PapersSpot

• This is a research class and I plan to work in a nursing home setting
• Thinking of your field agency or practice setting, identify one or two programs or practices that you believe would benefit from further research. Why might research be helpful in these situations?
• Describe the research skills you are hoping to strengthen in this course.

To support and increase the use of EBP across the social work profession, a full and accurate
definition of EBP is necessary. Unfortunately, the term is often conflated with empirically supported
interventions (ESI) or empirically supported treatments (EST; Simmons, 2013), thus creating
disparities in how EBP is defined (Rubin & Parrish, 2007). Although interrelated with EBP, ESIs
and ESTs refer to specific interventions with evidence indicating efficacy or effectiveness in identify-
ing, reducing, or improving specific problems (Chambless, 2007). ESIs and ESTs represent products,
which are distinct from the process of EBP. Understanding this distinction is crucial to training
social workers in carrying out EBP in practice rather than choosing and applying a particular
intervention or program.
EBP and social work education
As a result of the move toward increased training in EBP, ESIs, and ESTs (Brekke, Elle, & Palinkas,
2007; Grady, Werkmeister Rozas, & Bledsoe, 2010), social work programs have included more content
on EBP processes and specific ESIs and ESTs (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapies) into social work
curricula (Bledsoe et al., 2007; Howard, Allen-Meares, & Ruffolo, 2007; Jenson, 2007; Shlonsky, &
Gibbs, 2004), such as assignments requiring EBP to be used or how to consume research as the focus of
research courses. The Council on Social Work Education (CSWE, 2008) stated that graduates from
MSW programs should be able to “distinguish, appraise, and integrate multiple sources of knowledge,
including research-based knowledge, and practice wisdom” (p. 4). These standards included an
increased emphasis on the use of empirical evidence to inform practice and practice evidence to
inform research (CSWE, 2008). The CSWE (2015) revised these standards to include more explicit
statements that social workers should “understand the processes for translating research findings into
effective practice,” and “use and translate research evidence to inform and improve practice, policy,
and service delivery” (p. 8). The current accreditation standards set forth by the CSWE have made it
essential for social work education programs to not only emphasize the importance of using research
evidence in practice but also train students on how to recognize, evaluate, and apply current research
knowledge to inform practice decision making with clients (CSWE, 2015).
Reflecting this shift, studies suggest that social work education programs are incorporating EBP
principles and content into their training curricula by integrating EBP principles into existing course
work, providing courses specific to ESIs and ESTs (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy and assertive
community treatment), fostering partnerships with field agencies conducting EBP, and strengthening
students’ abilities to connect acquired research knowledge and skills with their practice decisions
(Bledsoe et al., 2007; Bledsoe-Mansori, Bellamy et al., 2013; Grady et al., 2010; Howard et al., 2003;
Weissman et al., 2006; Wike et al., 2013). Findings from two national studies of schools of social
work demonstrate that various programs do include training in ESIs and ESTs in their curricula
(Bledsoe et al., 2007) and endorse the value and benefits of implementing agency-university partner-
ships to support EBP (Bledsoe-Mansori, Bellamy, et al., 2013).
Training phases of EBP and associated barriers
Although social work programs have increasingly focused on integrating EBP, ESI, and EST training
into their curricula (Bledsoe et al., 2007; Bledsoe-Mansori, Bellamy et al., 2013; Grady et al., 2010;
Howard et al., 2003; Weissman et al., 2006; Wike et al., 2013), variability exists in the type and
amount of training students receive (Drake, Hovmand, Jonson-Reid, & Zayas, 2007; Drisko, 2014;
Grady et al., 2010; Howard et al., 2007; Jenson, 2007; Mullen et al., 2005; Shlonsky, & Gibbs, 2004;
Springer, 2007). The majority of MSW program administrators report that they teach at least one ESI
or EST and focus on building EBP skills, yet they also report struggling to integrate the concepts into
their curricula (Bertram, Charnin, Kerns, & Long, 2014). Additionally, research suggests social work
educators do not clearly distinguish EBP from ESIs and ESTs (Rubin & Parrish, 2007) and are
unsure how to use these approaches in curriculum decisions (Grady et al., 2010). The lack of
164 M. D. GRADY ET AL.

consensus and clarity regarding how EBP, ESIs, and ESTs should be integrated into social work
education results in a lack of consistency in teaching EBP, ESIs, and ESTs, producing practitioners
with disparate levels of knowledge.
Barriers associated with MSW classroom learning
Classroom teaching provides the foundation for entering practice and represents a critical
component of training students in EBP, ESIs, and ESTs (Drisko, 2014). Discrepancies in the
definition of EBP (Bertram et al., 2014; Drake et al., 2007; Rubin & Parrish, 2007) and percep-
tions of its practice utility by instructors influence how the EBP process is or is not integrated
into the curriculum. Many conceptualize EBP as a product and do not teach students to critically
move through the steps of the EBP process (Drake et al., 2007). Studies on EBP have also
reflected this product-oriented definition of EBP, contributing to further confusion (see Bertram
et al., 2014). This definitional uncertainty leads to questions about how to provide training and
preparation to social work faculty (including adjuncts) who are interested in teaching EBP but
have little formal training in how to do so. As faculty are being strongly encouraged to teach EBP
in their courses, a consensus has not been reached on whether they should teach the process of
EBP, specific manualized interventions (ESIs, ESTs; Howard et al., 2007; Springer, 2007), the
skills needed to carry out the EBP process (Howard et al., 2007; Shlonsky, & Gibbs, 2004), or
some combination thereof (Drisko, 2014).
An additional consideration for incorporating EBP into classroom teaching is where in the
curriculum EBP training should be located (Bertram et al., 2014; Drisko, 2014; Howard et al.,
2007; Jenson, 2007; Mullen et al., 2007; Pollio & Macgowan, 2010). Although opinions vary
(Crabtree & Miller, 1992; Drake et al., 2007; Drisko, 2014; Gilgun, 1998; McDowell, 2000;
O’Connor & O’Neill, 2004; Sar, Yankeelov, Wulff, & Singer, 2003; Shaw, 1999; Yin, 2013), several
scholars have suggested ways for MSW programs to better infuse EBP into their curricula (Drake
et al., 2007; Drisko, 2014). Drisko (2014) emphasizes the need for research to be effectively taught in
social work programs and highlights the critical need to tie research to clinical practice. Drake et al.
(2007) emphasize that using the EBP process, practice is the application of research; therefore,
practice and research are inseparable, and thus need to be infused throughout MSW curricula. From
this perspective, every MSW class should adopt EBP and refer to EBP throughout the course. Drake
et al. (2007) offer steps toward the creation of a research-practice integrated social work education
program, including (a) introducing students to EBP, (b) refocusing course content (infusion of EBP
in all MSW classes), and (c) evaluating students’ EBP-related competence. Drake et al. (2007) also
advocate for more effective education in research, including increased focus on qualitative case
evaluation and integrating EBP in classes focusing on micro-, mezzo–, and macro-issues, like human
behavior in the social environment and social policy. Specifically, Drake et al. state that EBP should
be infused throughout the curriculum by tying practice courses to research and by having faculty
model their own use of EBP in their teaching and research.
Barriers associated with MSW field experiences
Although classroom teaching provides foundational learning, EBP cannot be fully integrated into
curricula (Drake et al., 2007; Drisko, 2014; Gilgun, 1998; O’Connor & O’Neill, 2004; Yin, 2013) without
incorporating EBP into field learning (Davis et al., 2013; Drake et al., 2007; Drisko, 2014; Mullen et al.,
2007). It is well documented that practitioners struggle with implementing EBP, ESIs, and ESTs
(Bellamy et al., 2013; Bledsoe-Mansori, Manuel, et al., 2013; Nelson, Steele, & Mize, 2006; Pollio,
2006; Proctor et al., 2007) for a variety of reasons, including inconsistencies in EBP training experi-
ences (Franklin & Hopson, 2007; Mullen et al., 2005), uncertainty about what constitutes adequate
evidence (Rubin & Parrish, 2007), lack of training in the skills required to carry out EBP (Bledsoe-
Mansori, Manuel, et al., 2013), practitioners’ and educators’ personal views against the use of EBP
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 165

(Bellamy, Bledsoe, & Traube, 2006; Bledsoe-Mansori, Bellamy, et al., 2013), and practice in agencies
resistant to using EBP, ESIs, and ESTs (Proctor et al., 2007). Because field experiences strongly
influence MSW student training, field instructors’ inability or aversion to EBP may limit students in
gaining EBP knowledge or being able to transfer skills learned in the classroom to practice.
To address this issue, Mullen et al. (2007) emphasize using process-based classroom learning in
collaboration with field agencies to promote and develop students’ ability to use EBP in practice. In
this model, field supervisors are brought in for training, and faculty visit agencies and provide
professional development training to promote trainee learning as well as support agencies invested in
using EBP. Likewise, Davis et al. (2013) highlight the importance of students’ being able to apply
EBP to their own cases and settings. Finally, Drake et al. (2007) emphasize integrating EBP with field
experiences and offer suggestions for field agencies to promote and teach EBP, including providing
field instructors and students with continuing education and integrative seminars.
The current study
Although many challenges exist in incorporating EBP in social work curricula, evidence suggests that
schools of social work highly endorse the benefits of EBP and have implemented a variety of strategies to
increase students’ skills (Bledsoe-Mansori, Bellamy, et al., 2013; Howard et al., 2003). These strategies
include project-based course work whereby students work with agencies to implement EBP projects,
training for field instructors to support student learning and the application of EBP, and capstone projects
that address EBP. However, we were unable to identify any study that has examined the perspectives of
recent MSW graduates to consider how their training experiences combined with their postgraduate
practice experiences have influenced their use of EBP, ESIs, and ESTs in their current practice. The purpose
of this descriptive, qualitative study was to explore the perceptions of social work practitioners educated
under the previous version of the Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS; CSWE, 2008) .
