Research partnerships horizontal integration and knowledge building
Download
1 / 35

Research Partnerships, Horizontal Integration and Knowledge Building - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 108 Views
  • Uploaded on

Research Partnerships, Horizontal Integration and Knowledge Building. Daniel Hughes, Ph.D., CEAP Raquel Warley, M.A., LMSW. A Collaborative Effort. NYC Chapter of the Employee Assistance Professional Association (EAPA) Mt. Sinai Medical Center, EAP Core Technology Utility Study.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Research Partnerships, Horizontal Integration and Knowledge Building' - glyn


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Research partnerships horizontal integration and knowledge building

Research Partnerships, Horizontal Integration and Knowledge Building

Daniel Hughes, Ph.D., CEAP

Raquel Warley, M.A., LMSW


A collaborative effort
A Collaborative Effort Building

  • NYC Chapter of the Employee Assistance Professional Association (EAPA)

  • Mt. Sinai Medical Center, EAP

  • Core Technology Utility Study


Eap research a rich tradition
EAP Research: A Rich Tradition Building

  • Harrison Trice

  • Paul Roman & Terry Blum

  • Jack Erfurt & Andrea Foote

  • Bradley Googins

  • Sam Bacharach and Bill Sonnenstuhl


Mt sinai eap and practice based research
Mt. Sinai EAP and Practice Based Research Building

  • Reasons and Resources 1995

  • Work and Family in East Harlem (MCNY) Private Foundation 1994- 1996

  • EAP Comparative Interventions Study (BU) NIAAA 1995-1997

  • Financial Literacy (BU) AARP 1999-2001

  • ISA Partnerships 1998 & 2005

  • Long Term Counseling Project 2002

  • Utility Study (NYC EAPA) 2004-2005


The utility project
The Utility Project Building

  • Develop a Descriptive Profile of Local Members and Respondents

  • Delineate Three Domains of Contemporary EAP Practice

  • Evaluate Member Perceptions (NYC EAPA) of the Utility of Core Technology

  • Explore Implications of Findings


Technologies domains

Training Building

Assessment

Constructive Confront

Referral Services

Consult. to Work Orgs

Substance use/abuse

Mental & Behavioral Health

Work-Life

Technologies Domains


Primary hypotheses
Primary Hypotheses Building

  • Perceptions of the Utility of Core Technology Will Shift across Domains

  • This Shift Will Reflect a Decreased Perception of Utility as One Moves from Drugs and Alcohol to Work/Life

  • Constructive Confrontation Will Be the Core Technology Most Sensitive to these Shifts


Nyc eapa chapter 06 05
NYC EAPA Chapter 06/05 Building

  • N=156

  • Female 59% (n=92) Male 41% (n=64)

  • EAP Practitioners 42% (n=65)

  • Private Practitioners 37% (n=59)

  • Substance Abuse Tx 21% (n=32)

  • Approximately 70% Grad School (n=107)


Degrees certification
Degrees/Certification Building

  • Social Work 79% (n=85)

  • Psychologist 17% (n=18)

  • Other 4% (N=4)

  • Doctorates 15% (n=16)

  • CEAP

  • CASAC


Design
Design Building

  • Descriptive/Exploratory

  • NYC Chapter EAPA

  • Non-probability Sample

  • Mail Survey

  • Phone Follow-up



Area of activity tenure
Area of Activity & Tenure Building

  • 52% EAP Practitioners (n=41)

  • Range: 1 – 36 years in the Field

  • Median Length of Time 11 yrs

  • 48% Non-EAP Practitioners (n=38)

  • Range: 6 months – 25 years in the Field

  • Median Length of Time 9 yrs


Work setting n 41
Work Setting Buildingn = 41

  • Medical/Hospital 10%

  • Financial 7%

  • Transportation 12%

  • Law Enforcement 2%

  • Academia 2%

  • Municipal 2%

  • Corporate 5%

  • Other work settings 15%

  • Multiple industries 44%


Ceap status n 81
CEAP Status Buildingn = 81

  • 44% CEAP

  • EAP-Practitioners More likely to report CEAP (27: 8, p < .001, df = 1, phi = .44)


Age n 76
Age Buildingn = 76

  • Range: 27-76 yrs

  • Median 54 yrs

  • Baby Boomers 60% (bet 41-59 yrs)


