How to Verify Evidence: A Typology of Practices and Its Implications for Studying Their Efficiency



The article presents possible grounds for the typology of practices in the Child welfare field. Authors discuss the limitations of the idea about the hierarchy of methodologies in the context of studying social technology efficiency and note that it is the type of practice that determines the research design and the strategy of verifying its evidence. The following grounds for the typology of practices are identified and described: 1) stage of the “life cycle” of practice; 2) objective of practice in relation to the social risk dynamics; 3) strategy due to the uncertainty about cause-effect and control over outcomes; 4) level of practice implementation. It is shown how the research methodology can be chosen and evidence can be evaluated depending on the practice development stage, practice objectives, practice strategies and practice implementation level. It is concluded that evidence-based practice requires constant interaction between science and practice, and it is necessary to develop and adjust the research tools so that they are sensitive to the peculiarities of practice.

General Information

Keywords: evidence-based practice, typology of practices, social risk dynamics, framework for social performance, practice implementation level, research methodology

Journal rubric: General Psychology

Article type: scientific article


Funding. The reported study was funded by the Ministry of Education of Russia, project No. 073-00110-22-01 dated 21.01.2022 “Scientific and methodological support of a unified approach to the implementation of evidence-based practices in social work and education in the context of implementing the activities of the Decade of Childhood”.

