European Social Work Research Association SIG to Study Decisions, Assessment, and Risk

References

• Andershed, A.-K., & Andershed, H. (2015). Risk and protective factors among preschool children: Integrating research and practice. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 12, 412–424. doi:10.1080/15433714.2013.866062
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, L., Ringle, J. L., Ingram, S. D., Ross, J. R., & Thompson, R. W. (2017). Care coordination services: A description of an alternative service model for at-risk families. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 14, 217–228. doi:10.1080/23761407.2017.1306731
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastian, P., & Schrödter, M. (2014). Professionelle Urteilsbildung in der Sozialen Arbeit. Soziale Passagen, 6, 275–297. doi:10.1007/s12592-014-0175-5
   Google Scholar
• Benbenishty, R. (1992). An overview of methods to elicit and model expert clinical judgment and decision making. Social Service Review, 66, 598–616. doi:10.1086/603950
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., López, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., Koopmans, C., … Hayes, D. (2015). Decision making in child protection: An international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals’ child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 49, 63–75. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertotti, T. (2016). Decidere nel servizio sociale: metodi e riflessioni etiche [Decisions in social services: Ethical methods and reflections]. Rome: Carocci.
   Google Scholar
• Bertotti, T., & Casartelli, A. (2007). Vissuti psicologici e relazionali nel processo di valutazione [Psychological and relational perceptions in the assessment process]. In U. De Ambrogio, T. Bertotti, & F. Merlini (Eds.), L’assistente sociale e la valutazione [The social worker and assessment] (pp. 71–86). Rome, Italy: Carocci Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Bode, I., Marthaler, T., Bastian, P., & Schrödter, M. (2012). Rationalitätenvielfalt im Kinderschutz: Eine Einführung [Rationality diversity in child protection; An introduction]. In T. Marthaler, P. Bastian, I. Bode, & M. Schrödter (Eds.), Rationalitäten des Kinderschutzes. Kindeswohl und soziale Interventionen aus pluraler Perspektive [Rationalities of child protection: Child welfare and social interventions from a plural perspective] (pp. 1–16).Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-19146-1_1.
   Google Scholar
• Calder, M. (2016). Risk in child protection: Assessment in childcare. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
   Google Scholar
• Carson, D., & Bain, A. (2008). Professional risk and working with people: Decision-making in health, social care and criminal justice. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
   Google Scholar
• Chomycz, S., & Schmidt, F. (2016). Practice guidelines for the assessment of clinically significant treatment outcomes in the children’s mental health system. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 13, 236–248. doi:10.1080/23761407.2015.1031417
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crisp, B. R., Anderson, M. R., Orme, J., & Lister, P. G. (2006). What can we learn about social work assessment from the textbooks? Journal of Social Work, 6, 337–359. doi:10.1177/1468017306071180
   Google Scholar
• De Ambrogio, U., Bertotti, T., & Merlini, F. (2007). L’assistente sociale e la valutazione: esperienze e strumenti [The social worker and the evaluation: Experiences and tools]. Rome: Carocci Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. (2000). Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families. London, England: The Stationery Office.
   Google Scholar
• Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14, 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Fluke, J. D., Baumann, D. J., Dalgleish, L. I., & Kern, H. D. (2014). Decisions to protect children: A decision-making ecology. In J. E. Korbin & R. D. Krugman (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Handbook of child maltreatment (pp. 463–476). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gambrill, E. (2012). Critical thinking in clinical practice: Improving the quality of judgments and decisions (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Gambrill, E., & Shlonsky, A. (2000). Risk assessment in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 813–837. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(00)00123-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk savvy: How to make good decisions. New York, NY: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451–482. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, N. (2012). A comparative study of child welfare systems: Abstract orientations and concrete results. Children & Youth Services Review, 34, 532–536. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.10.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, J. C., Dettlaff, A. J., Baumann, D. J., & Fluke, J. D. (2015). The decision-making ecology of placing a child into foster care: A structural equation model. Child Abuse and Neglect, 49, 12–23. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helm, D., & Roesch-Marsh, A. (2016). The ecology of judgement: A model for understanding and improving social work judgements. British Journal of Social Work, 47, 1361–1376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hietamäki, J. (2015). Lastensuojelun alkuarvioinnin vaikutukset vanhempien näkökulmasta [The outcomes of the assessment in child welfare from the parents’ perspective]. In University of Jyväskylä (Eds.), Jyväskylä studies in education, psychology and social research 529. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, M., Stafford, A., & Lister, P. G. (2002). International perspectives on child protection: Seminar report. Glasgow, Scotland: Centre for the Child & Society, University of Glasgow. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1181/0009926.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, W., Clancy, T., & Bastian, P. (2015). Child abuse and neglect risk assessment under field practice conditions: Tests of external and temporal validity and comparison with heart disease prediction. Children and Youth Services Review, 56, 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.06.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Keddell, E. (2011). Reasoning processes in child protection decision making: Negotiating moral minefields and risky relationships. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1251–1270. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, G. (1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• LeBlanc, V. R., Regehr, C., Shlonsky, A., & Bogo, M. (2012). Stress responses and decision making in child protection workers faced with high conflict situations. Child Abuse and Neglect, 36, 404–412. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.01.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Léveillé, S., & Chamberland, C. (2010). Toward a general model for child welfare and protection services: A meta-evaluation of international experiences regarding the adoption of the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families (FACNF). Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 929–944. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liedgren, P., Elvhage, G., Ehrenberg, A., & Kullberg, C. (2016). The use of decision support systems in social work: A scoping study literature review. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 13, 1–20. doi:10.1080/15433714.2014.914992
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCave, E. L., Rishel, C., & Morris, M. (2013). Prevention as an explicit part of the social work profession: Part two of a systematic investigation. Advances in Social Work, 14, 544–555.