The specific research questions guiding this study were, What are the educational and practice experiences
of newly trained social workers in EBP, ESIs, and ESTs? and How do those experiences influence the use of
EBP, ESIs, and ESTs in social work practice? The study was approved by the institutional review boards of
the principal investigators’ universities.
Method
Participants
Social workers who obtained their MSW after 2009 were recruited through clinical society electronic
mailing lists, state social work licensing board lists, alumni electronic mailing lists, and individual
faculty contacts using a convenience snowball sampling method from May 2014 to October 2014.
Each social worker received an e-mail invitation to complete a Web-based survey about his or her
use of EBP, ESIs, and ESTs. At the end of the survey, participants were asked to provide their names
and contact information if they were interested in participating in an in-depth telephone interview
about their experiences in learning about and adopting EBP, ESIs and ESTs. Eighteen survey
participants indicated interest and were contacted by the study team; five individuals were contacted
three times. Thirteen survey participants agreed to participate in the qualitative interviews and made
up the final sample for this study. Descriptive data for the sample is provided in Table 1.
Study design
Interested participants were contacted by phone or e-mail by a member of the research team consisting of
two coprincipal investigators, two doctoral-level research assistants, and two master’s-level research
assistants. On initial contact, a research team member provided information about the interviews, reviewed
the informed consent form, and answered any questions posed by the participant.
166 M. D. GRADY ET AL.

Once consent was obtained, the interviewer and participant agreed on a time for a telephone
interview conducted through a conference call service that digitally recorded the interviews.
Interviewers informed participants through the consent process about the conference call service.
Each interview lasted about 1 hour, was conducted by a member of the research team, and followed a
semistructured interview format. The interview guide was developed by the lead investigators based
on previous research regarding known barriers and promoters for the adoption of EBP, ESIs, and
ESTs in the field.
On completion of the interview, each participant received a $10 Amazon gift card. Interviews
were transcribed verbatim by a member of the research team who did not conduct the interview. All
interviews were stored in a password-protected software program with all identifying information
removed.
Analyses
Data were analyzed using the constant comparative (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) method of analysis. Under
the direction of the coprincipal investigators, the research team documented themes that emerged from
the data from each transcribed interview using a grounded theory approach. These codes were
combined and then discussed among all team members to reach an agreed-on set of codes and
respective definitions. During the initial phase of coding, the research team reviewed the same two
transcripts and identified the number of times each code appeared, as well as defined the unit of inquiry.
Table 1. Participant demographics.
Characteristic
N
(n = 13) %
Year of graduation
2009 4 30.8
2010 3 23.1
2011 1 7.7
2012 2 15.4
2013 3 23.1
Practice state
California 3 23.1
District of Columbia 2 15.4
Minnesota 1 7.7
New York 2 15.4
North Carolina 1 7.7
South Carolina 1 7.7
Texas 3 23.1
Current social work license
Yes 10 76.9
No, but in process of obtaining 2 15.4
No, but plan on pursuing 1 7.7
Gender
Female 11 84.6
Male 2 15.4
Race, or ethnicity
Caucasian or White 12 92.3
Hispanic or Latino 1 7.7
Age
26–35 9 69.2
36–45 3 23.1
46–55 1 7.7
Length of tenure at current agency
>1 year 4 30.8
1–3 years 5 38.5
3–5 years 4 30.8
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 167

In the case of discrepancies, the team revised the codes or definitions and then recoded each transcript
until reaching 90% or greater interrater reliability. The final list consisted of 23 codes. Each transcript
was then assigned two coders who coded the transcripts following the three steps described next.
In Step 1, transcripts were individually coded by two coders. In Step 2, interrater reliability was
calculated. If interrater reliability was less than 90%, the reviewers identified coding discrepancies,
such as differences in how one coded a unit of analysis or interpreted a code. Where large
discrepancies emerged, codes, constructs, and definitions were adjusted as necessary in conference.
Step 3 involved each coder recoding the transcripts. When completed, the coders reconvened again
to compare coding and identify any additional discrepancies. If interrater reliability was less than
90%, discrepancies were resolved by conference. The codes were captured using Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets that tracked each coder’s counts.
Table 2 provides the frequencies for the number of participants that noted each theme. Table 3
shows the total number of times each theme was mentioned across the interviews. These numbers
are used in the presentation of the qualitative results to demonstrate pervasiveness of each theme
across the interviews. For each category, we provide a brief description of the theme, its associated
subthemes, and selected comments that illustrate the themes.
Results
Our study was guided by two specific research questions: What are the educational and practice
experiences of newly trained social workers in EBP, ESIs, and ESTs? and How do those experiences
influence the use of EBP, ESIs, and ESTs in social work practice? The following results address both
overarching questions.
Table 2. Frequencies for numbers of participants who identified each theme.
