate 5 2
3. Somewhat Appropriate 3 2

4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. Very Inappropriate
A. unable to rate

Total 16 10

 

74

ITEMLIO: Assisting Patients and Relatives in Locating and
Taking Advantage of Community Services Available.

,1 or“;

Rating Trained untrained
1. Appropriate 7 6
2. Moderately Appropriate 5 1
3. Somewhat Appropriate 4 3
4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. very Inappropriate
A. Unable to rate

Total 16 10

ITEM ll: Locating and Approving Employment Opportunities
for Patients. -

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained
1. Appropriate 3 1
2. moderately Appropriate 3

3. Somewhat Appropriate

4. Somewhat Inappropriate

5. Very Inappropriate

A. Unable to rate 10 9

 

Total 16 10

ITEM 12: Assisting in Evaluating Needs of Released Patients
for Further Care.

 

w

”mm-nor-‘w ,. w.— __ fi_ ._.._= v :___..._

 

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained
1. Appropriate 7 7
2 . Moderately Appropria to 8 2
3. SomeWhat Appropriate 1
4 . Somwhat Inappropriate
5. Very Inappropriate 1

A. [Mable to rate

Total 16 10

7S

ITEM 13: Interpretation to Staff nowhere of the Social work
Role in Patient Treatment.

 

Y v "r" I _

 

 

 

Rating Trained untrained
1. Appropriate 9 3
2. moderately Appropriate 3 3
3 . Somewhat Appropriate l 1
4. Somewhat Inappropriate 1 2
5. very Inappropriate
A. Unable to rate 2 1
Total . 16 10

ITEM 14: Interpretation of Mental Illness to Relatives.
Friends. Others.

_‘ - A - .. .L._. - ._. - _. .A. , - ‘ -__._._..

 

 

 

Rating - Trained Untrained
1. Appropriate 7 5
2 . Hod erately Appropriate 6 2
3. Somewhat Appropriate 1 2
4. Somewhat Inappropriate 1
5. very Inappropriate
A. Unable to rate 1 1
Total 16 10

 

ITEM 15: Participation in Education and Consulting Services
for furthering mental Health.

 

v.— , . V W

Trained untrained

 

Ra ting
.1. Appropriate 3 3
2. Moderately Appropriate 6 2
3. Somewhat Appropriate 3 4
4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. Very Inappropriate
A. Unable to rate 4 1

Total 16 10

 

76

ITEM 16: Preparation of" Verbal. Written and Statistical
Reports (other than case recording).

A A

Rating Trained Untrained

 

1. Appropriate 9 3
2. Ebderate y Appropriate 4 5
3. Sozmwhat Appropriate 2 2
4-. Somewhat Inappropriate

5. very Inappropriate

A. Unable to rate 1

"A

Total 16 10

 

ITEM 17: Participation in fleetings. Conferences and Committees.

 

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained
1. Appropriate 6 3
2. rakxt‘tlerately Appropriate 5 3
3. Somewhat Appropriate 3 4
4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. ’ery InapprOpriate
A. Unable to rate 2

 

Total 15 10

ITEM.18: Counseling Family Care Therapists. Relatives
Employers and Others Regarding Patient's Welfare.

 

 

A...
w.— ——— ——

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained

1. Appropriate 9 5
2. MOderately Appropriate 4 3
3. Somewhat Appropriate l 2
4 . Soxwwhat Inappropriate 1
5. Vbry Inappropriate
A. Unable to rate 1

Total 16 10

 

tux—#- - —

77

ITEM.19: Degree to Which.Worker Perceived Client's Social

and Economic Need.

-l-M _._ __.‘

Rating , Trained Untrained

 

1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
A.

Very high degree of perception 7 6
High degreo of perception 5 2
Moderate degree of perception 3 2
Low degree of perception

 

very low degree of perception 1
Unable to rate _“
Total 16 . 10

 

ITBfi 20: Degree to Which Worker Perceived Client's Feelings

About Problem. Emotional Response to Situation.

