Family Development Credential Training impact on self-efficacy beliefs of human service workers.
Smith, Deborah B. ; Day, Nancy E.
ABSTRACT
The Family Development Credential (FDC) Training offers an
innovative interagency training for human service workers within a
community. We use a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the impact of FDC
on work-related self-efficacy beliefs. Quantitative data found FDC
participants increased their levels of positive self-efficacy beliefs
and had no change in negative self-efficacy beliefs; a comparison group
saw no change in positive self-efficacy beliefs but increased their
levels of negative self-efficacy beliefs. Qualitative data indicated
training increased work-related self-efficacy beliefs. Overall, findings
suggest that FDC training improved self-efficacy in human service
workers and that no training allowed negative self-efficacy beliefs to
grow.
keywords: self-efficacy, training, program evaluation, human
service workers
In the past, families could rely upon friends, relatives, and their
neighbors for assistance. Today many children and families do not have
access to the informal support systems needed to be self-reliant. They
turn instead to state-supported and non-profit human service
organizations that most often offer formal services that are fragmented,
problem-specific, and crisis-driven. The result is ineffective in
empowering families to use services as stepping-stones on their path to
long-lasting self-reliance. There is widespread consensus among workers,
policymakers, and families that this conventional human services model
must change. What can be done?
Start with the workers. This paper describes a training for human
service workers and an outcome evaluation of this program in order to
add to our theoretical understanding of how training can influence human
service workers' work-related self-efficacy. The Family Development
Credential (FDC) Training is an innovative community-based interagency
educational course that creates a collaborative infrastructure of
community human service organizations.
Interdisciplinary training is gaining acceptance in the health
professions (Kolomer, Quinn, & Steele, 2010), and human service work
can benefit by similarly bringing together the experiences of social
workers, therapists, paraprofessionals, and others have with their
clients.
Collaboration among organizations enhances the FDC Training. The
FDC Training hosting site trains its own workers, but also invites
workers from other organizations in the community to participate. This
intentionally creates a collaborative training environment, increasing
information sharing and setting the stage for future interactions
between organizations. This collaborative approach assumes that
decisions must be made at the community level and that decision-makers
from many agencies must buy into the FDC Training concept for it to be
successful. The administrators and Boards of Directors provide
workers' release time and other resources to enable them to attend
the classes. This collaborative effort is critical for the FDC
Training's success, which enhances the community's workforce
capacity.
Workers enter the human services with a desire to change
people's lives, but they often find that their work involves more
"pushing paper" than helping families (Magennis & Smith,
2005). Masters of Social Work (MSWs) are usually placed in supervisory
positions, so direct human service assistance is often provided by
paraprofessionals without college degrees or workers with general
post-secondary training in the social sciences or humanities but little
or no knowledge of human service provision (Hall, Amodeo, Shaffer, &
Vander Bilt, 2000; Holm, 2002; Sexton, Lobman, Constans, Snyder &
Ernest, 1997). Thus families in need of assistance are prevented from
directly interacting with workers with graduate training.
Because of the high potential for frustration and burnout in human
service jobs, interventions must be identified that can help workers
increase their successful interactions with families, which in turn may
increase workers' favorable experiences of their jobs. By
instilling better skills to navigate their challenging work, the FDC
Training aims to increase workers' capacity to provide improved
service quality for youth and families.
To evaluate the FDC Training outcomes we employ self-efficacy
theory from the organizational behavior literature, using--for the first
time we believe--an organizational studies theory to address the FDC
Training participants' perception of performance resulting from the
classes.
SELF-EFFICACY THEORY
Self-efficacy is a person's belief that she or he has the
ability to successfully manage and execute a particular task or
situation. Self-efficacy beliefs operate in all areas of life; a person
may have strong positive self-efficacy beliefs in some life areas such
as schoolwork, but negative self-efficacy beliefs in others such as
attracting a mate (Bandura, 1989; Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Self-efficacy beliefs are created via four main mechanisms: vicarious
experience by watching and modeling others' behavior; persuasion
from others; the individual's perceptions of her or his
physiological state; and enacted mastery, repeated, successful task
performance.
