Professional Suitability for Social Work Practice

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify the underlying dimensions of professional suitability. Method: Data were collected from a province-wide mail-out questionnaire surveying 341 participants from a random sample of registered social workers. Results: The use of an exploratory factor analysis identified a 5-factor solution on professional suitability: social consciousness suitability, ethical suitability, practice suitability, and personal suitability, and distractors. This factor solution accounted for 47.4% of variance and achieved strong internal consistency with an overall Cronbach’s α value of .89, and subscales values ranged between .89 and .72. Conclusion: The identified underlying dimensions of professional suitability provide groundwork for the development of a psychometrically sound instrument for assessing performance of social work students and/or practicing social workers.

Keywords

professional suitability social work factor analysis

Introduction

Social work educators and professional regulators are responsible for assessing and screening individuals for professional suitability for social work practice. Individuals must demonstrate that they understand and have mastered social work knowledge, skills, and values in practice situations (Kimberly & Osmond, 2009; Lyons, 1999), and that they are competent to enter the profession (Gibbs, 2000). To adequately perform assessment and screening responsibilities, educators and professional regulators have sought a standardized measurement of professional suitability (Gibbons, Bore, Munro, & Powis, 2007; Gibbs, 1994a, 1994b; Gibbs & Blakely, 2000; Kropf, 2000; Miller & Koerin, 1998, 2001; Moore & Jenkins, 2000; Ryan, Habibis, & Craft, 1997). The term “professional competence” and “professional suitability” have been used interchangeably in the literature (Barlow & Coleman, 2003; Eraut, 1994; Lafrance, Gray, Herbert, 2004; O’Hagan, 1996). Since the term, “incompetence” imposes negative connotations and “unsuitability” suggests that a person may be unsuitable for the profession of social work but may be better suited for other career path (Brear, Dorrian, & Luscri, 2008), the term “professional suitability” is the preferred construct. This article presents the results of a provincial mail-out questionnaire survey with a random sample of registered social workers. The goal was to identify the underlying dimensions of professional suitability and prepare the ground for the development of a psychometrically sound instrument for assessing social work students’ and/or practicing social workers’ performance. The first step in developing this instrument was to gain the opinion of social workers about the core constructs underpinning professional suitability.

Literature Review

Theoretical support for developing an instrument to measure professional suitability is based on functionalist theory influenced by Emile Durkheim. From the functionalist perspective, the division of labor among professions suggests that each profession possesses a list of characteristics, which differentiates one profession from the other (MacDonald, 1995; McCauley, 2005). The list of professional characteristics is also referred to as professional traits or attributes, and these professional attributes are required as prerequisites for membership within a professional group (Popple, 1985). Social work’s professional attributes are well documented in the literature (Clark, 2006; Edwards, Shera, Reid, & York, 2006; Eraut, 1994; Leighninger, 2000; Reeser & Epstein, 1990; Shera & Bogo, 2001) and are embedded in the codes of ethics and standards of practice (Canadian Association of Social Workers [CASW], 2005; Canadian Association for Social Work Education [CASWE], 2008; Council on Social Work Education [CSWE], 2010; National Association of Social Workers [NASW], 2008; Reamer, 2006). The fundamental values and goals of practice characterize the profession’s identity of social work and provide a blueprint for social w0ork programs to develop their curricula and for professional regulatory bodies to define their standards of practice.

Rooted in functionalist theory and driven by the rising demand for professional accountability, competence-based education and training gained momentum in the late 1980s. The concept of competence-based education and training refers to professional training, based on certain predefined knowledge and skills (Hager, 2004; Horder, 1998; Kelly & Horder, 2001; O’Hagan, 1996). Trainees or students of a particular profession are expected to demonstrate knowledge and skills at entry-level competence that meet the requirements for granting a license to practice or a professional degree. Competence is assessed through well-defined standards or criteria set out by the profession.

To meet the objectives of professional education, the CSWE has developed Education Policy and Accreditation Standards (2010), which requires social work programs to have explicit “… policies and procedures for terminating a student’s enrollment in the social work program for reasons of academic and professional performance” (p. 12). In Canada, the CASWE oversees standards of social work education in Canada. According to CASWE Education Policy Statement (2008),

Schools shall also have published policies and procedures providing for the termination of those social work students found to be engaging in behavior contrary to the relevant social work code of ethics and who are therefore judged to be unsuitable for the profession of social work (s.3.9.2 & s.5.9.2).

Both CSWE and CASWE require accredited social work programs to develop professional standards to screen and assess students in order to ensure that only students who had attained the requisite professional knowledge, skills, and values are allowed to graduate from a social work program; maintain standards of practice, protect the interest of the public, and assert professional responsibilities.

Issues on Professional Suitability

Guarding entry into a profession necessitates fair and clearly defined criteria and mechanisms by educational and professional regulatory systems. Several authors note that the construct of social work is fluid due to geographical, economic, social, and political forces that play significant roles in shaping a distinct social work body of knowledge, skills, values, and professional norms (Brenner, 2009; Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work [CASSW], 2000; Drover, 2009; Gibelman, 1999; Lyons, 2006; MacKenzie, 2002; Pardeck & Murphy, 1994; Reisch & Gorin, 2001; Rondeau, 2001). Abbott (1995) observed that “… social work could not be understood within a static framework and the functions of social work emerged from a continuous process of change” (p. 552). The fluidity of the social context suggests that the conceptualization of the components and criteria for evaluating professional suitability is an ongoing process (Bisno & Cox, 1997; DeVellis, 2003; Freidson, 2001; Gray & Webb, 2008; Greene, 2005; Kaslow et al., 2007a, 2007b; Lichtenberg et al., 2007; Martinez-Brawley & Zorita, 2007; Messick, 1989; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Westhues, Lafrance, & Schmidt, 2001).

Defining and evaluating professional suitability is not without controversy. Social work practitioners and educators face multiple issues including dilemmas related to the dual roles of educator and social worker (Coleman, Collins, & Aikins, 1995; Collins, Coleman, & Miller, 2002; Moore, Dietz, & Jenkins, 1998; Tam & Kwok, 2007b; Younes, 1998), an absence of a working agreement on professional suitability (Gibbs & Blakely, 2000; Gray, 2005; Wahlberg & Lommen, 1990), and fear of litigation (Cole & Lewis, 2000; Madden, 2000; Madden & Cobb, 2000; Redmond & Bright, 2007).

Some social work educators argue that social work, as a helping profession, emphasizes an empowerment perspective in that every individual should have the benefit of choice, opportunity, and growth (Saleebey, 2009; Scott & Zeiger, 2000). From this perspective, people are believed to have the potential to change and improve. Social work stands for respecting individual choice, assisting people to maximize their potential, supporting people to excel, maintaining a nonjudgmental attitude, and most importantly, nurturing people’s strengths. Therefore, rejecting students based on rigid standards is considered uncaring and unsympathetic, fails to allow people’s humanity to emerge, excludes participation in the profession by those who are capable but perform differently from those standards, and violates social workers’ empowering role (Royse, 2000).

