Contoh Makalah - Berikut ini adalah contoh makalah bahasa Inggris yang mungkin dapat anda jadikan referensi dalam membuat makalah bahasa Inggris.
The Effects of a Supported Employment Program on Psychosocial
Indicators
Abstract
This paper describes the psychosocial effects of a program of supported employment (SE) for persons with severe mental illness. The SE program involves extended individualized supported employment for clients through a Mobile Job Support Worker (MJSW) who maintains contact with the client after job placement and supports the client in a variety of ways. A 50% simple random sample was taken of all persons who entered the Thresholds Agency between 3/1/93 and 2/28/95 and who met study criteria. The resulting 484 cases were randomly assigned to either the SE condition (treatment group) or the usual protocol (control group) which consisted of life skills training and employment in an in-house sheltered workshop setting. All participants were measured at intake and at 3 months after beginning employment, on two measures of psychological functioning (the BPRS and GAS) and two measures of self esteem (RSE and ESE). Significant treatment effects were found on all four measures, but they were in the opposite direction from what was hypothesized. Instead of functioning better and having more self esteem, persons in SE had lower functioning levels and lower self esteem. The most likely explanation is that people who work in low-paying service jobs in real world settings generally do not like them and experience significant job stress, whether they have severe mental illness or not. The implications for theory in psychosocial rehabilitation are considered.
The Effects of a Supported Employment Program on Psychosocial
Indicators for Persons with Severe Mental Illness
Over the past quarter century a shift has occurred from traditional institution-based
models of care for persons with severe mental illness (SMI) to more individualized
community-based treatments. Along with this, there has been a significant shift in thought
about the potential for persons with SMI to be "rehabilitated" toward lifestyles
that more closely approximate those of persons without such illness. A central issue is
the ability of a person to hold a regular full-time job for a sustained period of time.
There have been several attempts to develop novel and radical models for program
interventions designed to assist persons with SMI to sustain full-time employment while
living in the community. The most promising of these have emerged from the tradition of
psychiatric rehabilitation with its emphases on individual consumer goal setting, skills
training, job preparation and employment support (Cook, Jonikas and Solomon, 1992). These
are relatively new and field evaluations are rare or have only recently been initiated
(Cook and Razzano, 1992; Cook, 1992). Most of the early attempts to evaluate such programs
have naturally focused almost exclusively on employment outcomes. However, theory suggests
that sustained employment and living in the community may have important therapeutic
benefits in addition to the obvious economic ones. To date, there have been no formal
studies of the effects of psychiatric rehabilitation programs on key illness-related
outcomes. To address this issue, this study seeks to examine the effects of a new program
of supported employment on psychosocial outcomes for persons with SMI.
Over the past several decades, the theory of vocational rehabilitation has experienced
two major stages of evolution. Original models of vocational rehabilitation were based on
the idea of sheltered workshop employment. Clients were paid a piece rate and worked only
with other individuals who were disabled. Sheltered workshops tended to be "end
points" for persons with severe and profound mental retardation since few ever moved
from sheltered to competitive employment (Woest, Klein & Atkins, 1986). Controlled
studies of sheltered workshop performance of persons with mental illness suggested only
minimal success (Griffiths, 1974) and other research indicated that persons with mental
illness earned lower wages, presented more behavior problems, and showed poorer workshop
attendance than workers with other disabilities (Whitehead, 1977; Ciardiello, 1981).
In the 1980s, a new model of services called Supported Employment (SE) was proposed as
less expensive and more normalizing for persons undergoing rehabilitation (Wehman, 1985).
The SE model emphasizes first locating a job in an integrated setting for minimum wage or
above, and then placing the person on the job and providing the training and support
services needed to remain employed (Wehman, 1985). Services such as individualized job
development, one-on-one job coaching, advocacy with co-workers and employers, and
"fading" support were found to be effective in maintaining employment for
individuals with severe and profound mental retardation (Revell, Wehman & Arnold,
1984). The idea that this model could be generalized to persons with all types of severe
disabilities, including severe mental illness, became commonly accepted (Chadsey-Rusch
& Rusch, 1986).
One of the more notable SE programs was developed at Thresholds, the site for the
present study, which created a new staff position called the mobile job support worker
(MJSW) and removed the common six month time limit for many placements. MJSWs provide
ongoing, mobile support and intervention at or near the work site, even for jobs with high
degrees of independence (Cook & Hoffschmidt, 1993). Time limits for many placements
were removed so that clients could stay on as permanent employees if they and their
employers wished. The suspension of time limits on job placements, along with MJSW
support, became the basis of SE services delivered at Thresholds.
