I have much self-assurance in the talents perspective. My confidence in the talents perspective is based on both knowledge and opinion. Throughout my school career, I used to be trained by experts that the strengths perspective was an extremely reliable model to use in communal work practice. Because these were experts in sociable work, this leads me to think that the strengths perspective was effective. I never doubted that these experts were incorrect or concluded to the matter to check the efficiency of this practice.
Another aspect that leads me to think that this model was effective was good sense. It was my perception that strengths yield positive results, and it seems sensible to me that building after a client's advantages and empowering them to do better would be an efficient model. The strengths perspective is an optimistic model which means to me that only positive things can be attracted from it.
My experience of using the strengths point of view also led me to believe it was a powerful model to use in the cultural work field. I learned the strength point of view from observing and hearing others that have used it and from reading about any of it. I've also used the advantages perspective in an organization setting. I recall on several situations after i facilitated group, I used a strengths established model as an intervention. The intervention i used involved your client listing five advantages about themselves. Following the client stated these strengths, I asked them to talk about this strength with all of those other group. When your client was done, I asked the other group participants to identify some more strength about the client. Although I did so not use a pre-test or post-test solution to test the effectiveness of my intervention, the efficiency was observable by the behavior of my clients. After the clients finished discussing their talents, I seen great big smiles on their faces and also that the clients' ambiance acquired increased. From these aspects, I drew the final outcome that my treatment was effective.
Although it is essential to interpersonal work to research the effectiveness of our own practice, I myself haven't researched the effectiveness of this technique. My own knowledge, the knowledge of others or my own personal beliefs has led me to idea that this strategy was effective. Acknowledging these factors has sparked a pastime in researching the effectiveness of this technique.
The effectiveness of the strength point of view can be drawn from research and numerous studies. After forty years, research implies that no single remedy approach is superior to another, but those who take part in therapy have better benefits (Laursen, 2003). In the past, practices have centered on deficits that can hinder achievement and excellence, but in recent times a new perspective originated (Laursen). Professionals have utilized the strengths perspective because it targets the client's positive aspects instead of their deficits (Laursen). Alas, research on the advantages based approach is bound since it lacks technique. There is no specific strategy to the strength perspective which is very difficult to discern the techniques that are unique to its practice. Some research that was conducted implies that the strengths point of view can be effective, but other research shows its limitations. An analysis of the study on the strengths perspective will show its performance, constraints and criticisms.
Some research on the advantages point of view shows it performance. Laursen (2003) promises that the four factors that contribute to change in remedy are located in the advantages perspective. Laursen (2003) states that positive change occurs in four areas of therapy such as: extra-therapeutic, romantic relationships, placebo, and techniques. Just what a consumer brings to treatment accounts for forty percent of the treatment result which is the majority of where in fact the change takes place (Laursen, 2003). The talents perspective targets empowering the client to make necessary changes and steps that the client needs (Laursen). Empowering a customer to make their own decisions may have an effect on what the client brings to treatment (Laursen). The therapeutic relationship between your client and the therapist makes up about 30 % of the treatment outcome (Laursen). What the client thinks about his or her therapist affects the procedure outcome and is an essential element in the change process (Laursen). Depending on the relationship between your client and the therapist, positive or negative effects could arise out of the restorative process (Laursen). Another factor that influences the change process is the placebo which makes up about fifteen percent of the procedure result (Laursen). Research suggests that it is just like going for a supplement (Laursen). Clients consider they are better because they are getting treatment (Laursen). Surprisingly, specific treatment techniques only take into account fifteen percent of the results (Laursen). It does not matter what approach the therapist uses (Laursen). Acquiring any kind of treatment alternatively than receiving none yields a much better change final result (Laursen).
A review that showed the effectiveness of the strengths point of view was sponsored by The National Committee on Household Violence and Sexual Assault in Taiwan (Track & Shih, 2009). The participants included seven two ladies in the service system that possessed the wiliness to utilize a case manager and one source of sociable support (Music & Shih). Over a period of 2 yrs, the participants received treatment that was based on the strengths point of view model (Melody & Shih). The technique of this review involved by using a quasi-experimental design that used both quantitative and qualitative methods (Music & Shih). The task consisted of watching and capturing profound changes in women who experienced domestic violence (Track & Shih). The researchers measured the participants' level of unhappiness, coping methods, empowerment, and life satisfaction (Song & Shih). Within the results of this study, results on factors such as depression, self-efficacy, and social support for the topics were unveiled (Song & Shih). Songs and Shih (2009) claim that this model works well due to the fact people's activities are determined by self-interest and what is important to them.
A research study that showed the potency of the strengths perspective was conducted in group work. An outpatient counselling firm recruited two cultural workers to utilize a single-parent support group. First the group centered on problems, but after awhile the social personnel decided to concentrate on successes and alternatives. The social personnel then discussed whether or not the group must have a curriculum. Steinburg (2004) as cited in shows that all individuals should be given an possibility to donate to the group's goal. Groups also can be problematic if indeed they fail to are the group participants (Rubin, 2002 as cited in). Based on these concerns, the cultural workers chosen to get rid of the curriculum and have the group to work to alongside one another to determine its purpose. Following this, the social employees asked the group customers to share what was working. The group members began to provide positive feedback to one another. Because control of the group was given to the group people rather than the social staff, the group members started out to assign each group member to 1 group session through the eight-week series. The social workers discovered two aspects from this research. The first was that the group associates took the jobs quite critically. Second was that the group determination appeared to increase as the associates supported each other. The social staff concluded out of this analysis that empowering the group customers by figuring out and building talents served to increase users' sense of possession and commitment to the group. The sociable workers also concluded on a person level that self-esteem was improved and being truly a part of a group increased interconnection and reduced isolation.
Other research on the advantages point of view shows its constraints. Saint-Jacques. Turcptte. & Pouliot state in order to better understand the advantages perspective specific techniques have to be developed. Creating a specific technique can help researchers clarify whether the way has positive effects.
There are also many criticisms that contain been developed in the talents perspective. Among these criticisms is called reframing the misery. Some critics suggest that the strengths perspective simply reframes the deficit and misery. This implies that the clients are not expected to do the work. Another criticism of the power perspective is called Pollyannaism. This implies that the strength point of view ignores how manipulative and dangerous certain clients may be. Some critics dispute that many people are just beyond redemption and capacity to change. Many say that the talents perspective ignores reality or down takes on the client's problem. Because the strengths perspective targets the clients' talents and not on the issue, critics suggest that the procedure actually ignores the client's problem all together.