‫ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ ‪www.onlinedoctranslator.

com -‬‬

‫ﺭﺍﺟﻊﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻗﺸﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﻠﻔﺎﺕ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ‪https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285939058:‬‬

‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ‬

‫ﺷﺮﻁﻓﻲﺑﺤﺚ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ · ﻳﻮﻟﻴﻮ ‪2014‬‬

‫ﺩﻭﻯ‪10.1177/1049731514540340:‬‬

‫ﻳﻘﺮﺃ‬ ‫ﺍﻗﺘﺒﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬

‫‪279‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬

‫‪3‬ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﺸﺘﻤﻞ‪:‬‬

‫ﺭﻳﻨﻴﻪﺷﺎﻟﻚ‬ ‫ﺭﻳﻨﺴﻜﻲﻓﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﺮ ﺯﻭﻳﺖ‬

‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔﺗﻴﻠﺒﻮﺭﻍ‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔﺗﻴﻠﺒﻮﺭﻍ‬
‫‪240‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ‪6,573‬ﺍﻗﺘﺒﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪6‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﻮﺭﺍﺕ‪68‬ﺍﻗﺘﺒﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬

‫ﺍﻧﻈﺮﺍﻟﻤﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻧﻈﺮﺍﻟﻤﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺸﺨﺼﻲ‬

‫ﺗﻢﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺤﺔ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔﺭﻳﻨﻴﻪ ﺷﺎﻟﻚﻓﻲ ‪ 14‬ﺩﻳﺴﻤﺒﺮ ‪.2015‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﺪﻃﻠﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡ ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻨﺰﻳﻠﻪ‪.‬‬

 ‫ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﺑﺤﺜﻴﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺤﺚﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬

‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬

‫‪11-1‬‬
‫‪ª‬ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒ )ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ( ‪ 2014‬ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻊ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻹﺫﻥ‪rsw.sagepub.com:‬‬
‫‪DOI: 10.1177/1049731514540340‬‬
‫‪/journalsPermissions.nav‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫‪sagepub.com‬‬

‫ﺷﺎﻟﻚ‪2‬‬ ‫ﺭﻳﻨﺴﻜﻲﺟﻲ ﺇﻡ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﺮ ﺯﻭﻳﺖ‪ ،1‬ﺩﻳﺮﺩﺭﻱ ﻡ‪ .‬ﺑﻴﻨﻴﻜﻴﻦ ﺟﻨﺎﻣﺪ ﻛﻮﻟﻤﺮ‪1‬ﻭ ﺭﻳﻨﻴﻪ‬

