 |
|||||||
Endnotes
1 This report was prepared by the Measurement Group for the September 1998 Steering Committee Meeting. The Training Outcomes Study represents a collaborative effort between the training project sites from the SPNS Cooperative Agreement and The Measurement Group. All aspects of the study design, instrumentation, and analyses were conducted by The Measurement Group with input from the Training sites. At The Measurement Group, several individuals contributed to the major aspects of the evaluation design, the instruments, the implementation, analyses, and the report: Dr. George J. Huba, Dr. Abigail T. Panter, and Dr. Lisa A. Melchior. Kimberly Ishihara supervised the interviewers and study logistics. Kimberly Ishihara, Natasha DeVeauuse Brown, Jocelyn Medina, Nina Young, Eddie Sanders, and Jacqueline Gelfand served as interviewers and conducted data entry. Kimberly Ishihara, Natasha DeVeauuse Brown, Jacqueline Gelfand, and Jocelyn Medina assisted with report preparation.
2 The general procedure for calling individuals from the list was as follows: The interviewer would make an initial attempt by telephone to set up a time for the interview. Respondents were offered a toll-free number for returning telephone calls. Interviewers waited at least 48 hours before attempting again to reach respondents. After four attempts, the interviewer moved on to the next name from the list and that initial respondent was only interviewed if they returned the call and arranged it.
3 Gender information was not available for one participant.
4 Individuals who were contacted, but declined to be interviewed and/or did not remember the training, were asked several demographic questions so that we could examine whether these individuals differed from each other on certain basic characteristics in any statistically significant way. These two groups of individuals did not differ on major background characteristics including gender, age, highest education level, professional background and credentials, and number of years providing services in general and in the HIV field. There were two differences that emerged: Slightly fewer Caucasians (c2(1, N=250) = 4.57, p < .04) and direct service providers (c2(1, N=248) = 5.78, p < .02) than expected were included in the interviewed sample.
5 Note that the purpose of this study was to investigate across-project trends rather than project-specific differences. Thus, in all summary and inferential statistics based on the interview presented in this report, site differences are not emphasized and are controlled for statistically; only cross-cutting findings are provided.
6 For open-ended questions, including this one and those that follow, if the respondent seemed to need further clarification, interviewers provided more focused probes and examples of possible change in each domain. These probes are presented as part of each question in the interview instrument given in Appendix A.
7 The HeArt of Training Manual is a collection of training techniques for trainings around issues of HIV/AIDS and was prepared by members of the SPNS Cooperative Agreement Training Work Group.
8 On the outcome side, three outcome variable sets (ratings of training effects on Thoughts about HIV, Patient/Client Care, and System Functioning) were treated separately to preserve sample size across models and to introduce greater clarity in interpreting effects for each of these content domains. In addition, on the predictor side, variables (gender, age, job status) were considered in separate models to emphasize clarity of interpretation.
9 While there was no multivariate effect for the model with the program administrator variable predicting the system functioning ratings, two univariate tests were statistically significant. Program administrators tended to view the training experience(s) as having a more positive effect on the system's ability to offer educational opportunities (mean = 1.23; collaborations mean = 1.19).
10 Where possible, identifiers of projects were deleted from these comments. Due to special aspects of each project and the small number represented, some identifying themes could not be modified without changing the gist of the comment.
11 The number at the end of each response denotes the respondent identifier.
12 The number at the end of each response denotes the respondent identifier.
13 The number at the end of each response denotes the respondent identifier.
14 The number at the end of each response denotes the respondent identifier.
15 The number at the end of each response denotes the respondent identifier.
16 The number at the end of each response denotes the respondent identifier.
17 The number at the end of each response denotes the respondent identifier.
18 The number at the end of each response denotes the respondent identifier.
© Copyright 1998-2005 by The Measurement Group LLC. All rights reserved.