The lack of well-defined suitability criteria, standards, policies, and practices has impeded the ability of social work educators from carrying out their gatekeeping function (Barlow & Coleman, 2003; Gibbs, 2000; Hartman & Wills, 1991; Koerin & Miller, 1995; Lafrance et al., 2004; Ryan et al., 1997; Tam & Kwok, 2007a). Professional suitability for practice is, for the most part, poorly defined and lacks systematic and measurable constructs. This is true even though the screening and monitoring responsibilities mandated by accreditation bodies require that social work educators develop criteria and policies addressing professional suitability and promote high standards of practice on behalf of clients and public interest (Gibbs, 1994b, 2000; Reynolds, 2004; Tam & Kwok, 2007c).

Many social work programs lack commonly and widely agreed upon “suitability” screening criteria and policies (Barlow & Coleman, 2003; Koerin & Miller, 1995; Ryan et al., 1997), resulting in litigation and lawsuits (Gibbs & Macy, 2000; Redmond & Bright, 2007) being brought against universities where there have been attempts to fail students. Courts have overturned dismissals for misconduct because programs had inadequate screening and decision-making policies and procedures rather than ruling on whether the student’s behavior was, in fact, unprofessional (Madden & Cobb, 2000; Wayne, 2004). To assist in the performance of their gatekeeping role, researchers have tried to define the construct of professional suitability; however, there is a lack of clarity and agreement on the core elements (Coleman et al.,1995; Gibbs & Blakely, 2000; Miller & Koerin, 1998; Regehr, Stalker, Jacobs, & Pelech, 2001; Ryan et al., 1997; Tam & Kwok, 2007a).

This remains the case even though the screening and monitoring responsibilities mandated by CSWE and CASWE make it critical for educators to clearly define criteria and processes addressing professional suitability in order to promote high standards of practice that safeguard client and public interests (Gibbs, 2000; Lafrance et al., 2004; Reynolds, 2004; Tam & Kwok, 2007c). Appropriately and respectfully guarding the entrance into the profession requires adequate mechanisms within both the social work educational and professional regulatory systems. Identifying the underlying dimensions of professional suitability, and then developing a psychometrically sound instrument for measuring professional suitability could serve as a decision-making tool for schools of social work and/or professional regulatory bodies (Kaslow et al., 2007a, 2007b; Lichtenberg et al., 2007; Tam & Kwok, 2007a).

Previous Research

Existing studies on professional suitability have drawn samples from a limited population (Bogo et al., 2006; Lafrance et al., 2004), mostly including senior administrators (Barlow & Coleman, 2003; Gibbs, 1994a, 1994b; Ryan et al., 1997). There also have been low participation rates in these studies (Gibbs, 1994a, 1994b; Miller & Koerin, 1998; Ryan et al., 1997). While their input has been invaluable, there has been a notable lack of input from field supervisors, faculty field liaisons, field directors, and faculty members, which constitutes a serious methodological gap. Moreover, suitability criteria identified in previous studies have included self-awareness, commitment to social work ethics, knowledge of the profession, the ability to integrate theory to practice, good interpersonal skills, good communication skills, desire to learn, and critical thinking (Barlow & Coleman, 2003; Bogo, Regehr, Hughes, Power, & Globerman, 2002; Gibbons, et al., 2007; Gibbs & Blakely, 2000; GlenMaye & Oakes, 2002; Koerin & Miller, 1995; Lafrance et al., 2004; Miller & Koerin, 1998; Ryan et al., 1997). However, empirically identifying the underlying dimensions of professional suitability is still lacking (Alperin, 1996; Tam, 2003).

To fill these gaps, an initial provincial survey was conducted in Alberta to examine issues related to professional suitability and to identify the underlying constructs of the concept (Tam, 2004). Results from this study support that suitability was an identified issue of concern that needs to be addressed through the development of evaluation mechanisms to assure adequate screening and prediction of students’ performance in social work (Tam & Coleman, 2009a, 2009b; Tam & Kwok, 2007a). For example, approximately 40% of the 140 participants in Tam’s study (2004) expressed that one of the challenges faced by field supervisors was encountering with problematic students, and another 27% of field supervisors reported to have worked with students who had not internalized social work values (Tam & Kwok, 2007a).

While testing of the reliability on the list of criteria on professional suitability in the Alberta study identified a Cronbach α value of .93 (Tam, 2004), the factor solution of 52% was below a satisfactory measure. Ideally the factor solution should be at a level of 75%, suggesting lack of comprehensiveness of the construct (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Stevens, 2002). Other unanswered questions remained regarding the certainty of the stability and equivalence reliability, criterion-related and construct validity on the dimensions of professional suitability (Tam & Coleman, 2009a). As such dimensions identified in this study need to be cross-validated.

While the Alberta study addressed issues in studying professional suitability, the study encountered several limitations. First, respondents were drawn from a convenience sample of field supervisors from one social work program, limiting the generalizability of results. The Alberta study did not incorporate field supervisors from other schools of social work or other key social work educators such as faculty liaisons, field coordinators, and directors, and faculty members involved in the social work educational process. Second, the dimension on personal suitability achieved only fair reliability (α = .68). Moreover, the variance accounting for the factor solution was below satisfactory, suggesting measurement error and the need to either modify some items or increase the number of items to improve the reliability of the dimension of personal suitability (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Finally, response set bias might have affected the accuracy of responses. While procedures to minimize the effect of response set were taken by incorporating five distractors on the list of professional suitability, results showed that 3 out of 5 distractors had a mean score above 4 out of a 7-point scale, suggesting that the wordings of 3 distractors were unable to distinct from other items and were considered undesirable distractors to minimize the response set (Spector, 1992). Despite these limitations, the Alberta study led to the development of an initial five dimensions of professional suitability for social work practice.

To address the limitations from the Alberta study, a second provincial survey on professional suitability in social work was conducted in Ontario in 2007. Results from this study are reported here. The primary purpose of this study was aimed at identifying the underlying dimensions of professional suitability. It was expected that results of this study would help in the development of a reliable and valid instrument of professional suitability for social work practice, which could assist social work educators to perform a more reliable job on student evaluation at multiple points prior to the completion of the degree programs and could be used as one of the indicators for assessing work performance.

Construction of Professional Suitability

Capturing the comprehensive contents of professional suitability, the Ontario 2007 study built upon identified criteria for professional suitability from previous studies (Barlow & Coleman, 2003; Bogo et al., 2002, 2004, 2006; Gibbs, 1994a, 1994b; GlenMaye & Oakes, 2002; Koerin & Miller, 1995; Lafrance et al., 2004; Miller & Koerin, 1998; Ryan et al., 1997), and the code of ethics (CASW, 2005; NASW, 2008). From the literature, the construct of professional suitability was categorized into 12 dimensions: resolution of personal life issues; willingness to become more self-aware; insight into motivation for social work; requirement for honesty and integrity; willingness to examine personal values, beliefs and biases; commitment to personal growth and lifelong learning; critical thinking; personal maturity; ability to form relationship; use of power; commitment to the profession; and commitment to social change. Under each of these 12 dimensions, 8 items were developed.

