Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Recorded presentation

Matt G. Mutchler, PhD, Sociology, California State University, Dominguez Hills, 1000 E Victoria St, Carson, CA 90747, 3102433274, mmutchler@csudh.edu, Tara A. McKay, BA, Research & Evaluation Core, AIDS Project Los Angeles, 611 S Kingsley Dr, Los Angeles, CA 90005, Emily Elman, MPH, Department of Human Services, Oregon Diabetes Program, 800 NE Oregon St, Suite 730, Portland, OR 97232, and George Ayala, PsyD, Director of The Institute for Gay Men's Health, AIDS Project Los Angeles, 611 S Kingsley Dr, Los Angeles, CA 90005.

Background: This session provides a comparison of methods used to assess client needs and satisfaction and a discussion of how the definition of “client” influences the outcome of such assessments. Methods: The research staff conducted assessments of client satisfaction and needs in 2001 and 2005 with comparable instruments but different methodological approaches. In 2001 (N=1,365), client satisfaction was assessed via mail-administered surveys to all registered clients on the mailing list. In 2005 (N=194), the approach was modified to fit with a different definition of client, i.e., registered clients walking into the agency for services. Client needs and satisfaction were assessed via computer-assisted self-interview (CASI) of every other client. Many significant differences across the 2001 and 2005 samples were found using bivariate analyses. Results: Compared to 2001, a greater proportion of respondents in the 2005 sample were Black or Latino (p<.05), non-English speaking (p<.001), and bisexual or straight (p<.001). 2005 respondents were more likely to report an annual income below $9000 (p<.001), less education (p<.001), poorer general health (p<.05), and higher rates of homelessness (p<.05) and incarceration (p<.05). The 2005 respondents reported higher rates of HIV risk behaviors such as crystal meth use (p<.05), unprotected anal sex (p<.05), and sex exchange (p<.001). Overall satisfaction with agency services was higher in 2005 (p<.05). Conclusions: It is important for agency staff to consider their definition of “client” participants when conducting assessments for planning purposes. The perceptions and experiences of study participants vary depending on how the 'client' is defined and recruited.

Learning Objectives:

• Participants will be provided a review of two methods used to assess client satisfaction and will aquire an understanding of how the implementation of those differing methods affect the outcome of a client satisfaction assessment. In addition, participants will gain an understanding of how client survey design may influence program planning.

Keywords: Methodology, Evaluation

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No

Recorded presentation