 

 

 

 

.4va ‘ ‘3 _ ' ____ w - -,_;A. AAAiz-ci‘ m
Rating Trained Untrained
1. Very high degree of perception 7 2
2. High degree of perception 4 5
3. Moderate degree of perception 4 3
4. Low degree of perception 1
5. Very low degree of perception
A. Unable to rate
Total 16 10

ITEM 21: Degree to Which Worker Perceives Interaction of

Family Group.

Rating Trained Untrained

 

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A.

very high degree of perception
High degree of perception
Mbdorate degree of perception
Low degree of perception

vary low degree of perception
Unable to rate

?ota1 16 10

G‘Kw‘l

5
3
2

78

ITEM.22:

Worker’s Uhderetanding of Relationship With Client.

Untrained

   

 

 

Trained

l. 5
2. 6 7
3. 2 1
4 o ' 1
5. 1
A. unable to rate 2 1

Total 16 10

*See Appendix A. for description of numariaal ratings.

ITEM.23: Worker's Explanation of Hospital Policiéa and

Services to Patients. Relatives or Others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Z wtw' 3:61}??? ' fl W “w A” , Trainefl Ifntrjinecf a

1. Appropriate 10 1

2. Moderately Appropriate 3 2

3. Somowaht Appropriate 2 1

4. Somewhat Inappropriate 1

S. vary Inappropriate

A. gable to rate T __
16' 10

Total

Yam?- 3. f) .

I. o
4.5““; ‘4‘: o

Workex'a Attempt to Engage

Pationt's Farticipation.

untrained

 

 

Rating Trained

1. Appropriate 9 4
2. Mbflerately Appropriate 3 4
3. Somouhat Appropriate 3 1
4. Somewhat Inappropriate 1
S. Véry Inappropriate
A. Unable to rate 1

Total 16 10

 

79

ITEM 25: Worker's Attempt to Engage Participation of
Relatives. Friends or Others.

LA.-
‘vv __._—-——_.—. —_—V. "—

Rating Trained Untrained

 

1. Appropriate 8 7
2. Moderately Appropriate 6 2
3. Somewhat Appropriate 1 1
4. Somewhat Inappropriate

5. vary Inappropriate

A. unable to rate 1

 

‘-——

Total 16 10

12:3 26: Worker's Exploration of the Facts of the Problem.

. A_ _ A A
‘———.y—V ...

 

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained
1. Appropriate 8 6
2. Ebdorately Appropriate 6 1
3. Somewhat Appropriate 1 2
4. Somawhat Inappropriate 1
5. Very Inappropriate
A. Unable to rate 1

Tota 1. 16 10

.- ._.._ ;_A._ A.

ITEH 27: Worker's Exploration of Client's Fooling about the
Problem.

Rating Trained Untrained

1. Appropriate

2. .Moderately Appropriate
3. Somewhat Appropriate
4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. very Inappropriate

A. unable to rate +._

Total 16 10

2
7
1

mem

89

ITEM 28: Worker's Handling of Client's Foaling about
Environmontal. or Interparaonal or Emotional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem.
:r—"~—rw -o I“ w~vr a ~ To : “ES
Rating Trained Untrained

1. Appropriate 5 3
2. chudtuy 1-.ppropiiato 5 6
3. Somewhat Appropriate 4 1
4. Somou1.at Inappropriate
5. Very Inappropriate 1
A. unaola to rate 1

Tfltal 16 10
ITEM 29: worker's Handling of Cliezzt' 3 din; nbout Worker

and/or Agenfi v.
Rating Trained Untrained

1. Appropriate 6 3
2. Moder'.xtaly p-propriate 6 5
3. Sflrfl'diiat (52);)er Iii-Ste 2 1
4. Son,wn.t In.. ppropriato
5. vary Izappropriate l
A. {1.3.3318 t0 rate 1. 1

Total 16 10

_.*nm—I; A —‘ ‘ h w i ‘# _ W —r w w..— w.