Total %
Themes and Codes
1. Pre-MSW 3 23.08
2. Educational preparation
Good educational prep 8 61.54
Lack of educational prep 11 84.62
3. Field experience
No exposure in field 8 61.54
Inaccurate or confused field exposure 5 38.46
Accurate field exposure 4 30.77
4. Lack of resources 13 100.00
5. Prohibitive agency culture and policies 11 84.62
6. Agency resource support 12 92.31
7. Supportive agency culture and policies 7 53.85
8. Supervision
Included in supervision 3 23.08
Excluded in supervision 8 61.54
9. Social work schools as resources and supports 7 53.85
10. Confusion 11 84.62
11. Never heard of ESI 10 76.92
12. EBP is limiting 7 53.85
13. Expectations 12 92.31
14. Good for agency 11 84.62
Other codes
15. Education mismatch 5 38.46
16. Silo of research 2 15.38
17. Connection 4 30.77
18. Ethics 3 23.08
19. Accountability 3 23.08
Note. EBP = evidence-based practice; ESI = empirically supported interventions.
168 M. D. GRADY ET AL.

Table 3. Frequencies of overall theme counts across all interviews.
Final Total
Themes and Codes
1. Pre-MSW 5
2. Educational preparation
Good educational prep 33
Lack of educational prep 46
3. Field experience
No exposure in field 16
Inaccurate/confused field exposure 5
Accurate field exposure 8
4. Lack of resources 68
5. Prohibitive agency culture and policies 53
6. Agency resource support 22
7. Supportive agency culture and policies 22
8. Supervision
Included in supervision 5
Excluded in supervision 18
9. Social work schools as resources and supports 11
10. Confusion 76
11. Never heard of ESI 13
12. EBP is limiting 25
13. Expectations 39
14. Good for agency 20
Other codes
15. Education mismatch 9
16. Silo of research 2
17. Connection 3
18. Ethics 5
19. Accountability 6
Final Total
Themes and Codes
Theme 1
1. Pre-MSW 5
Theme 2
2. Good educational prep 33
3. Lack of educational prep 46
4. No exposure in field 16
5. Inaccurate or confused field exposure 5
6. Accurate field exposure 8
Theme 3
7. Lack of resources 68
8. Prohibitive agency culture and policies 53
9. Agency resource support 22
10. Supportive agency culture and policies 22
11. Included in supervision 5
12. Excluded in supervision 18
13. Social work schools as resources and supports 11
Theme 4
14. Confusion 76
15. Never heard of ESI 13
16. EBP is limiting 25
17. Expectations 39
18. Good for agency 20
Other codes
19. Education mismatch 9
20. Silo of research 2
21. Connection 3
22. Ethics 5
23. Accountability 6
Note. EBP = evidence-based practice; ESI = empirically supported interventions.
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 169

Educational and practice experiences of newly trained social workers
Theme 1: Pre-MSW experiences
Participants discussed primarily MSW program experiences that contributed to their EBP knowl-
edge. However, five participants indicated having experience, especially research exposure or under-
graduate educational experiences, prior to enrolling in their MSW programs, which increased their
confidence in using research and EBP. Typical participant comments included the following: “When
I was an MSW student, I sort of already had done some research coming into the program, so I had
sort of a general idea about research and what sort of to be looking for and that sort of thing” and:
I was able to take advantage more of the literature studies in my MSW program because I had such [a] strong
research component in my undergraduate studies. So I feel like I was better able to understand and read the
literature, especially the statistical analysis. That helped me a lot.
These comments illustrate that the few participants exposed to research prior to entering an MSW
program perceived an ability to understand the literature, interpret statistical analysis, and appreciate
the research process.
Theme 2: Educational preparation
Participants reported aspects of their MSW course work that promoted or hindered their ability to
learn and use EBP. A lack of educational preparation in understanding EBP emerged as a common
experience (n = 46). Participants felt that their MSW education did not go into adequate depth on
EBP, which was only discussed in select classes or by certain professors, and EBP instruction was not
comprehensive. The following are examples of typical comments citing a lack of educational
preparation:
I don’t know how you were to learn to do any of these things in any kind of practical, useful way since there
weren’t any classes on it and it was just kind of mentioned you should do these things. But, there wasn’t a lot of
attention paid to it I felt. During the first year we had some exposure to it in our research class and generic,
really basic exposure to it in our field class—in our first field placement class. Other than that, during the first
year it was pretty much non-existent. I did have some professors who spoke about it more often but those were
not the majority. . . . It just wasn’t taught and it wasn’t taught well because you’re trying to cram a lot of
information into a very limited amount of time.
Some participants reported less frequently that EBP was only taught in research classes (n = 3)
and indicated a mismatch between how EBP was taught in the classroom and how EBP is used in the
field (n = 9). These participants emphasized that an inadequate educational foundation during their
MSW programs now continues to be a barrier to using EBP in their current practice.
A minority of participants reported that they felt they received good educational preparation that
facilitated their understanding and use of EBP (n = 3). Participants spoke of believing their MSW
education adequately prepared them to use EBP in practice. The following comment that empha-
sized the integration of EBP into the curriculum sums up this theme, “It was all integrated. The
evidence-based practice was very emphasized in the curriculum and the research, and relating it. We
did a grant writing class and we used the research for that.”
Another participant spoke of a particular class devoted to EBP and an accompanying project that
taught students the EBP process throughout the semester.
