学校社会工作介入学生心理健康问题外文翻译资料

 2023-01-10 04:01

学校社会工作介入学生心理健康问题

摘要:学校社会工作者经常为有心理健康问题的青年提供服务,他们起到保健的基础性作用,但许多学生还可获得外界的咨询服务。以往的研究还尚未验证接受学校社会工作者服务和接受外界咨询的学生其实践路径是否有区别。本文通过分析2008年全国学校社会工作调查为有情绪或行为问题的学生提供服务的人来验证这一猜想。结果表明,二者的实践选择是不同的。

关键词:心理健康;实践;学校社会工作

心理健康问题经常影响到儿童和青少年人口,约18%至22%的美国青少年患有足够造成功能障碍的心理健康问题(Dore,2005)。儿童和青少年精神健康问题普遍出现在教室情境中,常常迫使学校成为治疗受影响青少年的主要场所(Hennessy amp; Green-Hennessy,2000; Hoagwood et al., 2005)。学校社会工作者经常充当这些学生的主要心理健康服务提供者(Early amp;Vonk, 2001 ; Hennessy amp; Green-Hennessy, 2000;Kelly, Berzin, et al., 2010)。 在最近国家关于学校社会工作者的研究中(数据来源于Kelly, Berzin, et al., 2010),只有11%的受访者报告说,所有或大部分学生接受外部咨询或治疗服务。学校社会工作者的作用比门诊提供的更复杂,因为学校社会工作者经常被要求干预有多重服务需求的儿童、明确服务标准和服务对象(Kelly, 2008; Massacirc;t, Ornstein, amp; Moses, 2006)。 多层次生态系统的实践强调,学校社会工作者的任务应当是在日常工作中干预孩子、家庭、教师、学校和社区。

儿童为中心的实践以往的研究已经证明,学校社会工作者主要以生态系统内的儿童为中心,开展实践工作(Allen-Meares, 1994; Astor,Behre, Wallace, amp; Fravil, 1998; Hoagwood amp;Erwin, 1997; KeUy, 2008; Kelly, Berzin, et al2010; Staudt, 1991) 。在最近的学校社会工作者调查中,Kelly, Berzin,等(2010)发现,学校社会工作实务保持其状态基本20年未变,致力于通过个人和小团体辅导提供心理健康服务,却很少强调对影响儿童的整个生态系统的介入。只有介入整个生态系统,才能实现服务的连续性。这也是近40年来,学校社会工作者被要求做到的(Allen-Meares, 1994; Costin, 1969;Kelly, Berzin, et al., 2010)。在AUen-Meares(1994年)案件中的进行的一项全国性调查中发现,学校社会工作者经常从事个人和心理健康干预,他们确定了自己的主要角色是处理危机工作和管理案例中的学生。在针对伊利诺利州的一项研究中,Kelly(2008)发现,学校社会工作者最常使用个人和团体辅导干预,同样地,Astor等人(1998)发现,个人和团体辅导干预是最常用的。 Hoagwoodand Erwin(1997)也发现个别认知行为干预是对在校儿童心理健康问题最常用的方法。尽管以儿童为中心的干预模式在处理有心理健康问题的学生的学校社会工作者中很普及,但想要更广泛程度地参与到其他系统中,很多学者认为靠个人干预是不行的(Allen-Meares, 1994; Corbin, 2005; Dupper,2002; Dupper amp; Evans, 1996; Frey amp; Dupper,2005; KeUy, 2008; Raines, 2004; Staudt, Cherry,amp; Watson, 2005);例如,Wilson,Gotttfredson和 Najaka (2001)通过综合分析以学校介入为中心的规划发现,针对学生的个人训练,对许多与学校相关的问题行为的改善作用最小。

生态系统的实践

虽然个人干预明显主导学校社会工作实践的发展趋势,近期教育改革,特别是在积极的行为支持(PBS)和社会情感学习(SEL)框架中的干预策略,非常适合在生态系统框架中实践的学校社会工作者。这些策略强调在早期阶段进行预防和干预,经常需要学校社会工作者在整个年级或整个学校逐渐进行干预(Frey, Lingo, amp; Nelson, 2008; Kelly,Raines,Stone,amp; Frey,2010)。有些学者提出,学校社会工作者的实践存在于一个生态系统框架(Freyamp; Dupper, 2005; Lynn, McKay, amp; Atkins, 2003;Rones amp; Hoagwood, 2000)。在以学校为基础的心理健康服务的检讨中,Lynn等人(2003)描述的学校社会工作的任务和措施为现有的一个统一体。一端是针对儿童的情绪或行为问题的办法,另一端是心理健康促进融入学校日常活动的方法,如PBS和SEL干预。此外描述了学校社会工作服务作为现有的一个连续的统一体。他们将“临床现象”作为一个任务和干预手段的概念提出,将会被学校社会工作者所用,包括了从个人到整个生态的目标。