The draft version of the professional suitability list was first reviewed by six doctoral social work students, then revised with recommendations by these doctoral student reviewers. A second round of review was conducted by five social work faculty members, and further revision was made according to their recommendations. A detailed description on the development of the five dimensions of professional suitability for the Alberta study was reported elsewhere (Tam, 2004; Tam & Coleman, 2009a). Based on the results from the Alberta study (Tam & Coleman, 2009a, 2009b), modification was further made and the revised construct of professional suitability contained 40 items.Table 1 summarizes the list of items on professional suitability, item number, and expected dimensions on professional suitability in the Ontario study. The Ontario vision reused 2 items (Items: 28 and 34) that were statistically eliminated from the final solution in the Alberta study. However, the qualitative data collected from the same study showed the highest rating on the category of “personal suitability,” which supported a reexamination on these two items (Tam & Coleman, 2009b). Moreover, the Ontario study added 3 new items (Items: 13, 18, and 29) that were articulated from the code of ethics (CASW, 2005); and incorporated 3 new distractors (Items: 3, 6, and 39) to minimize the potential effect of response set. The list of items reported on Table 1 measured the participants’ perceived factors related to suitability for the profession. All statements started with a stem, which stated “A person who is professionally suitable for practice social work ….”

Table 1.

List of Items on Professional Suitability for Social Work Practice, Expected Dimensions, Means and Standard Deviations of Each Items (N = 341)

Dimensions	Item No.	Statements Started as “A Person Who is Professionally Suitable for Practicing Social Work …”	Mean	SD
Overall suitability	20	Develops a personal practice style	5.93	0.90
	21	Is able to transfer their learning from one context to another	6.25	0.69
	22	Has effective nonverbal communication skills	6.24	0.80
	24	Uses proper channels for conflict resolution	6.46	0.75
	26	Is willing to receive feedback in a positive manner	6.23	0.75
	31	Is aware of personal strengths	6.19	0.71
	32	Is friendly	5.78	0.95
	35	Takes responsibility for handling his/her personal problems	6.27	0.81
	36	Is able to examine one’s personal biases	6.54	0.62
	38	Has good interpersonal skills	6.52	0.57
	40	Is open to feedback to improve his/her professional practice	6.51	0.63
Social consciousness suitability	5	Demonstrates a commitment to social change	5.71	1.06
	7	Is able to critically examine political issues	4.77	1.34
	8	Is able to critically examine bureaucratic systems	5.09	1.22
	15	Is aware of the impact of the global economy	4.65	1.29
	27	Is committed to promote social justice	5.72	1.13
	37	Is committed to changing social inequality	5.72	1.10
Practice Suitability	2	Is able to make reasoned decisions	6.56	0.65
	11	Is able to distinguish between professional/personal relationship	6.81	0.49
	16	Is aware of one’s personal values and beliefs	6.56	0.67
	17	Thinks critically	6.34	0.79
	19	Demonstrates integrity	6.77	0.46
	23	Uses their professional power responsibly	6.73	0.51
	30	Maintains clear boundaries with clients	6.75	0.49
Personal suitability	4	Is able to manage personal life issues	5.73	1.03
	12	Knows the reasons of why he/she has chosen a career in social work	5.98	0.97
	18	Demonstrates competence in professional practice (New)	6.73	0.49
	28	Is able to manage negative life experiences (Re-used)	5.77	0.92
	34	Knows personal limitations (Re-used)	6.41	0.68
Ethical suitability	1	Is committed to enhance human well-being	6.75	0.50
	9	Is willing to advocate against oppression	5.96	1.05
	10	Respects human diversity	6.81	0.45
	13	Demonstrates impartiality in his/her practice (New)	6.16	0.95
	29	Upholds service in the interests of others (New)	6.11	0.78
	33	Believes in the value and dignity of each individual	6.81	0.46
Distractors	3	Demonstrates excellent research skills (New)	4.45	1.18
	6	Is able to speak a second language (New)	2.83	1.30
	14	Is bilingual	2.80	1.42
	25	Participates in street protests	2.98	1.34
	39	Is knowledgeable on statistical analysis (New)	3.85	1.30

Method

A provincial study was conducted in Ontario in 2007 to further examine the perceived criteria related to suitability for the profession and address limitations from the Alberta study (Tam, 2004; Tam & Coleman, 2009a) by expanding the representativeness of the sample; increasing the length of the personal suitability dimension; rewording some weakly correlated items; and modifying the distractors. The overarching research goals were to examine the underlying dimensions of professional suitability for social work practice and increase the generalizability of the research, which provides an empirical basis for the development of a measure of professional suitability. This study received ethics approval by the Carleton University Research Ethics Committee and the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board at the University of Calgary.

Sampling

The sampling frame included members of the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (OCSWSSW). Random sampling was employed to select 550 potential respondents of the 10,400 social workers registered with the College. In order to achieve a minimum sample size of 300 for factor analysis, sample size was determined by an estimated 60% response rate through multiple mailings while α was set at .05 (two-tailed), expected statistical power at .80, and a medium effect size of r > .30 (Cohen, 1988; Dillman, 2007; Gorsuch, 1983; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Data Collection

A mail-out questionnaire was used to collect the data. To increase the response rate for the survey, procedures from the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2007) were used. Data collection procedures included first obtaining a mailing list of active registered members from OCSWSSW. A prior notice was sent to the mailing list notifying potential respondents about the study, followed a week later with a questionnaire package containing the survey questionnaire, a cover letter, and a stamped business reply envelope. The cover letter outlined the purposes of the study, assured voluntary participation and confidentiality, and requested members’ assistance with the survey. All questionnaires were pre-coded for follow-up mailing purpose.

The follow-up mailing included a reminder, sent 1 week after the first questionnaire package had been sent. Then, a follow-up letter with an additional copy of the questionnaire, and a self-addressed stamped envelope was sent to those who had not returned the questionnaire within 2 weeks. Finally, a final letter, another copy of the questionnaire, and a self-addressed stamped envelope were sent on the seventh week following the first notice.

Instrument

The survey questionnaire consisted of 3 sections that included demographic information, the 40-item revised list of criteria on professional suitability, and 4 open-ended questions asking for respondents’ opinions about professional suitability and student evaluation.

Pilot Test

After ethics clearance was granted, a pilot test with 20 respondents from the sampling frame was conducted. Comments from the pilot test were favorable toward the contents and objectives of the questionnaire and only minor wording changes were required. Participants who were involved in the pilot test were excluded in the survey.

Results

After excluding invalid mailing addresses and people on long-term leave, 496 eligible names remained on the list. Of these, 341 (69%) people responded with a usable questionnaire, which met the requirement for factor analysis (Gorsuch, 1983; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

Descriptive Analyses

Age of respondents ranged between 75 and 23 years (M = 45; SD = 10.7), 269 (79%) of whom were female. A total of 248 (73%) respondents held a master’s degree, 82 (24%) had a bachelor’s degree, and the remaining 3% consisted of people with a diploma, a doctorate, other qualifications, and nonresponses. Years of experience as a social worker ranged between 1 and 40 years (M = 16; SD = 10). In all, 224 (66%) respondents primarily practiced in urban areas, 64 (19%) in suburban, 44 (13%) in rural or remote areas, and the remaining 2% selected other or did not respond. Of the total number of respondents, 194 (57%) worked in government-funded sectors, 105 (31%) in nongovernment organizations, 25 (7%) in private practice, the remainder (5%) selected other or missing.

