Evidence-Based Practice and Knowledge Utilization - a Study of Attitudes and Practices Among Social Workers in Germany

Purpose:Since the late 1990s Evidence-based Practice (EBP) has influenced the conceptualization and practice of social work in significant ways, and EBPs are being implemented in many countries. In contrast to other Northern European countries, Germany has only recently joined the EBP debate and views of its relevance and significance for social work are almost exclusively critical. Steeped in theoretical and predominantly non-empirical knowledge traditions, there is great reluctance toward quantitative research in general and standardized interventions more specifically.  The aim of this pilot study was to examine German social workers’ attitudes toward the role of research in practice and to investigate sources of knowledge relied upon in practice decisions. This paper presents preliminary findings.

Methods:Recruitment and sampling occurred in a multi-stage process. (1) A list of public and private social service agencies was compiled for one urban area in Germany (n=435). (2) Agencies were randomly selected and called to determine willingness to participate and to receive a count of degreed and/or licensed social workers, which were the focus of this initial study. (3) Surveys (n=400) with stamped return-envelopes were subsequently mailed to interested agencies. (A web-based survey was not feasible given data protection rules and lack of access to email-addresses). The survey instrument consisted of close-ended questions surveying social workers about their professional background, satisfaction with their job and the sources of knowledge used to inform their practice. Use of the 15-item version of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale (Aarons, 2004) determined attitudes and perceptions about research-supported interventions. The EBPAS-15 has four subscales (Requirements, Appeal, Openness, Divergence). Selected items were also drawn from the 50-item EBPAS version. Items were translated into German and slightly adapted in wording as the term EBP is not known. Data collection occurred during a 6-week period. Analyses for this paper included descriptive statistics and a factor analysis of the EBPAS.

Results:Preliminary findings indicated that 77% of participants were female with a mean age of 45.4 (SD=9.71). Participants had been social workers for 16.8 years (SD=8.36) on average. Eighty-two percent were unfamiliar with the term EBP. When asked about the sources of knowledge that primarily inform their practice, none indicated research as being one. Instead, professional experience (95.5%) and exchange with colleagues (77.3%) were cited as the most important sources of informing practice. The EBPAS had good to acceptable reliability overall (α=0.72) with reliability coefficients ranging from 0.64 (Divergence Scale) to 0.83 (Appeal Scale) for the four subscales. Inspection of individual items indicated moderate to good openness toward research-based interventions but confirmed concerns about standardization.

Conclusion: This is the first study that uses the EBPAS scale with social workers in Germany. Studies about knowledge utilization in Germany have traditionally relied on qualitative or heuristic methods. Preliminary findings of our survey indicate openness toward research-based interventions. Concerns about manualization may be alleviated through further education as many EBPs are principle-based and offer room for a client-centered approach. Questions remain about how to best introduce EBP to social workers in Germany and reduce misconceptions.