Sex n 78
Sex Buildingn= 78

  • Female 58%

  • Male 42%


Race ethnicity n 79
Race/Ethnicity Buildingn = 79

  • European/Caucasian/White 89%

  • African Am/Caribbean-Am/Black 8%

  • Bi-cultural/Multicultural 3%

  • Hispanic/Latino 1%

  • Asian/Pacific Islander 1%


Education n 78
Education Buildingn = 78

  • Some College/No Degree 4%

  • Undergraduate Degree 5%

  • Graduate Degree 80%

  • Doctorate Degree 12%


Income n 77
Income Buildingn = 77

  • Under $30,000 3%

  • $30K-$39,999 9%

  • $40K-$49,999 4%

  • $50K-$59,999 19%

  • $60K-$69,999 21%

  • Over $70,000 46%

  • CEAPs more likely to report incomes $50,000+ (34:31, p < .01, df = 1, phi = .32)


Professional training n 77

Social Work 60% Building

Substance Abuse Txmt 14%

Psychology/Psychiatry 12%

Business/Management 3%

Nursing 3%

Other Professional Training 9%

No Professional Training 1%

Professional Trainingn = 77


Study findings

Study Findings Building

Measures of Central Tendency

&

Chi-square Analysis


Self knowledge
Self-Knowledge Building

“Quite a bit” or “A lot”

  • Referral services 90% (n=79)

  • Assessment 84% (n=80)

  • Training 73% (n=78)

  • Constructive confrontation 65% (n=79)

  • Consultation to work org 48% (n=77)



Use of technology
Use of technology Building

  • Referral services 94% (n=77)

  • Assessment 93% (n=73)

  • Constructive confrontation 82% (n=65)

  • Training 70% (n=74)

  • Consultation to work org 68% (n=60)


Frequency of use
Frequency of Use Building

“Frequently”

  • Assessment 77% (n=73)

  • Referral services 70% (n=77)

  • Constructive confrontation 36% (n=64)

  • Training 28% (n=74)

  • Consultation to work org 27% (n=60)


Group differences

EAP self-reported more knowledge Building

EAP more likely to use training and CC in their practice

EAP more likely to report frequent use of training, assessment, referral, and consultation to work org

Training 34:21, p < .05, phi = .28

Assess 38:27, p < .05, phi = .24

CC 32:17, p < .01, phi = .32

Referral 40:28, p < .01, phi = 29

Consult 26:11, p < .01, phi = .36

Training 36:14, p < .001, phi = .53

CC 36:15, p < .001, phi =.43

Training 17:4, p < .001, phi = .49

Assess 36:18, p < .01, phi = .36

Referral 34:18, p < .05, phi = .33

Consult 13:3, p < .05, phi = .38

Group Differences


Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis Testing Building

Independent-Samples

T-test




Eap practitioners
EAP Practitioners Building

  • Rated the utility of core technologies much higher

  • Rated training, constructive confrontation, and consultation to work org “somewhat useful” work-life

  • Rated assessment and referral services as “very useful”  work-life

  • Rated all other tech “very” or “extremely useful” x 3 domains


Non eap practitioners
Non-EAP Practitioners Building

  • Rated constructive confrontation & consultation to work org “not at all useful” x 3 domains

  • Rated training “not at all useful” substance & work-life issues

  • Rated training “somewhat useful”  behavioral health issues

  • Rated assessment & referral “somewhat useful” x3 domains


Elements of professional practice
Elements of Professional Practice Building

  • Specific Knowledge/Practice Base

  • Training Standards

  • Links to Educational Programs

  • Values/Ethics

  • Knowledge Building


Summary description
Summary Description Building

  • Low Diversity

  • Increasingly Gray

  • Well Educated

  • Relatively Well Compensated

  • Among the Respondents There Were significant differences between EAP Practitioners and Non Practitioners in Their Perception of Core Technology Utility


Questions for consideration
Questions for Consideration Building

  • Should EAP Core Technology Expand?

  • Should EAP Core Competencies Expand?

  • How will Boomer Retirement influence the Field?

  • How Do We Train the Next Generation of EA Professionals?

  • How Can We Encourage and Promote the Process of EA Knowledge Building?


Discussion
Discussion Building


ad