| Course | MSW 515 Advanced Social Work Research |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Literature matrix |
| Length | About 510 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 515 Week 3
Literature Matrix for Evaluating a Peer-Taught Family Education Course: Five Sources in Comparable Columns, Instruments Named Exactly, and a Final Column That Says What Each Row Changes in the Evaluation Plan
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 515: Advanced Social Work Research
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Literature Matrix for Evaluating a Peer-Taught Family Education Course: Five Sources in Comparable Columns, Instruments Named Exactly, and a Final Column That Says What Each Row Changes in the Evaluation Plan
How to Read the Matrix
Rows are sources chosen because they bear on this course: the trial of the same model (Dixon et al., 2011), its follow-up (Lucksted et al., 2013), a review of the wider family psychoeducation field (Lucksted et al., 2012) and two instruments (Koren et al., 1992; Kessler et al., 2002). Columns are kept consistent, so the outcome and instrument columns can be read down the page.
Table 1
Literature Matrix for the Family Education Course Evaluation
| Source | Population and setting | Intervention as delivered | Outcomes and instrument | Design | Finding | What it changes in this plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dixon et al. (2011) | 318 relatives, five Maryland counties | 12-week peer-taught course | Empowerment, knowledge, coping, burden, distress | Randomized, wait-list control | Gains in empowerment and knowledge; burden unchanged | Use a wait-list comparison; do not promise less burden |
| Lucksted et al. (2013) | Trial participants, 6-month follow-up | Same course | Same measures at 9 months | Follow-up of trial arm | Gains held; more sessions, larger empowerment gain | Record sessions attended for each relative; analyze by dose |
| Lucksted et al. (2012) | Review of family psychoeducation studies | Many professional and short forms | Relapse, functioning, family outcomes | Narrative review | Mostly positive; uneven methods | Name our course as peer-taught, not clinician-led, when comparing |
| Koren et al. (1992) | Parents of children with emotional disabilities | None; instrument study | Family Empowerment Scale, 34 items | Psychometric | Three subscales with good reliability | Adapt child wording; report the adaptation as a limit |
| Kessler et al. (2002) | U.S. and Australian survey samples | None; instrument study | K6, six items on distress in the past 30 days | Psychometric | Short scale screens distress well | Add K6 as a brief second outcome |
Note. Note. Lucksted et al. (2012) is the family psychoeducation review; Lucksted et al. (2013) is the trial follow-up.
Reading Across the Rows
Read down the outcome column and one result repeats: the peer-taught course moves knowledge and empowerment, and it does not move burden. Read down the last column and the plan takes shape: a wait-list comparison, empowerment as the primary outcome, a short distress scale as the second and attendance recorded per person.
Gaps Recorded as Gaps
No source tests the eight-session version our center uses, and none was set in a rural or small-city agency. The empowerment scale has no published validation for relatives of adults. Those are gaps, and the plan will say so rather than borrow certainty from studies of a different course.
Sources Left Out
A burden instrument from dementia caregiving was considered and set aside, since its items fit caregivers of older adults, and the trial of the same model found burden did not change.
References
Dixon, L. B., Lucksted, A., Medoff, D. R., Burland, J., Stewart, B., Lehman, A. F., Fang, L. J., Sturm, V., Brown, C., & Murray-Swank, A. (2011). Outcomes of a randomized study of a peer-taught Family-to-Family Education Program for mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 62(6), 591-597. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0591
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S.-L. T., Walters, E. E., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959-976. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702006074
Koren, P. E., DeChillo, N., & Friesen, B. J. (1992). Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disabilities: A brief questionnaire. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37(4), 305-321. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079106
Lucksted, A., McFarlane, W., Downing, D., & Dixon, L. (2012). Recent developments in family psychoeducation as an evidence-based practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38(1), 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00256.x
Lucksted, A., Medoff, D., Burland, J., Stewart, B., Fang, L. J., Brown, C., Jones, A., Lehman, A., & Dixon, L. B. (2013). Sustained outcomes of a peer-taught family education program on mental illness. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 127(4), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01901.x
The Chamberlain MSW 515 Week 3 instructions
The matrix for week 3 should be narrow and deep. Use columns for the source, the population and setting, the intervention as actually delivered, the outcomes and the instrument behind each, the design and the finding. Add a final column that says what the row contributes to the evaluation you are planning, because that column is the reason for the exercise. Keep entries short and consistent, so the same phrase means the same thing down a column and the grid can be read vertically. Choose sources because they bear on your program, including instrument studies if you will use those measures. Follow the row count your section sets. Then write a short synthesis that reads across rows, and record gaps where no source answers your question.
How the MSW 515 Week 3 example is put together
An opening paragraph explains why each row was chosen and cites all five sources. Table 1 lays out the rows: Dixon et al. (2011), a randomized wait-list trial of 318 relatives; its follow-up by Lucksted et al. (2013), where gains held and attendance predicted larger empowerment changes; the review of family psychoeducation by Lucksted et al. (2012); the empowerment scale study by Koren et al. (1992); and the K6 study by Kessler et al. (2002). Each row's final cell names a decision, such as using a waiting list or recording attendance per relative. The synthesis reads down the outcome column and finds that burden never moves. A gaps section notes that no source tests the eight-session version, and a final note explains why a caregiver burden scale was set aside.
MSW 515 Week 3 rubric: what full points look like
The final column carries the most weight. Faculty want a matrix that supplies the evaluation plan, so a grid of complete summaries with an empty or generic last column scores poorly. Consistency down the columns is checked next: one row naming a validated instrument while another says questionnaire makes comparison impossible and costs points. Sources must be relevant to the program, not merely easy to find, and instrument studies count when the plan will use those measures. The synthesis should read across rows to a conclusion. Recording gaps honestly earns credit. Cells should be compressed phrases, with full APA references beneath the matrix and every source in the grid cited.
Common MSW 515 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Matrices most often lose points by reviewing instead of supplying: every study summarized, nothing decided. Inconsistent columns are the next problem, especially outcome columns that name a scale in one row and describe a feeling in the next. Some students include studies of loosely related programs because they appeared first in a database search, then cannot say what those rows contribute. Others hide gaps by stretching a study of a different population. If your program is different, perhaps a jail re-entry service or a school attendance team, the same grid works with your own rows. A matrix written for your evaluation would choose sources for their bearing on your question and make the last column say what each one changes.
Get a MSW-515 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 3 instructions with the column headings your section requires, and a filled matrix on your own topic comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, first one free. Tell us the program you selected in Week 1 and the rows are chosen to feed the evaluation you are actually building.
More MSW 515 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 515 Week 1: Program to Evaluate Post
- MSW 515 Week 2: Logic Model and Evaluation Question
- MSW 515 Week 4: Evaluation Design Plan
- MSW 515 Week 5: Single-system Design Write-up
- MSW 515 Week 6: Data Analysis Write-up
- MSW 515 Week 7: Program Evaluation Plan
- MSW 515 Week 8: Findings Presentation
- MSW 516 Week 3: Individual Level Application
- MSW 514 Week 3: Biopsychosocial Assessment of D.
- MSW 517 Week 3: First Move Memo
- MSW 513 Week 3: Kin Licensing Policy Brief
MSW 515 Week 3 questions, answered
Is this the same matrix I built in the earlier research course?
The grid looks similar and the purpose is not. There the columns served appraisal, so quality and limitations carried the weight. Here they serve construction: you are shopping for an outcome worth measuring, an instrument that already exists, and a design somebody managed on an agency budget. The same article can appear in both and yield different notes.
What if almost nothing has been evaluated on my program?
That is common for small agency services and it is usable rather than fatal. Widen to the intervention type rather than the exact program, record in the matrix that direct evaluations are scarce, and let the synthesis say so plainly. A documented thin evidence base is a stronger justification for evaluating than a crowded one.
How long should each cell be?
Short enough to compare and long enough to mean something, usually a phrase rather than a sentence. The test is whether you can read a whole column in one pass and see a pattern. Cells holding three lines of prose defeat the format, and at that point the matrix has quietly become a summary table doing nobody any good.
Where can I find a free MSW 515 Week 3 sample paper?
You can read a full MSW 515 Week 3 literature matrix built around a family class with volunteer teachers here, with its five-row table and margin notes.
What does the last column of the MSW 515 Week 3 matrix do?
It states what each source changes in the evaluation plan, such as using a waiting list, choosing empowerment as the primary outcome or recording attendance for each relative.