A total of 188 (55%) had experience as a field supervisor compared with 148 (43%) who had not. Among these field supervisors, 125 (67%) had received field supervision training. Years of field supervisory experience ranged between 1 and 27 years (M = 6; SD = 5.7). Respondents reported supervising between 1 and 110 students (M = 7; SD = 4).

Chi-square tests comparing the representativeness of the sample with the population of registered social workers in Ontario revealed that the qualifications of the sample were insignificantly different from the population (χ² = 5.8, df = 4, p > .05). Tests on grouped age (χ² = 17.26, df = 4, p = .002, w = .22), and on employment in primarily practice sector (χ² = 33.5, df = 2, p ≤ .000, w = .32) were both significantly different from the population. The sample was older than the population and a higher percentage worked in the government than the population, creating caution about generalization.

Independent t tests were also performed to test the homogeneity between groups on total scores on professional suitability. Total score was computed using Hudson’s (1982) scoring formula: S = (∑ X − N)(100)/[(N)(6)], where S was the total score; X was the denoted item response; N was the number of items on the scale; 6 was used to excluded any items that may have been scored outside the range from 1 to 7. This scoring formula produces a range of values from 0 to 100, facilitating easier interpretation of the total scores and cross-study comparison.

Results revealed no group differences when comparing those who had been a social work field supervisor versus those who had not; those who had received field supervision training compared with those who had not; those whose age were above the means versus those below; those whose years of work experience as a social worker were above the means versus those below; and those whose years of work experience as a field supervisor were above the means compared with those below. These independent t test results suggested homogeneity.

Respondents with a diploma or a bachelor’s degree had significantly higher total scores on the professional suitability (M = 88.2; SD = 5.94) than those with a graduate degree (M = 85.7; SD = 6.79), t₍₃₃₅₎ = 2.96; p = .003, d = .37. Two outliers in the group with a graduate degree were identified. An attempt was made to exclude these two outliers in another independent t test, but the results remained significant. Three other independent t tests were conducted to examine whether those respondents with a graduate degree had significant different years of age, years of work experience, and/or years of experience as field supervisor than those with a bachelor’s degree or a diploma. The results of these t tests found no difference (p > .05, two-tailed).

Table 1 presents the degree of agreement among the respondents on each item of the revised list of professional suitability. Excluding the 5 distractors, 23 (65.7%) of 35 items were weighted with a mean of 6.0 or above on the 7-point scale, suggesting that the respondents strongly valued these items. The 3 highest rated items all sharing a mean of 6.81, included “Respects human diversity” (SD = 0.45); “Is able to distinguish between professional and personal relationship” (SD = 0.49); and “Believes in the value and dignity of each individual” (SD = 0.46).

Ten other items (28.6%) were weighted with means between 5.0 and 5.9, suggesting a moderate level of agreement. Examples of three items include “Knows the reasons of why he/she has chosen a career in social work” (M = 5.98, SD = 0.97); “Is willing to advocate against oppression” (M = 5.96, SD = 0.45); and “Develops a personal practice style” (M = 5.93, SD = 0.90). The remaining two fairly weighted items were “Is able to critically examine political issues” (M = 4.77, SD = 1.34) and “Is aware of the impact of the global economy” (M = 4.65, SD = 1.29).

The means of the five distractors, weighted the lowest among all items, and ranged between 4.45 (“Demonstrates excellent research skills,”SD = 1.18) and 2.80 (“Is bilingual,” SD = 1.42). The results of these means and wider range of standard deviations (between 1.42 and 1.18) suggest that the respondents had high agreement on these attributes to be given low weighting and suggested that these distractors are well distinguished from other items.

Results of descriptive analysis showed an overall skewness of the items on the list of professional suitability. Examination on normality and linearity are discussed in next section on factor analysis.

Factor Analysis

As pointed out in the literature review various criteria on professional suitability have been identified; however, some of these criteria are interrelated and to some extent overlapping. For the purpose of parsimony, factor analysis was adopted to reduce the data to a smaller number of basic dimensions which are relatively independent of each other. It was hoped that with the core components extracted by factor analysis, it would help clarify the core elements of professional suitability and that the concept can then be empirically and precisely defined.

Data cleaning

Factor analysis was conducted to examine the factor solution of the revised list of professional suitability. Prior to factor analysis, data cleaning was performed to prepare the data for analysis. Of the 40 items on the revised list of professional suitability, none of the items had a missing value greater than 3% and all missing values were replaced by means. Except for the distractors, most of the distributions on the items were negatively skewed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Transformation of 14 out of 40 items might severely affect the interpretation of the final solution and therefore was not performed. Even though normality failed, such a pattern of skewness was theoretically expected and the solution could still be worthwhile according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007).

Bivariate Spearman correlations were performed to check linearity. Item 11 and Item 32 (refer to Table 1 for item number and the statements) were weakly correlated with other items. A trial reliability test found that Item 11 had the lowest item-total correlation (r = .28), suggesting that deletion of this item might increase the overall reliability of the scale. Scatter plot analysis was performed to examine nonlinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). However, examining all 595 pairs of correlations or all scatter plots for linearity was impractical and therefore, a trial exploratory factor analysis using the principal component analysis was performed (Stevens, 2002). Result of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy was .89, and the smallest eigenvalue of the remaining factors was .521, which varied reasonably from 0. These two results suggested the data set was appropriate for factor analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Moreover, none of the initial extracted squared multiple corrections (SMC) approached 1 and the largest SMC was .755, suggesting that multicollinearity and singularity were not a threat (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Results of the scree plot (Comrey & Lee, 1992) on the trial exploratory factor analysis indicated 5 factors before the curve leveled off, leaving a 5-factor solution for testing in later analysis.

To achieve a simple structure in exploratory factor analysis, orthogonal varimax rotation is recommended (Gorsuch, 1983; Nunnally, & Bernstein, 1994; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Based on the trial run of the principal component extraction in exploratory factor analysis, a 5-factor solution was supported by the criteria of eigenvalue-greater-than-one and the scree plot (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Nunnally, & Bernstein, 1994). Therefore, a 5-factor solution was set for the formal analysis on the 40-item revised list of professional suitability. Moreover, factor loading was specified at .40 to better understand the factors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Results of the 5-factor solution accounted for 47.4% of variance and comprised 36 items. Table 2 presents the 5-factor orthogonal varimax rotated factor solution on the list of professional suitability. Summaries of this 5-factor solution with eigenvalues (λ), percentage of variance for each factor, communalities (h²), and the numbers of items loaded are reported as follows.

Table 2.