You had basically all semester to research these presented problems and then decide which interventions you
were going to use when, where, and why and then throughout the semester, [the professor] would sort of
change up the scenario. So our scenario was a family and they were seeking therapy for I think a death and also
someone had co-occurring drug use and a mental health issue and all of these other things. And then part-way
through the semester, the scenario would change or there would be an added thing like “dad lost his job” or I
don’t remember exactly what ours was . . . then each week you had to give sort of an update on what your
decided intervention was for the scenario.
170 M. D. GRADY ET AL.

Theme 3: Field experience
In addition to course work, we asked participants about their exposure to EBP in field placements. In
this subtheme, participants reported no exposure to EBP in field placements with the most frequency
(n = 16). Fewer participants spoke of having accurate exposure to EBP in the field (n = 8), and a
handful reported inaccurate or confused exposure to EBP in their field experiences (n = 5). Some
comments that capture a lack of exposure to EBP in the field setting include, “So I felt like it was
encouraged in the academic setting of my MSW, but not so much in the field placements that we
had” and “my second field was [child welfare agency] so it’s such a big organization. I just don’t
think there was such an emphasis on the evidence-based practice.” One participant who reported
EBP was used properly in her field experience said,
We have a really limited number of sessions with our clients that we can have and we’re constantly sort of
updating what our practices look like, and there’s a big emphasis on evidence based practice, so we definitely
talked about it a lot in my 2nd year.
Theme 4: Lack of resources
The most mentioned barrier to using EBP in practice was a lack of resources (n = 68). Interviewees
reported lacking important resources that affect their ability to use the EBP process, including lack of
access to journals, limited training, insufficient time to devote to EBP, and large caseloads. Typical
comments about the lack of resources included the following:
The biggest barrier, of course is that we do not have regular access to academic research. So there’s not some
great portal that I can log into and go see what’s in the latest psychology journal or latest whatever it might be.
So the best sort of tool that I have at my disposal is Google.
So I would say the bigger constraint would be, given the clinical load work we’re expected to carry, having
additional time to explore research and, you know, have that time be available and also valued. Having time to
discuss it with peers.
Theme 5: Prohibitive agency policies and culture
Participants also identified prohibitive agency policies and culture as a barrier to using EBP in their
work with clients (n = 53). Participants reported feeling like agency policies or practices either
explicitly or implicitly discourage the use of EBP. The following are examples of comments
describing the prohibitive nature of agency policies and culture:
I don’t even have the time to think “well maybe I’ll do this external training” . . . or “I’m willing to sacrifice my
billable hours to do that.” If I took a half day training, I basically get penalized. If I was going to go to some seminar
on evidence-based practice, they still expect me to see the same number of clients even though I worked a half day.
They don’t count a half day as a half day. They still count it as a full day. So just all those little things are, I think,
they’re huge systemic issues in terms of me, you know, improving clinically based . . . evidence.
The agency that I used to work for didn’t have—or it wasn’t—a growth environment. And I know it seems like
evidence based practice shouldn’t be a novel concept, but it is when it’s going against practice as usual, what’s
always been done, even when what’s always been done hasn’t been working.
Theme 6: Agency resource support
Fewer instances of agency resource supports promoting the use of EBP emerged from the interviews
(n = 22). Some participants identified available resources in their agencies that promote EBP,
including designated time for practitioners to attend workshops and training sessions and access
to journals. One respondent described the resource support available in her agency:
Our agency provides both funding and time. They will pay for classes up to a certain point. We each have an amount
we can spend per year. . . . For the full time people—I’m not full time but it’s prorated—it’s $1000 a year, so it’s a good
amount of money and we also get education days so, you know, we can attend. I think the full time people get three
education days a year so they can attend a training on a work day and take the time off. Their productivity is
obviously adjusted appropriately, and they don’t have to take vacation or personal days

The same participant later further demonstrated her confusion and terminology mix-up by
saying, “I took an entire class on cognitive behavioral therapy, um, and so it was definitely addressed
here and there during that class. You know, cognitive behavioral therapy is a quote-unquote
evidence based practice.”
Theme 11: Never heard of ESI
All but three participants stated that they never learned the distinction among EBP, ESIs, and ESTs or
had ever heard of ESIs and ESTs. Instead, they reported learning to use the term EBP to describe EBP,
ESIs, and ESTs. Multiple participants responded to our question about the definition of EBP and ESI
with comments similar to this one: “The first time I’ve ever heard ESI was in participating in this survey.”
Theme 12: EBP is limiting
Some participants felt that EBP limits the use of their clinical judgment as they equated the EBP
process to specific ESIs and ESTs. Most appeared to believe that EBP encouraged them to work with
clients using only an ESI or EST. One respondent summed this up by saying, “So, you know, they
work for the client they were designed for but this world is so much bigger than the one client that
these things are designed for.” The same participant further commented on her perception of the
limiting nature of EBP by saying,
As we move farther and farther and deeper and deeper into an EBP environment, or an ESI environment, we
are telling our clinicians, “Do not trust your clinical instincts. This is the only way you’re allowed to work or
practice” and robbing them of the art of our practice.