   Google Scholar
• Monahan, J., Steadman, H. J., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P. S., Robbins, P. C., Mulvey, E. P., … Banks, S. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mullen, E. J. (2016). Reconsidering the ‘idea’ of evidence in evidence-based policy and practice. European Journal of Social Work, 19, 310–335. doi:10.1080/13691457.2015.1022716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 745–758. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00053-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parton, N. (2011). Child protection and safeguarding in England: Changing and competing conceptions of risk and their implications for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 854–875. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Platt, D., & Turney, D. (2014). Making threshold decisions in child protection: A conceptual analysis. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 1472–1490. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponnert, L., & Svennson, K. (2016). Standardisation: The end of professional discretion? European Journal of Social Work, 19, 586–599. doi:10.1080/13691457.2015.1074551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regehr, C., Bogo, M., Shlonsky, A., & LeBlanc, V. (2010). Confidence and professional judgment in assessing children’s risk of abuse. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 621–628. doi:10.1177/1049731510368050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roets, G., Rutten, K., Roose, R., Vandekinderen, C., & Soetaert, R. (2015). Constructing the ‘child at risk’ in social work reports: A way of seeing is a way of not seeing. Children & Society, 29, 198–208. doi:10.1111/chso.12115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sicora, A. (2017). Reflective practice and learning from mistakes in social work. Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138. doi:10.1037/h0042769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skivenes, M., & Tefre, Ø. S. (2012). Adoption in the child welfare system: A cross-country analysis of child welfare workers’ recommendations for or against adoption. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2220–2228. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.07.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson, M., & Taylor, B. J. (2017). Risk communication in dementia care: Professional perspectives on consequences, likelihood, words and numbers. British Journal of Social Work, 47(7), 1940–1958. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcw161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J. (2006a). Factorial surveys: Using vignettes to study professional judgement. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 1187–1207. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J. (2006b). Risk management paradigms in health and social services for professional decision making on the long-term care of older people. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 1411–1429. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch406
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J. (2012a). Models for professional judgement in social work. European Journal of Social Work, 15, 546–562. doi:10.1080/13691457.2012.702310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J. (2012b). Developing an integrated assessment tool for the health and social care of older people. British Journal of Social Work, 42, 1293–1314. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J. (2013). Conference report: DARE 2012 symposium, Belfast, Northern Ireland. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 241–242. doi:10.1177/1049731512468958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J. (2017a). Decision making, assessment and risk in social work (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J. (2017b). Heuristics in professional judgement: A psycho-social rationality model. British Journal of Social Work, 47, 1043–1060. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcw084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J., & Campbell, B. (2011). Quality, risk and governance: Social workers’ perspectives. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 7, 256–272. doi:10.1108/17479881111194152
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J., & Devine, T. (1993). Assessing needs and planning care in social work. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J., Killick, C., & McGlade, A. (2015). Understanding and using research in social work. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J., & McKeown, C. (2013). Assessing and managing risk with people with physical disabilities: Development of a safety checklist. Health, Risk and Society, 15, 162–175. doi:10.1080/13698575.2013.764973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J., & Sharland, E. (2015). The creation of the European Social Work Research Association. Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 623–627. doi:10.1177/1049731514558686
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, B. J., Stevenson, M., & McDowell, M. (in press). Communicating risk in dementia care: Survey of health and social care professionals. Health and Social Care in the Community. doi:10.1111/hsc.12519.
   Google Scholar
• Thornton, D. (2007). Risk Matrix 2000 (revised): Assessment and management of sex offenders: Probation Circular PC17/2007. London, England: Probation Service for England and Wales.
   Google Scholar
• Turpin, A., & Shier, M. L. (2017). Development in substance use disorder programs: A conceptual framework for client assessment. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 14, 131–146. doi:10.1080/23761407.2017.1302860
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van De Luitgaarden, G. M. J. (2009). Evidence-based practice in social work: Lessons from judgment and decision-making theory. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 243–260. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcm117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, S., & Beckett, C. (2005). Social work assessment and intervention. 2nd ed. Lyme Regis, Dorset: Russell House.
   Google Scholar
• Wallander, L., & Molander, A. (2014). Disentangling professional discretion: A conceptual and methodological approach. Professions and Professionalism, 4(3), 1–19 doi:10.7577/pp.808
   Google Scholar