生态系统方法使渴望在学校建立更强的社区、教师和家庭间联系的学校社会工作研究人员产生了共鸣。Anderson-Butcher、Stetler和Midle(2006)强调学校与社区伙伴关系的重要性,并假定:如果学校和社区关系列为优先事项,通过增加学生的知识和获取资源服务,能使学生的心理健康需求得到更好的满足。

研究意义

因为缺乏一致的学校社会工作实践的指导方针,研究一个更大的机构指导实践将是该领域发展至关重要的一环(Constable amp; Alvarez, 2006; Frey amp; Dupper, 2005;Kelly, 2008; Staudt et al., 2005)。除了 Kelly、Berzin等人在2010年的研究外,大规模研究学校社会工作者的实践方法还有所欠缺。Kelly、Berzin等人的研究和早期出版物是基于描述实践选择的一般信息,进一步的信息是需要了解学校社会工作者如何对待学生的心理健康问题,以及是否使用外界辅导影响服务选择。本研究质疑是否为接受外部咨询的学生提供服务的学校社会工作者,在参与其他生态系统层面将花更多的实践时间。除了常用的以儿童为中心的方法,学校社会工作者还为学生提供基础的心理健康服务。它被假设:学生接受过外部咨询的学校社会工作者,将在他们的实践选择中获得更多自由,因此,他们会在跨领域的生态系统中更频繁使用实践方法。

措施

本研究面向生态系统中的儿童、家庭、教师、学校、社区领域展开测量实践研究,询问他们关于调查中子系统的问题,这些问题被用来论证学生在接受学校社会工作服务前后的变化。转诊前采取的措施包括增加父母的介入和参与、加强社区介入和参与、提供教师专业发展、提高全校的文化和气候氛围、提供课堂或全校性的社交技巧课程;转诊后的措施包括个体咨询、团体辅导、以家庭为基础的实践、学生和老师进行会谈等。对于这两部分,受访者被要求评价多大程度上依赖于每个实践方法,答案包括“所有时刻”、“大多数时间”、“有时”、“偶尔”和“极少”。

限制

尽管不同的研究结果支持以儿童为中心的学校社会工作实践,但研究的局限性要求我们谨慎地解读这些结果。花在每个受访者身上的时间百分比在每个域上并没有特别要求。相反,李克特量表型是用来量化这段时间。样本的普遍性尚不清楚,因为它在很大程度上代表了从属于国家机关和国家性的学校社工组织SSWAA。样本可能高估了那些社会工作专业硕士和由国家教育有关部门的认证。此外,30%被认为是回应率偏低,并建议该样本不具有代表性。对于调查手段,尽管它是由一个专家小组现场测试和审查,但其信度和效度也有待考察。其他有效性问题包括调查数据知识自陈报告,因此,可能反映了一些社会可取性影响。该手段的另一个限制是它只询问学校社会工作者使用的不同类型实践方法的数量,而没有作出对这些实践方法质量的总结。

总结

这项研究表明,尽管以儿童为中心的个别辅导实践方法仍然是主要的,但在日常工作中,针对有心理健康问题的学生,学校社会工作者应该介入生态系统的其他层面——尤其是那些为接受外部咨询的学生提供服务的学校社会工作者。除了学校领域和团体咨询的实践方法,这些学校社会工作者表示他们更多地参与到所有层次的生态系统中。与教师共事标志着过去最少使用的学校社会工作实践方法,尤其是担当心理健康主要提供者的学校社会工作者,和这个需要未来进一步研究及实践的领域已经引起了社会的广泛关注。为了让学校社会工作者确定最佳治疗方案,未来的研究需要对不同实践选择对学生的心理健康状况的影响进行测试。总之,为了最有效地改变学校社会工作政策,研究者需要验证是否存在更有效的特殊治疗方法,从而提供给有心理健康问题的学生。

外文文献出处:

http://web.a.ebscohost.com/Legacy/Views/static/html/Error.htm?aspxerrorpath=/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer

Children amp; Schools VOLUME 33, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2011

剩余内容已隐藏,支付完成后下载完整资料


School Social Work with Students with Mental Health Problems:

Kimberly H. McManama OBrien, Stephanie C. Berzin, Michael S. Kelly,Andy J. Frey, Michelle E. Alvarez,Schoo Gary L Shajfer

ABSTRACT: School social workers frequently serve as the primary mental health providers to youths with mental health problems. Although school social workers play a primary role in care, many students also receive outside counseling services. Previous research has not examined whether practice approaches differ when considering mental health practice with students for whom school social workers are the primary providers versus those who receive outside counseling. This article uses respondents from the 2008 National School Social Work Survey who worked primarily with students with either emotional or behavioral problems to examine. Results demonstrate that the groups were different with respect to practice choices.