Vicarious experiences increase self-efficacy when behavior models
(often co-workers and/or supervisors) are seen modeling behaviors that
overcome challenges. This is particularly effective when the models are
similar in age and other characteristics to the individual, generate
clear behavioral outcomes, and are psychologically similar (Gist, 1987;
Jaina & Tyson, 2004). Persuasion from others can reinforce an
individual's feeling that she or he is capable of the task. For
example, one study found that transformational leaders enhanced worker
performance through enabling the workers' self-efficacy beliefs
(Pillai & Williams, 2004). Physiological states can also influence
perceptions of self-efficacy; anxiety may be interpreted as signaling an
individual lacks adequate skills to complete a task, reinforcing low
self-efficacy levels (Gist, 1987; Jones & Riazi, 2011).
Research confirms that self-efficacy perceptions positively predict
task performance. In fact, in some cases it may be a better predictor of
future performance than past behavior (Gist, 1987). Additionally,
positive self-efficacy beliefs have been found to negatively predict job
plateauing in older workers (Armstrong-Stassen, 2008), intention to
quit, and turnover (McNatt & Judge, 2008). Positive self-efficacy
beliefs also positively predict customer-oriented behavior (Lin, 2008),
job satisfaction, commitment (McNatt & Judge, 2008), and a
willingness to engage in constructive dissent (Parker, 1998).
Further, positive self-efficacy beliefs may buffer work stressors.
This has been demonstrated in several samples, including human service
managers (Lee & Ashforth, 1990; Zunz, 1998), nurses (Greenglass
& Burke, 2002; J. Lee & Akhtar, 2007; Zellars, Hochwarter,
Perrewe, Miles, & Kiewitz, 2001) and teachers (Schwarzer &
Hallum, 2008; Tang, Au, Schwarzer, & Schmitz, 2001).
A worker's self-efficacy beliefs predict the choice of
activities in which she or he will participate and thus whether or not
mastery will be acquired. Individuals who hold negative self-efficacy
beliefs may avoid developmental tasks that could improve performance.
This causes them to miss important skill-building opportunities,
creating a vicious cycle. Those with positive self-efficacy beliefs will
choose more challenging activities and develop task-related skills and
enhance self-efficacy, creating a virtuous cycle (Gist, 1987).
Why should the human service sector concern itself with increasing
workers' positive self-efficacy beliefs? Any organization focused
on success will encourage self-efficacy. The demanding, frustrating, and
stressful responsibilities of human service workers often results in
discouraged workers lacking confidence in their ability to help their
clients. These discouraged workers may lack positive self-efficacy
beliefs, and thus may be likely to avoid developmental opportunities
such as seeking support from colleagues or other experts. Consequently,
their negative self-efficacy beliefs threaten their ability to be
successful.
On the other hand, human service workers with positive
self-efficacy beliefs are more likely to receive positive social support
from coworkers, supervisors, and others (Acker, 2003; Magennis &
Smith, 2005; Smith, 2009; Smith & Shields, 2013; Um & Harrison,
1998; Zunz, 1998). And their greater confidence in their own skills may
lead to higher job satisfaction (Magennis & Smith, 2005; Maslach,
Jackson, & Leiter, 1996; Zimmerman et al., 2005; Zunz, 1998).
Training is necessary for human services to develop the positive
self-efficacy beliefs necessary to be effective and satisfied with their
work. Interventions that incorporate one or more of the four mechanisms
to self-efficacy (vicarious experiences, persuasion, monitoring
physiological states, and enacted mastery) have been shown to increase
positive self-efficacy perceptions (Mathieu, Martineau, &
Tannenbaum, 1993; Sullivan & Mahalik, 2000). Indeed, it may be that
effective interventions such as the FDC Training are instrumental in
ensuring that human service workers are competent, satisfied, and serve
their clients successfully.
