Skip to main content
Log in

Value orientations of clinical social work practitioners

  • Articles
  • Published:
Clinical Social Work Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Six hundred and forty-two of 1,218 randomly sampled social workers in Texas certified as Advanced Clinical Practitioners responded to a pretested, mailed questionnaire as part of a study of personal value systems and personality traits. Agency practitioners, combination practitioners and those in private practice only are compared on their rank ordering of eight statements corresponding to four value orientations: (1) entrepreneurial, (2) social, welfare/change, (3) low risk, and (4) providing psychotherapy. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney tests yielded significant differences between the three groups. Nonprivate practitioners and those in private practice only were found to have almost symmetrically juxtaposed personal value systems. Combination practitioners were found to be a distinct group with a unique value system different in important respects from both nonprivate practitioners and from those in private practice only. Comparisons with other studies and implications for future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barker, R.L. (1983). Private practice primer for social work.NASW News, 28, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borenzweig, J. (1981). Agency vs private practice: Similarities and differences.Social Work, 26, 239–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanzraich, M. (1985).The importance of social origins and preprofessional experiences in determining which social workers become private practitioners. Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University.

  • Jayaratne, S., Siefert, K., & Chess, W.A. (1988). Private and agency practitioners: Some data and observations.Social Service Review, 62: 324–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, M. (1989). A discussion with Bill Moyers. In Bill Moyers (Ed.),A world of ideas. (pp. 14–27). New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. (1987).Human motivation New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merle, S. (1962). Some arguments against private practiceSocial Work, 7: 12–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review, 63: 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • NASW (1991). Public agency work urged.NASW News, 36:2: 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichert, K. (1982). Human services and the market system.Health and Social Work, 7: 173–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1973).The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiz, R. (1990).Entrepreneurial personality traits, value systems, and the private practice of social work: An ecological model for practice setting choice. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

  • Smaller, M. (1987). Attitudes toward private practice in social work: Examining professional commitment.Journal of Independent Social Work, 1: 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • TDHS, (1990)Directory of social workers certified by Texas department of human services. Austin, Texas: Silent Partners.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Seiz, R.C., Schwab, A.J. Value orientations of clinical social work practitioners. Clin Soc Work J 20, 323–335 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00754643

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00754643

Keywords

Navigation