Amsterdam UMC, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Andriessen Arbeids participatie, Zaandam, The Netherlands.
Work. 2021;68(1):243-253. doi: 10.3233/WOR-203371.
Structured work support needs assessment could facilitate professionals and increase assessment consistency.
Evaluating usability of the Work Support Needs Assessment Tool and test if professionals' (labour experts, coaches) findings become more consistent after a tool training. The tool includes a 21 item checklist for assessing work support needs of people with disabilities.
Usability was explored through 28 interviews with professionals. Consistency was evaluated in an experimental pre-post study design, in which thirty-nine other professionals assessed work support needs of standardized clients before and after a protocolized training. Quantitative content analysis was conducted. Consistency of findings between professionals covered three categories: type (client-focused coaching), focus (topics to be addressed) and duration of support. An increase in consistency was defined as a decrease in the total number of different sub-categories of findings in each category.
Nineteen professionals indicated that the tool was useful, as they gained relevant information and insights. Regarding consistency, the number of findings differed pre- and post-training for type of support (8 vs 9) and focus of support (18 vs 15 and 18 vs 17).
Participants had positive experiences with the tool. Increased consistency in findings of professionals after the training was not demonstrated with the current study design.
结构化的工作支持需求评估可以为专业人员提供便利,并提高评估的一致性。
评估工作支持需求评估工具的可用性,并检验在工具培训后,专业人员(劳动专家、教练)的评估结果是否更加一致。该工具包括一个 21 项检查表,用于评估残疾人士的工作支持需求。
通过对 28 名专业人员的访谈来探索可用性。在一项实验性的前后研究设计中,评估了一致性,其中 39 名其他专业人员在标准化客户的工作支持需求进行了协议化培训前后进行了评估。采用定量内容分析法进行分析。专业人员的评估结果的一致性涵盖了三个类别:类型(以客户为中心的辅导)、重点(要解决的主题)和支持的持续时间。一致性的提高定义为每个类别中不同子类别评估结果的总数减少。
19 名专业人员表示,该工具很有用,因为他们获得了相关的信息和见解。关于一致性,在支持类型(8 对 9)和支持重点(18 对 15 和 18 对 17)方面,培训前后的评估结果存在差异。
参与者对该工具的使用体验积极。但在当前的研究设计中,培训后专业人员评估结果的一致性并未得到证明。