Open AccessUsability and consistency in findings of the work support needs assessment tool
Author(s) -
Maria J. E. Schouten,
Karen Nieuwenhuijsen,
Haije Wind,
S. Andriessen,
Monique H. W. FringsDresen
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
work
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.5
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1875-9270
pISSN - 1051-9815
DOI - 10.3233/wor-203371
Subject(s) - consistency (knowledge bases) , usability , checklist , coaching , focus group , psychology , work (physics) , applied psychology , medical education , medicine , computer science , engineering , human–computer interaction , mechanical engineering , marketing , artificial intelligence , psychotherapist , business , cognitive psychology
BACKGROUND: Structured work support needs assessment could facilitate professionals and increase assessment consistency. OBJECTIVES: Evaluating usability of the Work Support Needs Assessment Tool and test if professionals’ (labour experts, coaches) findings become more consistent after a tool training. The tool includes a 21 item checklist for assessing work support needs of people with disabilities. METHODS: Usability was explored through 28 interviews with professionals. Consistency was evaluated in an experimental pre-post study design, in which thirty-nine other professionals assessed work support needs of standardized clients before and after a protocolized training. Quantitative content analysis was conducted. Consistency of findings between professionals covered three categories: type (client-focused coaching), focus (topics to be addressed) and duration of support. An increase in consistency was defined as a decrease in the total number of different sub-categories of findings in each category. RESULTS: Nineteen professionals indicated that the tool was useful, as they gained relevant information and insights. Regarding consistency, the number of findings differed pre- and post-training for type of support (8 vs 9) and focus of support (18 vs 15 and 18 vs 17). CONCLUSIONS: Participants had positive experiences with the tool. Increased consistency in findings of professionals after the training was not demonstrated with the current study design.