Centre de documentation HELHa Cardijn Louvain-la-Neuve
Horaires d'ouverture (en période scolaire)
Lundi, Mardi, Mercredi :
8h30 - 12h30 / 13h15 - 17h
jeudi : matin sur RDV / 13h15 - 17h
vendredi : 8h30 - 12h30 / 13h15 - 15h00
Bienvenue au Centre de documentation de la HELHa Cardijn Louvain-la-Neuve
Le centre de documentation de la HELHa Cardijn LLN met à disposition de ses lecteurs un fonds documentaire spécialisé dans les domaines pouvant intéresser – de près ou de loin - les (futur·e·s) travailleur·euse·s sociaux·ales : travail social, sociologie, psychologie, droit, santé, économie, pédagogie, immigration, vieillissement, famille, précarité, délinquance, emploi, communication, etc.
: appraising the quality of research for social work and social care
[article]
| Titre : |
Grading gems : appraising the quality of research for social work and social care |
| Type de document : |
texte imprimé |
| Auteurs : |
Brian J. Taylor, Auteur ; Michael Donnelly, Auteur ; Martin Dempster, Auteur |
| Editeur : |
Oxford : Oxford university press - GB - Oxford |
| Année de publication : |
2007 |
| Article en page(s) : |
pp. 335-354 |
| Langues : |
Français (fre) |
| Catégories : |
Cardijn
Evaluation # Travail social
|
| Mots-clés : |
Evaluation Travail social |
| Résumé : |
"The impetus towards basing practice and policy decisions more explicitly on sound research requires tools to facilitate the systematic appraisal of the quality of research encompassing a diverse range of methods and designs.Five exemplar tools were developed and assessed in terms of their usefulness in selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review.The widely use "hierarchy of evidence" was adapted and used to appraise internal validity.Four tools were then developed to appraise the external validity dimensions of generalizability (two scales) and methods of data collection (two scales).Methods of combining the scores generated by each tool were explored. Qualitative and quantitative studies were appraised,not separated into two spheres but by using complementary tools developed to appraise different aspects of rigour.There was a high level of agreement between researchers in applying the tools to twenty-two studies on decision making by professionals about the longterm care of older people.The scales for internal validity and generalizability discriminated between the qualities of studies appropriately.The two tools to appraise data collection gave diverse results.Excluding studies that scored in the lowest category on any scale appeared to be the scoring system that wa most justifiable.This approach is presented to simulate debate about the practical application of the evidence-based initiative to social work and social care.This study may assist in developing clearer definitions and common language about appraising rigour that should further the process of selecting robust research for synthesis to inform practice and policy decisions." |
| Permalink : |
http://cdocs.helha.be/pmblln/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=12613 |
in The british journal of social work > 2, vol. 37 (fév. 2007) . - pp. 335-354
[article] Grading gems : appraising the quality of research for social work and social care [texte imprimé] / Brian J. Taylor, Auteur ; Michael Donnelly, Auteur ; Martin Dempster, Auteur . - Oxford : Oxford university press - GB - Oxford, 2007 . - pp. 335-354. Langues : Français ( fre) in The british journal of social work > 2, vol. 37 (fév. 2007) . - pp. 335-354
| Catégories : |
Cardijn
Evaluation # Travail social
|
| Mots-clés : |
Evaluation Travail social |
| Résumé : |
"The impetus towards basing practice and policy decisions more explicitly on sound research requires tools to facilitate the systematic appraisal of the quality of research encompassing a diverse range of methods and designs.Five exemplar tools were developed and assessed in terms of their usefulness in selecting studies for inclusion in a systematic review.The widely use "hierarchy of evidence" was adapted and used to appraise internal validity.Four tools were then developed to appraise the external validity dimensions of generalizability (two scales) and methods of data collection (two scales).Methods of combining the scores generated by each tool were explored. Qualitative and quantitative studies were appraised,not separated into two spheres but by using complementary tools developed to appraise different aspects of rigour.There was a high level of agreement between researchers in applying the tools to twenty-two studies on decision making by professionals about the longterm care of older people.The scales for internal validity and generalizability discriminated between the qualities of studies appropriately.The two tools to appraise data collection gave diverse results.Excluding studies that scored in the lowest category on any scale appeared to be the scoring system that wa most justifiable.This approach is presented to simulate debate about the practical application of the evidence-based initiative to social work and social care.This study may assist in developing clearer definitions and common language about appraising rigour that should further the process of selecting robust research for synthesis to inform practice and policy decisions." |
| Permalink : |
http://cdocs.helha.be/pmblln/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=12613 |
|
Exemplaires (1)
|
| PER BJS 37/2 (2007) | Périodique | Centre de documentation HELHa Cardijn LLN | Réserve Périodiques | Disponible |