‫ﺧﻼﺻﺔ‬
‫ﺃﻫﺪﺍﻑ‪:‬ﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ )‪ (EBP‬ﻭﺗﺴﺘﻜﺸﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺪﺩﺓ )‬
‫ﻣﺜﻞﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ( ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔ‪.‬ﻃﺮُﻕ‪:‬ﺗﻢ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ‪ 341‬ﻋﺎﻣﻼ ًﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎً ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺎً ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﺗﻀﻤﻦ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ (‪ ،EBP )EBPPAS‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ ‪ 13‬ﺳﺆﺍﻻً ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺎً‪/‬ﺩﻳﻤﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎً‪.‬ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‪:‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻨﺨﻔﺾ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻦﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﺴﻴﻄﺔ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻭﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ًﺣﻮﻟﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻮﺍﻳﺎﻫﻢ ﻟﻼﻧﺨﺮﺍﻁ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﺨﻔﻀﺔ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻮﻥﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻫﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﺎ ًﻧﺤﻮﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻮﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻳﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻘﻞ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ ‪ 29‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺰﻳﺪ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ ‪ 29‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً‪.‬ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺟﺎﺕ‪:‬ﻧﻮﺻﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡﺑﺪﻭﺭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻧﺸﺎﻃﺎً ﻓﻲ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻟﻠﻄﻼﺏ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻤﺎﺕﺍﻟﺪﺍﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭﺍء ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢ‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻮ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﻮﻥﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻭﺗﺴﻬﻴﻞ ‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﺪﻯ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻮﻝﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﺳﺒﺒﺎً‬
‫ﻟﻠﺸﻚ‪،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩﺍً ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء ﻓﻴﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖﺑﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﻭﻓﺎﺋﺪﺓ ‪ EBP. EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻝ‪Vereniging van Maatschappelijk Werkers )]،‬‬
‫‪Nederlandse‬ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪ .‬ﻫﻢ ‪ EBP‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺻﻞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﻤﺎﺛﻠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻋﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉ ﺑﺪﺃ ﺑﻬﺪﻑ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ‪)NVMW، 2011(.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ( ﻓﻲ ﻣﻠﻔﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻥﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﺻﺔ ﻗﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﺍً ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻤﻴﺔﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺘﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻷﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﺰﺍﻝ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﻡ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻫﺬﺍﺍﻟﻤﺠﺎﻝ ‪NVMW[،‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺇﻃﻼﻕ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻭﻉ‬
‫‪1‬ﺗﺮﺍﻧﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺗﻴﻠﺒﻮﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﺗﻴﻠﺒﻮﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺘﺮﺍﻑ‪،‬ﻣﻮﻓﻴﺰﻱ‪ ،‬ﺃﻭﺗﺮﻳﺨﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫‪2‬ﺗﺮﺍﻧﺰﻭ‪ ،‬ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺗﻴﻠﺒﻮﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﺗﻴﻠﺒﻮﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻒﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪:‬‬
‫‪.‬ﺃﻭﺗﺮﺧﺖ‪،‬ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ ‪، Movisie،‬ﻛﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ ﺗﻴﻠﺒﻮﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﺹ‪.‬ﺏ‬
‫‪ 5000،90153‬ﺟﻨﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻴﻠﺒﻮﺭﺝ‪ ،‬ﻗﺴﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺣﺘﺮﺍﻑ ‪JM van der Zwet، Tranzo،‬‬
‫‪Renske‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ‪RJMvdrZwet@uvt.nl :‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺬﺇﺩﺧﺎﻟﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻬﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺟﺎﻣﺒﺮﻳﻞ )‪(1999‬‬
‫ﻭﻣﺎﻛﺪﻭﻧﺎﻟﺪ)‪ ،(1998‬ﺃﺻﺒﺤﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ )‪(EBP‬‬
‫ﻣﺆﺛﺮﺓﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﺰﺍﻳﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﺳﻴﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻃﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔﺍﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪.‬ﻛﻨﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﺳﺘﺮﺍﻟﻴﺎ‪ .‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺩﻭﻝ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﺃﻭﺭﻭﺑﺎ‪ ،‬ﺑﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻓﻲﺫﻟﻚ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻵﻥ ﺣﺚ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﺰﺍﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻦﻗﺒﻞ ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪ .EBP‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺪﺍﻟﻤﺎﺿﻲ ﺃﻭ ﻧﺤﻮ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺗﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔﻭﻫﻴﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻮﻳﻞ ﺑﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎءﻟﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﺃﺩﻯ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻻﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺑـ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻮﺳﻴﻠﺔ ﻟﻼﺣﺘﺮﺍﻑ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ )ﺳﺘﻴﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻥ ﺩﻥ ﺑﻴﺠﻴﻼﺭ‪ & ،‬ﻗﺸﻮﺭ‪ .(2010 ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ‬
‫‪،2008‬ﻛﻠﻔﺖ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﺎًﻣﺪﺗﻪ ‪ 5‬ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻟﻠﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﺎﻟﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻲﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ‪) Movisie‬ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻱ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ(‬
‫ﻟﺘﺸﺠﻴﻊﻭﺗﺴﻬﻴﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺗﺎﺣﺔ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﻣﺠﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻣﺘﻜﺮﺭ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﻲﻋﺎﻡ ‪ 2008‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎً‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﺭﺕ ﻭﺯﺍﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻤﻮﻳﻞﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﻣﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ )‪ (MSW‬ﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺘﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮﻡﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻳﻬﺪﻑ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻜﻮﻳﻦ ﻣﻬﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﺟﺪﺩ ﻳﺮﻛﺰﻭﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎءﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﺔ‪Hogescholen، 2006) .‬‬
‫‪HBOraad/Vereniging‬؛ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺑﻴﻠﺖ‪.(2011 ،‬‬
 ‫ﺑﺤﺚﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪءﺍً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﺼﻮﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺸﺌﻮﻩﺇﻟﻰ ﻭﺟﻬﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻀﻴﻘﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﺰﺃﺓ )‪Webb, 2013‬‬
‫& ‪ .(Gambrill, 2011; Gray, Joy, Plath,‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻵﻭﻧﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﺓ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﺩﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻴﻦ ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺮﺩ‪" ،‬‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،"EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﺼﻄﻠﺢ ﺍﻟﺠﻤﻊ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ )ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﻗﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻌﻼﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻋﻮﻣﺔ ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺎً ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﻋﻮﻣﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺎً]‪[ESIs‬؛ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ ﻭﺭﻭﺑﻦ‪2012 ،‬؛ ﺛﺎﻳﺮ ﻭﻣﺎﻳﺮﺯ‪ .(2011 ،‬ﻭﻳﺸﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺟﺪ ﺑﺸﺄﻧﻬﺎ ﺃﺩﻟﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﺘﺴﻘﺔ ﺗﺒﻴﻦ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺗﺤﺴﻦﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻼء )ﺩﺭﻳﻚ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪ .(2001 ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺑﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ "ﺩﻣﺞ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﻗﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻳﺾ" )ﺳﺎﻛﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪،‬‬
‫ﺭﻳﺘﺸﺎﺭﺩﺳﻮﻥ‪،‬ﺭﻭﺯﻧﺒﺮﻍ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺎﻳﻨﺰ‪ ،2000 ،‬ﺹ ‪ .( .(1‬ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻄﻮﺍﺕﺍﻟﺨﻤﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ (1) :‬ﺻﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﺳﺆﺍﻝ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻲ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﻟﻺﺟﺎﺑﺔ؛ )‪(2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚﻋﻦ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ؛ )‪ (3‬ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻧﻘﺪﻱ ﻟﻸﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ؛ )‪(4‬‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﺗﺪﺧﻞ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺩﻣﺞ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻞ ﻭﺗﻔﻀﻴﻼﺗﻪ ﻭﻗﻴﻤﻪ؛ ﻭ )‪ (5‬ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ )‬
‫ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪،‬ﺭﻳﺘﺸﺎﺭﺩﺳﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻏﻼﺯﻳﻮ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺎﻳﻨﺰ‪ .(2005 ،‬ﺗﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﺑﺄﻫﻤﻴﺔﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ‪/‬ﻗﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﺎﻧﺐ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻓﻲ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺎﺣﺔ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺍﺗﺨﺎﺫ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫)‪.(Rubin & Parrish, 2011‬‬
‫ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪.‬ﺗﻀﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‪،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‬
‫ﻓﻲﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺤﺘﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﻳﻨﺸﻄﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺳﻊ‪ .‬ﻳﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻌﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺄﻭﻯ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺮﺩﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻣﻊ ﻛﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻦ‪،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺭﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺩﻋﻢ ﺍﻟﻼﺟﺌﻴﻦ ﻭﻃﺎﻟﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻮء‪ .‬ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ )‪ (NVMW‬ﺳﺠﻞ ﻣﻬﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺪﻭﻧﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻨﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻭﻗﻮﺍﻋﺪ ﺗﺄﺩﻳﺒﻴﺔ؛ ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻻ ﻳﻄﻠﺐ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﻗﻴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺘﺨﻔﻴﺾﺗﻤﻮﻳﻞ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲﺗﻌﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻮﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺇﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﻨﻈﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻭﺗﺨﻔﻴﻀﺎﺕﻭﺗﺨﻔﻴﻀﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻴﺰﺍﻧﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻬﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺐ‪ ،‬ﺗﺘﻨﺎﻗﺺ ﺍﻟﻘﺸﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻧﺔﻟﻠﻤﻬﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﻭﺗﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺒﻞﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،2009‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ ﻳﺸﺘﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻓﻘﻂﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ )ﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ(‪ .‬ﺍﺛﻨﻲ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺻﻞ ‪ 14‬ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺠﺎً ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱﺑﻬﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ) ‪Werk en Dienstverlening‬‬
‫‪Maatschappelijk‬ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ(‪،‬ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﻮﻳﺔ‬
‫‪) Hulpverlening‬ﺃﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺑﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫‪) Maatschappelijke vorming‬ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ( ﻭﺍﺛﻨﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻬﻢﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺑﻜﺎﻟﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﺳﻌﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪MSW‬‬
‫ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔﻟﻠﺤﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺒﺮﺓ ﻳﺘﺠﺎﻭﺯ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ)‪.(HBO-raad/Vereniging Hogescholen، 2006‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﺪﻑﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪ MSW‬ﻫﻮ ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻴﺔ )ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ( ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺇﺿﻔﺎء ﺍﻟﻄﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫ﻭﺧﻠﺺﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍﺟﺎﻫﺰﺍً "ﻷﺳﻠﻮﺏ ﺻﺎﺭﻡ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺎءﻟﺔ ﻣﺜﻞ (‪Reverda, 2010‬‬
‫& ‪.EBP" )Potting, Sniekers, Lamers,‬‬
‫ﻓﻲﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻟﻸﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻮﻝﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ ﻫﻮ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺒﻮﻩ )ﺃﻭ ﺣﺘﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥﺍﻟﻨﻔﻮﺭ( ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺃﻧﻔﺴﻬﻢ )ﻓﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﺮ ﺯﻭﻳﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﻨﻴﻜﻴﻦﺟﻴﻨﺎﻣﺪ ﻛﻮﻟﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺎﻟﻚ ‪ .(2011 ،‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﺎﺋﻖ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎﻩ ﻭﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻄﺮﻳﻘﺔﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺴﻘﺔ ﻻﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺩﺏ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻱ‪ .‬ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺗﻜﻮﻥﺍﻷﻭﺻﺎﻑ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺔ ﺃﻭ ﺷﻔﺎﻓﺔ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺆﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺧﺎﻃﺊ ﻟـ‬
‫‪) EBP‬ﻭﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﺤﻠﻬﺎ ﺃﻭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﻘﺔ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑـ‬
‫‪ (EBP‬ﻭﻳﻌﻴﻖ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﻓﺘﻘﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻬﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻳﻤﺜﻞ ﻋﺎﺋﻘﺎً ﻣﻬﻤﺎً ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺩﺭﺍﻛﺎًﺃﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻻ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ ﺑﻨﺠﺎﺡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﺇﻻﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺪ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻬﻤﺔ ﻭﻣﻤﻜﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔﺗﻘﻮﻡ ﺑﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺁﺭﺍء ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ (‪ .EBP )Parrish & Rubin, 2012‬ﻭﻫﻮ ﻳﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺪﻯ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻤﺎﻡﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﺷﻌﻮﺭﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،EBP‬ﻭﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،EBP‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻬﺎ ﻣﻤﻜﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻏﺒﺘﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪،EBP‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﻧﺨﺮﺍﻁﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎً ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺁﺭﺍء ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ EBP‬ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺎً ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻪﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ‪،‬ﺗﺴﺘﻜﺸﻒ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ )ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ( ﺗﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪.EBP‬‬
‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﻔﻴﺪﺍً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺡ ﻃﺮﻕ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺒﻮﻝﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ (‪.EBP )Rubin & Parrish, 2010‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺟﺔﺍﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﺎ ًﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻗﺪﺣﺼﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪) .‬ﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ( ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻃﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻭ ‪.EBP‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻫﻮ ﻓﻜﺮﺓ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺻﻐﺮ‬
‫ﺳﻨﺎً‪،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺟﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ ﻗﺪ ﺣﺼﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪،‬ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﺎ ًﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﺳﻨﺎً ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻠﻘﻮﺍ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ‪ .EBP‬ﺇﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻜﺮﺓﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻲ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﺭﺑﻤﺎﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﺎ ًﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻫﻮﺍﻷﺳﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻤﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﻴﻦ‪،‬ﺳﻨﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ‪ EBP‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﻩ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻧﻘﺪﻡﺍﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺣﻮﻝ ﺳﻴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒﺇﺏ‬
‫ﻻﺗﺮﻛﺰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ "ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ"؛ ﺑﺪﻻ ًﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ‪،‬ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻳﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎً ﻣﺎ ﺗﻔﺸﻞ ﺃﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻴﻴﺰ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍﺭ ﻭ‪ .EBPs‬ﺃﻭﺻﺎﻑ‬
‫‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻝﻷﻧﻬﻢ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﺪﻻ ًﻣﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺘﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎءﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻮﻥ ﻋﺪﺩﺍً ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ًﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻭﻗﺪﻣﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺎﻭﻳﻦﺑﺮﻳﺪﻫﻢ ﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﺎﺣﺜﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺇﺣﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺑﺎﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ)‪ (15‬ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻋﺸﻮﺍﺋﻲ ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻳﻦ )‪(9‬‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﻋﺸﻮﺍﺋﻲ‪ .‬ﺃﺭﺳﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ )‪ (24‬ﺩﻋﻮﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻊﺭﺍﺑﻂ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﻤﻊﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺗﻢﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺘﺎﻥ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻢﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ )‪& Parrish, 2011‬‬
‫‪ ،(EBPPAS; Rubin‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﻓﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻭ‪45‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺼﺮﺍً‪،‬ﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺁﺭﺍء ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .EBP‬ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻫﻮ ﺃﻭﻝ ﺃﺩﺍﺓ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺤﺘﻬﺎ ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺁﺭﺍءﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﻴﻦ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻩ ﺑﻬﺪﻑ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻣﺆﺷﺮﺍﺕﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻘﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔﻭﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻤﻴﺔ )‪ .(Parrish & Rubin, 2011‬ﺗﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮﻩﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺤﺘﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ‬
‫(‪ Rubin and Parrish )2011‬ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﺓ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻣﻦ ﺁﺭﺍء‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﻴﻦ)ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ( ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑـ ‪EBP‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻜﺲ ‪.EBPs‬‬
‫ﻣﻦﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﺃﻋﻀﺎء ﻓﻲﻣﻮﺟﺮﻭﺏ‪,‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎﺃﻓﺎﺩ ﺭﻭﺑﻦ ﻭﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ )‪ ،(2011‬ﻓﺈﻥ ‪ EBPPAS‬ﻳﺘﻤﺘﻊ ﺑﺘﻨﺎﺳﻖ ﺩﺍﺧﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻤﺘﺎﺯ‪،‬ﻣﻊ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺮ ﻛﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥﺃﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ‪ .94.‬ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ‪ EBPPAS‬ﺍﻷﺻﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺒﺎﺕﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻔﺼﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ (1) :‬ﺍﻹﻟﻤﺎﻡ ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ 10) EBP‬ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ(‪ (2) ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪14) EBP‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺼﺮﺍً(‪ (3) ،‬ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ 5) EBP‬ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ(‪ (4) ،‬ﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ 8) EBP‬ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ(‪ ،‬ﻭ )‪ (5‬ﺳﻠﻮﻛﻴﺎﺕ ‪ EBP‬ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻠﻎﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎً )‪ 8‬ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ؛ ‪ .(Rubin & Parrish, 2011‬ﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮﺍﻟـ ‪ 45‬ﻣﺘﺒﻮﻋﺔ ﺑﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻟﻴﻜﺮﺕ ﻣﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ‪ 5‬ﻧﻘﺎﻁ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭ‪10‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺗﺤﻤﻞ ﺭﺩﻭﺩﺍً ﺳﻠﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﺴﺠﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻜﺴﻲ‪.‬ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺇﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺍﻟـ ‪ 45‬ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﺮﻛﺒﺔ ﺗﻘﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻣﺪﻯﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻛﻞ ﻗﺴﻢ ﻭﻟﻠﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ‪،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﺈﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒﻷﻧﻪ ﻳﺤﺘﻮﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺳﻠﺒﻲ ﻟﻠﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺤﺢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻓﻬﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺷﻤﻞﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ‪ EBPPAS‬ﻭ‪ 13‬ﺳﺆﺍﻻً ﺃﺳﺎﺳﻴﺎً‪/‬ﺩﻳﻤﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎً‪ .‬ﺗﻤﺖ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ‪) EBPPAS‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ‪ (Rubin & Parrish, 2011‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﻣﻨﻔﺼﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚ )‪ (RvdZ‬ﻭﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ )ﻣﻊ ﻣﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺩﺍﺏ]‪ [MA‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻭﺁﺩﺍﺑﻬﺎ ﻭﻣﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ(‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺎﻣﻮﺍ ﺑﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺟﻤﺘﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﺗﻔﻘﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻷﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺚﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺠﺪﺍ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺓ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺘﻴﻬﻤﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻗﺮﺭﺍ ﺃﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻟﻴﺲﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﺮﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻛﺪﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﻴﺤﺔ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻷﻥ ‪ EBP‬ﻫﻲ ﻛﻠﻤﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻌﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺗﺴﺘﺨﺪﻡﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻠﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ‪ .‬ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻤﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻄﺮﻭﺣﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻤﺎﻡﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻲ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،EBP‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪،EBP‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،EBP‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺲ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦﻓﻲ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺘﻬﻢ‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺼﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺼﺐﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻥﺩﻳﺮ ﺯﻭﻳﺖ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻝ)ﻣﻊ ﺧﺒﺮﺓ ﻻ ﺗﻘﻞ ﻋﻦ ‪ 3‬ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ؛ ﻓﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻴﻠﺖ‪ .(2011،‬ﺍﻵﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﺪﻡﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪ .MSW‬ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻷﻥ ﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ ‪ MSW‬ﺟﺪﻳﺪﺓ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﻓﻼ‬
‫ﻳﺰﺍﻝﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺩﺭﺟﺔ ‪.MSW‬‬
‫ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻴﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺗﻢﺍﻟﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻼﺋﻤﺔ )ﻥ¼‪ ،(341‬ﻭﻳﺘﺄﻟﻒ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ‪ 22‬ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ‬
‫ﺃﻧﺤﺎءﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﺎﻡ ‪ ،2012‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ‪ 61500‬ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻲﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻨﺎﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺘﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻟﻤﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺯﻳﺎﺩﺓﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺤﺪ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﺜﻮﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻮﻏﺮﻭﺏ)ﺟﻤﻌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻲ ﻟﻠﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ( ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ‪ 577) ٪80‬ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ( ﻣﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻣﻨﺘﺴﺒﺔ‪ .‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ‪٪20‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪،‬ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻴﺰ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻇﻴﻒ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﺍً‬
‫ﻷﻥﻫﺬﻩ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ﻣﻬﻨﻴﺔ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪،‬ﻓﺈﻥ‪MOgroep‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺃﺗﺎﺣﺖ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻦﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺪﺭ ﺍﻷﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻼﺋﻤﺔ ﻭﻳﻤﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﺍﻝ‪ MOgroep‬ﺃﻋﻠﻨﺖ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ‬
‫ﺇﺭﺳﺎﻝﺑﺮﻳﺪ ﺇﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻋﻀﺎء ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻟﺪﻋﻮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎءﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻴﻦ ﻟﺘﺴﺠﻴﻞ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺔﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻴﺮﺩﻳﻮﻳﻞ)ﺍﻟﺮﺍﺑﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺮﺅﺳﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻴﻦ ﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ(‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻖﻓﻴﺮﺩﻳﻮﻳﻞﻣﺴﺆﻭﻝ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻙ‪.‬ﻧﻴﻔﺠﻴﺲ )ﺍﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ‪ 13 ،‬ﻣﺎﺭﺱ ‪ ،(2014‬ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ‪%50‬‬
‫ﻣﻦﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻣﺒﻴﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻢﺗﻤﺜﻴﻠﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟـﻓﻴﺮﺩﻳﻮﻳﻞ‪.‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻌﻈﻢﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻫﻲ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً ﻭﻣﻌﻈﻤﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻭﺍﺋﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﻨﻴﻦ‪.‬ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺻﻐﺮ ﺣﺠﻤﺎً ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﺨﻠﻔﺔ ﻻ ﺗﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻇﻴﻒﻫﺬﻩ‪.‬ﻓﻴﺮﺩﻳﻮﻳﻞﺃﺭﺳﻠﺖ ﺑﺮﻳﺪﺍً ﺇﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻴﺎً ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻋﻀﺎﺋﻬﺎ )‪ 70‬ﻣﺪﻳﺮﺍً‬
‫ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﺎً( ﻹﻃﻼﻋﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺩﻋﻮﺗﻬﻢ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺩﻯﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺔ ‪ 22‬ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ )ﺗﻢ‬
‫ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‪ 16‬ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﻋﺒﺮﻣﻮﺟﺮﻭﺏ(‪.‬ﺗﻢ ﻣﻨﺢ ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎء ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻴﻦ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﺧﻴﺎﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻬﻢ ﻭﺗﻌﻈﻴﻢ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ‪ .‬ﻗﺪﻣﺖ ﺛﻼﺙ‬
‫ﻋﺸﺮﺓﻣﻨﻈﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﺎﺣﺜﻴﻦ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﺑﻌﻨﺎﻭﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﻌﺪﻫﺎ ﺃﺭﺳﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥﺩﻋﻮﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻟﻎ ﻋﺪﺩﻫﻢ ‪630‬‬
‫ﺷﺨﺼﺎً‪،‬ﺗﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺎً ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺎً ﻟﻼﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻷﺳﺒﺎﺏ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻌﻠﻖﺑﺎﻟﺨﺼﻮﺻﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﺳﺖ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﻗﺎﺋﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻌﻨﺎﻭﻳﻦﺍﻟﺒﺮﻳﺪ ﺍﻹﻟﻜﺘﺮﻭﻧﻲ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ‪ ،‬ﺃﺭﺳﻠﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺩﻋﻮﺓﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ )‪ ،(338‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻀﻤﻨﺖ‬
‫ﺭﺍﺑﻄﺎًﻣﻔﺘﻮﺣﺎً ﻟﻼﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ ﻋﺒﺮ ﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻗﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻮﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻜﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻤﻜﻦﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﻗﺒﺔ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ‪ ،‬ﺃﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺣﺜﻴﻦ ﺑﻌﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﺑﺪﻋﻮﺗﻬﻢ‪ .‬ﻟﻢ ﻳﺮﻏﺐ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺮﺅﺳﺎءﺍﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬﻳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﺴﺆﻭﻟﻴﺎﺗﻬﻢ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻋﺒﺌﺎً‬
 ‫ﺑﺤﺚﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫ﺗﻢﺇﺟﺮﺍء ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ ﺃﺣﺎﺩﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ )‪ANOVAs‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪.1‬ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ )ﻥ¼‪.(341‬‬
‫( ﻟﻔﺤﺺ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟـ‬
‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬
‫‪ :EBPPAS‬ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻲ ‪EBP‬‬ ‫‪11.89‬‬ ‫‪43.37‬‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺮ‬
‫ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ‪.‬ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﺍﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫‪10.30‬‬ ‫‪14.32‬‬ ‫ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱﻋﻠﻰ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺑﻌﺾ‬ ‫‪8.99‬‬ ‫‪10.23‬‬ ‫ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺼﺐ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻓﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬ ‫‪%‬‬ ‫ﻥ‬
‫ﺟﻨﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ‪،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ANOVAs‬‬
‫‪24.3‬‬ ‫‪83‬‬ ‫ﺫﻛﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﺣﺘﺠﻨﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻹﺟﺮﺍء ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﻳﻠﺶ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺍﻧﺘﻬﺎﻙ ﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ‬ ‫‪75.7‬‬ ‫‪258‬‬ ‫ﺃﻧﺜﻰ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺎﻧﺲﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﻢ ﺇﺷﺎﺭﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺎﺕﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺣﺠﻢﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺗﻢ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬ ‫‪16.4‬‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫>‪29‬‬
‫ﻣﺮﺑﻊﺇﻳﺘﺎ )ﺯ‪¼01. ;2‬ﺻﻐﻴﺮ؛ ‪¼06.‬ﻣﻌﺘﺪﻝ؛ ‪¼14.‬ﻛﺒﻴﺮ(‪ .‬ﻝ‬ ‫‪22.3‬‬ ‫‪76‬‬ ‫‪30-39‬‬
‫ﻗﻤﻨﺎﺑﺘﻘﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺧﻄﺄ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﻉ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺟﺮﻳﻨﺎ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﻻﺣﻘﺔ ﻣﺨﺼﺼﺔ‬ ‫‪22.9‬‬ ‫‪78‬‬ ‫‪40-49‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺗﻮﻛﻲ ﻟﻠﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻬﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﺩﻕ )‪(HSD‬‬ ‫‪38.4‬‬ ‫‪131‬‬ ‫‪<50‬‬
‫ﺍﻹﻟﻤﺎﻡﺍﻟﻤﺒﻠﻎ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎً ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ‪ Games-Howell‬ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ )ﻓﻲ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫‪40.8‬‬ ‫‪139‬‬ ‫ﻻﺃﺣﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻴﻔﺎءﺍﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺗﺠﺎﻧﺲ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ(‪.‬‬ ‫‪46.0‬‬ ‫‪157‬‬ ‫ﻗﻠﻴﻞﺟﺪﺍ‬
‫‪13.2‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬ ‫ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻗﻠﻴﻼ‬
‫ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﺕﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪EBP‬‬
‫‪10.9‬‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫ﻧﻌﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺪﻝﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻭﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬ ‫‪18.8‬‬ ‫‪64‬‬ ‫ﻻﺃﻋﺮﻑ‬
‫‪70.4‬‬ ‫‪240‬‬ ‫ﻻ‬
‫ﺗﻤﺖﺩﻋﻮﺓ ‪ 992‬ﻋﺎﻣﻼ ًﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎً ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﺃ ‪ 565‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﻭﺃﻛﻤﻞ‬ ‫‪8.8‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫ﻧﻌﻢ‬
‫‪373‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ‪ .‬ﻭﺑﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﺃﺭﺩﻧﺎ ﻓﺤﺺ‬ ‫‪10.9‬‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫ﻻﺃﻋﺮﻑ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺒﻌﺪﻧﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﺄﻧﻬﻢ‬ ‫‪80.4‬‬ ‫‪274‬‬ ‫ﻻ‬
‫ﻳﻌﻤﻠﻮﻥﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ ﻭ‬ ‫ﻣﺠﺎﻝﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺍﺕﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﻧﺘﺞ ﻋﻦ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺔ ﻣﻦ ‪ 341‬ﺷﺨﺼﺎً ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎً‬ ‫‪19.4‬‬ ‫‪66‬‬ ‫ﺷﺒﺎﺏ‬
‫‪54.5‬‬ ‫‪186‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻜﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻝ‪،‬ﻭﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ‪ .٪34.4‬ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ‪341‬‬
‫‪11.1‬‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺎﻝﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻛﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻛﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻛﻞ ﺷﻲء‬ ‫‪12.3‬‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺑﻨﻮﺩﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺨﻄﻲ ﺍﻷﺳﺌﻠﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫‪2.6‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﺽﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 1‬ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ ﺍﻟﺨﻠﻔﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺪﻣﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻡ ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻹﻧﺎﺙ )‪(%75.7‬‬ ‫ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ‪.‬ﺇﺏ¼ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ؛‪¼SD‬ﺍﻻﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ‪ 43‬ﺳﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ‬

‫ﺗﺒﻠﻎﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮ ‪ 50‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً ﺃﻭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ )‪ ،(%38.4‬ﻭ‪ %22.9‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 49-40‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً‪ ،‬ﻭ‪ %22.3‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪39-30‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﺎً‪،‬ﻭ‪ %16.4‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ‪ 29‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً ﺃﻭ ﺃﻗﻞ‪ .‬ﺃﺑﻠﻐﺖ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ)‪ (٪86.8‬ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﺃﻭ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ ﻗﻠﻴﻠﺔ ﺟﺪﺍً ﺑـ ‪ .EBP‬ﺃﻓﺎﺩ‬
‫‪ %10.9‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺗﻠﻘﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻓﺎﺩﺕ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ)‪ (%8.8‬ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺗﻠﻘﻮﺍ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﺎً ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮﺍً ﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ‪ .‬ﺃﻓﺎﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢ ﺑﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪ 10‬ﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺼﺒﻬﻢﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻲ ﻭﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ‪ 14‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪.‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻟﻐﻴﻦ‬
‫)‪،%55‬ﻥ¼‪ .(186‬ﻭﻋﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻮﻥ ﺍﻵﺧﺮﻭﻥ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ )‪،%19‬ﻥ¼‪66‬‬
‫(‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺿﻌﻴﻔﺔ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ )‪،%12‬ﻥ¼‪ ،(42‬ﻛﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻦ )‪،٪11‬ﻥ¼‪(38‬‬
‫‪،‬ﻭﻏﻴﺮﻫﺎ )‪،%3‬ﻥ¼‪.(9‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺗﺴﺎﻕﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻛﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥﺃ‪ .‬ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺗﺴﺎﻕﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺗﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ‪45‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﺮﺓﻣﻤﺘﺎﺯﺍ‪ ،‬ﻣﻊ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻛﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥﺃﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞﺑﺪءﺍً ‪ .917.‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲﻟﻸﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻣﻤﺘﺎﺯﺍًﺃ‪ ،0.92‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻛﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔﺟﻴﺪﺓﺃﻕ ﻓﻮﻕ ‪ .80.‬ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔﺑﺪءﺍً ﺇﻣﺘﻠﻚﺃﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ‪.77.‬‬
‫ﻭﻛﺎﻥﺍﻟﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﺍﻷﻗﺼﺮ ﻟﻠﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻗﻞﺃﻣﻦ ‪ .68.‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎﺫﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‪،‬ﻭﺳﻨﻮﺍﺕ ﻣﻨﺬ ﺣﺼﻮﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺮﺍﻹﻧﺘﺮﻧﺖ ﻣﻊ ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺃﺟﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪﻭﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺃﻱ ﻣﺸﺎﻛﻞ‪ .‬ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺧﺎﺿﻌﺔ ﻟﻤﺠﻠﺲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔﺍﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﺪ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﻃﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻤﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺨﻀﻊ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻷﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ﻭ‪/‬ﺃﻭ ﻳﻔُﺮﺽ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢﻃﺮﻳﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺮﻑ ﻫﻲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﺤﺘﺎﺝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻘﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺑﺤﺎﺙﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻱ ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺑﺸﺮﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺗﻢﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺰﻣﺔ ﺍﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ )‪19.0 (SPSS‬‬
‫ﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴﻞﺍﻹﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻔﻴﺔ ﻭﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻻﺗﺴﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﺪﺍﺧﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻤﺜﻠﺔﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺲ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﺓﺙ‪2‬ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻷﻥ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻹﺑﻼﻍ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎً ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻨﺤﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﻧﻤﻮﺫﺝ ﻣﺎﻥ‪-‬ﻭﻳﺘﻨﻲﺵﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻠﻎ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻛﻤﻠﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ)ﻥ¼‪ (341‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 192‬ﺷﺨﺼﺎً ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺑﺪﺃﻭﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉﻭﻟﻜﻨﻬﻢ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻤﻠﻮﻩ‪.‬‬
‫‪5‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﻥﺩﻳﺮ ﺯﻭﻳﺖ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪.‬‬

‫ﺗﻘﻊﻓﻲ ‪ 8‬ﻣﻦ ﺃﺻﻞ ‪ 12‬ﻣﻘﺎﻃﻌﺔ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(3‬ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪.2‬ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭﺟﺔﺃ‪،‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻻﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬
‫ﺗﻤﺜﻴﻞﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﻗﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻤﺎﻝ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻳﻤﻜﻦ‬ ‫ﻛﻞﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﺫﻟﻚ ﺑﺤﻘﻴﻘﺔ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﻟﻜﻞ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﺠﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻥ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺮﻳﺎﺿﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻭ ﺩﺭﺟﺔﺃ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ‪MOgroep‬ﻭﻳﺘﻤﺮﻛﺰ‬ ‫‪2.9‬‬ ‫‪17.08‬‬ ‫‪128.11‬‬ ‫‪919.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ)‪(44‬‬

‫ﺍﻷﻋﻀﺎءﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻊ )ﻩ‪ .‬ﺑﻴﺠﻜﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ‪ 15 ،‬ﺃﻳﺎﺭ )‬ ‫‪3.1‬‬ ‫‪6.87‬‬ ‫‪30.89‬‬ ‫‪916.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺮﻓﺔ)‪(10‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﻳﻮ( ‪ .(2014‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫‪3.2‬‬ ‫‪4.36‬‬ ‫‪41.50‬‬ ‫‪816.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ)‪(13‬‬
‫‪3.0‬‬ ‫‪2.52‬‬ ‫‪14.79‬‬ ‫‪675.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻯ)‪(5‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻗﺪ ﻳﺨﺘﻠﻔﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫‪2.8‬‬ ‫‪5.32‬‬ ‫‪22.46‬‬ ‫‪907.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ)‪(8‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻊ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻧﻨﺎ ﻻ‬ ‫‪2.3‬‬ ‫‪6.25‬‬ ‫‪18.47‬‬ ‫‪912.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ)‪(8‬‬
‫ﻧﻌﺮﻑﺃﻱ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻻﻓﺘﺮﺍﺽ ﺃﻥ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻔﻬﻢ ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﺎﻳﺠﺐ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺗﻠﻚ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﻓﻈﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻊ‬ ‫ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ‪¼SD.‬ﺍﻻﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪.‬ﻥ¼‪.341‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪.‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﻮﺿﺢ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ 3‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻀﻢﻋﺪﺩﺍً ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺍً ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﺗﻤﺜﻴﻼ ًﺯﺍﺋﺪﺍً‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪.3‬ﻧﺒﺬﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻭ‪ MOgroep‬ﺃﻋﻀﺎء‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕﺍﻟﺼﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً ﻣﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﺗﻤﺜﻴﻼ ًﻧﺎﻗﺼﺎً‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﻨﻮﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪،‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﻤﺜﻠﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪MOgroep‬ﺃﻋﻀﺎء‬ ‫ﻋﻴﻨﺔ‬
‫‪%‬‬ ‫‪%‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﻴﻤﺎﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺲ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻣﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺍﺣﺪﺓﺙ‪2‬ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻃﻌﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﻕﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ )ﺙ‪,5.1¼2‬ﺹ¼ ‪ (17.‬ﻓﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪2.7‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﺩﺭﻳﻨﺜﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦﻳﻨﺪﺭﺟﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻴﻨﺔ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪(1‬‬ ‫‪2.5‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﻓﻠﻴﻔﻮﻻﻧﺪ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻤﻴﻊﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ )>‪%16.2 :29‬‬ ‫‪3.6‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﻓﺮﻳﺰﻻﻧﺪ‬
‫‪13.3‬‬ ‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫ﺟﻴﻠﺪﻳﺮﻻﻧﺪ‬
‫؛‪%20.6 :39-30‬؛ ‪ %28.2 :49-40‬؛ ﻭ <‪ .(٪35 :50‬ﻭﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﻕ‬
‫‪4.4‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﺟﺮﻭﻧﻴﻨﺠﻦ‬
‫ﺫﻭﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ )ﺙ‪ ،1.2¼2‬ﺹ¼ ‪ (27.‬ﻓﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺬﻛﻮﺭ ﻭﺍﻹﻧﺎﺙ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫‪4.8‬‬ ‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫ﻟﻴﻤﺒﻮﺭﻍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ)ﺫﻛﻮﺭ‪ %25 :‬ﻭﺇﻧﺎﺙ‪ (%75 :‬ﻭﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬ ‫‪12.1‬‬ ‫‪13.6‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎﻝﺑﺮﺍﺑﺎﻧﺖ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ )ﺫﻛﻮﺭ‪ %27 :‬ﻭﺇﻧﺎﺙ‪.(%73 :‬‬ ‫‪15.3‬‬ ‫‪36.4‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎﻝﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‬
‫‪6.7‬‬ ‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭﻓﻴﺮﻳﺠﺴﻴﻞ‬
‫‪11.4‬‬ ‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭﺗﺮﻳﺨﺖ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻭﺓﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬ ‫‪20.8‬‬ ‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫ﺯﻭﻳﺪ‪-‬ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‬
‫‪2.5‬‬ ‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫ﺯﻳﻼﻧﺪ‬
‫‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻠﻎ‬
‫ﻋﺪﺩﺍﻟﻤﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻬﺎﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎً‪ .‬ﻣﺎﻥ ﻭﻳﺘﻨﻲﺵﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪61.5‬‬ ‫‪36.4‬‬ ‫>‪51‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔﺍﻟﻤﺒﻠﻎ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎ )ﺯ¼‪،2.69-‬ﺹ¼ ‪ .(01.‬ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥ‬ ‫‪16.7‬‬ ‫‪27.3‬‬ ‫‪51-100‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦﺃﻛﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺒﻴﺎﻥ )ﻥ¼‪ (373‬ﺣﺼﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺭﺗﺒﺔ‬ ‫‪10.4‬‬ ‫‪22.7‬‬ ‫‪101-200‬‬
‫‪،295.13‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ )ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ؛ﻥ¼‬ ‫‪11.5‬‬ ‫‪13.6‬‬ ‫< ‪200‬‬
‫‪ (192‬ﺑﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺭﺗﺒﺔ ‪ .259.43‬ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻷﻟﻔﺔ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﻉﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻠﻎﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎً‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﺃﻻ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫‪69.3‬‬ ‫‪63.6‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫‪19.8‬‬ ‫‪22.7‬‬ ‫ﺧﺪﻣﺎﺕﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‪.‬‬
‫‪6.4‬‬ ‫‪4.6‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺄﻭﻯ‬
‫‪4.5‬‬ ‫‪9.1‬‬ ‫ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‬

‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺪ ‪") 4‬ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬

‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ ‪ ،128.11‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﻛﻞ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﺃﻗﻞ ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ً)‪ (2.9‬ﻣﻦ ﻧﻘﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺘﺼﻒ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻟﻐﺔ ‪) 3‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱﻧﻮﻉ ﻟﻴﻜﺮﺕ ﻣﻦ ‪ 1‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ ،5‬ﺗﻌﻜﺲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ؛ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .( .(2‬ﻭﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ ‪ ،17.08‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﺸﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻳﺴﻤﺢ ﺑﺎﻛﺘﺸﺎﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﺪﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 2.3‬ﻭ ‪ ،3.2‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﺩﻧﻰ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻋﻲﻟﻠﺴﻠﻮﻙ )ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ(¼‬
‫‪ (2.3‬ﻭﺍﻻﺗﺠﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ )ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ¼‪ .(3.2‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺗﺠﺎﻫﺎﺕﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ )ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻛﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ(‪ (3.2¼.‬ﻭﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ)ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻛﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ¼‪ (3.1‬ﻟﻬﺎ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎﺕ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ‬
‫ﺑﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ )ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ¼‪ (2.8‬ﻭﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ)ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ¼‪2.3‬؛ ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(2‬ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻪﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﻃﻔﻴﻔﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ًﺣﻮﻟﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻧﻮﺍﻳﺎﻫﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ‬
‫ﻳﺸﺎﺭﻛﻮﻥﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻳﻈﻬﺮﻭﻥ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻣﺎً ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﺑﺮﻓﺎﻫﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻴﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻻ ﻳﺸﺎﺭﻛﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ ‪ (".EBP‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻪ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺳﻠﺒﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻌﻨﺼﺮﺍﻟﻤﺼﺤﺢ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺬﺍ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻳﻘﻴﺲ ﺷﻴﺌﺎً ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎً‬
‫ﻋﻦﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻛﻜﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻗﺮﺭﻧﺎ ﺣﺬﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺪ ‪ 4‬ﻣﻦ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻻﺗﺠﺎﻫﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ‪.‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺒﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ ،2‬ﺃﺩﻯ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﺴﻦ ﻛﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥﺃ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ‪ 816.‬ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﺩﺕ ﺇﺯﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻨﺼﺮ ‪ 4‬ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻛﺮﻭﻧﺒﺎﺥ ﺃﻣﻌﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ )‪.(919.‬‬
‫ﺗﻤﺜﻴﻞﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﺍًﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻭﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺮﻋﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻨﺎ ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻟـ‬
‫‪MOgroep‬ﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﺜﻴﻞ‪ .‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ‬
 ‫ﺑﺤﺚﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬ ‫‪6‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪.4‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻭﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﻋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺁﺧﺮ‬ ‫ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﻠﻄﻴﻒ ‪ /‬ﺃﻣﺎﻩ‬ ‫ﻣﺎ‪HVE/‬‬ ‫ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻟﺪﻱ‬

‫)ﻥ¼‪(16‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(16‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(16‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(259‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(34‬‬

‫ﺯ‪2‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬ ‫ﻡ)‪(SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ)‪(SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ)‪(SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ)‪(SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ)‪(SD‬‬

‫‪03 .‬‬ ‫‪*2.5‬‬ ‫‪(6.58)30.31‬‬ ‫‪(11.05)2.19‬‬ ‫‪(9.30)29.00‬‬ ‫‪30.55‬ﺃ)‪(6.60‬‬ ‫‪34.09‬ﺃ)‪(4.20‬‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬

‫‪03 .‬‬ ‫‪2.2‬‬ ‫‪(2.99)40.56‬‬ ‫‪(5.80)44.25‬‬ ‫‪(5.04)42.31‬‬ ‫‪(4.28)41.44‬‬ ‫‪(4.05)40.71‬‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫‪01 .‬‬ ‫‪1.0‬‬ ‫‪(1.89)15.31‬‬ ‫‪(3.98)13.88‬‬ ‫‪(2.19)4.38‬‬ ‫‪(2.41)14.80‬‬ ‫‪(2.83)15.15‬‬ ‫ﺟﺪﻭﻯ‬
‫‪03 .‬‬ ‫‪2.2‬‬ ‫‪(7.19)20.63‬‬ ‫‪(6.97)21.38‬‬ ‫‪(6.90)23.81‬‬ ‫‪(4.91)22.29‬‬ ‫‪(5.33)24.47‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ‬
‫‪01 .‬‬ ‫‪1.4‬‬ ‫‪(7.64)17.81‬‬ ‫‪(6.75)16.31‬‬ ‫‪(7.12)17.44‬‬ ‫‪(5.95)18.46‬‬ ‫‪(7.02)20.35‬‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫‪02 .‬‬ ‫‪1.6‬‬ ‫‪(17.90)124.63‬‬ ‫‪(25.55)128.00‬‬ ‫‪(22.60)126.94‬‬ ‫‪(15.95)127.54‬‬ ‫‪(16.94)134.76‬‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ‬

‫ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ‪.‬ﻟﺪﻱ¼ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ؛ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ¼ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ؛ ‪/HVE‬ﻣﺎ¼ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ؛ ﻋﺒﺪ ﺍﻟﻠﻄﻴﻒ ‪ /‬ﺃﻣﺎﻩ¼ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻷﻛﺎﺩﻳﻤﻲ ‪ /‬ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ؛ ‪¼HSD‬ﻓﺮﻕ‬
‫ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺻﺎﺩﻕ؛‪¼SD‬ﺍﻻﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎً ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ‪ 0.05‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ‪.Tukey's HSD‬‬

‫* ﻉ > ‪.05.‬‬

‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﻓﻲﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻨﺨﻔﻀﺔ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً‪.‬‬