There are two key psychosocial outcome constructs of interest in this study. The first
is the overall
psychological functioning of the person with SMI. This would include
the specification of severity of cognitive and affective symptomotology as well as the
overall level of psychological functioning. The second is the level of self-reported
self
esteem of the person. This was measured both generally and with specific reference to
employment.
The key hypothesis of this study is:
HO: A program of supported employment will result in either no change or
negative effects on psychological functioning and self esteem.
which will be tested against the alternative:
HA: A program of supported employment will lead to positive effects
on psychological functioning and self esteem.
Method
Sample
The population of interest for this study is all adults with SMI residing in the U.S.
in the early 1990s. The population that is accessible to this study consists of all
persons who were clients of the Thresholds Agency in Chicago, Illinois between the dates
of March 1, 1993 and February 28, 1995 who met the following criteria: 1) a history of
severe mental illness (e.g., either schizophrenia, severe depression or manic-depression);
2) a willingness to achieve paid employment; 3) their primary diagnosis must not include
chronic alcoholism or hard drug use; and 4) they must be 18 years of age or older. The
sampling frame was obtained from records of the agency. Because of the large number of
clients who pass through the agency each year (e.g., approximately 500 who meet the
criteria) a simple random sample of 50% was chosen for inclusion in the study. This
resulted in a sample size of 484 persons over the two-year course of the study.
On average, study participants were 30 years old and high school graduates (average
education level = 13 years). The majority of participants (70%) were male. Most had never
married (85%), few (2%) were currently married, and the remainder had been formerly
married (13%). Just over half (51%) are African American, with the remainder Caucasian
(43%) or other minority groups (6%). In terms of illness history, the members in the
sample averaged 4 prior psychiatric hospitalizations and spent a lifetime average of 9
months as patients in psychiatric hospitals. The primary diagnoses were schizophrenia
(42%) and severe chronic depression (37%). Participants had spent an average of almost two
and one-half years (29 months) at the longest job they ever held.
While the study sample cannot be considered representative of the original population
of interest, generalizability was not a primary goal -- the major purpose of this study
was to determine whether a specific SE program
could work in an accessible context.
Any effects of SE evident in this study can be generalized to urban psychiatric agencies
that are similar to Thresholds, have a similar clientele, and implement a similar program.
Measures
All but one of the measures used in this study are well-known instruments in the
research literature on psychosocial functioning. All of the instruments were administered
as part of a structured interview that an evaluation social worker had with study
participants at regular intervals.
Two measures of psychological functioning were used. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
(BPRS)(Overall and Gorham, 1962) is an 18-item scale that measures perceived severity of
symptoms ranging from "somatic concern" and "anxiety" to
"depressive mood" and "disorientation." Ratings are given on a 0-to-6
Likert-type response scale where 0="not present" and 6="extremely
severe" and the scale score is simply the sum of the 18 items. The Global Assessment
Scale (GAS)(Endicott et al, 1976) is a single 1-to-100 rating on a scale where each
ten-point increment has a detailed description of functioning (higher scores indicate
better functioning). For instance, one would give a rating between 91-100 if the person
showed "no symptoms, superior functioning..." and a value between 1-10 if the
person "needs constant supervision..."
Two measures of self esteem were used. The first is the Rosenberg Self Esteem (RSE)
Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), a 10-item scale rated on a 6-point response format where
1="strongly disagree" and 6="strongly agree" and there is no neutral
point. The total score is simply the sum across the ten items, with five of the items
being reversals. The second measure was developed explicitly for this study and was
designed to measure the Employment Self Esteem (ESE) of a person with SMI. This is a
10-item scale that uses a 4-point response format where 1="strongly disagree"
and 4="strongly agree" and there is no neutral point. The final ten items were
selected from a pool of 97 original candidate items, based upon high item-total score
correlations and a judgment of face validity by a panel of three psychologists. This
instrument was deliberately kept simple -- a shorter response scale and no reversal items
-- because of the difficulties associated with measuring a population with SMI. The entire
instrument is provided in Appendix A.
All four of the measures evidenced strong reliability and validity. Internal
consistency reliability estimates using Cronbach's alpha ranged from .76 for ESE to .88
for SE. Test-retest reliabilities were nearly as high, ranging from .72 for ESE to .83 for
the BPRS. Convergent validity was evidenced by the correlations within construct. For the
two psychological functioning scales the correlation was .68 while for the self esteem
measures it was somewhat lower at .57. Discriminant validity was examined by looking at
the cross-construct correlations which ranged from .18 (BPRS-ESE) to .41 (GAS-SE).
Design
A pretest-posttest two-group randomized experimental design was used in this study. In
notational form, the design can be depicted as:
R O X O
R O O
where:
R = the groups were randomly assigned
O = the four measures (i.e., BPRS, GAS, RSE, and ESE)
X = supported employment
The comparison group received the standard Thresholds protocol which emphasized
in-house training in life skills and employment in an in-house sheltered workshop. All
participants were measured at intake (pretest) and at three months after intake
(posttest).