Rotated Factor Loadings, Communalities (h2), Egienvalues, and Percentages of Variance and Covariance for Varimax Rotation of the Five Factors on the Retained Criteria for Professional Suitability

	Factors
Professional Suitability Statements	Social Consciousness	Ethical	Practical	Personal	Distractor	h²
Is committed to promote social justice	.818	.105	.104	.088	−.016	.699
Is committed to changing social inequality	.784	.075	.186	.033	.056	.659
Demonstrates a commitment to social change	.733	.066	.117	.108	.140	.587
Is willing to advocate against oppression	.733	.156	.089	.013	.010	.570
Is able to critically examine bureaucratic systems	.712	.048	.118	−.066	.229	.579
Is able to critically examine political issues	.695	.106	.033	−.038	.320	.599
Is aware of the impact of the global economy	.677	.010	.058	.109	.323	.578
Demonstrates competence in professional practice	.000	.694	.264	.155	.156	.599
Demonstrates integrity	−.015	.674	.239	.129	.145	.549
Maintains clear boundaries with clients	−.113	.632	.031	.373	.067	.557
Respects human diversity	.276	.607	.041	.018	−.084	.454
Uses their professional power responsibly	.026	.574	.220	.156	−.121	.417
Believes in the value and dignity of each individual	.216	.568	.307	−.014	−.111	.477
Is able to examine one’s personal biases	.175	.491	.411	.150	−.022	.463
Is able to make reasoned decisions	.137	.436	.094	.408	−.073	.390
Is able to distinguish between professional/personal relationship	−.071	.420	−.030	.396	.009	.340
Is aware of personal strengths	−.016	.149	.683	.212	.158	.599
Is able to transfer their learning from one context to another	.145	.123	.622	.120	.087	.444
Knows personal limitations	.018	.301	.607	.144	.078	.486
Develops a personal practice style	.101	.006	.579	.137	.147	.386
Is open to feedback to improve his/her professional practice	.151	.420	.539	.041	−.007	.492
Has good interpersonal skills	.115	.381	.527	.092	−.086	.452
Is friendly	.138	.028	.526	.175	−.125	.343
Has effective nonverbal communication skills	.100	.258	.524	.074	.090	.364
Is willing to receive feedback in a positive manner	.076	.323	.425	.352	−.055	.417
Is aware of one’s personal values and beliefs	.200	.397	.423	.102	.033	.389
Is able to manage negative life experiences	.006	.164	.273	.712	.075	.614
Is able to manage personal life issues	.059	.086	.168	.667	.215	.531
Takes responsibility for handling his/her personal problems	.008	.169	.423	.586	.060	.555
Knows the reasons of why he/she has chosen a career in SW	.113	−.064	.308	.543	.082	.414
Demonstrates impartiality in his/her practice	.092	.318	.002	.457	.060	.321
Is bilingual	.045	.063	.057	.056	.819	.683
Is able to speak a second language	.142	.042	.020	.026	.782	.634
Is knowledgeable on statistical analysis	.351	−.051	.117	.108	.512	.413
Participates in street protests	.396	−.046	−.040	.104	.454	.378
Demonstrates excellent research skills	.266	−.045	.144	.145	.437	.306
Eigenvalues	9.5	4.3	2.2	1.6	1.4
Percentage of variances	23.8	10.7	5.5	4.0	3.4
Percentage of covariances	25.2	23.8	22.0	15.6	13.3

Note. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Factor solution

Factor One, labeled “social consciousness suitability,” consisted of 7 items (λ = 9.5, 23.8%), characterized by a range of professional behaviors including commitment to promote social justice; commitment to change social inequality; commitment to social change; ability to critically examine bureaucratic systems; commitment to advocate against oppression; and awareness of the impact of global economy. Communalities of individual items loaded on this subscale ranged between .699 and .578. Importantly, this factor retained all six items originally designed for the dimension on social consciousness suitability in this study with an additional item of “Is willing to advocate against oppression.” This item was, in fact, originally designated under the social consciousness dimension for the Alberta study but was statistically loaded on the “overall suitability” dimension in the final solution. The results of this study revealed stronger correlations of the item on “Is willing to advocate against oppression” with the factor of social consciousness suitability. This is consistent with the conceptualization of the underlying dimension of social consciousness.

Factor Two, named “ethical suitability,” comprised of 9 items (λ = 4.3, 10.7%), characterized by a range of professional behaviors such as demonstration of competence in practice; demonstration of integrity; maintenance of clear boundaries with clients; respectful of human diversity; using professional power responsibly; belief in one’s value and dignity; ability to examine one’s personal biases; ability to make reasoned decisions; and ability to distinguish between professional and personal relationship. Communalities of individual variable loaded on this subscale ranged between .599 and .340.

Factor Three, labeled “practice suitability,” consisted of 10 items (λ = 2.2, 5.5%), characterized by the ability to be aware of personal strengths or limitations; ability to transfer one’s learning from one context to another; ability to develop a personal practice style; openness to feedback to improve one’s professional practice; good interpersonal skills; be friendly; effective nonverbal communication skills; and awareness of one’s personal value and beliefs. Communalities of individual items loaded on this subscale ranged between .559 and .389.

Factor Four, named “personal suitability,” represented 5 items (λ = 1.6, 4.0%) characterized by a range of behaviors such as the ability to manage negative life experience or personal life issues; takes responsibility for one’s personal problems; knows the reasons behind why choosing a career in social work; and demonstration of impartiality in one’s practice. Communalities of individual items loaded on this subscale ranged between .641 and .321.

Factor Five, labeled “distractors,” was composed of 5 items (λ = 1.4, 3.4%), which consisted of being bilingual; one’s ability to speak a second language; being knowledgeable on statistical analysis; participation in street protests; and demonstration of excellent research skills. This factor successfully retained all five items originally designed as distractors.

To examine the strength of the factor solution, interfactor correlations were computed by calculating the total or subscale scores using Hudson’s scoring formula (1982). Excluding the distractors, results of the interfactor correlations revealed that the 4 factors were moderately correlated with Pearson’s r ranging between .64 and .21 (p ≤ .01), which suggested a medium-low to large effect (Cohen, 1988). Specifically, the interfactor correlations between Factor One and Factor Two, Three, and Four ranged between .32 and .21, which suggests that Factor One is able to distinguish reasonably well from other Factors.

In summary, the results of this 5-factor solution provided some valuable information on the construct of professional suitability in social work practice, particularly on the dimension of social consciousness suitability and the incorporation of appropriate distractors for minimizing potential response set effect.

Reliability Testing

Excluding the distractors, results of reliability testing on the extracted 31-item on professional suitability through computation of Cronbach’s α indicated that the scale achieved very good internal consistency (α = .89). Subscale reliability testing results also evidenced good to very good internal consistency as follows: the 7-item social consciousness suitability (α = .89); the 9-item ethical suitability (α = .82); the 10-item practical suitability (α = .82); and the 5-item personal suitability (α = .72).

Discussion and Implications to Social Work

Assessing professional suitability for social work practice remains a difficult task due to the lack of well-defined criteria and the lack of empirical validation of the underlying construct. Moreover, scale development is a rigorous and iterative process; the study reported in this article sets the foundation for constructing a scale to measure suitability of individuals entering the profession.

Caution is warranted in generalizing the findings of this study because of the significant chi-square test results testing the representativeness of the sample for the population on the variables based on grouped age and employment in the primarily practice sector and the negatively skewed distributions in two thirds of the items. Nevertheless, the results strengthened the findings from the Alberta study through random sampling of registered social workers from the entire province of Ontario; by having a sample size of 341 amenable to factor analysis; and the strong response rate of 69% from a mail-out questionnaire survey.

