Evaluating online disaster preparedness l l training for family caregivers of senior citizens Grant Chartrand Learning Design & Technology University of Hawaii at Manoa University of Hawaii at Manoa
Presentation Outline Presentation Outline • Background Background • Project Design • Methodology h d l • Findings • Conclusion
Poll Poll • Do you live with grandparents and/or elderly family members? • Do you live with family members who will soon become senior citizens?
Poll Poll • Do you live with grandparents and/or elderly family members? • Do you live with family members who will soon become senior citizens?
Background: How did I select my topic? Background: How did I select my topic? • Experience in creating courses Experience in creating courses – Developed for government (state & county) • Natural Hazard Preparedness for Caregivers of • Natural Hazard Preparedness for Caregivers of Senior Citizens • Subject matter beneficial to all, especially for family members • 3 generations lived together
Project Purpose Project Purpose Design training for adults to increase their awareness of the special disaster preparedness needs of elderly family members with whom they reside or provide they reside or provide care.
Background: Frequency of Hazards in U.S. Background: Frequency of Hazards in U.S. 300 256 251 250 ds es of Hazard Hazard Type H d T 200 Geophysical Climatological 150 126 126 Instance Hydrological 100 Meteorological 50 40 40 38 20 0 1940s 1940s 1950s 1950s 1960s 1960s 1970s 1970s 1980s 1980s 1990s 1990s 2000s 2000s Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)
Background: Problem Background: Problem Disproportionate number Disproportionate number of seniors died from Hurricanes Katrina and Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. Senior citizens are vulnerable Many deaths vulnerable. Many deaths were preventable. Keller, J. (2012, November 17). Mapping Hurricane Sandy’s deadly toll. The New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/17/nyregion/hurricane ‐ sandy ‐ map.html. Gibson, M. J., & Hayunga, M. (2006). We can do better: lessons learned for protecting older persons in disasters . Washington, D.C.: American Association of Retired Persons.
Background: U.S. Population Growth Background: U.S. Population Growth 10 9.5 9 1 9.1 8.5 7.7 8 ns) 6.8 ion (Billion Ages 6 65+ 15 ‐ 64 15 64 Populati 4 >15 2 2 0 2010 2010 2020 2020 2030 2030 2040 2040 2050 2050 Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations
Background: Multigenerational Families Background: Multigenerational Families In 2009, one in six Americans lived in homes with at least two adult generations. Taylor, P., Kochhar, R., Cohn, D., Passel, J., Velasco, G., Motel, S., & Patten, E. (2011). Fighting Poverty in a Tough Economy, Americans Move in with Their Relatives. Pew Social & Demographic Trends.
Project Purpose: Focus Project Purpose: Focus • Formal Caregiving vs Informal Caregiving Formal Caregiving vs. Informal Caregiving – Family members, friends • Have little/no time for or access to training • Have little/no time for or access to training • Increase knowledge � Increase resilience
Project Design: Theory Project Design: Theory • Baldwin and Ford’s Transfer of Training theory Baldwin and Ford s Transfer of Training theory – Knowledge gained from training is transferred to performance performance • Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivational Design – Perceived utility/relevance increases motivation Perceived utility/relevance increases motivation and acquisition – Content redesigned to build confidence Content redesigned to build confidence Baldwin, T. T., Ford, J. K., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Transfer of training 1988–2008: an updated review and agenda for future research. International review of industrial and organizational psychology , 24 , 41 ‐ 70. Grossman, R., & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: what really matters. International Journal of Training and Development , 15 (2), 103 ‐ 120. Keller, J. M. (2010). Motivational design for learning and performance . New York, NY: Springer.