‫ﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪،EBP‬‬
‫ﻟﻢﻧﺠﺪ ﻓﺮﻗﺎً ﺫﻭ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ‪ EBPPAS‬ﺍﻹﺟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻗﻤﻨﺎﺑﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺻﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﻊ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺟﺪ ﺭﻭﺑﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(4‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ)‪ (2011‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎً ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ )‪ (3.3‬ﻟﻠﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺑﺄﻛﻤﻠﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﻻﻟﺔﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻭﺓﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔﺍﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪،2.5¼(4,336F)،‬ﺹ¼ ‪ ،04.‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﺷﻲء‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ ﻳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 2.9‬ﻭ‪ ،3.5‬ﻣﻊ ﺃﺩﻧﻰ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻓﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ‬
‫)ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ(¼‪ (2.9‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻫﻮ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ)ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻟﻜﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ¼‪.(3.5‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺟﺪﺍً‪ .‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪.03.‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻓﻖﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ‪ %5‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ )ﺑﺸﺪﺓ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪" :‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻋﺮﻑﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﺑﻤﻬﺎﺭﺓ"‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﺗﻢ ﺗﻀﻤﻴﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﻬﻨﻲ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ )ﻡ¼‪¼SD,34.09‬‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ‪%50‬‬
‫‪ (4.20‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻦﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ )ﺑﻘﻮﺓ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪" :‬ﺃﻓﻬﻢ ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺫﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ )ﻡ¼‪.(6.60¼SD،30.55‬‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺘﻲ" )ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ(‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪،‬‬
‫ﻓﻤﻦﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﺪ ﻗﺪ ﻓﺴﺮﻩ ﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ )ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻀﻤﻦ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻤﺎﺕ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﻣﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺃﺣﻜﺎﻡﺫﺍﺗﻴﺔ؛ ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ ﻭﺭﻭﺑﻦ‪ .(2012 ،‬ﻭﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﺳﺌُﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻣﺘﻔﻘﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺃﻥ "ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪ EBP‬ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻼء" )ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻋﻤﺮ‬ ‫ﻓﺮﻋﻲﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ(‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ‪ %32‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ )ﺑﻘﻮﺓ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻢﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﻮﺍﻓﻖﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ‪ %15‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ )ﺑﻘﻮﺓ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ "ﺣﻜﻢ ﺍﻟﺰﻣﻼء‬
‫‪:1‬ﺃﻗﻞ ﻣﻦ ‪29‬؛ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪39-30 :2‬؛ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪49-40 :3‬؛‬ ‫ﺃﻭﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻓﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﺮﻣﻴﻦ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﺃﺳﺎﺳﺎً ﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪ 50 :4‬ﻭﻣﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ(‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ" )ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ(‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ %7‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ‪ EBP-PAS‬ﻟﻠﻔﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻊ‪,2.9¼(3,337F)،‬ﺹ¼ ‪) 04.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ)ﺑﻘﻮﺓ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪"" ،‬ﻟﺪﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻈﺮﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(5‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ‬ ‫ﻓﻲﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪) "EBP‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻓﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺭﻛﺔ( ﻭﻭﺍﻓﻖ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪%9‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲﻓﻲ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺟﺪﺍً‪ .‬ﺣﺠﻢ‬ ‫ﻣﻦﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ )ﺑﻘﻮﺓ( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪ " ،‬ﻟﺪﻱ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻜﻔﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ .03.‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪) '' EBP‬ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻓﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺪﺭﻛﺔ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ Tukey's HSD‬ﻟﻢ ﺗﺸﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬ ‫‪.‬ﺃﻓﺎﺩ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ %14‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ "ﻳﻨﻮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍءﺓ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.(5‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺘﻲ" ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻘﺪﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﻟﻔﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‪،‬ﻭﺃﻓﺎﺩ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ %7‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ "ﻳﻨﻮﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻔﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪،3.6¼(3,337F)،‬ﺹ¼ ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺟﻤﻴﻊﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ '' EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫‪،01‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻻ ﺷﻲء ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ )ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ)ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ(‪ .‬ﺃﻓﺎﺩ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ‪ %11‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻋﻦ "‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪ .(5‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺍءﺓﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺘﻲ" ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻲﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺟﺪﺍً‪ .‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎ‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻓﺎﺩ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ %1‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻋﻦ "‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ .03.‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬‬ ‫ﺍﻻﻧﺨﺮﺍﻁﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ "EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻘﻞ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ ‪ 29‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً )‬ ‫ﻛﺜﻴﺮﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ )ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻓﺮﻋﻲ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪1‬؛ﻡ¼‪ (6.31)¼SD،33.25‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎً ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 40‬ﻭ‪) 49‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪3‬؛ﻡ¼‪ (7.13¼SD،29.78‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‪ 50‬ﻓﻤﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪4‬؛ ﻡ¼‪.(7.02¼SD,30.21‬‬
‫‪7‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﻥﺩﻳﺮ ﺯﻭﻳﺖ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪.5‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﻄﺎﻕ ﻭﺍﺳﻊ ﻭﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﻋﻴﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪<50 :4‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪49-40 :3‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪39-30 :‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪29> :1‬‬

‫)ﻥ¼‪(131‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(78‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(76‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(56‬‬

‫ﺯ‪2‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬

‫‪03 .‬‬ ‫‪*3.6‬‬ ‫‪7.02‬‬ ‫‪30.21‬ﺏ‬ ‫‪7.13‬‬ ‫‪29.78‬ﺃ‬ ‫‪6.36‬‬ ‫‪31.49‬‬ ‫‪6.31‬‬ ‫‪33.25‬ﺃﺏ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫‪01 .‬‬ ‫‪9.‬‬ ‫‪4.25‬‬ ‫‪41.06‬‬ ‫‪4.81‬‬ ‫‪41.50‬‬ ‫‪4.33‬‬ ‫‪41.76‬‬ ‫‪3.97‬‬ ‫‪42.16‬‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫‪02 .‬‬ ‫‪2.5‬‬ ‫‪2.28‬‬ ‫‪14.65‬‬ ‫‪2.52‬‬ ‫‪14.76‬‬ ‫‪2.53‬‬ ‫‪15.43‬‬ ‫‪2.90‬‬ ‫‪14.32‬‬ ‫ﺟﺪﻭﻯ‬
‫‪01 .‬‬ ‫‪9.‬‬ ‫‪5.36‬‬ ‫‪22.07‬‬ ‫‪5.94‬‬ ‫‪22.69‬‬ ‫‪5.05‬‬ ‫‪23.18‬‬ ‫‪4.64‬‬ ‫‪22.07‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ‬
‫‪02 .‬‬ ‫‪2.5‬‬ ‫‪6.29‬‬ ‫‪17.66‬‬ ‫‪6.33‬‬ ‫‪17.87‬‬ ‫‪6.35‬‬ ‫‪19.55‬‬ ‫‪5.63‬‬ ‫‪19.71‬‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫‪02 .‬‬ ‫‪*2.9‬‬ ‫‪5.98‬‬ ‫‪125.64‬‬ ‫‪8.22‬‬ ‫‪126.60‬‬ ‫‪7.37‬‬ ‫‪131.42‬‬ ‫‪6.70‬‬ ‫‪131.52‬‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ‬

‫ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ‪¼HSD.‬ﻓﺮﻕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ؛‪¼SD‬ﺍﻻﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎً ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ‪ 0.05‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ‪.Tukey's HSD‬‬

‫* ﻉ > ‪.05.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪.6‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟـ ''ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪''.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪ :3‬ﻻ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺃﻋﺮﻑ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪ :1‬ﻧﻌﻢ‬

‫)ﻥ¼‪(240‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(64‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(37‬‬

‫ﺯ‪2‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﺭﺓﺳﺎﺑﻘﺔ ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻓﻲ ‪EBP‬؟‬

‫‪04 .‬‬ ‫‪***9.26‬‬ ‫‪7.32‬‬ ‫‪30.06‬ﺃﺏ‬ ‫‪4.71‬‬ ‫‪32.08‬ﺏ‬ ‫‪5.72‬‬ ‫‪34.27‬ﺃ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫‪04 .‬‬ ‫‪***7.67‬‬ ‫‪4.37‬‬ ‫‪41.13‬ﺏ‬ ‫‪3.49‬‬ ‫‪41.39‬ﺃ‬ ‫‪4.83‬‬ ‫‪44.08‬ﺃﺏ‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫‪02 .‬‬ ‫‪2.87‬‬ ‫‪2.48‬‬ ‫‪14.79‬‬ ‫‪2.20‬‬ ‫‪15.27‬‬ ‫‪3.11‬‬ ‫‪14.03‬‬ ‫ﺟﺪﻭﻯ‬
‫‪03 .‬‬ ‫‪***9.69‬‬ ‫‪5.59‬‬ ‫‪22.02‬ﺏ‬ ‫‪4.70‬‬ ‫‪22.63‬ﺃ‬ ‫‪3.57‬‬ ‫‪25.05‬ﺃﺏ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ‬
‫‪05 .‬‬ ‫‪***11.63‬‬ ‫‪6.45‬‬ ‫‪17.75‬ﺏ‬ ‫‪5.16‬‬ ‫‪18.92‬ﺃ‬ ‫‪5.18‬‬ ‫‪22.32‬ﺃﺏ‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫‪07 .‬‬ ‫‪***12.17‬‬ ‫‪7.46‬‬ ‫‪125.74‬ﺃ‬ ‫‪3.39‬‬ ‫‪130.28‬ﺏ‬ ‫‪5.26‬‬ ‫‪139.76‬ﺃﺏ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ‬

‫ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ‪.‬ﺇﺏ¼ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ؛ ‪¼HSD‬ﻓﺮﻕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ؛‪¼SD‬ﺍﻻﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺭﻣﺰ ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎً ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ‪ 05.‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻟـ ‪ Tukey's HSD‬ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺇﺟﺮﺍء‪.Games-Howell‬‬
‫* * *ﻑ> ‪.001.‬‬

‫ﻋﻠﻰﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺟﺪﺍً‪ .‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻗﻤﻨﺎﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ .04.‬ﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ‪ Games-Howell‬ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻖ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ‬
‫‪ EBP‬ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ ،(1‬ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪3‬؛ﻡ¼‪)¼SD,30.06‬ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ (7.32‬ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥﺫﻟﻚ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ ،( (2‬ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎًﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪﻡﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪3‬؛ ﺍﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪1‬؛ﻡ¼‪,34.27‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪ .(6‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﻓﺮﻗﺎً ﺫﺍ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ‪EBPPAS‬‬
‫‪ (5.72¼SD‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ‪,12.17¼(2,338F) ،‬ﺹ¼ ‪ .00.‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺎﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪2‬؛ﻡ¼‪¼SD,32.08‬‬
‫ﻓﻲﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﻌﺘﺪﻻ‪ ً.‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ .07.‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ‪EBPPAS‬‬
‫‪ .(4.71‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺗﺠﺎﻫﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎًﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ‪,7.7¼ (2,338F)،‬ﺹ¼ ‪) 00.‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪6‬‬
‫ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪1‬؛ﻡ¼‪،139.76‬‬
‫(‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫‪ (15.26¼SD‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺟﺪﺍً‪ .‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪3‬؛ﻡ¼‬
‫ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ .04.‬ﺃﺷﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ‬
‫‪ (17.46¼SD،125.74‬ﻭﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺘﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪2‬؛ﻡ¼‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )‬
‫‪.(13.39¼SD،130.28‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪1‬؛ﻡ¼‪)¼SD,44.08‬ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪ (4.83‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎً ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻦﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺕﺗﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥﺫﻟﻚ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪2‬؛ﻡ¼‪ (3.49¼SD،41.39‬ﻭﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻓﻲﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﻟﻔﺔ‪/‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻫﻲﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻭﻳﻠﺶ)‪,9.26¼(292.79F‬ﺹ¼ ‪) 00.‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪.(6‬‬
 ‫ﺑﺤﺚﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬ ‫‪8‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ‪.7‬ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻄﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟـ ""ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ"‪".‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪ :3‬ﻻ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ :‬ﻻ ﺃﻋﺮﻑ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪ :1‬ﻧﻌﻢ‬

‫)ﻥ¼‪(274‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(37‬‬ ‫)ﻥ¼‪(30‬‬

‫ﺯ‪2‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫‪SD‬‬ ‫ﻡ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻲ ‪EBP‬؟‬

‫‪00 .‬‬ ‫‪0.8‬‬ ‫‪7.14‬‬ ‫‪30.67‬‬ ‫‪6.07‬‬ ‫‪31.68‬‬ ‫‪5.05‬‬ ‫‪32.00‬‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔ‬
‫‪03 .‬‬ ‫‪**5.6‬‬ ‫‪4.18‬‬ ‫‪41.16‬ﺃ‬ ‫‪4.04‬‬ ‫‪42.16‬‬ ‫‪5.52‬‬ ‫‪43.80‬ﺃ‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫‪00 .‬‬ ‫‪0.5‬‬ ‫‪2.54‬‬ ‫‪14.75‬‬ ‫‪2.03‬‬ ‫‪15.19‬‬ ‫‪2.84‬‬ ‫‪14.73‬‬ ‫ﺟﺪﻭﻯ‬
‫‪01 .‬‬ ‫‪1.1‬‬ ‫‪5.50‬‬ ‫‪22.27‬‬ ‫‪4.20‬‬ ‫‪22.86‬‬ ‫‪4.77‬‬ ‫‪23.73‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ‬
‫‪01 .‬‬ ‫‪2.5‬‬ ‫‪6.29‬‬ ‫‪18.10‬‬ ‫‪5.93‬‬ ‫‪19.68‬‬ ‫‪5.99‬‬ ‫‪20.33‬‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻮﻙ‬
‫‪02 .‬‬ ‫‪*3.6‬‬ ‫‪7.11‬‬ ‫‪126.94‬‬ ‫‪5.50‬‬ ‫‪131.57‬‬ ‫‪7.19‬‬ ‫‪134.60‬‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ‬

