Abstract
Objective:
The purpose of this research was to (a) learn how confident social work students were with social work with groups’ ethics and standards, (b) explore strengths and challenges, (c) examine if group work experience impacts results, and (d) discover if confidence improved when the International Association of Social Work with Groups (IASWG) Standards became required class reading.
Method:
Social work students (n = 234) were given the Inventory of Foundation Competencies in Social Work with Groups (IC-SWG) at the beginning and end of 15-week group work classes. Descriptive statistics, analyses of variance, and t tests were conducted.
Results:
Students’ scores improved from pretest to posttest (p = .000). They were confident in their ability to respect and highly value diversity (mean = 3.5/4) but were challenged employing special skills with and understanding dynamics of mandated clients (2.99/4).
Conclusion:
Incorporation of the IASWG Standards and group work experience were associated with greater competencies. The IC-SWG identified challenges that can be addressed in classrooms, field internships, and group work practice settings.
Background
Empirical research on groups has found that groups can be more effective than individual treatment due to the presence of multiple helpers who can offer resources and support in addition to the assistance offered by the worker (Corey, Corey, & Corey, 2010; Goldfield, Epstein, Kilanowski, Paluch, & Kogut-Bossler, 2001; Petrocelli, 2002; Rose, 2009; Toseland & Rivas, 2012; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Task groups may also demonstrate greater effectiveness than individual problem-solving due to the incorporation of diverse perspectives and stakeholders’ investment (Levi, 2014;Pelech, Basso, Lee, & Gandarilla, In press; Toseland & Rivas, 2012). Groups can be more cost-effective than individual treatment since a number of people can be served at the same time (Corey et al., 2010; Goldfield et al., 2001; Petrocelli, 2002; Toseland & Rivas, 2012).
Groups for social work consumers are on the rise (C. S. Cohen & Olshever, 2013; Sweihach & LaPorte, 2009, 2013). They include groups of the following populations: cancer survivors; parents; substance users; people with mental or physical disabilities; those experiencing grief and loss; victims of interpersonal violence; veterans; youth who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer; immigrants; children; and older adults, and so on. (Furman, Bender, & Rowan, 2014; Sweihach & LaPorte, 2013). In addition, almost all social workers are involved in task groups or committees (Pelech et al., In press; Toseland & Rivas, 2012).
Social work with groups’ methodology includes ethical codes from diverse sources. The National Association of Social Works (NASW, 2008) publishes the professional values for social work practice in the United States for all size systems—individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. In addition, social workers in other countries use social work codes of ethics such as the Canadian Code of Ethics or the Statement of Ethical Principles of the International Federation of Social Workers (2012). The NASW Code of Ethics states that “ethics are at the core of social work” (2008, p. 2). The ethics or values found in the NASW Code of Ethics include service, social justice, dignity, and worth of the person; importance of human relationships; integrity; and competence (2008).
The International Association of Social Work with Groups’ (IASWG) Practice Committee and Commission on Group Work Education produced an 18-page book, Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups (Standards) that contains ethics and standards which pertain to social work with groups (2010). Ethics or values relate to a moral code adhered to by a profession or individual, whereas standards refer to a level of competence a professional strives for in an area of work (http://www.merriam-webster.com/). Many of the IASWG ethics and standards are congruent with the NASW Code of Ethics; however, the IASWG Standards go into greater detail about the expectations of the group worker. The IASWG Standards contain values, knowledge, tasks, and skills that derive from the history and theories of working in groups. This practice methodology derives from the settlement house, education, and recreation movements of the early 20th century (Abels, 2013); group work scholarship; and evidence-based practices. The writers of the Standards were prominent group work scholars and experienced practitioners from different countries, who were also members of the IASWG, the only international social work organization whose mission is to “promote excellence in group work practice, education, field instruction, research and publication” (C. S. Cohen & Olshever, 2013, p. 112). The NASW Code of Ethics and the IASWG Standards are regularly revised and ratified by members of their respective organizations as the profession advances.