ITEM 30: Worker's Act'vity in Giving Professional Guidance
Advice or Information

 

 

 

scar; *“""_":“* r w r 3‘ r —«: ~r - —~
Rating Trained Untrained

1. Appropriate 5 4

2. Modarately Appropriate 9 6

3. Somewhat Appropriate 1

4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. Very Inappropriate 1
A. Unable to rate A M

Total 16 10

81

ITEM 31: Worker‘s Activity in Giving Recognition to Client's
Capacity. an Shown in Current and Pant Competence.

===============================fl==============================

 

 

Rating . Trained Uhtrain.‘

l. Apyropriate 8 4
2. Moderately Appropriate 4 5
3 . Somawha t Appropr ia ta 2 J.
4. Scrutwhat Inappropriate
5. 'ery Inappropriate 1
A. noble to rate 1

Total 16 10

Iran 32: We rker' a Varba) .2:at._ons to the C].ient about the
Severity and Solubility of the Problems.

 

___.__ n‘ h‘ _ -——4— .n-‘o--

 

 

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained
l. An.rrorlace 10 5
2. Mbderately Apprqu iate 3 3
3. Somewhat Apjzpropria to 2 2
4. Somewhat Inappropriate
5. Very Inappropria e 1
A. UHable to rate __ ,
Total 16 10

TB} 33: Worker‘s Activity in Directing Focus.

vi.’ ‘7

 

 

Rating TLain-ed Untrained
1. Appropriate 7 2
2. bigwigrately Appropriate 4 5
3. Somewhat Aporopr.iate 3 2
4. Somewhat Inapprogsriate
5. very Inapproyriate l
A. *nahle to rate 1 1

Total 16 10

82

ITEM 34: Worker's Professional Self-discipline.

 

 

 

 

Rating. - Trainai Untrained
l. 9 5
3. 6 4
5. l l
A. Ifiza’*-le to rate
Total 16 10

*Sea Appendix A for descrigtiou cf numarical ratings.

1733 33: Wcrker'a Professional Purposefulness in Interviews.

AA—A
V— _.-_
.1 w—r-v V _

II ‘ “nu Qua... .-.-.-‘o-. --- ‘

 

 

Rating* Trained Untrained
l. 7 3
2. 4 5
3. l 2
4. 1
5. 3
6.
Au Unable to rate V ‘_
Total 16 10

 

I;

*See Appendix A for fiescription of numerical ratings.

ITEM 36: Supervision.

Trained Untrained

k _.-_

 

_._.A__. A

 

 

Rating

1. V’ry frequent 5 4

2 . erqum‘rt 2 1

' 3 .. Madeira tely Frequent 4 3

4. Seléum l

5. Very seldom 3

A. unable to rate 2 1
16 10

Total

 

 

83

ITEM.371 Consultation.

On-
00' .'--0 «On-.- ‘---‘ ‘m.¢.v

Ratinq

 

W
*u-u...¢.~ m" a..-”-_—. A. 4.

Trained

I:

Untrained

 

1. Very Frequent

2 . Freqwent

3. Moderately Frequent
4. Seldom

5. Véry Seldom

A. Unable to rate

Tatal

$-3m 38: In-service Tzaining.

 

—-—w IICO~ " -«- C-‘....-u‘.-‘n-g.-v-
*4 ._ _‘. .- A

A

F.) 131 (If!

5“.)

Pth

 

l

6

'EJJalnc-sd

‘—

10

Untrained

 

Rating
1. Very Frequent
2. Frequ::t
3. “358113111 Freq Lien:
4. Seldom
5. vary Seldom

A. U.aLle to rate

MINJSCN

rakaa.w

N

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tatal 16 10
.3... 39: Furmal Couz‘ge Hug-k.

 

. 9
Rating

‘7 j..-

l. Vary Frequent

,2. Freq"ent

3. Moflerately Frequent
4. Seldom

5. Very Salaam

A. Unable to rate

Total

Trained

‘cd

[.4
O1

1

N

ow

Untrained

10

84

ITEM 40: Professional Literature.

