Online Program

A Comparative Analysis of an Online and In-Person Self-Advocacy Skills Training Program Targeting Classroom Accommodations

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Jeffrey Gordon, M.A., Research and Training Center on Independent Living and Department of Applied Behavior Analysis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Glen White, M.S., M.A., Ph.D., Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS
Jean Ann Summers, Ph.D., Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS

            This study will compare two self-advocacy skills training for negotiating Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) classroom accommodations. The Access to Success online training includes a knowledge and skills tutorials. The knowledge tutorial provides information about the student’s rights and responsibilities, while the skills tutorial shows students how to request accommodations. Students completed the Access to Success tutorial allowing them to view all video examples of students with disabilities negotiating accommodations. Knowledge was assesed using two pretest/ posttest assessments, while skills will be assessed using role-play scenarios. Results showed that the online knowledge tutorial improved students understanding about classroom accommodation, while the online skills tutorial only improved some of the negotiation skills. Unmastered skills were then trained using an in-person group training. The in-person training replicated White and Vo’s (2006) procedures, including: operationally defining and task analyzing target behaviors, using role-play scenarios to practice and assess performance, and descriptive performance feedback. A powerpoint presentation replicating the online skills tutorial guided the in-person training. Results showed that the in-person training allowed students to master the remaining negotiation skills. Generalizations was assessed one week after the in-person training using role-play scenarios based upon their self-assessed need for accommodations. These findings showed that although the online training was effective for some of the skills, more targeted, in-person training may be needed to permit skills mastery. A comparative analysis helped identify which skills are sensitive to the online training and which skills were sensitive to the in-person training.

Learning Areas:

Advocacy for health and health education
Assessment of individual and community needs for health education
Conduct evaluation related to programs, research, and other areas of practice
Ethics, professional and legal requirements
Program planning
Social and behavioral sciences

Learning Objectives:
Compare the effectiveness of two commonly used advocacy training program delivery modes-online and in-person for students with disabilities Evaluate, Assess, and Analyze the effects of each training program on students with disabilities advocacy skills Describe analysis and assessment methods Define Target Behaviors Related to Negotiating Classroom Accommodations List component skills needed to shape classroom advocacy Describe two commonly used advocacy skills training programs-one online and one in-person Describe how skills may be assessed for advocacy training programs Identify how online and in-person training programs may be improved using these methods Formulate suggestions about how both training modes may be combined for more succinct advocacy skills training procedures

Keyword(s): Accessibility, Disabilities

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am qualified to present this study because I am a member of the research team that designed and implemented the training. I was the researcher primarily responsible for it's implementation as this was the topic of my dissertation. My scientific interests include: improving community participation for people with disabilities, self-advocacy, pain management, and behavioral economics as it related to decision-making.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.