Received: 11.11.2022


For citation: Busygina N.P., Podushkina T.G., Zasimova A.V. How to Verify Evidence: A Typology of Practices and Its Implications for Studying Their Efficiency [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sotsial’nye nauki i detstvo = Social Sciences and Childhood, 2022. Vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 10–23. DOI: 10.17759/ssc.2022030201. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Busygina N.P., Podushkina T.G., Stanilevsky V.V. Dokazatel’nyi podhod v obrazovanii: kritichesky analiz aktual’nykh diskussiy [Evidence-based Approach in Education: Critical Analysis of Current Dis­cussions] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological-Educational Studies, 2021. Vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 162—176. DOI:10.17759/psyedu.2021130410 (Accessed 27.12.2022). (In Russ.).
  2. Busygina N.P., Podushkina T.G., Stanilevsky V.V. Dokazatel’nyi podhod v sotsial’noi sfere: osnovnye ponyatiya i printsipy, istoriya, perspektivy [Evidence-based Approach in the Social Area: Basic Con­cepts, Guidelines, History, Prospects] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sotsial’nye nauki i detstvo = Social Sciences and Childhood, 2020. Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 8—26. DOI:10.17759/ssc.2020010101 (Accessed 27.12.2022). (In Russ.).
  3. Busygina N.P., Podushkina T.G., Freik N.V. Registry praktik kak mekhanizm dokazatel’noy sotsi­al’noy politiki v sfere zashchity detstva: analiz mezhdunarodnogo opyta [Registers of Practices as an Evidence-Based Social Policy Mechanism for Child Welfare: An Analysis of International Experience] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sotsial’nye nauki i detstvo = Social Sciences and Childhood, 2021. Vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 7—23. DOI:10.17759/ssc.2021020101 (Accessed 27.12.2022). (In Russ.).
  4. Firsov M.V., Studenova E.G. Tekhnologia sotcial’noy raboty [Social Work Technology]. Moscow: KNORUS, 2016. (In Russ.).
  5. Avby G., Nilsen P., Dahlgren M.A. Ways of Understanding Evidence-based Practice in Social Work: A Qualitative study. British Journal of Social Work, 2014. Vol. 44, pp. 1366—1383. DOI:10.1093/bjsw/ bcs198
  6. Drisko J., Grady M. Evidence-Based Practice. New York: Springer, 2012.
  7. Ebrahim A. Measuring Social Change: Performance and Accountability in a Complex World. Stanford University Press, 2019.
  8. Ebrahim A., Rangan V.K. What Impact: A Framework for Measuring the Scale and Scope of So­cial Performance. California Management Review, 2014. Vol. 56(3), pp. 118—41. DOI:10.1525/ cmr.2014.56.3.118
  9. Ekeland T., Bergem R., Myklebust V. Evidence-based Practice in Social Work: Perceptions and Atti­tudes among Norwegian Social Workers. European Journal of Social Work, 2018. Vol. 22, pp. 611—622. DOI:10.1080/13691457.2018.144113
  10. Gambrill E.D. Evidence-based Practice: An Alternative to Authority-based Practice. Fami­lies in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 2018. Vol. 99(3), pp. 283—294. DOI:10.1177/1044389418786699
  11. Gibbs L.E. Evidence-Based Practice for the Helping Professions: A Practical Guide with Integrated Multimedia. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thompson Learning, 2003.
  12. Gray M., Plath D., Webb S.A. Evidence-Based Social Work: A Critical Stance. London: Routledge, 2009.
  13. Gray M., Joy E., Plath D., Webb S.A. Opinions about Evidence: A Study of Social Workers’ At­titudes towards Evidence-based Practice. Journal of Social Work, 2013. Vol. 14, pp. 23—40. DOI: 10.1177/1468017313475555
  14. James S., Lampe L., Behnken S., Schulz D. Evidence-based Practice and Knowledge Utilisation — a Study of Attitudes and Practices among Social Workers in Germany. European Journal of Social Work, 2018. Vol. 22, pp. 763—777. DOI:10.1080/13691457.2018.1469475
  15. McCracken S.G., Marsh J.C. Practitioner Expertise in Evidence-based Practice Decision Making. Research on Social Work Practice, 2008. Vol. 18(4), pp. 301—310. DOI:10.1177/1049731507308143
  16. Parkhurst J.O., Abeysinghe S. What Constitutes “Good” Evidence for Public Health and Social Policy-Making? From Hierarchies to Appropriateness. Social Epistemology, 2016. Vol. 30(5—6), pp. 665—679. DOI:10.1080/02691728.2016.1172365
  17. Pervin M., Hagmayer Y. Attitudes towards Evidence-based Practice of Professionals Working with Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder in Bangladesh. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 2022. Vol. 49, pp. 861—880. DOI:10.1007/s10488- 022-01205-2
  18. Roberts A.R., Yeager K.R. (Eds.). Foundations of Evidence-Based Social Work Practice. Oxford Uni­versity Press, 2006.
  19. Soydan H. Evidence and Policy: The Case of Social Care Services in Sweden. The Policy Press, 2010. Vol. 6(2), pp. 179—193. DOI:10.1332/174426410X502301
  20. Scurlock-Evans L., Upton D. The Role and Nature of Evidence: A Systematic Review of Social Workers’ Evidence-based Practice Orientation, Attitudes, and Implementation. Journal of Evidence- Informed Social Work, 2015. Vol. 12, pp. 369—399. DOI:10.1080/15433714.2013.853014
  21. Upshur R.E.G., Van Den Kerkhof E.G., Goel V. Meaning and Measurement: An Inclusive Model of Evidence in Health Care. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2001. Vol. 7(2), pp. 91—96. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00279.x
  22. Van der Zwet R.J., Beneken genaamd Kolmer D.M., Schalk R., Van Regenmortel T. Views and Atti­tudes towards Evidence-based Practice in a Dutch Social Work Organization. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 2019. Vol. 16, pp. 245—260. DOI:10.1080/23761407.2019.1584071
  23. Ward T., Haig B.D., McDonald M. Translating Science into Practice in Clinical Psychology: A Re­formulation of the Evidence-Based Practice Inquiry Model. Theory & Psychology, 2022. Vol. 32(3), pp. 401—422. DOI:10.1177/09593543211059816 

Information About the Authors

Natalya P. Busygina, PhD in Psychology, Assistant Professor, Department of Counselling and Clinical Psychology, Chair of Individual and Group Psychotherapy, Moscow State University of Psychology an Education, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:

Tatiana G. Podushkina, Head of the Sector «Center for Evidence-Based Social Design», Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:

Anastasia V. Zasimova, psychologist, lead analyst, Center for Evidence-Based Social Design, Moscow State University of Psychology & Education, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:



Total: 282
Previous month: 18
Current month: 8


Total: 102
Previous month: 7
Current month: 0