The final solution from exploratory factory analysis using principal component extraction and orthogonal varimax rotation identified five factors on the list of professional suitability, which retained 36 items and accounted for 47.4% of variance. The five factors were social consciousness suitability; ethical suitability; practice suitability; personal suitability; and the distractors.

Even though the overall variance of the retained items on this study (47.4%) was lower than the Alberta study (52.0%), both of which fall below a satisfactory level of 75% (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Stevens, 2002), reliability testing excluding distractors on the retained 31-item professional suitability evidenced consistent strong internal consistency with an overall Cronbach’s α value of .89, and the Cronbach’s α value of social consciousness suitability was .89; ethical suitability and practice suitability were both .82; and personal suitability was .72. Moreover, interfactor Pearson’s correlations among the first 4 factors ranged between .64 and .21, suggesting a medium-low to large effect size. This is to suggest that the underlying dimensions of professional suitability were empirically correlated and reasonably independent from each other, which is consistent with the theoretical construct.

The factor solution in this study affirms that the underlying professional attributes of social consciousness suitability, personal suitability, practical suitability, and ethical suitability are consistent with those articulated in the existing literature in Bogo et al. (2002), Carpenter (2011), GlenMaye and Oakes (2002), Miller and Koerin (1998), and Tam and Coleman (2009a, 2009b). Among others, the most valuable outcome is that the dimension of social consciousness suitability retained the six originally designated items with the added item of, Is willing to advocate against oppression, which was theoretically designed for this dimension in the Alberta study, but statistically loaded to the overall suitability in the final solution of the Alberta study. Moreover, the communalities of individual items on the dimension of social consciousness suitability ranged between .699 and .578, suggesting that a good proportion of variance of the items were predicted from this underlying factor. With a consistent pattern of results in this and the Alberta study, the dimension of social consciousness suitability, and the items loaded on this dimension is theoretically grounded (CASW, 2005; NASW, 2008) and are worthy of retention in future studies on the criteria of professional suitability.

A second valued result of this study is that the dimension of personal suitability retained four original items (Item 4, 12, 28, and 35) that were theoretically designed for this dimension in the Alberta study. Of these four items, Item 35, “Takes responsibility for handling his/her personal problems” was statistically loaded to the overall suitability in the final solution of the Alberta Study. Item 28, “Is able to manage negative life experiences,” was statistically eliminated from the final solution in the Alberta study but was re-used in this study. Results of this study provide empirical support for these four items to be retained in the personal suitability dimension as they were theoretically designed in the Alberta study. Further that the Cronbach’s α value on personal suitability dimension has strengthened to .72 in this study from .68 in the Alberta study.

The other valuable finding of this study concerned the usefulness of the five distractors. The means of the five distractors ranged between 4.45 (SD = 1.18) and 2.80 (SD = 1.42). This wide range of dispersion suggested that the distractors functioned well to minimize the response set and could be useful in future studies on professional suitability.

Moreover, three other items were statistically loaded to the overall suitability dimension in the final solution of the Alberta study but were empirically loaded to the personal suitability (Items 20 and 21) and the ethical suitability (Item 36) dimensions as they were theoretically designed in the Alberta study. Results of this study suggest stronger empirical support for these items being placed into their respective dimensions because this study used random sampling and a larger sample size.

In summary, the results of this study provide clarity on the underlying construct of professional suitability, which was not well developed in previous studies. Empirical results on the four underlying dimensions of professional suitability suggest that these four dimensions of professional suitability are important constructs and serve as groundwork for social work educators and/or work supervisors for the development of a psychometrically sound instrument for admission screening on students and/or performance appraisal to evaluate practicing social workers.

Despite these insightful results, there are a number of areas for future research investigations. First, comparing the results of this study with the Alberta study, the social consciousness domain on professional suitability in social work is better constructed; nevertheless the overall theoretical construct of professional suitability remains vaguely defined. Ethical and practice competence is well documented in professional codes of ethics and in the social work literature. However, results of this study found some items (e.g., Items 2, 35, 36, and 40; refer to Table 1 for item number and the statements) had shared variance between factors on ethical suitability, practice suitability, and personal suitability. Moreover, the factor of ethical suitability in this study retained five items (Items 2, 11, 19, 23, and 30) that were loaded in the final solution on the factor of practice suitability in the Alberta study. Results of shared variances and inconsistency of the empirical findings of the ethical, practical, and personal dimensions suggest that the underlying construct of these three dimensions remains blurred and requires further investigation.

Second, through independent t tests, the variable of “qualification” proved to be significantly higher on the total scores among those who had a diploma or a baccalaureate degree than those with master’s or doctoral degrees. Even though subsequent t tests found no difference between qualification and years of age, years of work experience, and years of experience as field supervisor, further investigation into the association between qualification and commitment to professional suitability in future studies is worthy of investigation. For example, do individuals with a 1-year master’s degree in social work (MSW) have different professional suitability scores than those with a 2-year MSW degree? In Canada there are 1-year and 2-year MSW programs offered across the country. Those with a baccalaureate degree in social work (BSW) can enroll in a 1-year MSW program; whereas those with a nonsocial work degree can only enroll in a 2-year MSW program. The information on whether the person took a 1-year or 2-year MSW program was not asked in this study.

Furthermore, data were collected by asking about respondents’ perceived attitudes toward suitability for the profession. Results could reflect the level of agreement on the list of items of professional suitability among the respondents, and the identified dimensions could be used to develop screening instrument to select/evaluate work performance of social work students or practicing social workers. However, the retained list of criteria on professional suitability needs to be tested by asking respondents to evaluate performance instead of asking for the respondents’ attitudes. Therefore, at the present stage, this list of criteria serves as a preliminary measure for assessing opinions about professional suitability. This means the scale could be useful for identifying practicing social workers who share strong agreement on professional suitability but not for performance testing and cannot be generalized to the student population.

In addition to these issues, this study collected data at one point and did not incorporate any external criteria for empirical validation limited the investigation on the construct validity (Messick, 1989). Although the identified dimensions form the basis for the development of a scale for assessing professional suitability, their reliability in terms of stability and equivalence and criteria-related and construct validity remain to be tested.

As proposed by Messick (1989), developing a reliable and valid instrument is an evolving and continuous process, necessitating multiple studies and cross-validation in order to develop a psychometrically sound instrument. The authors offer five recommendations for future development of professional suitability for social work practice. First, in order to develop theoretically sound and comprehensive content concerning the definition of criteria of professional suitability for social work practice, a rigorous mixed-method design is recommended so that representative contents on the construct could be collected from diverse practice settings, and from different stakeholders of social work including social work educators, practicing social workers, and social work regulatory bodies. This recommended design should start with a qualitative component to ask respondents about what criteria on professional suitability for contemporary social work practice, and look for behavioral indicators in each dimension. Newly identified criteria should be added to the existing construct. Then a survey design should be followed to seek empirical data to affirm the underlying construct of professional suitability. Second, to strengthen the generalization of the results, a wider sampling base is needed (e.g., nation-wide instead of province-wide sample). Third, to better understand the reliability and validity of the professional suitability scale, a pre-post test design (i.e., to collect data with student population and their field supervisors in the beginning and at the end of their field placements), an inclusion of criterion related to personal self-efficacy or personality tests, and a comparison with students’ graduating grade point average are recommended (Holden, Anastas, & Meenaghan, 2003; Holden, Meenaghan, Anastas, & Metrey, 2002) in order to examine the scale’s stability and equivalence reliability, criterion-related and construct validity. Fourth, developing a screening instrument to measure professional suitability for social work practice requires examination of the actual evaluation of work performance rather than attitudes toward the subject matter. Therefore, the stem for the professional suitability scale needs to be reworded (e.g. “I consider myself” … has demonstrated integrity) for self-evaluation or (e.g., “I consider my supervisee” … has demonstrated integrity) for supervisor’s appraisal evaluation. Finally, to develop a professional suitability scale for screening purposes for admission or field placement decision-making process, the scale would need to be tested with a student population.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the assistance from the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, and the diligent research assistance work of Ze Hong Zhuang and Xiao Mei.