 

‘7
M w
‘rv—w

 

 

Rating Trained Untrained
l. Vbry Frequent 2 l
2. Frequent 5 l
3. Moderately Frequent 5 S
4 o SGld m
5. Very Seldom 2 l
A. Uhable to rate 2 l

 

Total 16 10

 

ITEM 41: Social work and Related Organizations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rating ‘ Trained Untrained
1. very Frequent, \ S
2. Frequent 2 l
3. Mbderately Frequent 7 3
40 59160!“ t 2
5. very Seldom , .
A. Unable to rate 2 -4
Total ' 16 10
ITEM 42: Other.
:3... - v mm - - ‘—‘ i: »‘W T .- , _ W
Rating Trained untrained
1. Very Frequent l 1
2. Freqnent 3 2
3. Moderately Frequent 2
4. Salaam l
5. Very Seldam 3
A. unable to rate 6 .. 2W#
16 10

Total

ITEM 42: Over-all Quality of Service.

 

Untrained

 

Rating Trained
1. very high 6 2
2 . High » 3 5
3. Moderately good 5 3
4. Weak 1
5. Poor
6. vary poor 1
A. Unable to rate

 

Tetal 16

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

German Jeanna 3.. Levine. David L. ed. "Some Immefiiata
Concerns of Social Service Departments in State
Hospitals for the Mentally Ill and Mentally

Retarded.“ Research Reports in §ggial Sgigggg. II.
No. 2 (Aug.. 1959).

 

Heyman. Margaret M. “Criteria for the Allocation of Cases
According to Levels of Staff Skill.',§ocial Casework.
XLII. No. 7 (July. 1961).

. "A Stu&y of the Effective Use of Social
Workers in a Hospital: Selected Findings and
Conclusions.“ fiooial Scryice Review. VI. No. 4
(December! 1961) o

 

. “A Study of Effective Utilization of
Social‘Workers in a Respital Settiag.' Soc 51 Work.
VI. NO. 2 (April. 1961).

 

 

Keys. Veronica wills. "An Analysis of the Social Services
at the Pontiac State Hospital.” Unpublished
thesis. wayns University. 1948.

Mandel. Nathan G. ”Psychiatric Social Work in the Psychiatric
Hospital.“ capablished manuscript. Hastings. Minn..
n.d.

Tra.o§ng for Social_Agency

 

Moscrop. Martha. .Lg;§grvic-
Practice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

1958.

Perlmsn. Helen Harris. ‘gocial Casework. Chicago: university
of Chicago Press. 1957.

Perretz. Edgar A. "The Principles Involved in the
Development of the Social Work Component in Ontario
Mental Health Services.“ The Social Worker. XXIX.
No. 2 (April. 1951).

 

86

87

Richan. William C. “A Theoretical Schems for Determining
Roles of Professional and Nonprofessional Personnel.”
S'"ial W'rk. VI; N04: 4 (October. 1961).

Taber. John. ”Casework: A supportive Process in a Mental
Hospital.“ unpublished manuscript. Pontiac. Hichigan.
n.a.

Thomas. Edwin J. and MbLeod. Donna L. §n~Ssrvics Trginigg
~1 Rod old workl/nds. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation. 1950.

 

vanderll‘ n3. John H. 'Effcctiveness of Casework in a Montzal
Hospital.’ Unpublished thesis. University of
Michigan. 1955.

. "A S atis ical Study of Casework in a
State Mental Hospital.“ Unpublished man1zscript.
Pontiac. Mflchigan. 1956.

 

Weed. vcrne and Denham. William. "Toward More Effective
Use of the: Ma.orofossiona1 Worker: A Recent
Experiment.‘ 802 ; 9~rk. VI. No. 4 (October. 1961).

 

 

 

 

 

-.._._—_-
wv—r—fi

W
COVER
No. 81293

Damn-newt... '0
ho! smu- NAMU'II'IIOII Coon—

 

 

 

 

.-*

 

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

 

312931fli4297142