Evaluating online disaster preparedness l l training for family - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

l l Evaluating online disaster preparedness 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

h d l

• Methodology
• 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.

300 250 ds H d T 256 251 150 200 es of Hazard Geophysical Climatological Hazard Type 126 100 Instance Hydrological Meteorological 126 50 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 20 40 40 38 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED)

Background: Problem Background: Problem

Disproportionate number Disproportionate number

• f 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 1 9.5 8 ns) 6.8 7.7 8.5 9.1 6 ion (Billion 65+ 15‐64 Ages 2 4 Populati 15 64 >15 2 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2010 2020 2030 2040 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 i i f ii University of Hawaii at Manoa

• Articulate Storyline
• Articulate Storyline

(E‐Learning Authoring Software)

• Canvas (Learning

Management System)

Project Design: Repackage & Redesign j g p g g

• f Instructional Content

Project Design: Repackage & Redesign j g p g g

• f Instructional Content

Project Design: Repackage & Redesign j g p g g

• f 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

M t hi M lti l Ch i d S i – Matching, Multiple Choice, and Scenario

• 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 3.29 4.34 4.23 3.00 4.00 evel Pre‐ 2.83 2.00 nfidence Le Pre Survey Post‐ Survey 1.00 Con Survey 0.00 n=35 General Knowledge Senior Citizen Knowledge

Findings: Overall Confidence Level by Age Findings: Overall Confidence Level by Age

5.00 4.29 3.64 4.27 3 00 4.00 Level Ages 2.79 2.00 3.00

• nfidence L

<40 40+ g 1.00 Co 0.00 n=35 Pre‐Survey Post‐Survey

Note: Overall = General Knowledge + Senior Citizen Knowledge

Findings: Overall Confidence Level by g y Caregiver Status

5.00 4.31 4.23 4.00 Level

Caregiver

Ages 2.94 3.16 2.00 3.00

• nfidence L

Caregiver Non‐ caregiver

1.00 Co 0.00 n=35 Pre‐Survey Post‐Survey

Note: Caregiver=living with/providing care for 1 or more seniors, Non‐caregiver=0 (none)

Findings: Assessment Scores Findings: Assessment Scores

17 16 18 49% 17 12 14 16 nts 9 6 8 10 Participan 25% 1 1 1 4 2 2 4 6 6% 11% 3% 3% 3% 1 1 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Correct Answers Out of 12 (%) n=35

Findings: Assessment Scores Findings: Assessment Scores

17 16 18 49% 17 12 14 16 nts 9 6 8 10 Participan 25% 1 1 1 4 2 2 4 6 6% 11% 3% 3% 3% 1 1 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Correct Answers Out of 12 (%) n=35

Findings: Assessment Scores Findings: Assessment Scores

17 16 18 49% 17 12 14 16 nts 9 6 8 10 Participan 25% 1 1 1 4 2 2 4 6 6% 11% 3% 3% 3% 1 1 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Correct Answers Out of 12 (%) n=35

Findings: Assessment Scores Findings: Assessment Scores

17 16 18 49% 17 12 14 16 nts 9 6 8 10 Participan 25% 1 1 1 4 2 2 4 6 6% 11% 3% 3% 3% 1 1 1 2 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% 94% 97% 91% 100% 91% 100% 97% 94% 89% 77% 100% 46% 46% 50% 75% Score 25% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Question Number n=35 Q

Findings: Percent Answering Correctly Findings: Percent Answering Correctly

125% 94% 97% 91% 100% 91% 100% 97% 94% 89% 77% 100% 46% 46% 50% 75% Score 25% 0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Question Number n=35 Q

Findings: Average Participant Rating Findings: Average Participant Rating

4 47 4.47 nstruct Ease of Use E 4.41 4.47 ematic Con Engagement Quality 4.27 The Satisfaction 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 Rating Level n=35 g n 35

Findings: Highly Rated g g y

Thematic Construct n=35 Rating Ease of Use 4.47 Module was easy to use 4.51

• du e

as easy o use 5 Directions are easy to understand 4.54 Questions are easy to complete 4.34 Engagement 4.47 Length of module is manageable 4.46 Use of website makes module more engaging 4.40 Videos and images used are engaging 4.54 Quality 4 41 Quality 4.41 Information presented is useful for me 4.29 Information presented is useful for others 4.40 Information presented is appropriate 4.56 Information presented is appropriate 4.56 Satisfaction 4.27 Consider using online training again in the future 4.31 Would recommend others use online training 4.23

Findings: Section Feedback Findings: Section Feedback

Section n=35 Confusing Useful Natural Hazards 2 15 Caregiver 1 8 Non-caregiver 1 7 Assessing Capabilities 3 20 Assessing Capabilities 3 20 Caregiver 9 Non-caregiver 3 11 Assessing Needs 3 24 g Caregiver 1 10 Non-caregiver 2 14 Assessing Risk and Vulnerability 9 29 Caregiver 6 16 Non-caregiver 3 13

Note: Open‐ended question, could respond to both Confusing and Useful

Findings: Feedback Findings: Feedback

• Want more information on preparedness

Want more information on preparedness

• rganizations that they can contact
• Instructional content:
• Instructional content:

– More scenario questions P id d fi i i f i i l /j – Provide definitions for unique terminology/jargon – More examples of/more information on risk and l bilit vulnerability

• Feedback on test (assessment) questions

Conclusions Conclusions

• Module addressed time and access concerns

Module addressed time and access concerns

– Majority (29 of 35) reported that they took less than an hour to complete than an hour to complete – Content made available online for informal caregivers caregivers

• Positive response

32 of 35 would recommend the module (3 unsure) – 32 of 35 would recommend the module (3 unsure)

Conclusions Conclusions

• Future iterations

Future iterations

– Track individual progress Increase number of participants – Increase number of participants – Increase diversity of participants Add dditi l t t t d b ti i t – Add additional content requested by participants – Work with additional subject matter experts

Thank you Thank you

• Critical friends

Critical friends

• Colleagues and classmates

i d h h C f l

• Dr. Irvine and the other LTEC faculty
• Participants

http://ndptc.hawaii.edu

For More Information For More Information

• Ready.gov (FEMA) Guide
• Red Cross Guide

eady go ( ) u de http://1.usa.gov/1FMbTyI ed

• ss

u de http://rdcrss.org/1bBunA1

Questions? Questions?