‫ﻣﻠﺤﻮﻇﺔ‪.‬ﺇﺏ¼ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ؛ ‪¼HSD‬ﻓﺮﻕ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ؛‪¼SD‬ﺍﻻﻧﺤﺮﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻴﺎﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﻭﺳﺎﺋﻞ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻣﺰ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎً ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯ ‪ 0.05‬ﻭﻓﻘﺎً ﻹﺟﺮﺍءﺍﺕ ‪HSD‬‬
‫‪.Tukey's‬‬
‫* ﻉ > ‪** .05.‬ﻑ > ‪.01.‬‬

‫ﺣﺘﻰ‪ %3.8‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺑﻌﻤﺮ ‪ 50‬ﺳﻨﺔ ﻓﻤﺎ ﻓﻮﻕ )‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪ .(4‬ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏﻗﺪ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﻮﺍ ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞ ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﺳﻨﺎ‪ً.‬‬
‫ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﻟﺶ )‪F‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ‬
‫ﺃﺧﻴﺮﺍً‪،‬ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﺘﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ EBP‬ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﺄﻧﻬﻢ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪،(1‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﻻ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﻳﻌﺮﻓﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﺃﻡ ﻻ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ .(1‬ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪،(2‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪) EBP‬ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪3‬؛ ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(7‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﻕﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ EBPPAS‬ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻣﻞ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ‪،‬‬
‫)‪،3.6¼(2,338F‬ﺹ¼ ‪ .03.‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺟﺪﺍً‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﺠﻢﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ .02.‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻟﻢ ﺗﺸﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺎﺕﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ Tukey's HSD‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺃﺣﺪﺍﻷﺯﻭﺍﺝ ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ ﺣﺪﻭﺩﻳﺔ؛ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪) 1‬ﻡ¼‪(17.19¼SD ،134.60‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎً ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﺎً ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪) 3‬ﻡ¼‪¼SD,126.94‬‬
‫‪17.11‬؛ﺹ¼ ‪.(05.‬‬
‫ﺃﻇﻬﺮﺕﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕﺍﻻﺗﺠﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ‪,5.6¼(2,338F) ،‬ﺹ¼ ‪.‬‬
‫‪)00‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(7‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺟﺪﺍً‪.‬‬
‫ﺣﺠﻢﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ .03.‬ﺃﺷﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺃﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪1‬؛ﻡ¼‪)¼SD،43.80‬ﺍﻟﺸﻜﻞ ‪(5.52‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﻥﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎً ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪) EBP‬ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪3‬؛ ﻡ¼‬
‫‪ .(4.18¼SD،41.16‬ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪) 2‬ﻡ¼‪ (4.04¼SD،42.16‬ﻟﻢ ﺗﺨﺘﻠﻒ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ 1‬ﺃﻭ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ .3‬ﻭﻟﻢ ﻧﺠﺪ ﺃﻱ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ‬
‫ﺫﺍﺕﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻱ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺭﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺮﻯ )ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔ‬
‫‪ /‬ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺼﻮﺭﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ(‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪3‬؛ﻡ¼‪¼SD،41.13‬‬
‫‪ .(4.37‬ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ‪ .‬ﺃﻇﻬﺮ ﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﻟﺶ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ‬
‫‪،9.69¼(296.40‬ﺹ¼ ‪) 00.‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(6‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺟﺪﺍً‪ .‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪.03.‬‬
‫ﺃﺷﺎﺭﺇﺟﺮﺍء ‪ Games-Howell‬ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻖ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱﺍﻟﻨﻮﺍﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺓﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪1‬؛ﻡ¼‪¼SD،25.05‬‬
‫‪ (3.57‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪) 2‬ﻡ¼‪¼SD،22.63‬‬
‫‪ (4.70‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪3‬؛ ﻡ¼‪.(5.59¼SD,22.02‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻇﻬﺮﺍﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻭﻟﺶ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻓﺮﻭﻕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲﻑ > ‪05.‬‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﺶ)‪F‬‬
‫‪ ،11.63¼(2,89.27‬ﺹ¼ ‪) 00.‬ﺍﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(6‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻕ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﺍﻟﺪﺭﺟﺎﺕ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﻴﻦ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎً‪ .‬ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺑﺎﺑﺎﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡﺯ‪ ،2‬ﻛﺎﻥ ‪ .05.‬ﺍﻷﻟﻌﺎﺏ ‪ -‬ﺃﺷﺎﺭ ﺇﺟﺮﺍء ‪ Howell‬ﺍﻟﻼﺣﻖ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻄﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﻟﻠﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪) 1‬‬
‫ﻡ¼‪ (5.18¼SD,22.32‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺎً ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪) 2‬ﻡ¼‬
‫‪ (5.16¼SD,18.92‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪) 3‬ﻡ¼‪.(6.45¼SD،17.75‬‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﻨﻈﺮﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﻔﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻘﻞ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢﻋﻦ ‪ 29‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ (1‬ﻳﺒﺪﻭ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺰﻳﺪ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ ‪ 40‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺘﺎﻥ ‪ 3‬ﻭ ‪(4‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻣﻔﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺍﺗﺒﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻤﺪﺭﺑﻴﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻷﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﺎ ًﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﻣﻦﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻔﻌﻠﻮﺍ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﺴﺎءﻟﻨﺎ ﻋﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻷﻧﻬﻢ ﺗﻌﺮﺿﻮﺍ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎًﻟـ ‪ EBP‬ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﺳﻨﺎ ًﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻠﻘﻮﺍﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻣﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ‪ .EBP‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ‪ %28.5‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻘﻞ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ ‪ 29‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ (1‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺘﻨﺎ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ‬
‫ﺃﻧﻬﻢﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺣﻴﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﺖ‪ %10.5‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﺑﻴﻦ ‪30‬‬
‫ﻭ‪39‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ %10.3 .(2‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺘﺮﺍﻭﺡ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢﺑﻴﻦ ‪ 40‬ﻭ‪ 49‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً )ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ‪ (3‬ﻭ‬
‫‪9‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﻥﺩﻳﺮ ﺯﻭﻳﺖ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺟﻮﺩﺓﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﺌﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻷﺻﻐﺮ ﺳﻨﺎً‪ ،‬ﻧﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔﻭﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻮﻥﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻷﻧﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩﻫﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ ﻟﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻌﺮﺿﻮﺍﻣﺴﺒﻘﺎً ﻟـ ‪ EBP‬ﺃﺛﻨﺎء ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻬﻢ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮﺳﻨﺎ‪ ً.‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﺑﻠﻐﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢﻫﻲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺩﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻗﺎﻡ ﺑﻬﺎ ﺻﺎﻧﻌﻮ‬
‫ﻋﻦﺣﺼﻮﻟﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺳﺎﺑﻖ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺎﺕﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻤﻮﻥ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ ‪ ،EBP‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻣﻨﺨﻔﺾ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺑﻖ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫‪ .EBP‬ﺇﻧﻬﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﻃﻔﻴﻔﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ً‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،EBP‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺍً‪ .‬ﻭﻟﻢ ﻧﺠﺪ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺣﻮﻟﻬﺎ‪،‬ﻟﻜﻦ ﻧﻮﺍﻳﺎﻫﻢ ﻟﻼﻧﺨﺮﺍﻁ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻭﻕﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﻻﻟﺔ ﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﺑﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺨﻔﻀﺔﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً‪ .‬ﻋﻨﺪ ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﺑﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻳﺎﺕﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﺃﺭﺑﻊ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ‪،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺃﻗﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺲ‪،‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﺨﻔﻀﺎً ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻷﻥ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺎﻩﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻛﻠﺘﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺘﻨﺎ ﺣﺼﻠﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ )ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺘﻴﻦ‪،‬ﺣﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺩﻧﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ(‪ .‬ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﺃﺛﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻳﻴﺲﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﻤﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻛﺎﻥ ﻟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺨﻔﺾﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ‪MSW‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﻛﻞ ﺑﻨﺪ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ )‪ (2.9‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻔﺮﻋﻲ ﻟﻠﺴﻠﻮﻙ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻣﻔﺎﺟﺌﺎً‪ ،‬ﻷﻥ ﻋﺪﺩﺍً ﻗﻠﻴﻼ ًﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ)‪ .(2.3‬ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻟﻴﺴﺖ ﻣﻔﺎﺟﺌﺔ‪ ،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ‪ .MSW‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺜﻴﺮﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻼﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡﻫﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﻬﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺑﻌﺔﻣﺠﺎﻻﺕ ﺗﻢ ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎ ﻷﻥ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻣﻮﻗﺔﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺩﻣﺠﺖ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﻬﻨﻲ ﻋﺎﻟﻲ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻛﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻲﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻫﺞ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﻠﻤﻮ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً‪.‬ﻭﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺼﻌﺐ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ .‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓﻣﺘﻔﺎﺋﻠﻴﻦ ﻟﻔﺘﺮﺓ ﺃﻃﻮﻝ ﻣﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺋﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ ﺑﺸﺄﻥ ﻓﺎﺋﺪﺓ‬
‫ﻓﻲﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺲ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻮﺳﻂ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ .EBP‬ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺩﻯ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﺅﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺑﺪء ﺃﺳﺎﻟﻴﺐ ﻣﺒﺘﻜﺮﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻣﺎﻛﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ‪ .‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺁﺧﺮ ﻭﻫﻮ ﺣﺪﻭﺙ ﺗﺤﻴﺰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ ﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻲ‪،‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﻣﻬﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻂﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻴﻼ ًﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﺴﺢ‪ ،‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫)‪ .(Rubin & Parrish, 2010‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺪ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑـ ‪ ،EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲﻟﻠﺨﺮﻳﺠﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﻣﺮﻳﻜﻴﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﺈﻃﺎﺭ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻣﻮﺣﺪ ﻟﻬﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻨﻲﻋﺎﻟﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻟﻌﺪﻡ ﻭﺿﻮﺡ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‪،‬‬
‫)‪ .(Thyer & Myers, 2011‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻋﻠﻤﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻟﺸﺮﺡ ﻭﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻤﺎﺛﻠﺔﻟﺘﺜﻘﻴﻒ ﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﻷﻥﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ‪ MSW‬ﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺳﻮﻯ ﻋﺪﺩ ﻗﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻦﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ ﺣﺘﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻵﻥ‪،‬ﻓﻘﺪ ﺍﺣﺘﻮﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ 16‬ﺃﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎً ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎً ﻓﻘﻂ‬
‫ﺣﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙﺑﻌﺾ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺠﺐ ﻣﺮﺍﻋﺎﺗﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺻﻠﻨﺎﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﻟﻘﺪ ﺗﻤﻜﻨﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺪﺩ ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻛﺒﻴﺮ ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺎً ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ)ﻥ¼‪ ،(341‬ﻣﻤﺎ ﻳﻮﻓﺮ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻗﺪﺭﻩ ‪ ،%34‬ﻷﻧﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﻣﻨﺎﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﺗﻴﺠﻴﺘﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﺘﻴﻦ ﻟﻠﺘﻮﺍﺻﻞ ﻣﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻣﻊ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﻜﺸﻔﺖﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻣﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﻣﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕ ﻣﺤﺪﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ‪،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺆﺧﺬ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺗﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ %0.5‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻄﺔﺑﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،EBP‬ﺣﻴﺚ ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ‬
‫ﺇﺟﻤﺎﻟﻲﻋﺪﺩ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﻟﻎ ‪ 61.500‬ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﺎً ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺎً‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮﺍﺕﻣﻔﻴﺪﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻗﺘﺮﺍﺡ ﻃﺮﻕ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻗﺒﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺱ ﻭﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺫﻟﻚ‪،‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩﺓ ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﺗﺤﻴﺰ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻲ ﻷﻧﻨﺎ ﻟﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .EBP‬ﺗﻢ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺍﻷﻗﻮﻯ )ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎً(‬
‫ﻧﺘﻤﻜﻦﻣﻦ ﺳﺤﺐ ﻋﻴﻨﺔ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﺸﻮﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﻷﻧﻪ ﻟﻢ ﻳﺘﻢ ﻣﻨﺤﻨﺎ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﺷﺮ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﻮﺍﺋﻢ ﺃﻋﻀﺎء ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ‪MOgroep.‬ﻭﻓﻴﺮﺩﻳﻮﻳﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻣﻊ ﺃﻭﻟﺌﻚ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﻌﺪﻡ ﺍﺗﺒﺎﻉ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﻟﺠﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﺓﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭﻝ ﻣﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﻌﻤﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﻨﺲ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺼﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻧﺤﻮﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﻴﺮ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺘﻬﻢ ﺍﻟﻔﻌﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺃﻥﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻭﺍﻓﻘﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ EBP‬ﺃﻋﻠﻰ )ﻛﺎﻥ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﺻﻐﻴﺮﺍً ﺇﻟﻰ ﻣﺘﻮﺳﻄﺎً(‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻧﻬﻢ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺭﺑﻤﺎﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺗﻮﺟﻬﺎ ًﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،EBP‬ﻭﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻟﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻧﻮﺍﻳﺎﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻘﻠﻖ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺣﺪ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻛﺘﺸﺎﻓﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﺃﻋﻠﻰ؛ ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻟﻢ ﺗﻜﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺃﻛﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺓ‪.‬ﻟﻢ ﻧﺠﺪ ﺃﻱ ﻓﺮﻕ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻤﻠﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢ‪ .‬ﻳﺸﻴﺮ ﻫﺬﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻻ ﺗﻤﺜﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺍﻷﻛﺒﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﻴﻦ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻷﻟﻔﺔﺍﻟﻤﺒﻠﻎ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺫﺍﺗﻴﺎً ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﻥ ﺃﻗﻞ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻴﻨﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﻼﻭﺓﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﺟﺪﻧﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻘﻞ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻦ‪ 29‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦﺗﺰﻳﺪ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ ‪ 40‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻟﻢ ﻳﻜﻦ‬
‫ﻛﺒﻴﺮﺍً‪.‬ﻓﻲ ﺿﻮء ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻊﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺬﻛﻮﺭﺓ ﺃﻋﻼﻩ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻓﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺃﺩﻟﺔﺃﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﻛﺬﻟﻚ‬
 ‫ﺑﺤﺚﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬ ‫‪10‬‬