The Standards include two values—respect for each person and their autonomy and creating a socially just society. These values are aligned with the NASW Code of Ethics. Much of the Standards’ content includes guides for the group worker in each phase of the group from the planning to the ending stage. The Standards state the group worker needs to have knowledge of human behavior in the social environment as well as group behavior. It recommends that the group worker employ creativity, sensitivity, and flexibility when facilitating groups. Promotion of mutual aid among members is one of the key tenets of the Standards, and this corresponds to the NASW value of the importance of relationships for producing change. The Standards also describe the group worker’s responsibilities and needed skills depending on the type of group (i.e., open or closed to new membership), its purpose, the group’s stage of development, and the type of membership (voluntary or mandatory). The Standards were created and are maintained to support understanding and guidance for high-quality work in social work groups in collaboration with social service agencies.
There have been a few studies that assess students of social work with groups’ confidence in the use of the Standards. Shera, Muskat, Delay, Quinn, and Tufford (2013) evaluated students’ (n = 91) confidence with the Standards in Toronto, Canada, using an early version of the Inventory of Foundation Competencies in Social Work with Groups (IC-SWG; Macgowan, 2012). Using a pretest and posttest design, Shera et al. (2013) found that students’ confidence increased after a course in social work with groups, but that participants had more difficulties with middle stage group skills. They recommended the use of more experiential activities in the classroom.
Participants in several North American studies (n = 388) rated their confidence as good following group work education about the IASWG Standards (Macgowan, 2012). Of interest, participants demonstrated the least amount of confidence in their abilities with mandated group members or confronting unproductive norms. Macgowan (2012) and Macgowan and Wong (2015) recommend that education about the IASWG Standards be a part of social work group work curriculum and state that it correlates with the Council of Social Work Education's (CSWE) core competencies.
A national study of 1,360 master of social work (MSW) students found 47% reported receiving minimal education and experience about groups in their programs (Sweifach & LaPorte, 2009), and only 16% reported promoting mutual aid in groups. The participants also reported receiving inadequate preparation and supervision for groups they were expected to facilitate in their field placements. Sweifach and LaPorte (2009) concluded that “students are graduating without basic skills for facilitating groups” (p. 311). In another study of school social workers (n = 508), 90% of whom advised they primarily facilitate groups in their jobs and 75% reported no knowledge of the group work standards (Sweifach & LaPorte, 2013). These researchers did find that school social workers who had a group work class were more confident in their facilitation of school-based groups than the 20% of respondents who had not taken a group work class in their MSW educational programs (Sweifach & LaPorte, 2013). Furthermore, academics and practitioners who facilitate groups and who are even members of IASWG are unfamiliar or have minimal knowledge of the IASWG Standards (C. S. Cohen & Olshever, 2013).
The following study involves the evaluation of California State University, Long Beach School of Social Work’s teaching of ethics and standards of social work practice with groups. The program is large and has a diverse student body. The study also evaluates the incorporation of the IASWG Standards into the school’s social work with groups’ foundation practice curriculum. It was undertaken to learn how confident the students were with group work competencies.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Method
Design
The design was quantitative and quasi-experimental and employed a pretest/posttest design. In addition, there was the use of a nonrandomized control group in part of the analysis. Students in required social work with groups’ classes (MSW and bachelor of social work [BSW] students) completed a pretest about social work with groups’ ethics and standards (IC-SWG) at the beginning of their classes and retook the same instrument during the last 2 weeks of the semester. Group work ethics, tasks, and skills were taught in all of the school’s 10 classes in Fall 2014, but the curriculum did not require reading and coverage of the IASWG Standards; four graduate group work classes were taught in Spring 2015 using a new curriculum that required the IASWG Standards as part of the courses’ curriculum syllabi. Another change in the curriculum was that the graduate group work classes had been divided between students who had the children, youth, and families concentration and those that had the older adult concentration. When the school’s concentrations were modified in spring 2015 to children, youth and families, integrated health, and adults and older adults, the foundation group work classes began to cover groups across the life span rather than concentration on specific groups, that is, groups for children and families versus those related to older adults’ concerns. The courses included didactic material about group work, videos of groups, experiential exercises, including role plays and facilitation of in-class simulated groups, an assignment to plan a group, an assignment to observe and analyze one session of a social work group, two exams, quizzes in the undergraduate program, concurrent field internships, and weekly field seminars. The assignments were the same in both the new and old curriculums; however, the course was taken by graduate students earlier in their program than in the old curriculum, that is, second instead of third semester of the program.