Project Design Project Design • Course developed by the National Disaster the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center (NDPTC) at the University of Hawaii at i i f ii Manoa • Articulate Storyline • Articulate Storyline (E ‐ Learning Authoring Software) • Canvas (Learning Management System)
Project Design: Repackage & Redesign j g p g g of Instructional Content
Project Design: Repackage & Redesign j g p g g of Instructional Content
Project Design: Repackage & Redesign j g p g g of Instructional Content NDPTC version (8 hr) Project version (1 ‐ 2 hrs)
Project Design Project Design • Natural Hazard Identification Natural Hazard Identification
Project Design Project Design • Assessing Capabilities Assessing Capabilities
Project Design Project Design • Assessing Needs Assessing Needs
Project Design Project Design • Risk and Vulnerability Risk and Vulnerability
Methodology Methodology • 36 Participants (35 completed) p ( p ) • Pre ‐ Survey – Demographic and Confidence Level • Instructional Content • Assessment – Matching, Multiple Choice, and Scenario M t hi M lti l Ch i d S i • Post ‐ Survey – Confidence Level Confidence Level – Ease of Use/Engagement/Quality/Satisfaction – Feedback
Findings: Demographics Findings: Demographics • More than half (69%) were under 40 years of age More than half (69%) were under 40 years of age • About half (54%) did not live with or provide care for seniors or elderly family members for seniors or elderly family members • An overwhelming majority (90%) had at least a 2 year degree 2 ‐ year degree • All were employed: 80% full ‐ time, 20% part ‐ time
Poll Poll • I am confident in my knowledge of • I am confident in my knowledge of disaster preparedness for senior citizens. A. Strongly agree B. Agree C. Unsure/Neutral D Disagree D. Disagree E. Strongly disagree
Poll Poll • I am confident in my knowledge of • I am confident in my knowledge of disaster preparedness for senior citizens. A. Strongly agree (5) B. Agree (4) C. Unsure/Neutral (3) D Disagree (2) D. Disagree (2) E. Strongly disagree (1)
Findings: Average Confidence Level Findings: Average Confidence Level 5.00 4.34 4.00 4.23 evel 3.29 3.00 Pre ‐ Pre nfidence Le Survey 2.83 2.00 Post ‐ Con Survey Survey 1.00 0.00 General Knowledge Senior Citizen Knowledge n=35
Findings: Overall Confidence Level by Age Findings: Overall Confidence Level by Age 5.00 4.00 4.29 4.27 Level 3.64 Ages g 3.00 3 00 onfidence L <40 2.79 40+ 2.00 Co 1.00 0.00 Pre ‐ Survey Post ‐ Survey n=35 Note: Overall = General Knowledge + Senior Citizen Knowledge
Findings: Overall Confidence Level by g y Caregiver Status 5.00 4.00 4.31 4.23 Ages Level Caregiver Caregiver onfidence L 3.00 3.16 2.94 Non ‐ 2.00 caregiver Co 1.00 0.00 Pre ‐ Survey Post ‐ Survey n=35 Note: Caregiver=living with/providing care for 1 or more seniors, Non ‐ caregiver=0 (none)
Findings: Assessment Scores Findings: Assessment Scores 18 49% 16 16 17 17 14 12 nts Participan 10 25% 8 9 6 6 11% 4 6% 4 3% 3% 3% 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Correct Answers Out of 12 (%) n=35
Findings: Assessment Scores Findings: Assessment Scores 18 49% 16 16 17 17 14 12 nts Participan 10 25% 8 9 6 6 11% 4 6% 4 3% 3% 3% 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Correct Answers Out of 12 (%) n=35
Findings: Assessment Scores Findings: Assessment Scores 18 49% 16 16 17 17 14 12 nts Participan 10 25% 8 9 6 6 11% 4 6% 4 3% 3% 3% 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Correct Answers Out of 12 (%) n=35
Findings: Assessment Scores Findings: Assessment Scores 18 49% 16 16 17 17 14 12 nts Participan 10 25% 8 9 6 6 11% 4 6% 4 3% 3% 3% 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Correct Answers Out of 12 (%) n=35
Findings: Percent Answering Correctly Findings: Percent Answering Correctly 125% 100% 100% 97% 94% 89% 94% 97% 91% 100% 91% 77% 75% Score 46% 46% 50% 25% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 n=35 Question Number Q
Findings: Percent Answering Correctly Findings: Percent Answering Correctly 125% 100% 100% 97% 94% 89% 94% 97% 91% 100% 91% 77% 75% Score 46% 46% 50% 25% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 n=35 Question Number Q
Findings: Average Participant Rating Findings: Average Participant Rating 4.47 Ease of Use nstruct 4 47 4.47 ematic Con E Engagement Quality 4.41 The Satisfaction 4.27 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Rating Level g n=35 n 35
Recommend
More recommend
