CONSTRUCTION AND VALIDATION OF A PROFESSIONAL SUITABILITY SCALE FOR SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

References

• Barlow, C., & Coleman, H. (2003). Suitability for practice guidelines for students: Asurvey of Canadian social work programs. Social Work Education, 22(2), 151–165.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Association of Social Workers. (2005). Social work code of ethics. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Association for Social Work Education. (2007). CASWE educational policy statement. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (13th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Council on Social Work Education. (2008). Educational policy and accreditation standards. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Delaney, R., Brownlee, K., & Sellick, M. (Eds.). (1999). Social work with rural and northern communities. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada: Lakehead University Centre for Northern Studies.
   Google Scholar
• DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, P. (1994a). Gatekeeping issues in BSW program. Arete, 19(2), 15–27.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, P. (1994b). Screening mechanisms in BSW programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 30, 63–74.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbs, P. (2000). Screening out of BSW programs: Responding to professional obligations and institutional challenges. In P. Gibbs & E. H. Blakely (Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp. 149–168). New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, E. (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2, 44–55.
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, W.W. (1982). The clinical measurement package: A field manual. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, C., Franklin, C., Corcoran, K. (2005). Measuring instruments. In R. M. Grinnell, Jr. & Y.A. Unrau (Eds.), Social work research and evaluation: Quantitative and qualitative approach (7th ed., pp. 113–132). New York: Oxford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978a). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978b). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Koerin, B., & Miller, L. S. (1995). Gatekeeping policies: Terminating students for non-academic reasons. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 247–260.
   Google Scholar
• Lafrance, J., Gray, E., & Herbert, M. (2004). Gatekeeping for professional social work practice. Journal of International Social Work Education, 23, 325–340.
   Google Scholar
• Lecomte, R. (2001). Distinguishing features of social work education in Canada. In J. C. Turner & F.J. Turner (Eds.), Canadian social welfare (pp. 498–504). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pearson Education Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Leighninger, L. (2000). Creating a new profession: The beginnings of social work education in the United States. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, K. (1999). Social work in higher education: Demise or development. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Mangione, T. W. (1998). Mail surveys. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 399–427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, J., & Koerin, B. (1998). Can we assess suitability at admission? A review of MSW application procedures. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 437–453.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, L. S., & Jenkins, D. A. (2000). The history of gatekeeping. In P. Gibbs & E. H. Blakely (Eds.), Gatekeeping in BSW programs (pp. 45–59). New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, L. S., & Urwin, C. A. (1990). Quality control in social work: The gatekeeping role in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 95–105.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Nugent, W. R., Sieppert, J. D., & Husdon, W. W. (2001). Practice evaluation for the 21st century. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Reamer, F. G. (1993). The philosophical foundations of social work. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, M., Habibis, D., & Craft, C. (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(3), 5–12.
   Google Scholar
• Spector, P.E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Tam, D. M. Y. (2003). Gatekeeping in BSW field education. Journal of Women in Welfare Education, 6, 51–62.
   Google Scholar
• Toren, N. (1972). Social work: The case of semi-profession. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Towle, C. (1954). The learner in education for the professions: As seen in education for social work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vijver, F.V.D., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar