| Course | MSW 516 Advanced Social Work Theory Across Systems |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Individual level application paper |
| Length | About 570 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 516 Week 3
Individual Level Application of Bandura's Self-Efficacy Terms to W., 78, Homebound Above a Failing Elevator: Each Term Given a Referent in This Life, Absences Written Down and the Word Strength Kept to One Sense
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 516: Advanced Social Work Theory Across Systems
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Individual Level Application of Bandura's Self-Efficacy Terms to W., 78, Homebound Above a Failing Elevator: Each Term Given a Referent in This Life, Absences Written Down and the Word Strength Kept to One Sense
The Person and the Situation
W., 78, widowed, lives on the ninth floor of a 180-unit subsidized building with a grandson, J., 19, who works nights. W. has heart failure, managed with medication, and uses a cane. Since August the elevator has stopped four times. Sources: two home visits, a phone call with J. with W.'s consent and the building's posted outage notices.
Efficacy Expectation
The referent is W.'s stated judgment about one act: climbing nine flights back up after an appointment. It is low and specific. W. rates going down as possible.
Outcome Expectation
The referent is W.'s belief that reaching the cardiology clinic would help. It is high. The gap between these two judgments is what the theory says should keep W. at home, and W. is at home.
Performance Accomplishments
The referent is a single event: in August, during the first outage, W. climbed from the lobby to the fourth floor, sat on the landing for 20 minutes and was helped the rest of the way by a neighbor. Bandura treats one's own past performance as the strongest source of efficacy information (Bandura, 1977). This performance was read by W. as failure, not partial success, which is why it lowered the judgment rather than raising it.
Vicarious Experience
Absent. No one W. knows of a similar age has used the stairs and done well. The absence is recorded as a finding: one of the four sources the theory names has nothing to supply in this life.
Verbal Persuasion
The referent is J.'s phrase, said most mornings, "You've got this." W. calls it "sweet" and does not change the judgment. The theory predicts persuasion is weaker than performance when the two disagree, and here they do.
Emotional Arousal
The referent is a bodily event: W. reports a pounding heart and short breath when opening the stairwell door. W. reads that as proof of incapacity. Some of it may be heart failure and some fear; the theory concerns how the state is interpreted, not its cause.
Magnitude
The referent is the difference between down and up. W. ranks the tasks: nine floors down is attempted in imagination, nine up is not.
Strength
In this paper strength means only Bandura's sense: how well the judgment resists contrary experience. It does not mean muscle. W.'s judgment is weak in that sense, since one bad landing in August overturned it. A falls efficacy item on stairs (Tinetti et al., 1990) would capture its level, not its strength, so the two are kept apart.
What the Case Is Made Of
Every referent above is a statement W. made, an event J. confirmed or a posted outage date. Nothing is inferred from W.'s age or diagnosis. The case, read through these terms, is a person whose most powerful source of information, a past performance, points the wrong way, with no model and only a weak persuader.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Tinetti, M. E., Richman, D., & Powell, L. (1990). Falls efficacy as a measure of fear of falling. Journal of Gerontology, 45(6), P239-P243. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/45.6.P239
MSW 516 Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
The individual application uses the term list from your scope brief as its structure. Give a compact account of the person and situation, with your sources, and then give each term its own passage. Every passage should end with the thing in this person's life that the word denotes: a particular argument, an hour of the day, a refusal or a sentence the client said. Do not call anything an illustration of a concept; use the concept to say something about the person. Where a term has no referent, write that down as a finding. Keep each word to one sense throughout, especially words with everyday meanings. Close by saying what the case is made of, so later papers can compare against it.
How this MSW 516 Week 3 example is built
A short opening introduces W., 78, J., 19, the building and the four outages, and lists the sources: two home visits, a call with J. and posted notices. Each term then has a passage. Efficacy expectation is W.'s judgment about the climb back up; outcome expectation is W.'s belief in the clinic. Performance accomplishments point to the August climb to the fourth floor, read as failure, citing Bandura (1977) on the weight of one's own performance. Vicarious experience is recorded as absent. Verbal persuasion is J.'s daily phrase, and emotional arousal is the pounding heart at the stairwell door. Magnitude separates down from up, and strength is kept to resistance against contrary experience, with Tinetti et al. (1990) noted as measuring level only.
Where the points sit in the MSW 516 Week 3 rubric
Faculty grade this paper mainly on referents. A reading that uses every term correctly and describes the person warmly, yet never says what in this life each word points to, loses the largest share because week 5 will have nothing to compare. Next comes consistency: a word used in two senses passes unnoticed here and produces an untestable claim later, so one sense per word is checked. Recording absences earns credit. The paper should be organized by the framework, not by the case history. Sources for each referent should be clear. APA citations to the primary statement are expected, and the case account should be compact enough that the terms carry the paper.
Common MSW 516 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The costliest version names no referents at all: fluent use of the theory with no sentence saying what each term points to. Close behind is a word carrying two meanings, such as strength meaning both physical capacity and resistance of a belief. Papers also go wrong when the case runs the structure, with a life history followed by a paragraph of theory. Some fill an absent source with a general comment instead of saying it is absent. If your framework and person are different, perhaps attachment terms applied to a young parent, the same arrangement holds: term by term, a referent for each, absences written down. A custom reading built on your term list would end every passage with the specific act or statement the word denotes.
Get a MSW-516 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Nothing in MSW-516 runs through a placement or asks anyone to sign anything, so a paper is the whole of what changes hands here. Send the assignment as written, with your section's framework and case material, and a custom Week 3 application comes back in 24-48h, free the first time.
More MSW 516 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 516 Week 1: Efficacy Expectation Term Post
- MSW 516 Week 2: Self-Efficacy Scope Brief
- MSW 516 Week 4: Family Level Application
- MSW 516 Week 5: Organizational Level Application
- MSW 516 Week 6: Community Level Application
- MSW 516 Week 7: Level Mismatch Memo
- MSW 516 Week 8: Cross-level Theory Paper
- MSW 517 Week 3: First Move Memo
- MSW 515 Week 3: Family Education Literature Matrix
- MSW 514 Week 3: Biopsychosocial Assessment of D.
- MSW 513 Week 3: Kin Licensing Policy Brief
MSW 516 Week 3 questions, answered
Is the individual paper meant to be the straightforward one?
It reads that way and it is scored on something drafts rarely notice. The framework fits here because this is the size it was written for, so the paper cannot earn much by demonstrating fit. What it earns is precision: named referents, one sense per term, absences recorded. Those are the things the later applications are compared with, and a vague Week 3 makes Week 5 unmarkable.
How much of the case belongs in the paper?
Less than feels comfortable. The sample gives a compact account and then stops, because the marking sits on what the framework does with the material rather than on the material itself. Instructors already have the vignette. A case section running several pages tends to leave the framework with fewer pages than the marking gives it weight.
Does the same case have to run through the whole term?
Many sections keep one case in view so the levels stay comparable, and the sample assumes that unless your instructions say otherwise. Where a section supplies fresh material each week, the framework and its term list stay constant instead, which is what the course is actually tracking. Either arrangement works provided the words being carried are the same ones.
Where can I find a free MSW 516 Week 3 sample paper?
The full MSW 516 Week 3 individual level reading of self-efficacy terms for a homebound older adult appears below, and its margin notes point out each referent and each absence.
Why does the MSW 516 Week 3 sample keep the word strength to one sense?
Because in Bandura's paper strength means how firmly a judgment resists contrary experience, and letting it also mean physical strength would produce a claim later weeks could not test.