advertisement
On MP3.com: MP3.com Live: Queensryche
Find Articles in:
all
Business
Reference
Technology
News
Sports
Health
Autos
Arts
Home & Garden
advertisement

Content provided in partnership with
Thomson / Gale

One-Stop career centers and job seekers with disabilities: insights from Kansas

Journal of Rehabilitation,  Oct-Dec, 2005  by Jean P. Hall,  Kathy Parker

<< Page 1  Continued from page 3.  Previous | Next

Participants. We determined that mystery customers should be authentic job seekers with disabilities. To meet that objective we recruited such individuals from focus group participants and from individuals working with VR counselors at that time. The eight we selected had been looking for work an average of 1.4 years--some for as little as six months, other up to five years. Their disabilities, including co-occurrences, were: legally blind, depression, anxiety, ADHD, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, bipolar disorder, asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cerebral palsy. They ranged in age from 22 to 51 years (M = 36); all were Causasian. Five participants held post-secondary degrees, two previously attended college, and one held a high school diploma. Each mystery customer received a $75 stipend.

Most Popular Articles in Health
Fuel your workout: exercisers who eat before they work out have more energy ...
Soothe a dry, itchy scalp: 5 easy expert solutions
Cocktails and calories: Beer, wine and liquor calories can really add up. ...
The sour truth about apple cider vinegar - evaluation of therapeutic use
The, six best supplements you've never heard of: these secret weapons can ...
More »
advertisement

Procedures. We developed a checklist for the mystery customers to evaluate the One-Stops by modifying an existing instrument (Hoff, 2001) to include issues and ideas identified in the focus group analysis. Our instrument used a Likert scale indicating whether the mystery customer agreed or disagreed with statements made about their experience at the One-Stop. Statements on the instrument addressed: (a) agency culture (e.g., Asking for help from the staffis easy); (b) accessibility (e.g., It is easy to open the doors); (c) consumer-directness of the service (e.g., I have a choice about what kind of services I want to receive); (d) access to resources (e.g., All the services this agency provides were described to me when I first went there); (e) quality of personnel (e.g., My counselor takes the time to get to know me); and (f) service coordination (e.g., Staff at the Center asked about people from other agencies who are currently assisting me). In addition to evaluating statements on these topics, the mystery customers documented whether specific core, intensive, and training services were made available to them by indicating yes, no, not applicable, or do not know (Table 2).

We provided initial training about services that might be available and the checklist to use in assessing experiences to the job seekers who visited the One-Stops as mystery customers. Although our project was to include multiple One-Stop centers in Kansas, we had difficultly recruiting participants to serve as mystery customers, perhaps because we targeted only people with disabilities who were actually looking for jobs. Consequently, we employed only eight mystery customers who visited the same One-Stop center in one suburban area.

Initially, we met with mystery customers in small groups to discuss the project and to acquaint them with the checklist form used for the evaluation. Once the mystery customers had made their visits, they filled out the checklist and contacted project staff. Staff then interviewed the customers about their experiences. All of the mystery customer visits occurred between February and May of 2003.

Data collection and analysis. Transcripts were made for each interview and checked for reliability by two researchers. The transcripts and notes from the mystery customer interviews were next used to develop a case study for each individual. The case study evidence was examined, categorized, and tabulated with the goal of identifying recurring themes or "pattern-matching" (Yin, 1994). By using multiple case studies to verify themes, we hoped to address the issue of external validity. The case studies in combination with corroborating themes from the focus group transcripts allowed for triangulation of data and, consequently, provided construct validity for the findings.