This type of randomized experimental design is generally strong in internal validity.
It rules out threats of history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, mortality and
selection interactions. Its primary weaknesses are in the potential for treatment-related
mortality (i.e., a type of selection-mortality) and for problems that result from the
reactions of participants and administrators to knowledge of the varying experimental
conditions. In this study, the drop-out rate was 4% (N=9) for the control group and 5%
(N=13) in the treatment group. Because these rates are low and are approximately equal in
each group, it is not plausible that there is differential mortality. There is a
possibility that there were some deleterious effects due to participant knowledge of the
other group's existence (e.g., compensatory rivalry, resentful demoralization). Staff were
debriefed at several points throughout the study and were explicitly asked about such
issues. There were no reports of any apparent negative feelings from the participants in
this regard. Nor is it plausible that staff might have equalized conditions between the
two groups. Staff were given extensive training and were monitored throughout the course
of the study. Overall, this study can be considered strong with respect to internal
validity.
Procedure
Between 3/1/93 and 2/28/95 each person admitted to Thresholds who met the study
inclusion criteria was immediately assigned a random number that gave them a 50/50 chance
of being selected into the study sample. For those selected, the purpose of the study was
explained, including the nature of the two treatments, and the need for and use of random
assignment. Participants were assured confidentiality and were given an opportunity to
decline to participate in the study. Only 7 people (out of 491) refused to participate. At
intake, each selected sample member was assigned a random number giving them a 50/50
chance of being assigned to either the Supported Employment condition or the standard
in-agency sheltered workshop. In addition, all study participants were given the four
measures at intake.
All participants spent the initial two weeks in the program in training and
orientation. This consisted of life skill training (e.g., handling money, getting around,
cooking and nutrition) and job preparation (employee roles, coping strategies). At the end
of that period, each participant was assigned to a job site -- at the agency sheltered
workshop for those in the control condition, and to an outside employer if in the
Supported Employment group. Control participants were expected to work full-time at the
sheltered workshop for a three-month period, at which point they were posttested and given
an opportunity to obtain outside employment (either Supported Employment or not). The
Supported Employment participants were each assigned a case worker -- called a Mobile Job
Support Worker (MJSW) -- who met with the person at the job site two times per week for an
hour each time. The MJSW could provide any support or assistance deemed necessary to help
the person cope with job stress, including counseling or working beside the person for
short periods of time. In addition, the MJSW was always accessible by cellular telephone,
and could be called by the participant or the employer at any time. At the end of three
months, each participant was post-tested and given the option of staying with their
current job (with or without Supported Employment) or moving to the sheltered workshop.
Result
There were 484 participants in the final sample for this study, 242 in each treatment.
There were 9 drop-outs from the control group and 13 from the treatment group, leaving a
total of 233 and 229 in each group respectively from whom both pretest and posttest were
obtained. Due to unexpected difficulties in coping with job stress, 19 Supported
Employment participants had to be transferred into the sheltered workshop prior to the
posttest. In all 19 cases, no one was transferred prior to week 6 of employment, and 15
were transferred after week 8. In all analyses, these cases were included with the
Supported Employment group (intent-to-treat analysis) yielding treatment effect estimates
that are likely to be conservative.
The major results for the four outcome measures are shown in Figure 1.
_______________________________________
Insert Figure 1 about here
_______________________________________
It is immediately apparent that in all four cases the null hypothesis has to be
accepted -- contrary to expectations, Supported Employment cases did significantly
worse
on all four outcomes than did control participants.
The mean gains, standard deviations, sample sizes and t-values (t-test for differences
in average gain) are shown for the four outcome measures in Table 1.
_______________________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
_______________________________________
The results in the table confirm the impressions in the figures. Note that all t-values
are negative except for the BPRS where high scores indicate greater severity of illness.
For all four outcomes, the t-values were statistically significant (p<.05).
Conclutions
The results of this study were clearly contrary to initial expectations. The
alternative hypothesis suggested that SE participants would show improved psychological
functioning and self esteem after three months of employment. Exactly the reverse happened
-- SE participants showed significantly worse psychological functioning and self esteem.
