Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Strengths Assessment× | Goal Attainment Scaling× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare | Social Work | Social Work |
| Saime | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | 2012 | 1968 |
| Autors≠ | Dennis Saleebey (strengths perspective); Charles Rapp & Richard Goscha (strengths model assessment) | Thomas J. Kiresuk & Robert E. Sherman |
| Tips≠ | Structured, domain-based assessment of client and environmental strengths | Individualized, criterion-referenced outcome measurement procedure |
| Pirmavots≠ | Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2013). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice (6th ed.). Pearson. ISBN: 9780205011544 | Kiresuk, T. J., & Sherman, R. E. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: A general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4(6), 443–453. DOI ↗ |
| Citi nosaukumi | Strengths-Based Assessment, Strengths Perspective Assessment, Strengths Model Assessment, Asset-Based Assessment | GAS, Goal Attainment Scale, Kiresuk-Sherman Goal Attainment Scaling, Individualized Goal Scaling |
| Saistītās | 3 | 3 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | Strengths assessment is a structured way of assessing a client that deliberately foregrounds capabilities, resources, and aspirations rather than deficits and problems. Grounded in the strengths perspective articulated by Dennis Saleebey and operationalized in Charles Rapp and Richard Goscha's strengths model, it surveys the client's life domains — such as daily living, health, finances, relationships, leisure, and spirituality — to record what is already working, what the person wants, and the personal and environmental resources available to get there. Those strengths then become the raw material for goal-setting and intervention. | Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a method for measuring the outcomes of an individualized intervention by writing, in advance, a small set of client-specific goals and defining for each a graded scale of possible outcomes from much worse than expected to much better than expected. After the intervention, the actual outcome on each goal is scored on this scale and the scores are combined into a single standardized index, allowing idiosyncratic, personally meaningful goals to be aggregated and compared across clients and programs. It was introduced by Thomas Kiresuk and Robert Sherman in 1968 to evaluate community mental health programs. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|