Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Factorial Surveys: Using Vignettes to Study Professional Judgement

Taylor, B. J.·2005·British Journal of Social Work

Abstract

Decision making is becoming an increasingly central feature of social work practice, yet there is limited research on the topic. Experimental methods of investigating decision making tend to be constrained by practical and ethical difficulties, whilst questions about validity and generalizability surround ethnographic and other descriptive methods. It is argued here that the factorial survey addresses these methodological difficulties as a research design to study the way that professionals make decisions in real life. In this research design, true-to-life vignettes (case scenarios or paper cases) are presented to social workers or other staff to make a judgement about a familiar type of scenario. The randomized factors within the vignettes, combined with the randomization of the selection of vignettes for each decision maker, give the factorial survey a unique capability to investigate the effect of multiple factors in complex decisions, unlike the more common factorial experiment. The method is explained, and prospects and issues for the development of this research design to study professional judgement within social work are discussed. The factorial survey has potential as a method for rigorous study of the impact of client, family and context factors on decisions by social work and social care staff.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bjsw/bch345

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Taylor, B. J.
Venue
British Journal of Social Work
Published
2005-11-17
Volume
36
Issue
7
Pages
1187-1207
ISSN
  • 0045-3102 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-263X
OpenAlex
W2031704995
Cited by
342
References
0
FWCI
14.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.