‫ﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .EBP‬ﻭﺑﻌﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﺃﺧﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻟﻴﺲﻣﻮﺟﻬﺎً ﻛﺜﻴﺮﺍً ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﻳﻘﺘﺮﺡ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﺍً ﻋﻠﻰ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫ﻳﺸﻌﺮﻭﻥﺑﺜﻘﺔ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺘﻬﻢ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﻥ ﻣﺠﻬﺰﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲﻭﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﻓﻴﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸﺔ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻵﺛﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻢ‬
‫ﺑﺸﻜﻞﺃﻓﻀﻞ ﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺠﻊ ﺃﻥ‬ ‫ﺃﻥﻧﻌﺘﺮﻑ ﺑﺤﺬﺭﻧﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺗﻌﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺻﻠﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬
‫ﻛﻼﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺴﻜﺎﻥﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﺭﺑﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﻴﻨﺘﻨﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻘﻞ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ ‪ 29‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺔﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﻤﺎ ﺫﻛﺮﻧﺎ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻞ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻐﻼﻑ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﺘﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﺗﻤﺜﻴﻼ ﺯﺍﺋﺪﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺮﻥﻟﻠﻤﻬﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺸﺒﺎﺏ ﻳﺘﻨﺎﻗﺺ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻮﻯ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻣﻠﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ‬ ‫ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﻴﺮﺓ ﻣﻤﺜﻠﺔ ﺗﻤﺜﻴﻼ ﻧﺎﻗﺼﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﺑﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ‬
‫ﺗﺘﻘﺪﻡﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻦ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻴﺪ ﺃﻥ ﺗﺄﺧﺬ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﺍﺭﺩ‬ ‫ﺗﻨﻄﺒﻖﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺃﻛﺒﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺸﺮﻳﺔﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻈﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻷﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺳﺒﻴﻞﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻋﻨﺪﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﻮﻣﻮﻥ ﺑﺘﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻮﻇﻔﻴﻦ ﺟﺪﺩ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﻳﺮﻏﺒﻮﻥ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﻴﺎﺭﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻫﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪.EBP‬‬ ‫ﻧﻈﺮﺍًﻷﻥ ‪ %11‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﺃﻓﺎﺩﻭﺍ ﺑﺄﻧﻬﻢ "ﻗﺮﺃﻭﺍ ﻋﻦ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻭﻣﻦﺃﺟﻞ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺃﺛﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﻴﺮ ﻟﻼﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔﻟﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺘﻲ" ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻞ ﻭﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‪،‬ﻭﺃﻓﺎﺩ ﺣﻮﺍﻟﻲ ‪ %1‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻋﻦ "ﺍﻻﻧﺨﺮﺍﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬
‫ﻳﺠﺐﺃﻥ ﺗﻬﺪﻑ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟﺪﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ "EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ ﺃﻭ ﻓﻲ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻷﺣﻴﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ﺧﻼﻝﺃﺧﺬ ﻋﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻋﺸﻮﺍﺋﻴﺔ ﻭﺭﺻﺪ ﺃﺳﺒﺎﺏ ﻋﺪﻡ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﺠﺎﺑﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙﺣﺎﺟﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺠﻊ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻬﺪﻳﺪﺍﺕﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺍﻟﺼﻼﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻣﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﻳﻘﺮﺏﻣﻦ ‪ %32‬ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ )ﺑﻘﻮﺓ( ﻭﺍﻓﻘﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﻥ "‪ EBP‬ﻳﺴﺎﻋﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬ﻋﻼﻭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﻷﺑﺤﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻰﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻼء"‪ ،‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻘﺮﺏ ﻣﻦ ‪ %5‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻮﻯﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻃﻼﺏ ‪ MSW‬ﺍﻟﻬﻮﻟﻨﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﻧﻈﺮﺍً ﻟﻬﺪﻑ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ)ﺑﻘﻮﺓ( ﻭﺍﻓﻘﻮﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﺆﺍﻝ‪" ،‬ﺃﻋﺮﻑ ﻛﻴﻒ" ﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺧﻄﻮﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‪ MSW‬ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻤﺜﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺇﻧﺸﺎء ﻣﻬﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﺟﺪﺩ ﻳﺮﻛﺰﻭﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ EBP‬ﺑﻤﻬﺎﺭﺓ‪ ''.‬ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﺗﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻼﺕﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎءﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺼﻮﺭ ﺃﻥ ﻃﻼﺏ ‪ MSW‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬ ‫ﻳﺮﺗﺒﻂﺑﻤﺴﺘﻮﻯ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﻛﺎﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻬﺎ ًﻧﺤﻮ ‪ EBP‬ﻣﻦ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻮﻥﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺭﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑـ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺻﻠﻴﻦﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﻓﻘﻂ‪ .‬ﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﺻﻲ ﺑﺘﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻷﺑﺤﺎﺙ‬ ‫‪،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺇﻳﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ ﺣﻮﻟﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻟﺪﻳﻬﻢ ﻧﻮﺍﻳﺎ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠﻴﺔﺇﻟﻰ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺪﻯ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ ،EBP‬ﻭﻛﺎﻧﻮﺍ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﺍﻧﺨﺮﺍﻃﺎً ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻟﺬﻟﻚ‪،‬‬
‫ﻃﻼﺏﺍﻟﻨﻔﺎﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻴﺔ ﻓﻌﻠﻴﺎً ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ EBP‬ﻭﻟﺘﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﻧﻮﺻﻲﺟﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﻴﺔ )ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺎﻣﻌﺎﺕ( ﺑﺄﺧﺬ ﺩﻭﺭ ﺃﻛﺜﺮ ﻧﺸﺎﻃﺎً ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻣﺞ‪) MSW‬ﻭﻳﻔﻀﻞ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻊ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺍﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻠﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺒﻌﺪﻱ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢﺍﻟﻄﻼﺏ )ﺍﻟﺒﻜﺎﻟﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ( ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫( ﻋﻠﻰ ﻃﻼﺏ ‪ MSW‬ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺤﻮ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪.EBP‬‬ ‫ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺉﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﻭﻣﻊ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺻﻴﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻋﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻳﺪﺭﻛﻮﺍﺃﻧﻪ ﻻ ﻳﻮﺟﺪ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﺘﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪.‬ﺗﻈﻬﺮ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻫﺬﺍ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻳﺮﻭﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡﻛﻔﺎﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻭﻋﺪﻡ ﺇﻣﻜﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻛﻌﺎﺋﻖ‬
‫ﺃﻣﺎﻡﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻳﺠﺐ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺻﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺷﻜﺮﻭﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔﻗﻀﺎﻳﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﻫﺬﻩ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﺜﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺲ ﻃﺮﻕ‬
‫ﻳﻮﺩﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻳﺸﻜﺮﻭﺍ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺷﺎﺭﻛﻮﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻌﺜﻮﺭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺑﻜﻔﺎءﺓ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻹﺿﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﻜﻮﻥ ﺷﻜﻮﻙ‬
‫ﻛﻤﺎﻧﺘﻘﺪﻡ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﻜﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻘﺪﻳﺮﻣﻮﻏﺮﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻓﻴﺮﺩﻳﻮﻳﻞ‪ ،‬ﻭ ‪ NVMW‬ﻟﻤﺴﺎﻋﺪﺗﻬﻢ ﻓﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﻴﻦﺣﻮﻝ ﺟﺪﻭﻯ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪ EBP‬ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎً ﺑﻤﺜﺎﺑﺔ ﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻟﻠﻌﻮﺍﺋﻖ‬
‫ﺗﻮﻇﻴﻒﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﻴﺒﻴﻦ ﻭﺗﻮﻓﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺳﺎﺳﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﻧﻘﺪﺭ ﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲﺗﻌﻴﻖ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪ .EBP‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴﺪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺫﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻛﺮﻳﺴﺘﻞﻓﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﻚ ﻭﺟﻮﻻﻧﺪﺍ ﻣﺎﺛﻴﺴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺢ ﻭﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﻭﻣﺴﺎﻋﺪﺓ ﺛﻴﺎ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺻﻠﺖﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻓﺤﺼﺖ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪EBP‬‬
‫ﻣﻴﻨﻴﻤﺎﻓﻲ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻻﺳﺘﻄﻼﻉ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻠﻐﺔ ﺍﻹﻧﺠﻠﻴﺰﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻟﺔ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻓﻲﺃﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻧﺴﺎﻧﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺣﺪﺩﺕ ﻋﺪﺓ ﻋﻮﺍﺋﻖ ﺃﻣﺎﻡ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫‪ ،EBP‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻛﻔﺎﻳﺔ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﻟﻮﻛﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺼﺼﺔ ﻟـ ‪ ،EBP‬ﻭﻧﻘﺺ ﺍﻟﻮﻗﺖ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻮﺻﻮﻝﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ )ﺟﺮﺍﻱ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ( ‪ .(2013 ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﻣﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ‬
‫ﻫﺬﻩﺍﻟﻌﻮﺍﺋﻖ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎً ﺇﻟﻰ ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﻭﻯ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﻤﺸﺎﺭﻛﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﻋﻼﻥﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻀﺎﺭﺑﺔ‬ ‫‪ EBP‬ﻭﻛﺬﻟﻚ ﺗﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ‪.EBP‬‬
‫ﺃﻋﻠﻦﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﻋﻦ ﻋﺪﻡ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺗﻀﺎﺭﺏ ﻣﺤﺘﻤﻞ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻌﻠﻖ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺤﺚﻭ‪/‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻭ‪/‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﺸﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻟﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻮﻳﻞ‬
‫ﻟﻢﻳﺘﻠﻖ ﺍﻟﻤﺆﻟﻔﻮﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺩﻋﻢ ﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﻟﻠﺒﺤﺚ ﻭ‪/‬ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﻭ‪/‬ﺃﻭ ﻧﺸﺮ ﻫﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﻟﺔ‪.‬‬

