Exploring the Construct of Holistic Competence

Background:  Bogo (2014) outlines a model of holistic competence in social work, which reflects “the integration of knowledge, values, and skills evident in the performance of complex practice behaviors emanating from critical thinking and intentional use of self in practice.”  Prior efforts center on the definition of the concept, particularly as it relates to pre-professional field education (e.g., Bogo et al., 2013) and the evaluation of strategies to assess it (e.g., Bogo et al., 2011).  The model of holistic competence underlies past and recent iterations of the Council of Social Work Education’s Education Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS 2008; EPAS 2015) (Drisko, 2015).

The study extends prior work by examining the construct of holistic competence itself.  Prior conceptualization suggests that it is best viewed as a latent construct with a single dimensional structure, reflecting professional activities and judgements as a whole in contrast to aspects of such activities (e.g., demonstration of a skill) (Drisko, 2015). Scholars emphasize meta-competencies involving critical analysis and synthesis through which integration of activities occur. Prior work directly leads to the expectation that indicators of disparate professional activities (e.g., knowledge, values, skills, and self-regulatory capacity, respectively) would yield evidence of a unidimensional structure.

Methods: The study draws on a pooled sample of two graduating cohorts (2014 and 2015) of MSW-level students from a research intensive university (n=183).  Field instructors rated students on a 55 item instrument with three point, behaviorally-anchored rating scales (not proficient, proficient, advanced).  The instrument was developed under the assumptions that field instructors serve as a key rating resource, with some noted limitations (Bogo et al., 2007) and that behaviorally based rating scales in competency assessment are optimal (Bogo, 2014).

The study implemented Rasch Rating Scale methods to assess the general properties of the items and rating scale and to assess the unidimensionality of the items as a whole.  This technique models the probability of rater’s response to a given item as a function of the subjects “ability,” the “difficulty” of the item, and the “difficultly” in moving from one response category to the next and produces a set of statistics that assess the fit of observed data to the model.

Results:  The 41 practice behaviors reflecting knowledge, values, skills, and self-regulatory capacities arrayed on a single dimension, with good fit statistics at the person, item, and rating scale level.  Items on which field instructors were most likely to rate students as proficient or above reflected student demonstration of professional demeanor and knowledge of social work ethics.  Items on which field instructors were least likely to rate students as proficient reflected meta-cognitive capacity (e.g., synthesizing data about clients).

Implications:  Findings provide direct empirical support for the conceptual underpinnings of the construct of holistic competence, providing evidence of a unidimensional structure of the indicators. Items reflecting meta-competence were those on which field instructors were less likely to rate students as proficient.  Results cohere with calls to orient social work education towards the integration of various professional activities versus focus on singular aspects of activities.