Protocol
The principal investigator (PI) received the university’s institutional review board’s (IRB) approval. A script about the study was read to students by their instructor asking for volunteers and advising there would be no impact on grades. Students completed the instrument placing the last four digits of their student ID on the instrument in order for pretest/posttest matching. The instructor left the classroom during the 20-min administration. If students did not volunteer, they were required to stay in the classroom and sit quietly for 20 min.
Participants
Of 303 students who could have fully participated in the study, 234 had complete pre- and posttests, yielding a 77% response rate. Most of the students were female (n = 215, 78.8%), of Latino ethnicity (n = 144, 52.7%), and in the MSW program (n = 227, 83.1%; Table 1). The average age was 27.55, SD = 6.16. At pretest, 46% (n = 100) of the sample reported that they had group work facilitation experience; however, 21% (n = 46) reported having no experience facilitating groups. Twelve percent (n = 27) of the sample reported that they had been a member of some type of treatment, support, or task group.
Demographics.a
Note. MSW = master of social work; BSW = bachelor of social work.
aNot all individuals completed demographic questions, and some completed demographic questions but not pre- and posttests.
Measures
The IC-SWG, a 70-item instrument, was used in the study (Macgowan, 2012). Macgowan who developed the IC-SWG based on the IASWG Standards extensively evaluated the instrument with colleagues to determine its reliability and validity (2012, 2013, 2014; Macgowan & Vakharia, 2012; Macgowan & Wong, 2015). The instrument was found to have excellent reliability, Cronbach’s α = .98 (Macgowan, 2012). In addition, face, concurrent, construct convergent, and criterion validity of the instrument were reported in several studies with participants from Canada and the United States (Macgowan, 2012; Macgowan & Vakharia, 2012) and most recently in Scotland (Macgowan, 2014).
The IC-SWG measures students’ confidence regarding group work values, knowledge, tasks, and skills. Following the structure of the Standards, the IC-SWG contains five logically derived subscales—a core values subscale and a subscale for each stage of the group—pregroup subscale, beginning subscale, middles subscale, and ending subscale. Participants are asked to mark one of four possible answers: 1 = very unconfident, 2 = unconfident, 3 = confident, and 4 = very confident. Scores on the total instrument could range from 70 to 280, with higher scores indicating greater confidence in abilities. Participants are asked to respond to each of IC-SWG’s 70 statements, as if they are group workers. Core values is the first subscale and an example of a statement is, “Helps each member to appreciate the contributions of the other members, so that everyone’s ideas are heard and considered.” An example of a beginning stage subscale statement is, “Discusses confidentiality and its limits.” A middle stage subscale statement is, “Assesses progress toward individual and group goals” and an ending stage statement is, “Prepares members for the group’s ending in advance.”
The PI created and included 10 additional statements related to the values found in the NASW Code of Ethics (Figure 1); the four possible responses were the same as those for the IC-SWG (very unconfident, unconfident, confident, or very confident). Two examples of these statements were “Assists the group members in serving the community as part of the group” and “keeps professional boundaries with members of the group.”
Principal investigator’s values instrument.
Reliability of the IC-SWG for this study’s sample was excellent at both pre- and posttest, Cronbach’s α = .947 at pretest and Cronbach’s α = .969 at posttest. The PI’s values instrument’s reliability was good—pretest Cronbach’s α = .86 and posttest Cronbach’s α = .967. Although the PI’s instrument is not standardized, it could be said to have content validity, as it was based on a thorough read of the NASW Code of Ethics to discern items that were not explicitly stated in the IASWG Standards or the IC-SWG.