Theme 13: Expectations
When asked about the benefits of using EBP for the practitioner and for the client, participants felt
that EBP, ESIs, and ESTs provide clinicians and clients with an expectation of better client outcomes.
Respondents also stated that EBP instills confidence in the practitioner and the client when planning
and implementing interventions. According to one participant,
There are just an infinite number of directions a person can go in any given clinical encounter with the hope of
alleviating whatever discomfort or pain or whatever that the client has been presenting and I feel that with
evidence based practice, it is an organized fashion of approaching a problem and investigating it in a way and
then applying a body of knowledge that is demonstrably shown to be effective for a number of people . . . it also
can be helpful if it helps the client understand that it is coming from a place that has shown efficacy which I
think helps with that sort of buy-in.
Another participant emphasized how EBP instills confidence in social workers, saying, “In
general, knowing that what I’m doing has some broad research support behind it always makes
me feel more confident in what I’m doing and knowing that I’m serving my clients well.”
A third participant offered the following further comment on the benefits of EBP to the client:
Most clients that I’ve worked with are really interested in getting some sort of assistance or results to the work
that they’re doing and they usually want it fairly quickly. So, whatever we can do as practitioners to use
interventions that work well and have been shown to be helpful would be also beneficial to a client.
Theme 14: EBP as beneficial to the agency
A final metatheme emerged regarding benefits of EBP for the agency. Participants provided
examples of how the use of EBP benefits their agencies or how it might benefit their agencies if it
was more thoroughly implemented. Representative comments included the following:
I think [EBP] really benefits our structure in that we can see more people because we’re using things that help
people to get better quicker or at least are things that are more likely to get people better in general.
The course of therapy would likely be, on average, shorter. I think that it would help the agency a lot and our
community because we would have a shorter waiting list and we would get more people into therapy-through a
course of therapy.
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 173

Discussion
Our main findings reveal that the majority of participants did not feel that their MSW education
adequately prepared them to be evidence-based practitioners. Further, agency policy and practice
realities were perceived by our participants to create additional barriers to implementing EBP in
practice.
Four main categories of themes were discussed: pre-MSW training experiences, MSW training
experiences, post-MSW experiences, and metathemes that were not specific to any one phase of
training. Educational experiences highlighted promoters and barriers to implementing EBP post-
graduation. Participants with exposure to research during their undergraduate years expressed more
favorable perceptions of research in general and were less intimidated by incorporating research into
their practice, either through applying the process of EBP or using a specific ESI or EST.
On the MSW level, many participants noted a number of barriers, and only a few identified
experiences that promoted the use of EBP. The barriers primarily focused on a lack of preparation
for using EBP in their MSW programs. Specifically, participants noted they received little exposure
to EBP content. If they were exposed, it was often limited to research courses with no exposure to
EBP in practice courses. In addition, they said there was often a mismatch between what they were
learning in the classroom regarding research and EBP and what they were exposed to in field
placements. Many perceived the agencies in which they were placed also provided little exposure to
EBP content. They perceived what was discussed as confusing and contradictory to their course work
and reported hearing that using EBP is important but were not seeing it practiced in field training.
The number of individuals who reported MSW educational experiences that provided concrete
and clear information about EBP, ESIs, and ESTs was quite low. However, those participants who
did perceive education as adequately preparing them to use EBP, ESIs, and ESTs noted that the
exposure to this content was either integrated throughout the MSW program or that a free-standing
course emphasized EBP as a process. However, these experiences were the exception.
After graduating, participants reported that they continued to have limited exposure to or
training on EBP, ESIs, and ESTs. The most commonly reported theme was a perceived lack of
resources in their agencies to allow for the implementation of EBP. Participants noted most often
perceptions of high workloads, limited access to research evidence, lack of time to implement EBP,
and lack of time and support in supervision as barriers to EBP in practice. In fact, several
participants noted that there were few instances when EBP was discussed in supervision and that
when it was discussed, their supervisors were not well informed about EBP, ESIs, and ESTs. Some
participants went so far as to note that they perceived agency policies as actually prohibitive even if
they wanted to use EBP, such as not offering the flexibility to reduce billable hour requirements if
they attended an EBP-related training or the agency’s focus on authoritative practice (Gambrill,
1999) instead of EBP.
Participants who reported perceiving their agency as helpful in providing them with opportunities
to learn about EBP, ESIs, and ESTs were given access to academic and research materials and allotted
time and workload reduction for training sessions. Several participants perceived that support from
local schools of social work by offering such resources to their agencies would support their use of
EBP, ESIs, and ESTs in practice. These individuals suggested that providing access to journals,
training, academic databases, and classes for post-MSW graduates at the school could increase the
use of EBP for recent MSW graduates.
