|
| Further Examination of Training and Supervision Strategies to Promote Staff Performance in Applied Settings |
| Monday, May 25, 2020 |
| 5:00 PM–5:50 PM |
| Marriott Marquis, Level M4, Capitol/Congress |
| Area: OBM/AUT; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Jill Harper (Melmark New England) |
| Discussant: Helena L. Maguire (Melmark New England) |
| CE Instructor: Helena L. Maguire, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: The identification and implementation of best, evidence-based practices around staff training and performance management is a priority for human service settings. Staff performance directly impacts client outcomes. Thus, organizations must ensure that the highest standards of staff performance are initially achieved and maintained throughout employment. This symposium will provide an overview of two applied studies conducted to inform organizational practices around staff training and performance management. The first presentation will review the outcomes of a comparative study on different training modalities during the onboarding process. Results will be discussed across both knowledge and performance competencies. The second presentation will focus on performance management and monitoring to maintain integrity of an organizational system. Results as a staff performance protocol to increase educational program compliance will be outlined. The symposium will close with a general discussion on staff training and performance management practices as they relate to organizational and the specific studies presented. |
| Instruction Level: Advanced |
| Keyword(s): Performance Management, Supervision, Training |
| Target Audience: Masters students studying BCBA, BCBA and BCBA-D responsible for staff training and/or ongoing supervision |
| Learning Objectives: 1. Participants will be able to define and compare/contrast three types of staff training modalities 2. Participants will be able to outline measures of knowledge and performance competencies 3. Participants will be able to provide two examples of organizational systems to promote integrity of staff performance |
| |
| Comparing the Effects of Three Training Modalities on Staff Performance across Increasingly Complex Skills |
| JULIYA KRASNOPOLSKY (Melmark New England), Jill Harper (Melmark New England) |
| Abstract: Effective staff training modalities have been investigated across a variety of skills and settings in previous studies (Dempsey, Iwata, Fritz, & Rolider, 2012; Macurik, O’Kane, Malanga, & Reid, 2008; Pollard, Higbee, Akers, & Brodhead, 2014; Schnell, Sidener, DeBar, Vladescu, & Kahng, 2018), yet minimal information exists on comparing the effects of training modalities on staff performance to determine efficiency of training, specific components that lead to best outcomes, and effects on skills of increasing difficulty. The purpose of this study was to compare of the effects of three modalities – in-vivo, video, and computer training – on staff performance across nine skills that increase in complexity. In addition to measuring performance- and knowledge-based competencies, effects of various formats of behavioral skills training and active responding were measured, and a comprehensive analysis of cost and time, similar to the analysis conducted by Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty, 2014, of the training was incorporated in this study. |
| |
| Effective management of staff performance: Self-monitoring Coupled with Supervisory Checks |
| KINSLEY E WILLIS (Melmark New England), Julia Hrdina (Melmark New England) |
| Abstract: Within the human services field, staff are required to do a variety of tasks while still caring for children. High levels of fidelity across tasks is essential to student outcomes. Self-monitoring coupled with supervision has been effective in managing staff performance (Richmond, Riordan, Reiss, Pyles, and Baily, 1988). The current study examined the impact of self-monitoring and supervisory checks on the completion of IEP objectives across two classrooms. During baseline, focus sheets were provided to staff in the absence of self-monitoring or supervisory checks. Moderate levels of completion were observed across both classrooms. During intervention, staff were required to record completed IEP objectives on a focus sheet across each student. Staff then computed the percentage of completed programs over the week period and turned in focus sheets to the supervisor. Results of the intervention indicated that self-monitoring and supervisory checks are adequate to improve and maintain high rates of IEP completion. Levels of completion again dropped during a reversal phase. Interobserver agreement was conducted across 71% of sessions and averaged 100%. Future investigations might include a component analysis to see if self-monitoring alone or systematic fading of supervisory checks would maintain high levels of completion. |
|
| |