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Small Institutional Grant offered through Carleton University.

References

Abbott

(1995). Boundaries of social work or social work of boundaries? Social Service Review, 69, 545–562.

Alperin

D. E.

(1996). Empirical research on student assessment in field education: What have we learned? The Clinical Supervisor, 14, 149–160. doi:10.1300/J001v14n01_11.

Barlow

Coleman

(2003). Suitability for practice guidelines for students: A survey of Canadian social work programs. Social Work Education, 22, 151–165. doi:10.1080/0261547022000058206

Bisno

Cox

(1997). Social work education: Catching up with the present and the future. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 373–388.

Bogo

Regehr

Hughes

Power

Globerman

(2002). Evaluating a measure of student field performance in direct service: Testing reliability and validity of explicit criteria. Journal of Social Work Evaluation, 38, 385–401.

Bogo

Regehr

Power

Hughes

Woodford

Regehr

(2004). Towards new approaches for evaluating student field performance: Taping the implicit criteria used by experienced field instructors. Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 417–426.

Bogo

Regehr

Woodford

Hughes

Power

Regehr

(2006). Beyond competencies: Field instructors; descriptions of student performance. Journal of Social Work Evaluation, 42, 579–593.

Brear

Dorrian

Luscri

(2008). Preparing our future counseling professionals: Gatekeeping and the implications for research. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 8, 93–101. doi: 10.1080/14733140802007855

Brenner

(2009). The political base of Canadian social welfare. In Turner

J. C.

Turner

F. J.

(Eds.), Canadian social welfare (6th ed., pp. 24–42). Toronto: Pearson Education Canada

10.

Canadian Association for Social Work Education. (2008). CASWE educational policy statements. Ottawa, ON: The Author.

11.

Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2005). Social work code of ethics. Ottawa, ON: The Author.

12.

Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work, Steering Committee. (2000). In critical demand: Social work in Canada. Ottawa, ON: The Author.

13.

Carpenter

(2011). Evaluating social work education: A review of outcomes, measures, research designs, and practicalities. Social Work Education, 30, 122–140. doi:10.1080/02615479.2011.540375

14.

Clark

(2006). Moral character in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 75–89. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch364

15.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

16.

Cole

B. S.

Lewis

R. G.

(2000). Court cases and judicial opinions related to gatekeeping in colleges, universities, and professional schools. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.212–235).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

17.

Coleman

Collins

Aikins

(1995). The student-at-risk in the practicum. In Rogers

(Ed.), Social work field education: Views and visions (pp.256–269).Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

18.

Collins

Coleman

Miller

(2002). Regulation of social work: A confusing landscape. Canadian Social Work Review, 19, 205–225.

19.

Comrey

A. L.

Lee

H. B.

(1992). A first course in factor analysis. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Council on Social Work Education. (2010). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Washington, DC: The Author.

21.

DeVellis

R. F.

(2003). Scale development: Theory and applications. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Dillman

D.A.

(2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.

23.

Drover

(2009). Globalization and social welfare. In Turner

J.C.

Turner

F.J.

(Eds.), Canadian social welfare (6th ed., pp. 438-453). Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada.

24.

Edwards

R. L.

Shera

Reid

P. N.

York

(2006). Social work practice and education in the US and Canada. Social Work Education, 25, 28–38. doi:10.1080/02615470500477821

25.

Eraut

(1994). Concepts of competence and their implications. In Eraut

(Ed.), Developing professional knowledge and competence (pp.163–181).London, UK: The Falmer Press.

26.

Freidson

(2001). Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago, ILL: University of Chicago Press.

27.

Gibbons

Bore

Munro

Powis

(2007). Using personal quality assessment of selection of social work students. Australian Social Work, 60, 210–221. doi:10.1080/03124070701323832

28.

Gibbs

(1994a). Gatekeeping issues in BSW programs. Arete, 19, 15–27.

29.

Gibbs

(1994b). Screening mechanisms in BSW programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 63–74.

30.

Gibbs

(2000). Screening out of BSW programs: Responding to professional obligations and institutional challenges. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.149–168).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

31.

Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(2000). Academic standards for admission and retention. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.259–278).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

32.

Gibbs

Macy

H. J.

(2000). Introduction: The arena of gatekeeping. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.3–21).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

33.

Gibelman

(1999). The search for identify: Defining social work–past, present, future. Social Work, 44, 298–310.

34.

GlenMaye

Oakes

(2002). Assessing suitability of MSW applicants through objective scoring of personal statements. Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 67–82.

35.

Gorsuch

R. L.

(1983). Factor analysis. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

36.

Gray

(2005). Dilemmas of international social work: Paradoxical processes in indigenization, universalism and imperialism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 14, 231–238.

37.

Gray

Webb

S. A.

(2008). The myth of global social work: Double standards and local-global divide. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 19, 61–66. doi:10.1080/10428230802077988

38.

Greene

(2005). Redefining social work for the new millennium: Setting a context. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 11, 37–54. doi:10.1300/J137v11n01_03

39.

Hager

(2004). The competence affair: Or, why vocational education and training urgently need a new understanding of learning. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 56, 409–433. doi:10.1080/13636820400200262

40.

Hartman

Wills

R. M.

(1991). The gatekeeper role in social work: A survey. In Schneck

Grossman

Glassman

(Eds.), Field education in social work: Contemporary issues and trends (pp.310–319).Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

41.

Holden

Anastas

Meenaghan

(2003). Determining attainment of the EPAS foundation program objectives: Evidence for the use of self-efficacy as an outcome. Journal of Social Work Education, 39, 425–440.

42.

Holden

Meenaghan

Anastas

Metrey

(2002). Outcomes of social work education: The case for social work self-efficacy. Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 115–133.

43.

Horder

(1998). Comptence(s) without tears? Social Work Education, 17, 117–120. doi:10.1080/02615479811220111

44.

Hudson

W. W.

(1982). The clinical measurement package: A field manual. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.

45.

Kaslow

N. J.

Rubin

N. J.

Bebeau

M. J.

Leigh

I. W.

Lichenberg

J. W.

Nelson

P. D.

Smith

I. L.

(2007a). Guiding principles and recommendations for the assessment of competence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 441–451. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.5.441

46.

Kaslow

N. J.

Rubin

N. J.

Forrest

Elman

N .S.

van Horne

B .A.

