1 / 36

Jun-Yuan Tung, MS, OTR Machiko R. Tomita, PhD John Stone, PhD Susan M. Nochajski, PhD, OTR/L Douglas Usiak Department of

The Impact of Cross Cultural Training and Environmental & Personal Factors on the Cultural Competence of Staff of Centers for Independent Living . Jun-Yuan Tung, MS, OTR Machiko R. Tomita, PhD John Stone, PhD Susan M. Nochajski, PhD, OTR/L Douglas Usiak

hao
Download Presentation

Jun-Yuan Tung, MS, OTR Machiko R. Tomita, PhD John Stone, PhD Susan M. Nochajski, PhD, OTR/L Douglas Usiak Department of

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Impact of Cross Cultural Training and Environmental & Personal Factors on the Cultural Competence of Staff of Centers for Independent Living Jun-Yuan Tung, MS, OTR Machiko R. Tomita, PhD John Stone, PhD Susan M. Nochajski, PhD, OTR/L Douglas Usiak Department of Rehabilitation Science State University of New York at Buffalo

  2. Background • Culture is increasingly recognized as an important factor that affects outcomes in human services. • More than 1/10 Americans (31.1 million in 2000) was born outside U.S. and 25-30% of U.S. population are ethnic minorities. • Cultural insensitivity or ignorance is a significant barrier between service providers and consumers. • CIRRIE is offering training workshops to remove cultural barriers.

  3. Purpose of Research • To investigate whether the workshops have an impact on the participants’ cultural competence. • To explore the impact of personal characteristics and/or work environments on cultural competence. • To identify whether the personal and work environmental factors are modifiers of the impact of the workshops.

  4. Literature Review What is Culture? • The way a group of people live • The way people perceive, adapt to and structure their internal and external environment • A blueprint or framework to guide people’s daily behaviors • A system of learned and shared patterns of behaviors • (Iannone,1987;Jezewski et al.,2001;Krefting,1991;McGruder,1996)

  5. Literature Review…cont’d Cultural Competence • An awareness of, sensitivity to, and knowledge of the meaning of culture • The ongoing process in which the service provider continuously attempts to accomplish the capability to offer effective and efficient services to persons of different cultures • Personnel who have moved from being culturally unaware to being sensitive to their own cultural issues and to how their values and biases affect culturally diverse consumers • (Bartol et al,1998;Campinha-Bacote,1998;Fitzgerald et al,1996;Forwell et al,2001; Jezewski et al,2001;McCormack,1987; Small et al,1999;Smith,1998;Wells,1995)

  6. Literature Review…cont’d Methods to Improve Cultural Competence • Direct contact with people with culturally diverse backgrounds (Fitzgerald et al.,1997;Forwell et al.,2001; Robins et al., 2001; Scheiderer et al.,1995) • The generic approach, such as seminars and workshops, that establish the awareness of cultural concerns by stimulating discussion and activities. (Anthony,1997;Forwell et al.,2001;Goddard et al., 1998; Lindgren et al.,1993; Smedley et al.,1998)

  7. Literature Review…cont’d Culture Brokering Model • Bridging the Cultural Gap Between Foreign-Born Consumers and Services Providers • (Jezewski,1993;Jezewski et al.,2001;McElroy et al.,2000) See Culture Brokering Model

  8. Literature Review…cont’d Centers for Independent Living (CILs) • Community Based: Centers are located throughout the nation in local communities. • Consumer Controlled: Centers are run by a board of directors, more than half of whom are people with disabilities. • Available to All People with Disabilities: Staff, board members, volunteers, and people served represent a broad cross-section of disabilities.

  9. Research Questions • Do CIL staffwho serve in culturally diverse environments have higher cultural competence at the pretest than those who serve in culturally homogeneous environments? • Do CIL staffwho are cultural minorities have higher cultural competence at the pretest than staff from cultural majorities? • Do CIL staff improve their cultural competence and culture brokering knowledge after attending the culture brokering workshop?

  10. Research Questions…cont’d • Among CIL staffattending workshops, do those who serve in culturally diverse environments improvetheir cultural competence more than those who serve in culturallyhomogeneous environments? • Among CIL staffattending workshops, do those from cultural minoritiesimprovetheir cultural competence more than thecultural majorities? • Does a testing effect exist in the self-assessment tool, Promoting Cultural Diversity and Cultural Competency for Personnel Providing Services in Centers of Independent Living (PCDCC-CIL)?

  11. Methods Study Design • Pretest - Posttest Control Group Design

  12. Methods…cont’d Study Design…cont’d

  13. Methods…cont’d Participants • Treatment Group: Staff of CILs in California who attended the workshop in July, 2002. • Control Group: Staff of CILs in New York State with similar working environment.