There are two major possible explanations for this outcome pattern. First, it seems
reasonable that there might be a delayed positive or "boomerang" effect of
employment outside of a sheltered setting. SE cases may have to go through an initial
difficult period of adjustment (longer than three months) before positive effects become
apparent. This "you have to get worse before you get better" theory is commonly
held in other treatment-contexts like drug addiction and alcoholism. But a second
explanation seems more plausible -- that people working full-time jobs in real-world
settings are almost certainly going to be under greater stress and experience more
negative outcomes than those who work in the relatively safe confines of an in-agency
sheltered workshop. Put more succinctly, the lesson here might very well be that work is
hard. Sheltered workshops are generally very nurturing work environments where virtually
all employees share similar illness histories and where expectations about productivity
are relatively low. In contrast, getting a job at a local hamburger shop or as a shipping
clerk puts the person in contact with co-workers who may not be sympathetic to their
histories or forgiving with respect to low productivity. This second explanation seems
even more plausible in the wake of informal debriefing sessions held as focus groups with
the staff and selected research participants. It was clear in the discussion that SE
persons experienced significantly higher job stress levels and more negative consequences.
However, most of them also felt that the experience was a good one overall and that even
their "normal" co-workers "hated their jobs" most of the time.
One lesson we might take from this study is that much of our contemporary theory in
psychiatric rehabilitation is naive at best and, in some cases, may be seriously
misleading. Theory led us to believe that outside work was a "good" thing that
would naturally lead to "good" outcomes like increased psychological functioning
and self esteem. But for most people (SMI or not) work is at best tolerable, especially
for the types of low-paying service jobs available to study participants. While people
with SMI may not function as well or have high self esteem, we should balance this with
the desire they may have to "be like other people" including struggling with the
vagaries of life and work that others struggle with.
Future research in this are needs to address the theoretical assumptions about
employment outcomes for persons with SMI. It is especially important that attempts to
replicate this study also try to measure how SE participants feel about the decision to
work, even if traditional outcome indicators suffer. It may very well be that negative
outcomes on traditional indicators can be associated with a "positive" impact
for the participants and for the society as a whole.
References
Chadsey-Rusch, J. and Rusch, F.R. (1986). The ecology of the workplace. In J.
Chadsey-Rusch, C. Haney-Maxwell, L. A. Phelps and F. R. Rusch (Eds.),
School-to-Work
Transition Issues and Models. (pp. 59-94), Champaign IL: Transition Institute at
Illinois.
Ciardiello, J.A. (1981). Job placement success of schizophrenic clients in sheltered
workshop programs.
Vocational Evaluation and Work Adjustment Bulletin,
14,
125-128, 140.
Cook, J.A. (1992). Job ending among youth and adults with severe mental illness.
Journal
of Mental Health Administration,
19(2), 158-169.
Cook, J.A. & Hoffschmidt, S. (1993). Psychosocial rehabilitation programming: A
comprehensive model for the 1990's. In R.W. Flexer and P. Solomon (Eds.),
Social and
Community Support for People with Severe Mental Disabilities: Service Integration in
Rehabilitation and Mental Health. Andover, MA: Andover Publishing.
Cook, J.A., Jonikas, J., & Solomon, M. (1992). Models of vocational rehabilitation
for youth and adults with severe mental illness.
American Rehabilitation,
18,
3, 6-32.
Cook, J.A. & Razzano, L. (1992). Natural vocational supports for persons with
severe mental illness: Thresholds Supported Competitive Employment Program, in L. Stein
(ed.),
New Directions for Mental Health Services, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
56,
23-41.
Endicott, J.R., Spitzer, J.L. Fleiss, J.L. and Cohen, J. (1976). The Global Assessment
Scale: A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 33, 766-771.
Griffiths, R.D. (1974). Rehabilitation of chronic psychotic patients.
Psychological
Medicine,
4, 316-325.
Overall, J. E. and Gorham, D. R. (1962). The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale.
Psychological
Reports, 10, 799-812.
Rosenberg, M. (1965).
Society and Adolescent Self Image. Princeton, NJ,
Princeton University Press.
Wehman, P. (1985). Supported competitive employment for persons with severe
disabilities. In P. McCarthy, J. Everson, S. Monn & M. Barcus (Eds.),
School-to-Work
Transition for Youth with Severe Disabilities, (pp. 167-182), Richmond VA: Virginia
Commonwealth University.
Whitehead, C.W. (1977).
Sheltered Workshop Study: A Nationwide Report on Sheltered
Workshops and their Employment of Handicapped Individuals. (Workshop Survey, Volume
1), U.S. Department of Labor Service Publication. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Woest, J., Klein, M. and Atkins, B.J. (1986). An overview of supported employment
strategies.
Journal of Rehabilitation Administration,
10(4), 130-135.
Nah demikianlah tadi
contoh makalah dalam bahasa Inggris yang bisa saya berikan untuk kalian, saya harap bisa menjadi referensi dalam membuat makalah nantinya.
Saya sudah menyertakan link download untuk contoh makalah kebidanan ini karena akan terlalu panjang apabila di tulis di sini, silahkan klik link download di bawah ini.