FDC IN MISSOURI
The FDC Training seeks to increase workers' positive
self-efficacy beliefs through building skills for successful
interactions with families and coworkers by reorienting the human
service practice to a "strengths-based" approach. Core values
include understanding that all individuals and all families have
strengths (Cochran & Henderson, 1986) and that the role played by
the human service worker should be that of a nondirective facilitator
who only assists help-seekers make decisions (Boehm & Staples,
2002). The FDC Training provides human service workers with concrete
opportunities to develop positive self-efficacy beliefs about their
abilities through enacted mastery--repeated experiences in systematic
skill building in which the individual accomplishes successively more
complex, difficult tasks (Bandura, 1989; Gist, 1987; Wood & Bandura,
1989).
The University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC) College of Arts and
Sciences Family Studies Program led the implementation in Missouri of
the FDC Training between 1997 and 2011, collaborating with a partnership
of educational institutions, state agencies, not-for-profit
organizations, and agency coalitions. Over 600 human service workers
earned the Family Development Credential (FDC) upon successful
completion of three elements: a 90-hour curriculum over a six to eight
month period; passing a statewide exam; and completion of a skills
portfolio with one-on-one assistance with an advisor (Smith, McCarthy,
Hill, & Mosley, 2007).
The FDC Training uses curriculum from the text, Empowerment Skills
for Family Workers, 2nd Edition (Forest, 2003). It includes such
chapters as "Helping Families Set and Reach Goals" and
"Taking Good Care of Yourself" that explicitly address the
emotional exhaustion and depersonalization among family service workers
and provides actionable behaviors to help manage the stress intrinsic to
this type of work. The curriculum assists participants in finding a
sense of professional mission, highlighting the many skills necessary to
succeed in human service work, which increases workers' positive
self-efficacy beliefs in their ability to succeed.
PREVIOUS FDC TRAINING EVALUATIONS
Goals of the FDC Training include family, worker, and agency
change. However, the focus of this outcome evaluation is exclusively on
worker change. Our decision is based on two factors. First, the primary
focus of change is on workers, with the ultimate goal that workers'
increased skill will then improve service to families. Other
states' FDC Training evaluations have found both professional and
personal changes in workers; see Hewitt, Crane, & Mooney's
thorough review of FDC Training evaluations to date (2010). In general,
FDC participation has been associated with increases in job-related
skills and enhanced personal and professional self-esteem (Crane, 2000;
Rolison & Watrous, 2003).
A second reason to focus on the worker exclusively is that
isolating changes in family outcomes resulting from staff training and
development is extremely difficult. It would be quite challenging to
determine how a program designed for delivery to the frontline workers
will ultimately influence the families assisted by those workers because
workers, not the families, are involved in the FDC Training. As stated
in an article on this subject..."positive (client) outcomes, while
most conclusive, are also the most difficult to attain. A multitude of
complex factors, both within and outside of programs, operate to
influence (clients), which makes it difficult to demonstrate that the
outcomes observed in (the clients) are due specifically to staff
training" (Bouffard, 2004 p.19). Indeed, a recent project
attempting to show the link between participation in the FDC and
decreases in child clients' developmental delays was unsuccessful
(Harvey, 2011).
CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR FDC TRAINING INFLUENCE ON SELF-EFFICACY
This study proposes that participation in the FDC Training provides
workers the opportunity to experience all four mechanisms of
self-efficacy, which increases participants' positive self-efficacy
beliefs concerning their job performance. This evaluation uses a
mixed-methods model, recognizing that gathering both qualitative and
quantitative data provides a fuller understanding of the
participants' experiences. We use the qualitative approach to
determine if and/or how any of the four mechanisms work to enhance FDC
participants' self-efficacy.
Then using quantitative data, we focus explicitly on whether if and
how the FDC training uses the mechanism of enacted mastery to increase
work-related self-efficacy beliefs. We therefore can answer three
research questions, the first two focus only on FDC participants. (1)
Did change in positive self-efficacy beliefs occur for the workers
participating in the FDC Training? (2) Did change in negative
self-efficacy beliefs occur for the workers participating in the FDC
Training? We then compare the results for FDC participants with a group
of similar human service workers asking: (3) Do any changes in any self
efficacy beliefs differ between FDC participants and this comparison
group who did not participate in the FDC Training?