  14. Methods…cont’d Variables • Independent Variables: • Participation in workshops • The level of cultural diversity in participant's working environments • Participants’ personal cultural characteristics • Dependent Variables: • Scores of instruments

  15. Demographic Information Questionnaire Methods…cont’d Instruments • Gender • Age • Education • Cultural Background • Working Regions • Disability • Cultural Diversity in Working Environments • Time of Working Experience with Foreign-born Consumers

  16. Methods…cont’d Instruments…cont’d • Promoting Cultural Diversity and Cultural Competency for Personnel Providing Services in Centers of Independent Living (PCDCC-CIL) • Adapted from 4 similar self-assessment checklists but for different service providers • Intended to heighten the awareness and sensitivity of personnel to the importance of cultural competence in human service settings

  17. Methods…cont’d Instruments…cont’d(PCDCC-CIL) • Three Domains • physical environment, materials & resources • communication styles • values & attitudes • 36 items (8, 9, & 19 items for each domain respectively) • Each item from A (Things I do all the time, 100%) to E (Things I never do, 0%)

  18. Methods…cont’d Instruments…cont’d • Workshop Questionnaire (WQ) • For treatment group only • To assess knowledge acquired during the workshops • Questions were developed based on the previous workshop • 24 items with true and false answers 1 fill-in question with five blanks

  19. Methods…cont’d Procedure • All materials, including PCDCC-CIL & WQ were given to participants and completed before the workshops. • Participants were asked to finish WQ again at the end of the workshops. • The posttest of PCDCC-CIL was filled out approximately two months after the workshops. • Treatment Group

  20. Methods…cont’d Procedure…cont’d • Control Group • All materials, including PCDCC-CIL were given to participants and collected through mail, email or in person. • The posttest of PCDCC-CIL was completed approximately two months after the pretest.

  21. Methods…cont’d Data Analysis • Cronbach’s Alpha • Factor Analysis • Two-way ANOVA • ANCOVA • Wilcoxon Signed-Rank • McNemar Test • Independent t-test • Paired t-test

  22. Results Characteristics of Participants • N = 92 • CA: 50 (54%); NY: 42 (46%) • Female: 64 (70%); Male: 28 (30%) • Age: 23-64 (mean: 41 years old) • With Bachelor’s or higher degree: 56 (61%) • With disability: 56 (61%) • Cultural minorities: 26 (28%) • Culturally diverse environment: 32 (35%) • Working years for foreign-born consumers < 1: 30 (33%); 1-5: 30 (33%); >5: 32 (35%)

  23. Results…cont’d Internal Consistency • Cronbach’s Alpha • Physical Environment, Materials & Resources: α = 0.88 • Communication Styles: α = 0.83 • Values & Attitudes: α = 0.95

  24. Results…cont’d Construct Validity • Factor analysis • Physical Environment, Materials & Resources (8 items) • Communication Styles (9 items) • Language Barrier (3 items) • Using Alternatives (3 items) • Self Changes (3 items) • Values & Attitudes (19 items) • Appreciation of Other Cultures (10 items) • Advocacy for Information (5 items) • Avoiding the Inappropriateness(4 items)

  25. Results…cont’d RQ1: Diverse VS Homogenous Environments (cultural competence) • Two-way ANOVA

  26. Results…cont’d RQ2: Cultural Minorities VS Majorities(cultural competence) • Two-way ANOVA

  27. Results…cont’d (cultural competence) RQ3: Treatment VS Control Groups • ANCOVA

  28. Results…cont’d RQ3: Pre-test VS Post-test (knowledge gained) • Wilcoxon signed-rank test • McNemar test • Participants increased their scores on 21 of the 25 items (84%) • 41 out of 49 participants (84%) increased their scores

  29. Results…cont’d RQ4: Diverse VS Homogenous Environments (Improvement of cultural competence) • Independent t-test

  30. Results…cont’d RQ4…cont’d

  31. Results…cont’d RQ5: Cultural Minorities VS Majorities(Improvement of cultural competence) • Independent t-test

  32. Results…cont’d RQ6: Testing Effects • Paired t-test • 8 items (22%) showed testing effects • Physical Environment, Materials & Resources: 3 items (38%) • Communication Styles: 4 items (44%) • Self Changes: 3 items (100%) • Values & Attitudes: 1 item (5%)

  33. Discussions Summary of Main Findings • Culture brokering workshops had positive effects • Follow-up for long-term effects • The influence of participants’ cultural background and working environments • Pre-workshop cultural competence • Improvement of competence • Modify workshops for factors • The presence of testing effects • Revise the items

  34. Discussions…cont’d Major Shortcomings • Possible ceiling effect of the questions • In WQ, 9 items with 80-96% correct answer • In PCDCC-CIL, Appreciation of Other Cultures factor reached 84% max scores • The workshop and the instrument are not based on the same theory • The sampling methods of the study • For treatment group: Self-selection bias • For control group: Investigators’ bias

  35. Discussions…cont’d Potential Factors • Characteristics of staff positions • Completion of the post-test or not • Education • Experience for working with foreign-born consumers

  36. Conclusions • This study was the first research for CILs staff and culture brokering workshops • Findings supported the benefits of workshops • The need of the more appropriate instrument and the consideration of relevant factors are indicated

More Related