One of the metathemes that emerged was that recent MSW graduates generally perceive EBP,
ESIs, and ESTs positively. The majority of the participants perceived various benefits associated with
incorporating research and evidence into their practices. However, a great deal of variability existed
among the participants in terms of their depth of knowledge about EBP, ESIs, and ESTs and the
accuracy of that knowledge. It was clear from the responses that a great deal of confusion remains
about the terms and their meanings. Many of the participants used EBP, ESIs, and ESTs inter-
changeably, and many participants reported they had never heard the terms ESI or EST prior to
174 M. D. GRADY ET AL.

participation in this study. It is likely that participants’ confusion reflects discrepancies in an
understanding of EBP and the associated terminology among social work educators, including
classroom teachers and field supervisors. This confusion on the MSW level results in a cycle of
misinformation that is perpetuated within the social work field postgraduation through practitioner
supervision or a lack of supervision.
Limitations
This study had a number of limitations. It included a small sample that was drawn from a self-
selected convenience sample. The sample and sampling method should be considered when general-
izing the results of the study. The small sample size also limited our ability to reach saturation with
the data during the analysis phase.
Implications
In spite of these limitations, these findings have a number of implications for social work as a
profession. First, even with the changes made to the 2008 EPAS, MSW graduates perceive that their
programs of study did not adequately prepare them to be evidence-based practitioners and may have
provided misinformation on EBP as well as ESIs and ESTs if included in their program’s curriculum.
At the very least, participants in this study reported that as new social work practitioners, they are
confused about what EBP is and how it is different from ESIs and ESTs. Based on our findings their
perceptions regarding educational experiences raise a question about whether many social work
educators and field supervisors remain confused about EBP, ESIs, and ESTs, which may contribute
to our participants’ perception of a lack of attention or depth of EBP content in the curriculum of
their MSW programs. Very few participants noted that they had exposure in any in-depth way to
EBP, ESIs, and ESTs either in the classroom or in their field placements.
Second, although the profession has attempted to integrate EBP, ESIs, and ESTs into professional
practice (Bellamy et al., 2008), our findings demonstrate that participants perceived that their
agencies continue to struggle to move from a culture of authoritative practice to a culture that
promotes and values EBP—providing time, training, supervision, and other resources dedicated to
EBP, ESIs, and ESTs. In spite of the changes made to the 2008 EPAS, our participants’ perceptions
support the perpetuation of a common cycle where few MSW graduates understand and feel able to
adopt EBP in practice; these same practitioners become the supervisors of MSW students and new
hires, and because they do not adequately understand or apply EBP, they do not infuse it into their
supervision or into the wider agency culture, resulting in authoritative practice rather than EBP,
which perpetuates the absence of EBP in social work agencies.
Recommendations
Research exposure
Participants in our study who reported research exposure—didactic and working in research
programs—prior to entering their MSW program also reported feeling more confident in applying
EBP. As social work educators, we have the opportunity to capitalize on this knowledge in a number
of ways. Accepting and training MSW-level practitioners is an investment on the part of the
individual as well as the school that accepts the individual. If creating evidence-based practitioners
is a priority for our profession, we should also make this a priority in our admissions procedures by
favoring applicants who demonstrate research exposure either through academic success in multiple
research courses or through experience working on research projects and in research programs. An
ideal candidate would have both and could be prioritized for funding through scholarships and
research assistantships. Further, in our BSW programs we can offer increased opportunities for
research exposure through course work, assignments, and opportunities to be involved in faculty and
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 175

doctoral-level research projects. Other disciplines, such as psychology, offer research practicums to
bachelor’s-level students for course credit that are supervised by either faculty or doctoral students.
Once students have entered MSW programs we could prioritize opportunities for continued
exposure to research by increasing research content in the curriculum, offering research practicums
for course credit, and creating additional opportunities for MSW students to work closely with
faculty and doctoral students on research projects or by looking for opportunities outside the school
that would increase their exposure to research.
Classroom education
Social work program directors need to first assess how they are addressing content on EBP and ESIs
in their programs. This assessment should also include the faculty members’ knowledge and skills
related to EBP and ESIs. It is essential for social work faculty to be clear on the definitions of these
constructs to provide clarity for students. This may be in the form of new faculty training that would
apply not only to tenure-line faculty but also contract faculty, adjunct faculty, and doctoral students
teaching in MSW programs.
Based on this assessment, faculty members should develop concrete plans aimed at increasing
students’ knowledge and skills with regard to EBP, ESIs, and ESTs. Program administrators should
also consider adopting an integrated curriculum that incorporates EBP into multiple aspects of the
curriculum beyond the research course.
An additional option would be for administrators to consider a stand-alone course dedicated to
understanding the EBP process. These courses should be distinct from practice courses that teach
discrete ESIs and ESTs, and this distinction should be highlighted to increase clarity among the
students. Further, any courses teaching or addressing specific ESIs and ESTs should place them
within the context of EBP.
Other specific educational recommendations include emphasizing research evaluation skills
among MSW students and exposing EBP- and ESI/EST-related content early in MSW programs.
It is essential for any content related to EBP and ESI/ESTs to discuss the potential challenges and
barriers students might encounter in the field as well as tools they can use to address those
challenges. At a minimum, faculty should consider how to integrate EBP into assignments and
course readings.