METHOD
Quantitative
This evaluation's quantitative outcomes focused on how the FDC
Training builds a record of accomplishment of the systematic, repeated
successful task performance, or enacted mastery, leading to positive
self-efficacy beliefs.
Sample. Evaluation data were gathered via surveys between 2002 and
2004 from FDC Training participants and a comparison group of other
human service workers who did not participate in the program. Wave 1
data were collected from FDC participants prior to beginning FDC classes
and Wave 2 data were gathered post-training. Although Wave 1 data
included 229 respondents, our analyses included only respondents who
participated in both Wave 1 and Wave 2, for a final sample of 175. See
Table 1 for a description of respondents on selected characteristics.
Comparison group data were collected at the same time as the FDC
participant data for both Wave 1 and Wave 2.
Overall, the groups are comparable with two exceptions. The FDC
group has a statistically significant higher percentage of
African-Americans than the comparison group (52% to 27%, [rho] <
.001) and the FDC group members work, on average, significantly more
hours in a week (43 and 39 hours respectively, [rho] < .05). These
differences might be a cause for concern. However, a recent study of 340
professional counselors found burnout, which self-efficacy beliefs can
counteract, was not related to differences in demographic
characteristics such as gender, class, race and ethnicity (Lent &
Schwartz, 2012).
Measures of the dependent variable. We use three measures for the
dependent variable of self-efficacy beliefs. One captures positive
self-efficacy beliefs, the other two negative self-efficacy beliefs. We
used the Pearlin and Schooler Global Mastery Scale (1978) as a proxy for
positive self-efficacy beliefs. This seven-item measure approximates the
concept of self-efficacy in the workplace in that it assesses the
worker's feeling that she or he can "do just about anything I
really set my mind to do," and "what happens to me in the
future mostly depends on me" (0 = low to 7 = high; [alpha]: Wave 1
= .74; [alpha]: Wave 2 = .74). Although this measure is often considered
a measure of general mastery, we believe it is an appropriate proxy for
worker self-efficacy because the items explicitly focused on workplace
experiences.
Feelings of futility and negative attitude were used as the proxies
for negative self-efficacy beliefs. These scale measures were taken from
the Human Services Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (HSJSQ) (Shapiro,
Burkey, Dorman, & Welker, 1996), considered the best source for
measuring a number of attitudes common to human service jobs.
Appropriateness of these scales as measures of negative self-efficacy
beliefs can be seen in items such as "Sometimes I feel there is
nothing I can do to help my clients" (futility feelings scale,
composed of six items, [alpha]: Wave 1 = .79, [alpha]: Wave 2 = .79),
and "I am often upset and depressed by my client's
problems" (negative attitude scale, composed of seven items,
[alpha]: Wave 1 = .70, [alpha]: Wave 2 = .69).
At Wave 1, t-tests showed that FDC participants were not
significantly different than non-participants in initial values of our
three proxies for self-efficacy beliefs--mastery, feelings of futility,
and negative attitude--demonstrating that these two groups started out
as very similar. The fact that there are no significant differences
between the two groups in these measures at the baseline means their
self-efficacy beliefs can be profitably compared.
Measures of control variables. We propose that the FDC Training
succeeded in increasing the enacted mastery aspect of self-efficacy
beliefs. In the added control variables, self-efficacy beliefs are
vicarious experience and persuasion. We controlled for these by using
items from the HSJSQ that loaded on an "expert advice and
support" factor as we anticipated that supervisors and coworkers
might provide expert knowledge sharing and behavior modeling. This scale
was composed of five items such as "My supervisor is knowledgeable,
skillful, and helpful to me in my work," and "I have
sufficient access to expert consultation on matters for which I have
professional need" ([alpha]: Wave 1 = .85). Because we were
interested in outcomes of the FDC Training, we used only Wave 1 data for
the control variables. Additionally, we controlled for three additional
variables, which might contribute to self-efficacy beliefs: the number
of years of related professional experience, number of years in the job,
and level of education. Years of experience and years in job were
logarithmically transformed due to their positively skewed distributions
(Howell, 2007; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Measure of the independent variable. If a respondent participated
in the FDC Training, the measure was coded as a one (1). If the
respondent did not participate in the program, the measure was coded
zero (0).
