the impact of cross cultural training and environmental & personal factors on the cultural...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
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, OTRMachiko R. Tomita, PhDJohn Stone, PhDSusan M. Nochajski, PhD, OTR/LDouglas Usiak
Department of Rehabilitation ScienceState University of New York at Buffalo
BackgroundCulture 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.
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.
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
Literature Review
(Iannone,1987;Jezewski et al.,2001;Krefting,1991;McGruder,1996)
Cultural CompetenceAn 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
Literature Review…cont’d
(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)
Methods to Improve Cultural Competence
Literature Review…cont’d
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)
Culture Brokering Model
Bridging the Cultural Gap Between
Foreign-Born Consumers and
Services Providers
Literature Review…cont’d
(Jezewski,1993;Jezewski et al.,2001;McElroy et al.,2000)
See Culture Brokering Model
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.
Literature Review…cont’d
1) Do CIL staff who serve in culturally diverse environments have higher cultural competence at the pretest than those who serve in culturally homogeneous environments?
2) Do CIL staff who are cultural minorities have higher cultural competence at the pretest than staff from cultural majorities?
3) Do CIL staff improve their cultural competence and culture brokering knowledge after attending the culture brokering workshop?
Research Questions
4) Among CIL staff attending workshops, do those who serve in culturally diverse environments improve their cultural competence more than those who serve in culturally homogeneous environments?
5) Among CIL staff attending workshops, do those from cultural minorities improve their cultural competence more than the cultural majorities?
6) 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)?
Research Questions…cont’d
Study DesignPretest - Posttest Control Group Design
Methods
Pre Time Post
RQ 1 Diverse Environment (DE) O
Homogeneous Environment (HE)
O
RQ 2 Cultural Majority (MA) O
Cultural Minority (MI) ORQ 3 Treatment Group (T) O X O
Control Group (C) O O
Study Design…cont’d
Methods…cont’d
Pre Time Post
Among Treatment Group:
RQ 4 Diverse Environment (DE-T) O X O
Homogeneous Environment (HE-T)
O X O
Among Treatment Group:
RQ 5 Cultural Majority (MA-T) O X O
Cultural Minority (MI-T) O X O
RQ 6 Control Group (C) O O
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.
Methods…cont’d
VariablesIndependent Variables:
Participation in workshops
The level of cultural diversity in participant's working environments
Participants’ personal cultural characteristics
Dependent Variables:Scores of instruments
Methods…cont’d
Instruments
Demographic Information Questionnaire
Methods…cont’d
Gender
Age
Education
Cultural Background
Working Regions
Disability
Cultural Diversity in
Working Environments
Time of Working
Experience with
Foreign-born
Consumers
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
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%)
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 answers1 fill-in question with five blanks
Methods…cont’d
Procedure
Treatment Group
Methods…cont’d
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.
Procedure…cont’d
Methods…cont’d
Control GroupAll 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.
Data Analysis
Cronbach’s Alpha
Factor Analysis
Two-way ANOVA
ANCOVA
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank
McNemar Test
Independent t-test
Paired t-test
Methods…cont’d
ResultsCharacteristics of Participants
N = 92CA: 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%)
Cronbach’s Alpha
Physical Environment, Materials & Resources: α = 0.88
Communication Styles: α = 0.83
Values & Attitudes: α = 0.95
Results…cont’dInternal Consistency
Results…cont’dConstruct Validity
Factor analysisPhysical 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)
Two-way ANOVA
Results…cont’d
Domain/Factor Variable Mean F p d
Communication Style
DE 732.84.29 0.041 0.43
HE 611.7
Using Alternatives
DE 251.66.57 0.012 0.53
HE 191.3
RQ1: Diverse VS Homogenous Environments
(cultural competence)
Results…cont’d
Two-way ANOVA
Domain/Factor Variable Mean F p d
Physical Environ- ment, Materials & Resources
MI 498.13.99 0.049 0.42
MA 377.3
Self Changes MI 226.9
6.45 0.013 0.53MA 168.6
RQ2: Cultural Minorities VS Majorities (cultural competence)
Results…cont’dRQ3: Treatment VS Control Groups
ANCOVADomain/Factor Variable Mean F p d
Physical Environment, Materials & Resources
T 548.86.02 0.017 0.61C 472.0
Language Barrier T 280.4 6.09 0.016 0.62C 261.8
Using Alternatives T 247.6
5.13 0.026 0.56C 211.8
Values & Attitudes T 1633.5 7.54 0.008 0.70C 1531.6Appreciation of Other Cultures
T 950.012.04 0.001 0.88C 880.6
(cultural competence)
Results…cont’dRQ3: Pre-test VS Post-test(knowledge
gained)Wilcoxon signed-rank testMcNemar test
Participants increased their scores on 21 of the 25 items (84%)
41 out of 49 participants (84%) increased their scores
Results…cont’dRQ4: Diverse VS Homogenous Environments
(Improvement of cultural competence)Independent t-test
Domain/Factor Variable Mean t p d
Communication StyleDE-T 5.4
-2.47 0.009 0.77HE-T 119.7
Language Barrier DE-T 16.3-1.41 0.083 0.44
HE-T 40.8
Using Alternatives DE-T 5.4-1.69 0.049 0.52
HE-T 50.0
Self Changes DE-T -16.3-1.93 0.031 0.59
HE-T 29.0
Results…cont’dRQ4…cont’d
Domain/Factor Variable Mean t p dPhysical Environment, Materials & Resources
DE-T 73.9-2.16 0.018 0.67
HE-T 197.4
Values & AttitudesDE-T 126.1
-1.55 0.065 0.50HE-T 275.0
Appreciation of Other Cultures
DE-T 73.9-1.37 0.090 0.45
HE-T 144.4
Avoiding the Inappropriateness
DE-T 15.2-1.45 0.077 0.45
HE-T 61.1
Results…cont’dRQ5: Cultural Minorities VS Majorities (Improvement of cultural competence)Independent t-test
Domain/Factor Variable Mean t p dCommunication Style
Language Barrier MI-T 44.21.30 0.100 0.42
MA-T 19.8
Using Alternatives MI-T 59.61.74 0.045 0.63
MA-T 10.3
Self Changes MI-T -23.1-1.54 0.066 0.53
MA-T 16.4
Results…cont’dRQ6: Testing Effects
Paired t-test8 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%)
Culture brokering workshops had positive effects Follow-up for long-term effects
The influence of participants’ cultural background and working environments
Pre-workshop cultural competenceImprovement of competence
Modify workshops for factors
The presence of testing effects Revise the items
DiscussionsSummary of Main Findings
Discussions…cont’dMajor Shortcomings
Possible ceiling effect of the questionsIn WQ, 9 items with 80-96% correct answerIn 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 studyFor treatment group: Self-selection biasFor control group: Investigators’ bias
Discussions…cont’dPotential Factors
Characteristics of staff positions
Completion of the post-test or not
Education
Experience for working with foreign-born consumers
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