Jacobs

S. C.

Thorn

B. E.

(2007b). Recognizing, assessing, and intervening with problems of professional competence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 479–492. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.38.5.479

47.

Kelly

Horder

(2001). The how and the why: Competences and holistic practice. Social Work Education, 20, 689–699. doi:10.1080/02615470120089861

48.

Kimberly

Osmond

(2009). Social workers. In Turner

J. C.

Turner

F. J.

(Eds.), Canadian social welfare (pp.353–374). (6th ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada.

49.

Koerin

Miller

L. S.

(1995). Gatekeeping policies: Terminating students for non-academic reasons. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 247–260.

50.

Kropf

N. P.

(2000). Gatekeeping in BSW programs: A review of the research. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.60–72).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

51.

Lafrance

Gray

Herbert

(2004). Gatekeeping for professional social work practice. Social Work Education, 23, 325–340. doi:10.1080/0261547042000224065

52.

Leighninger

(2000). Creating a new profession: The beginnings of social work education in the United States. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

53.

Lichtenberg

J. W.

Portnoy

S. M.

Bebeau

M. J.

Leigh

I. W.

Nelson

P. D.

Rubin

N. J.

Kaslow

N. J.

(2007). Challenges to the assessment of competence and competencies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 474–478. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.5.474

54.

Lyons

(1999). Social work in higher education: Demise or development. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

55.

Lyons

(2006). Globalization and social work: International and local implications. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 365–380. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl007

56.

MacDonald

K. M.

(1995). The sociology of the professions. London: UK: SAGE.

57.

MacKenzie

(2002). Historical overview and current issues in social work regulation. In Turner

F. J.

(Ed.), Social work practice: A Canadian perspective (pp.491–503). (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada.

58.

Madden

R. G.

(2000). Disability law and undergraduate social work education: Practicing what we preach. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.195–211).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

59.

Madden

R. G.

Cobb

N. H.

(2000). Legal issues facing social academic. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.171–194).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

60.

Martinez-Brawley

E. E.

Zorita

P. B. M.

(2007). Tacit and codified knowledge in social work: A critique of standardization in education and practice. Families in Society, 88, 534–542. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3675

61.

McCauley

T. P.

(2005). Theoretical foundations for the study of work and professions. In Jacobs

Bosanac

S. E.

(Eds.), The professionalization of work (pp.64–89).Whitby, ON: de Sitter.

62.

Messick

(1989). Validity. In Linn

R. L.

(Ed.), Educational measurement (pp.13–103). (3rd ed.). New York, NY: American Council on Education and Macmillan.

63.

Miller

Koerin

(1998). Can we assess suitability at admission? A review of MSW application procedures. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 437–453.

64.

Miller

Koerin

B. B.

(2002). Gatekeeping in the practicum. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 1–18. doi:10.1300/J001v20n02_01

65.

Moore

L. S.

Dietz

T. J.

Jenkins

D. A.

(1998). Issues in gatekeeping. The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 4, 37–50.

66.

Moore

L. S.

Jenkins

D. A.

(2000). The history of gatekeeping. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.45–59).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

67.

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: NASW.

68.

Nunnally

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

69.

O’Hagan

K. (Ed.).

(1996). Competence in social work practice: A practical guide for professionals. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

70.

Pardeck

J. T.

Murphy

J. W.

(1994). Some implications of postmodernism for social work practice. Social Work, 39, 343–347.

71.

Popple

P. R.

(1985). The social work profession: A re-conceptualization. Social Service Review, 59(4):560–577.

72.

Reamer

F. G.

(2006). Social work values and ethics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

73.

Redmond

Bright

(2007). Gatekeeping in the academy. Canadian Social Work Review, 24, 167–181.

74.

Reeser

L. C.

Epstein

(1990). Professionalization and activism in social work: The Sixties, the eighties, and the future. New York, NY: The Columbia University Press.

75.

Regehr

Stalker

C. A.

Jacobs

Pelech

(2001). The gatekeeper and the wounded healer. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 127–143. doi:10.1300/J001v20n01_10

76.

Reisch

Gorin

S. H.

(2001). Nature of work and future of the social work profession. Social Work, 46, 9–20.

77.

Reynolds

L. R.

(2004). Gatekeeping prior to point of entry. Advances in Social Work, 5, 18–31.

78.

Rondeau

(2001). Challenges that confront social work education in Canada. Unpublished paper presented at the National Social Work Forum in Montreal on Oct 12, 2001.

79.

Royse

(2000). The ethics of gatekeeping. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.22–44).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

80.

Ryan

Habibis

Craft

(1997). Guarding the gates of the profession: Findings of a survey of gatekeeping mechanisms in Australian bachelor of social work programs. Australian Social Work, 50, 5–12. doi:10.1080/03124079708414092

81.

Saleebey

(2009). The strengths perspective in social work practice. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

82.

Scott

Zeiger

(2000). Should convicted felons be denied admission to a social work education program? No!. Journal of Social Work Education, 36, 409–413.

83.

Shera

Bogo

(2001). Social work education and practice: Planning for the future. International Social Work, 44, 197–210. doi: 10.1177/002087280104400205

84.

Stevens

(2002). Applied multivariate statistics of the social sciences. (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

85.

Spector

P. E.

(1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

86.

Tabachnick

Fidell

(2007). Using multivariate statistics. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.

87.

Tam

D. M. Y.

(2003). Gatekeeping in BSW field education. Journal of Women in Welfare Education, 6, 51–62.

88.

Tam

D. M. Y.

(2004). Gatekeeping in baccalaureate of social work (BSW) field education. Unpublished doctoral dissertations, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

89.

Tam

D. M. Y.

Coleman

(2009a). Construction and validation of the professional suitability for social work practice scale. Journal of Social Work Education, 45, 47–63.

90.

Tam

D. M. Y.

Coleman

(2009b). Defining criteria on professional suitability for social work practice. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 14, 105–121.

91.

Tam

D. M. Y.

Kwok

S. M.

(2007a). Challenges in undergraduate social work field supervision. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2, 345–353.

92.

Tam

D. M. Y.

Kwok

S. M.

(2007b). Controversy debate on gatekeeping in social work education. International Journal of Learning, 14, 195–203.

93.

Tam

D. M. Y.

Kwok

S. M.

(2007c). The premise of an educational continuum in social work education. The International Journal of Learning, 14, 47–56.

94.

Wahlberg

Lommen

(1990). An analysis of admissions and termination criteria in BSW programs. Presentation at the 8th Annunal Conference of the Association of Baccalaureate Social Work Program Directors, Minneapolis, MN. In Gibbs

Blakely

E. H.

(Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp.259–278).New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

95.

Wayne

(2004). Legal guidelines for dismissing students because of poor performance in the field. Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 403–414.

96.

Westhues

Lafrance

Schmidt

(2001). A SWOT analysis of social work education in Canada. Social Work Education, 20, 35–56. doi:10.1080/02615470020028364

97.

Younes

M. N.

(1998). The gatekeeping dilemma in undergraduate social work programs: Collision of ideal and reality. International Social Work, 14, 145–153. doi:10.1177/002087289804100203