Quantitative analytic strategy. To answer the first two research
questions, we employed a bivariate analysis of paired t-tests to
determine any differences in the mean scores of the self-efficacy belief
measures between Waves 1 and 2 for the FDC participants. To answer the
third research question we then compared the FDC participants'
paired t-tests results with results of the paired t-tests for the
comparison group. To more fully investigate the third question we used
regression analyses to assess the effect of FDC Training after
controlling for other variables that might affect our self-efficacy
belief measures. Here we used change scores (Wave 2 - Wave 1) in the
measures of the dependent variable because they are considered to be one
of the most robust measures for determining actual differences over time
in panel studies (Johnson, 2005). High kurtosis in the change scores
required us to normalize the distributions using sine transformations
(Ramirez, Moss, & Boggess, 1994). Because the small sample size did
not yield sufficient power for multivariate regression, we used
univariate stepwise regressions (Pedhazur, 1982). After controlling for
expert advice and support, education, years of experience, and years in
job the first step of the regression equations we were able to isolate
the impact of FDC participation on workers' self-efficacy beliefs
in the second step of the regression analysis.
Qualitative
Qualitative data were collected primarily via focus groups which
"can give evaluators access to the reasoning processes that make it
possible to understand what (in the program) works and also how and why
it works...focus groups provide a dynamic means to portray programs in
action" (Ansay, Perkins, & Nelson, 2004, p.15). A convenience
sample of workers who had participated in the FDC Training (N=13) was
recruited to participate in focus groups at two local FDC hosting sites,
St. Louis and Springfield. The two groups are generally similar in their
demographic characteristics. We made video and audio recordings and
transcripts of both focus groups. We also used comments gathered from
responses to the open-ended question, "Is there anything else you
would like to add?" located at the end of the quantitative survey.
We read all data, analyzing and coding comments to see how they fit into
the four components of self-efficacy beliefs.
RESULTS
Quantitative Evidence of Positive Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Change in FDC participants over time. The top panel in Table 2
reports the differences in the mean scores of our self-efficacy measures
between Waves 1 and 2 for the FDC participants. A significant difference
between the Wave 1 score and the Wave 2 score indicates the FDC
participants report a sizable increase in their perceptions of mastery
from before they started until after the conclusion of the program (p
< .05). FDC participants increased in mastery, the measure of
positive self-efficacy beliefs, but they showed no change in levels of
the measures of negative self-efficacy beliefs, feelings of futility and
negative attitude.
Differences between FDC participants and comparison group. We
compared these results with those of the comparison group to answer, in
part, the third research question. Findings are in the bottom panel of
Table 2. The mean score for positive self-efficacy beliefs of the
workers in the comparison group decreased only slightly over time, but
the scores for their negative self-efficacy beliefs actually increased.
These workers showed statistically significant increased feelings of
futility (p < .05) and negative attitude (p < .001), indicating
that the comparison group saw change in the direction opposite that of
the FDC participants.
To further explicate the differences between the two groups we
turned to regression analyses to determine if controlling for potential
antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs influenced the results (see Table
3). After entering the control variables, we found that participation in
the FDC was related at a significant level to increased positive
self-efficacy beliefs (p < .001) and decreased levels of negative
self-efficacy beliefs (p < .01) compared to the nonparticipants.
There was no difference in FDC participants and non-participants in
change in feelings of futility.
Qualitative Evidence of Positive Self-Efficacy Beliefs
In reviewing the qualitative comments, based on a coding scheme
created to capture comments about how the FDC increased feelings of
work-related self-efficacy, we surmised that many fit into the four
mechanisms that lead to positive self-efficacy beliefs, as follows:
Enacted mastery.
I feel I am better equipped to work with my families.
I feel very effective.