Analysis
The responses were analyzed using SPSS 23 to obtain frequencies, measurements of central tendencies, and standard deviations. Seven Paired Sample t tests were used to explore the differences between the pretest and posttest scores for the 5 IC-SWG subscales, the IC-SWG total scale, and the PI’s values instrument. The Bonferroni correction method was used to avoid the problem of multiple comparisons. This was accomplished by dividing the α of .05 by 7, yielding an α of .007. The α was then reset to be equal or less than .007. An univariate analysis of variance (UNIANOVA), controlling for pretest scores, was conducted to compare participants who had the new curriculum to those who did not. A one-way ANOVA was used to explore if experience was associated with scores on the IC-SWG prior to matriculating in the class. Effect sizes were obtained by calculating Cohen’s d statistic (J. Cohen, 1988). The interpretation of the effect sizes used Cohen’s (1988) designations of .20 (small), .50 (medium), and .80 (large).
Results
As predicted in Hypothesis 1, students in the 15-week group work practice classes improved from pretest to posttest on the IC-SWG (Table 2). At pretest, students scored mean = 2.90, SD = .372; and at posttest, they scored mean = 3.29, SD = .424. A paired sample t test indicated that this difference is significant, t = −13.492, df = 233, p = .000. The effect size of d = −1.763 demonstrates a large effect. To test Hypothesis 2, an UNIANOVA was conducted comparing the posttests of students enrolled in the new curriculum (treatment group, n = 56) versus those enrolled in the old curriculum (control group, n = 136). Controlling for pretests, students in the control group scored mean = 3.26, SD = .453 and students enrolled in the new curriculum scored mean = 3.32, SD = .392, F = 14.846, p =.000, d = .612. Hypothesis 2 was confirmed with a medium effect size.
Paired Sample t-tests Comparison of Pretest/Posttest Means.
Note. IC-SWG = Inventory of Competencies in Social Work with Groups.
Students scored high (mean = 3.51 of 4.0, SD = .582) on the IC-SWG core value statement, “Respects and highly values diversity in all of its dimensions.” Other responses with higher mean scores were demonstrating empathy toward members, discussing confidentiality and its limits, and encouraging member empowerment. Students rated the following statements as the most challenging: “If relevant, employs special skills in working with mandated members and understands the impact on group dynamics of members’ mandated status” (mean = 2.99, SD = .788) and “helps members mediate conflict in the group” (mean = 3.01, SD = .695). Other challenging statements for this sample were “promotes group exploration of nonproductive norms when these arise,” and “identifies difficulties and obstacles that interfere with the group and its members’ abilities to reach their goals.”
Students who had experience facilitating or being a group member had better scores when starting the class than those with no experience (facilitator of several groups, n = 25/11%, mean = 3.06, SD = .34; member experience, n = 27/12%, mean = 2.82, SD = .38; facilitator of one group, n = 100/46%, mean = 2.83, SD .34; and no experience (n = 46/21%, mean = 2.74, SD = .37; F = 3.97, df = 5, p = .002, d =.38). Hypothesis 3 regarding experience was confirmed with a small effect size.
Finally, on the PI’s 10-question value instrument, students performed better at posttest than at pretest (pretest mean = 3.13, SD = .410, posttest mean = 3.43, SD = .446, t = −9.658, df = 229, p. = 000, d = −1.273). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was confirmed with a large effect size.
Discussion and Applications for Social Work Practice
The overarching goal of this study was to learn how confident social work students were regarding ethics and standards related to facilitating groups. The students were significantly more confident after participating in a class focused on group work practice methodology. At pretest, they performed at a fair level 2.92 or 73%. At posttest, they performed at an above average level 3.29 or 82%. If these were grades, they would have been performing at a C level prior to the class and at a B level or above average at the end of the class. These findings are congruent with other studies which used the IC-SWG (Macgowan, 2012; Macgowan & Vakharia, 2012; Shera et al., 2013). As in other studies, the group work class mattered as far as improving respondents’ perceived performance (Macgowan, 2012; Macgowan & Vakharia, 2012, Shera et al., 2013; Sweifach & LaPorte, 2013). This is an important finding, as many BSW and MSW programs do not have a methods class solely focused on group work methodology, and other programs offer group work as an elective that students may or may not take prior to graduation (Simon & Kilbane, 2014). Since groups are increasing and are often facilitated by social workers, it is worrisome that social work graduates may be unprepared to do this type of work with vulnerable populations (Sweifach & LaPorte, 2009).