KEYWORDS: mental heahh;practice;school social work

Mental health problems frequently affect the child and adolescent population, as approximately 18 percent to 22 percent of U.S youths have mental health issues significant enough to cause functional impairment (Dore, 2005). Child and adolescent mental health concerns commonly arise in the class room setting, often forcing schools to become the primary place of treatment for affected youths (Hennessy amp; Green-Hennessy,2000; Hoagwood et al., 2005). School social workers frequently serve as the main mental health providers for these students (Early amp;Vonk, 2001 ; Hennessy amp; Green-Hennessy, 2000;Kelly, Berzin, et al., 2010). In the most recent national study on school social workers, from which the data for the present study are taken,Kelly, Berzin, et al (2010) found that only 11 percent of respondents reported that all or most of their students receive outside counseling or therapeutic services. The role of the school social worker is more complex than that of the outpatient provider, because school social workers are frequently asked to intervene at multiple system levels to serve children in need and to serve in host settings that have their own norms and expectations regarding who the 'client' is(Kelly, 2008; Massacirc;t, Ornstein, amp; Moses, 2006)Practice at multiple levels of the ecological system emphasizes that school social workers engage in tasks and interventions with the child, family, teacher, school, and community in their daily work with students.

CHILD-CENTERED PRACTICE

Previous research has demonstrated that school social workers are primarily oriented to child-centered practice approaches within the ecological system. (Allen-Meares, 1994; Astor,Behre, Wallace, amp; Fravil, 1998; Hoagwood amp;Erwin, 1997; KeUy, 2008; Kelly, Berzin, et al2010; Staudt, 1991). In the most recent national study on school social workers, Kelly, Berzin, etal (2010) found that school social work practice remains largely unchanged from its state two decades ago—focused on delivering mental health services through individual and small group counseling, with little emphasis on the kind of ecological systems practice that might reflect the continuum of service delivery that school social workers have requested for nearly 40 years (Allen-Meares, 1994; Costin, 1969;Kelly, Berzin, et al., 2010). In a national study conducted by AUen-Meares (1994), school social workers were found to frequently engage in individual and group mental health interventions, and they identified their main roles as crisis work and case management with students. In a study specific to the state of Illinois, Kelly(2008) found that school social workers most often use individual and group counseling interventions. Similarly, Astor et al (1998) found that individual and group counseling interventions were used most frequently. Hoagwoodand Erwin (1997) also found that individual cognitive—behavioral interventions are used most often as approaches to child mental health problems in schools. Despite the popularity ofchild-centered interventions among school social workers who work with students with mental health problems, many scholars discourage a reliance on individual practices in favorof broader engagement in other system levels(Allen-Meares, 1994; Corbin, 2005; Dupper,2002; Dupper amp; Evans, 1996; Frey amp; Dupper,2005; KeUy, 2008; Raines, 2004; Staudt, Cherry,amp; Watson, 2005); for example, a meta-analysis of school-based programming by Wilson,Gotttfredson, and Najaka (2001) found that individual practice had minimal effects on many school-related problem behaviors.

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS PRACTICE

Although individual practice clearly dominates school social work practice trends, recent education reforms, specifically the intervention strategies found in positive behavior supports(PBS) and social-emotional learning (SEL)frameworks, are well-suited to school social workers who practice from an ecological systems framework.These strategies emphasize prevention and intervention at early stages, often with school social workers intervening with entire grade levels or whole school districts to instill change (Frey, Lingo, amp; Nelson, 2008; Kelly,Raines,Stone,amp; Frey,2010). Some scholars have proposed that school social workers practice within an ecological systems framework (Freyamp; Dupper, 2005; Lynn, McKay, amp; Atkins, 2003;Rones amp; Hoagwood, 2000). In their review of school-based mental health services, Lynn et al (2003) described school social work tasks and interventions as existing on a continuum. At one end of the continuum are individual approaches targeting children with emotional or behavioral difficulties. At the other end are universal approaches that integrate mental health promotion into daily school activities, such as PBS and SEL interventions (Frey et al., 2008;Lynn et al., 2003) Frey and Dupper (2005) Also described

剩余内容已隐藏,支付完成后下载完整资料


资料编号:[287628],资料为PDF文档或Word文档,PDF文档可免费转换为Word

您需要先支付 30元 才能查看全部内容!立即支付

课题毕业论文、文献综述、任务书、外文翻译、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。