Field education
There are several tasks that program directors can adopt to address the field education issues raised
by the participants in this study. One recommendation is for schools to provide mandatory training,
particularly with continuing education credits attached to incentivize their attendance, to field
supervisors and field liaisons on EBP and ESIs so that they have a clear understanding of the
content. After such exposure, it is then critical that programs reinforce the importance of this
content by incorporating it into field assignments and learning plans.
Social work program administrators should also encourage their field agencies to conduct internal
assessment regarding the knowledge and skills of their employees regarding EBP- and ESI/EST-
related content, and provide the supports, tools, or technical assistance to do so. If the agency
management determines it is lacking information or resources, schools can develop partnerships
with agencies to address these deficits, and it is hoped this will result in an agency culture that
embraces EBP.
Schools of social work
Grady (2010) provides a number of concrete strategies that schools of social work can use to promote
the adoption of EBP and use of ESIs and ESTs by the agencies in their communities. These include
holding public seminars on the skills and knowledge needed for different aspects of EBP (such as how to
conduct a literature search or interpret research) or on specific ESIs and ESTs, providing access to
176 M. D. GRADY ET AL.

libraries for journals and databases, creating summaries of existing research, posting syllabi on pubic
websites, and working in partnership with agencies on various evaluation or training projects.
Congruent with other studies, the participants in this study identified similar ideas, reinforcing that
school administrators should consider some of these identified strategies (Bledsoe-Mansori, Bellamy, et
al., 2013).
Conclusion
In spite of recent efforts to integrate EBP, ESIs, and ESTsinto professional practice, results from this
study indicate that social workers still experience a number of barriers in integrating these research-
based approaches into their practices. Although social workers believe that adopting EBP and using
ESIs and ESTs are beneficial, they remain confused about what the terms represent and how they
should be applied. Social work programs can play a critical role in supporting professional social
workers by integrating EBP, ESIs, and ESTs more clearly and purposefully into curricula, as well as
providing additional support for those already in the field through training and other resources. It is
clear from this study that the profession needs to develop a more effective and systematic method of
adequately training practitioners to fully integrate the use of evidence more holistically in the field.
Notes on contributors
Melissa D. Grady is associate professor at Catholic University of America. Traci Wike is assistant professor at Virginia
Commonwealth University. Caren Putzu is assistant professor at Eastern Michigan University. Sara Field is an MSW
graduate research assistant and Jacqueline Hill is an MSW graduate research assistant at Catholic University of
America. Sarah E. Bledsoe is associate professor University of North Carolina. Jennifer Bellamy is associate professor
University of Denver. Michael Massey is a doctoral student at Virginia Commonwealth University.
References
Bellamy, J., Bledsoe, S. E., & Traube, D. (2006). The current state of evidence based practice in social work: A review of
the literature and qualitative analysis of expert interviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 3, 23–38.
Bellamy, J. L., Bledsoe, S. E., Mullen, E. J., Fang, L. & Manuel, J. I. (2008). Agency–university partnership for evidence-
based practice in social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 44, 55–76. doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2008.200700027
Bertram, R. A., Charnin, L. A., Kerns, S. E. U., & Long, A. C. J. (2014). Evidence-based practices in North American
MSW curricula. Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 737–748. doi:10.1177/1049731514532846
Bledsoe-Mansori, S. E., Manuel, J., Bellamy, J. L., Fang, L., Dinata, E., & Mullen, E. for the BEST Team. (2013).
Implementing evidence-based practice in social agencies: An overview of the BEST training with practitioner
responses. Journal of Evidence Based Social Work, 10(2), 73–90.
Bledsoe-Mansori, S. E., Bellamy, J. L., Wike, T. L., Grady, M. D., Dinata, E., Killian, C. & Rosenberg, K. (2013).
Agency-University partnerships for evidence-based practice: A national survey of schools of social work. Social
Work Research, 37, 179–193.
Bledsoe-Mansori, S. E., Manuel, J., Bellamy, J. L., Fang, L., Dinata, E., & Mullen, E. for the BEST Team. (2013).
Implementing evidence-based practice in social agencies: An overview of the BEST training with practitioner
responses. Journal of Evidence Based Social Work, 10(2), 73–90.
Bledsoe, S. E., Weissman, M. M., Mullen, E. J., Ponniah, K., Gameroff, M., Verdeli, H., …Wickramaratne, P. (2007).
Empirically supported psychotherapy in social work training programs: Does the definition of evidence matter?
Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 449–455. doi:10.1177/1049731506299014
Brekke, J. S., Elle, K., & Palinkas, L. A. (2007). Translational science at the National Institute of Mental Health: Can
social work take its rightful place? Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 123–133. doi:10.1177/1049731506293693
Chambless, D. (2007, January). The role of empirically-supported treatments in teaching evidence-based practice. Paper
presented at the Annual Midwinter Meeting, Council of University Directors of Clinical Psychology, Savannah,
Georgia.
Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Education policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.
cswe.org/Accreditation/Standards-and-Policies/2008-EPAS.aspx
Council on Social Work Education. (2015). Education policy and accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.
cswe.org/Accreditation/Standards-and-Policies/2015-EPAS.aspx
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION 177