Perceptions of AI-Assisted Case Assessment Among Social Work Professionals: A Quantitative Survey on Trust, Efficiency, and Ethical Concerns
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54536/ajhp.v4i3.8098Keywords:
AI-Assisted Assessment, Algorithmic Bias, Digital Transformation, Ethical Governance, Large Language Models, Professional Trust, Social WorkAbstract
The progressive digitalization of human services administration has generated urgent questions about professional trust, algorithmic governance, and the appropriate institutional boundaries of automated decision support. Social work constitutes a particularly consequential arena for examining how practitioners evaluate AI-assisted tools, given the high-stakes relational and ethical demands that characterize the profession. This study examined the predictors of professional trust in AI-assisted case assessment among social work professionals, with a specific focus on the roles of prior AI experience, perceived efficiency, perceived quality, and ethical and bias concerns. A cross-sectional quantitative survey was administered to N = 127 social work professionals using validated Likert-format scales. An independent-samples t-test revealed that professionals with high prior AI experience demonstrated substantially greater trust than those with limited experience, t(125) = 8.24, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.45. Multiple regression analysis identified perceived efficiency (β = .31, p < .001, 95% CI [.17, .45]), AI experience (β = .29, p < .001, 95% CI [.15, .43]), and perceived assessment quality (β = .27, p < .001, 95% CI [.14, .40]) as significant positive predictors of trust, while ethical concerns exerted a significant negative effect (β = −.18, p = .014, 95% CI [−.32, −.04]). Perceived bias risk did not reach significance in the multivariate model (β = −.12, p = .081). The overall model explained 58% of the variance in trust (R² = .58, F(5,121) = 33.44, p < .001). Social work professionals conditionally endorse Large Language Models as decision-support instruments, contingent on transparency, ethical governance, and structured professional training. The findings offer an empirically grounded basis for designing responsible AI integration frameworks in social services.
References
Asif, N. H., Mahmud, M., Rahman, M. W., & Islam, M. B. (2025). The trust paradox in AI-driven customer support: A mixed-methods analysis of human vs. AI trust. American Journal of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, 1(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajdsai.v1i1.4779
Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities. https://fairmlbook.org
Benbya, H., Davenport, T. H., & Pachidi, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence in organizations: Current state and future opportunities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(4), vi–xxi.
Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, C., Peckover, S., Thompson, K., Pithouse, A., & Davey, D. (2010). Performing ‘initial assessment’: Identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children’s services. British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn162
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., & Agarwal, S. (2020). Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 1877–1901.
Cummings, M. L. (2004). Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. In AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference (p. 6313). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-6313
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Statistisches Bundesamt [Destatis]. (2022). Statistisches Jahrbuch Deutschland 2022.
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
Gillingham, P. (2019). Decision-making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: Are we ‘skilling up’ or ‘deskilling’ the workforce? Child & Family Social Work, 24(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12432
Harlow, E. (2003). New managerialism, social service departments and social work practice today. Practice: Social Work in Action, 15(2), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503150308416917
International Federation of Social Workers. (2014). Global definition of the social work profession. https://www.ifsw.org/what-is-social-work/global-definition-of-social-work/
Keddell, E. (2019). Algorithmic justice in child protection: Statistical fairness, social justice and the implications for practice. Social Sciences, 8(10), 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8100281
Kleinberg, J., Ludwig, J., Mullainathan, S., & Obermeyer, Z. (2018). Human decisions and machine predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2007). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report - A child-centred system. Department for Education.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. New York University Press.
OpenAI. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Poudel, S., & Maharjan, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence and education in Nepal: A mixed-methods study on student adoption and learning outcomes. American Journal of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, 1(2), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajdsai.v1i2.4763
Shneiderman, B. (2022). Human-centered AI. Oxford University Press.
Steyvers, M., & Kumar, A. (2023). Three challenges for AI-assisted decision-making. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(4), 732–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231181102
Topol, E. J. (2019). High-performance medicine: The convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nature Medicine, 25(1), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
Tschan, F., Semmer, N. K., Gurtner, A., Bizzari, L., Spychiger, M., Breuer, M., & Marsch, S. U. (2009). Explicit reasoning, confirmation bias, and illusory transactive memory: A simulation study of group medical decision-making. Small Group Research, 40(3), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496409332928
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified theory. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Wang, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). Artificial intelligence in educational assessment: Promises and challenges. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(5), 471–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12360
Webb, S. A. (2006). Social work in a risk society: Social and political perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.
World Medical Association. (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Zerilli, J., Knott, A., Maclaurin, J., & Gavaghan, C. (2019). Transparency in algorithmic and human decision-making: Is there a double standard? Philosophy & Technology, 32(4), 661–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0330-6
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sora Pazer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