This study suggests that the school’s new curriculum, which requires that students read the Standards, may be more effective. Participants who matriculated in the new curriculum did better on the IC-SWG than students under the old curriculum. Group work scholars recommend that the Standards be part of social work with groups’ curriculum (C. S. Cohen & Olshever, 2013; Macgowan, 2012, 2013; Macgowan & Vakharia, 2012; Macgowan & Wong, 2015; Shera et al., 2013).
The challenges the students experienced were consistent with what other scholars found. Macgowan (2012, 2013) also demonstrated that students rated working in mandated groups and promoting group exploration of nonproductive norms when they arise to be among the most challenging group worker responsibilities. In this study, participants also identified the middle stage tasks of mediating conflict and identifying obstacles that interfere with the group’s or its members’ ability to reach goals to be among their most challenging skills. Shera et al. (2013) also found middle-stage skills to be most challenging for students. Respecting and valuing diversity in groups were the strengths of this sample. This is not surprising since this value is emphasized in every one of the school’s classes.
Experience was found to be associated with better scores prior to beginning the class at pretest on the IC-SWG. Several studies have demonstrated the link between group work experience and competency (Macgowan, 2012; Sweifach & LaPorte, 2013). Students who had facilitated a social work group, been a member of a treatment or task group, or had facilitated several groups scored higher prior to taking the class than those who reported no group work experiences. These findings demonstrate the importance of experience in building students’ confidence as a group worker.
The PI asked additional values questions based on the NASW Code of Ethics. Students performed better at posttest than pretest. This suggests that the NASW Code of Ethics’ application to group work is covered in the school’s group work practice classes and may deepen their understanding of social work ethics.
Limitations
In spite of participants’ anonymity, social desirability may have been a limitation in this study, as students may have felt that their instructor, who in some classes was the PI, expected to see improvement. Another limitation is the study relies on self-reporting. Although self-reported self-efficacy has been shown to be positively correlated with actual performance in prior studies (Holden, Barker, Rosenberg, & Onghena, 2007; Larson & Daniels, 1998; Macgowan & Valkaria, 2012; Macgowan & Wong, 2015; Rishel & Majewski, 2009), additional measures of students’ competence beyond self-reported confidence and competencies such as field instructor corroboration, correlation with instructor observation of student performance, and/or grades would greatly strengthen a study such as this one. The control group (classes using the old curriculum) was exposed to group work values, knowledge, and skills, in other words many concepts that are part of the IASWG Standards. Instructors of the group work classes, including the PI who taught 3 of 10 classes which used the old curriculum and 2 of 4 classes which used the new curriculum, may have inadvertently “taught to the test,” thus biasing the results. A randomized experimental study or one that compares the students in this program to another program where students are not required to take a group work class is recommended for further validation and generalization of results. Also, conducting research about students’ competence and confidence with facilitating groups in social work programs in other countries would be enlightening.
Summary and Conclusion
Social work with groups’ methodology has the potential to greatly help at-risk populations in a cost-effective way and to incite creative, productive, and supportive social work task and advocacy groups. This study demonstrated that a class in social work with groups that incorporates ethics and the IASWG Standards for Social Work Practice with Groups enables social work students to feel confident about their work when facilitating groups in human service agencies and communities. This study and prior research demonstrated that using special skills and understanding when working with mandated clients, mediating conflict, addressing unproductive group norms, and identifying obstacles in reaching the group’s goals are more challenging responsibilities for group work students. It is recommended that group work instructors focus on strengthening these skills in their classes and ensuring that students have significant group work experience in their field placements. It is critical that ethics and high standards of social work with groups are transmitted to social work students, so that consumers of our professional services are helped and not harmed. Additional benefits of using the IASWG Standards are that they are consistent with the CSWE core competencies and accreditation standards and are evidenced-based practices that might lead to securing and maintaining grant funding (Macgowan, 2012). The study demonstrated that the IC-SWG can identify group workers’ strengths and challenges and be a helpful tool for students as well as practitioners.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
The author recognizes the hard work of Samantha Swift, research assistant. She also thanks Dr. Mark Macgowan for reviewing the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was partially funded by California State University, Long Beach, RSCA Grant and Ukleja Center for Ethical Leadership Teaching Grant.