‫ﻓﻲﻏﻀﻮﻥ ﺫﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﻗﺪ ﺗﺮﻏﺐ ﺍﻟﺠﻬﻮﺩ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ‬

‫ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻊ‬ ‫‪ EBP‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺮﻛﻴﺰ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺧﺎﺹ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﺑﻨﺪﺭ‪،‬ﻙ‪ ،.‬ﺃﻟﺘﺸﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺁﻱ‪ ،.‬ﻳﻮﺩﺭ‪ ،‬ﺟﻲ‪ ،.‬ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ‪ ،‬ﺩﻱ‪ ،.‬ﻭﻧﻴﻜﻞ‪ ،‬ﺇﺱ ﺟﻴﻪ )‪.(2014‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﻟﻔﻌﻞﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﺗﺸﻴﺮ ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺪﺭﻳﺐﻃﻼﺏ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺑﻌﻮﺍ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﻓﻲ ‪ EBP‬ﻛﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻭﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﺔﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪.‬ﺑﺤﺚ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪.339-348،24 ،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦﺍﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﺗﻘﻞ ﺃﻋﻤﺎﺭﻫﻢ ﻋﻦ ‪ 29‬ﻋﺎﻣﺎً ﻳﻤﻴﻠﻮﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮﺍ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻯ‪10.1177/1049731513506614:‬‬ ‫ﺃﻛﺜﺮﺩﺭﺍﻳﺔ ﺑﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ‪ .EBP‬ﺗﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺍﻷﻟﻔﺔ‪ ،‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻢ ﻗﻴﺎﺳﻬﺎ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ‪،EBPPAS‬‬
‫ﺩﺭﻳﻚ‪،‬ﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺟﻮﻟﺪﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺳﻤﻮ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺇﺗﺶ ﺇﺱ‪ ،‬ﻟﻴﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﻳﻪ ﺇﻑ‪ ،‬ﺩﻳﻜﺴﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺇﻝ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻣﺆﺷﺮﺍًﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﻣﻮﻳﺴﺮ‪،‬ﻛﻴﻪ ﺗﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺗﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺑﻠﻴﻮ ﺳﻲ )‪ .(2001‬ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪ .EBP‬ﺟﺎﺩﻝ ﺑﻨﺪﺭ ﻭﺃﻟﺘﺸﻮﻝ ﻭﻳﻮﺩﺭ ﻭﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ ﻭﻧﻴﻜﻞ )‪ (2014‬ﺑﺄﻧﻪ ﻣﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔﻓﻲ ﺇﻋﺪﺍﺩﺍﺕ ﺧﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﺤﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺮﻭﺗﻴﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬ﺧﺪﻣﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻄﺐ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﻜﻦﺃﻥ ﺗﺆﺩﻱ ﺍﻟﻜﻔﺎءﺓ ﺍﻟﺬﺍﺗﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻋﻠﻰ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺪﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ‪.179-182،52،‬‬ ‫‪ EBP‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ ﻧﺎﺟﺤﺔ‬
‫‪11‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﻥﺩﻳﺮ ﺯﻭﻳﺖ ﻭﺁﺧﺮﻭﻥ‪.‬‬

‫ﺭﻭﺑﻦ‪،‬ﺃ‪ ،.‬ﻭﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ‪ ،‬ﺩﻱ )‪ .(2010‬ﺗﻄﻮﻳﺮ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺤﺔ‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻣﺒﺮﻳﻞ‪،‬ﺇﻱ‪ .(1999) .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﺑﺪﻳﻞ ﻝ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬ﺑﺤﺚ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻄﺔ‪.‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺋﻼﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ‪.341-350،80 ،‬‬
‫ﺣﻮﻝﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ .629-640،20 ،‬ﺭﻭﺑﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃ‪ ،.‬ﻭﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ‪ ،‬ﺩﻱ )‬ ‫ﺟﺎﻣﺒﺮﻳﻞ‪،‬ﺇﻱ‪ .(2011) .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﻭﺃﺧﻼﻗﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫‪ .(2011‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺤﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺪﻳﺮ‪.‬ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ .26-48،11 ،‬ﺩﻭﻯ‪/10.1177:‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪.‬ﺑﺤﺚ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪،21 ،‬‬ ‫‪1468017310381306‬‬
‫‪.106-118‬‬ ‫ﻏﺮﺍﻱ‪،‬ﺇﻡ‪ ،‬ﺟﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺇﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻼﺙ‪ ،‬ﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻭﻳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺇﺱ ﺇﻳﻪ )‪ .(2013‬ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬ‬
‫ﺳﺎﻛﻴﺖ‪ ،DL،‬ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪ ،SE ،‬ﺭﻳﺘﺸﺎﺭﺩﺳﻮﻥ‪ ،WS ،‬ﺭﻭﺯﻧﺒﺮﻍ‪ ،‬ﺩﺑﻠﻴﻮ‪& ،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﺮﺍﺟﻌﺔ ﻷﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺮﻳﺒﻲ‪.‬ﺑﺤﺚ ﺣﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻫﺎﻳﻨﺰ‪،‬ﺭ ﺏ )‪.(2000‬ﺍﻟﻄﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻄﺐ‬ ‫ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ .157-166،23 ،‬ﺩﻭﻯ‪/1049731512467072:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻲﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ )‪(EBM‬ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ(‪ .‬ﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ‪ ،‬ﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ‪ :‬ﺗﺸﺮﺷﻞ‬ ‫‪10.1177‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﻐﺴﺘﻮﻥ‪.‬‬ ‫‪HBO-raad/Vereniging Hogescholen. )2006(.‬ﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ‪ .‬ﻧﻴﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺳﺘﻴﺎﺭﺕ‪،‬ﺟﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻥ ﺩﻥ ﺑﻴﺠﺠﻴﻼﺭ‪ ،‬ﺗﻲ‪ & ،‬ﺑﻴﻠﺰ‪ ،‬ﺟﻴﻪ )‪.(2010‬ﺩﻱ ﺑﻴﺠﺰﻳﻨﺪ‪-‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﺮﻓﻮﻥﺃﻳﻀﺎً ﻳﻮﺍﺟﻬﻮﻥ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﻣﻌﻘﺪﺓ‪] .‬ﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻴﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﺪﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ Beroepsinnovati :‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪] .‬‬ ‫ﻛﺤﻞﻟﺘﺰﺍﻳﺪ ﻣﻮﺍﻗﻒ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻘﺪﺓ[ ‪Hogescholen‬‬
‫ﻗﺼﺮﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﺍﻻﺑﺘﻜﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ‬ ‫‪.Den Haag: HBOraad/Vereniging‬‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ[ ﺃﻣﺴﺘﺮﺩﺍﻡ‪ ،‬ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪.SWP :‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﻛﺪﻭﻧﺎﻟﺪ‪،‬ﺝ‪ .(1998) .‬ﺗﻌﺰﻳﺰ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻞ‬
‫ﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪ ،SE،‬ﺭﻳﺘﺸﺎﺭﺩﺳﻮﻥ‪ ،WS ،‬ﻏﻼﺯﻳﻮ‪ ،.P ،‬ﻭﻫﺎﻳﻨﺰ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭ ﺑﻲ )ﻣﺤﺮﺭﺍﻥ(‪.‬‬ ‫ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺔ‪.‬ﻋﻠﻢ ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﻄﻔﻞ ﺍﻟﺴﺮﻳﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﻄﺐ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺴﻲ‪ .71-85،3 ،‬ﺍﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻡ‬
‫)‪.(2005‬ﺍﻟﻄﺐ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ .‬ﻛﻴﻔﻴﺔ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻭﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ‪ .EBM‬ﺍﺩﻧﺒﺮﻩ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺩﺑﻠﻴﻮ)‪Nederlandse Vereniging van Maatschappelijk Werkers(.‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﻜﺘﻠﻨﺪﺍ‪:‬ﺗﺸﺮﺷﻞ ﻟﻴﻔﻴﻨﻐﺴﺘﻮﻥ‪.‬‬ ‫)‪. ].(2011‬ﻧﻔﺲ ﺍﻟﺸﻲء ‪van de maatschappelijk werker.‬‬
‫ﺛﺎﻳﺮ‪،‬ﺑﻜﺎﻟﻮﺭﻳﻮﺱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻣﺎﻳﺮﺯ‪ ،‬ﺇﻝ ﺇﻝ )‪ .(2011‬ﺍﻟﺴﻌﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‬ ‫‪Beknopt beroepsprofiel‬ﻣﻠﺨﺺ ﺍﻟﻤﻠﻒ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﻟﻸﺧﺼﺎﺋﻲ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ[‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ‪:‬ﻭﺟﻬﺔ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺍﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪﺓ‪.‬ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪،11 ،‬‬ ‫ﺃﻭﺗﺮﺧﺖ‪،‬ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪.NVMW :‬‬
‫‪.8-25‬ﺩﻭﻯ‪10.1177/1468017310381812:‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ‪،‬ﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻭﺑﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃ‪ .(2011) .‬ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻘﻖ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺤﺔ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻓﺎﻥﺩﻳﺮ ﺯﻭﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭ‪ ،.‬ﺑﻴﻨﻴﻜﻴﻦ ﺟﻴﻨﺎﻣﺪ ﻛﻮﻟﻤﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﻱ ﺇﻡ‪ ،‬ﻭﺷﺎﻟﻚ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﻘﻴﺎﺱﺗﻘﻴﻴﻢ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ‪ -‬ﻧﺴﺨﺔ ﻗﺼﻴﺮﺓ‪.‬ﺑﺤﺚ ﺣﻮﻝ ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬
‫)‪ .(2011‬ﻳﺘﻴﺢ ﻟﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻢ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻄﺎﻉ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪.200-211،21،‬‬
‫ﻓﻲﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ‪] .‬ﻧﺤﻮ ﻧﻬﺞ ﺗﻔﺎﻋﻠﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺭﻳﺶ‪،‬ﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﺭﻭﺑﻦ‪ ،‬ﺃ‪ .(2012) .‬ﺍﺗﺠﺎﻫﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲﻓﻲ ﻫﻮﻟﻨﺪﺍ[ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ‪،20 ،‬‬ ‫ﻧﺤﻮﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻷﺩﻟﺔ‪ :‬ﻣﻘﺎﺭﻧﺔ ﻣﻊ ﻋﻠﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻭﺃﺧﺼﺎﺋﻴﻲ‬
‫‪.62-78‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺰﻭﺍﺝﻭﺍﻷﺳﺮﺓ ﺍﻟﻤﺮﺧﺼﻴﻦ‪.‬ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪.201-210,57 ,‬‬

‫ﻓﺎﻥﺑﻴﻠﺖ‪ ،‬ﻡ‪ De HBO Master .(2011) .‬ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪-Praktijk in ontwik :‬‬ ‫ﺑﻮﺗﻴﻨﺞ‪،‬ﺇﻡ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﻴﻜﺮﺯ‪ ،‬ﺇﻡ‪ ،‬ﻻﻣﻴﺮﺯ‪ ،‬ﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺁﻧﺪ ﺭﻳﻔﻴﺮﺩﺍ‪ ،‬ﺇﻥ‪.(2010) .‬‬
‫[ﻣﺎﺟﺴﺘﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺇﺿﻔﺎءﺍﻟﺸﺮﻋﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﻤﺎﺭﺳﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻨﻴﻴﻦ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻛﺴﻴﻦﻣﺠﻠﺔ‬
‫] ‪keling.‬ﻣﺠﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ‪.93-98،20 ،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞﺍﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻨﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻖ‪.6-20 ،19 ،‬‬

‫ﻋﺮﺽﺇﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺸﺮ‬