I have had better luck at them keeping their dental appointments this
year [after FDC Training]. The parents have been taking them..., I have
not had to. I've set up (the appointment) for them three times already
and they've not shown up, (but when) they set it up for themselves
they're more apt to show up. That's really critical.
(I)t's been helpful in helping me to gain more communication skills and
allowing (clients) to set their own goals. You know, realizing that
they usually know what best for them... I met with one of our residents
at the (domestic violence) shelter and I was explaining...about (family
development) and she said it was the first time that anyone had ever
told her she could be empowered.
I was attached (to a teenage client) like he was a child of mine,
but... I had to pull back, I had to look at his strengths ... and allow
him to take some effort and some ownership.(I) learned that from the
class.
I feel more confident because I'm able really to look at the strengths,
whereas before I took the class, I had no clue about strengths, because
(when) families (came) to us there was always a problem and we focused
on that problem. (A)fter taking the class, I'm able to look at the
strengths and knowing that yeah, they came to us because (of) a
problem, but that wasn't the biggest focus.
Verbal persuasion from others.
The FDC...truly is an opportunity for (human service) workers to
develop a positive attitude together, support, rather than compete with
each other, learn to partner with families to share responsibility for
their success so we don't have to do everything for them. (It enables
us to) feel challenged by our work but NOT overwhelmed or hopeless.
Perception of physiological state.
The discussion of the other people in the group was really key for
stress reduction.
It's hard to shut off those problems that some of our clients have. And
so just sitting and relaxing really has made a difference.
Vicarious experience.
(W)e need to be able to ... know that other (workers) are (in) the same
kind of situation and then learning how the little tidbits about how
they deal with it, sometimes (about) even the smallest thing.
My past work experience has not included opportunities for interagency
communication when working with clients... I understand more clearly
various agency approaches and limitations in working with families.
Unintended consequences. We also identified some
"unintended" yet positive consequences of the FDC Training in
the qualitative data. FDC participants reflected that, in addition to
more effective interactions with coworkers and clients, their own family
relationships had taken a turn for the better.
(The FDC class) helped me get through (a family) weekend without a
major explosion. Some of the communication skills came in handy to help
me not react (to an angry relative). My instant thought was to fire
back and instead the time that it took to rephrase and try to empathize
with what she was saying gave me time to settle down and also gave her
time to be not so much on the defensive.
It helped me realize that I need to tell my coworkers and my
supervisors how much I appreciate their support.
I wasn't actually listening to my (family). They would talk and I would
shake my head (but) I really wasn't listening. (So when) I did start,
when (my kids are) talking to me, I'm looking at (them) and I learned
to repeat back what they've said so they understood I knew what they
were saying. We don't yell anymore. There's no more yelling; there
is...talking.
My kids I just started having them do more things for themselves. And I
didn't realize how much I really did for them until I started making
them--maybe they didn't realize how much. They do their own laundry
now, they make their own phone calls, they you know, just getting them
ready for the real world. They didn't like it at first but it gives
them self-worth. Just like my daughter came in and 'I did this and this
happened' and she was just all excited about the fact that she
completed it herself.
DISCUSSION
This evaluation found results that suggest the FDC Training in
Missouri does indeed enhance participants' work-related
self-efficacy beliefs. Qualitative data from focus groups found evidence
that all four mechanisms of gaining self-efficacy--enacted mastery,
verbal persuasion, perception of physiological states, and vicarious
experience--operate in the FDC training curriculum to increase
self-efficacy beliefs.
Using quantitative data, we focused in on one mechanism--enacted
mastery, asking three questions. Was there any change in positive
self-efficacy beliefs due to workers participating in the FDC Training?
The data show that yes, there was change. Positive self-efficacy
beliefs, operationalized as mastery, increased from a mean of 3.18 to
3.33 in participants, a significant increase. Second, was there any
change in negative self-efficacy beliefs? We found that negative
self-efficacy beliefs, operationalized as feelings of futility and
negative attitude, showed no change for FDC participants before and
after the FDC classes.
Third, did any changes in FDC participants and a similar group of
human service workers who had not participated in the FDC Training
differ? Yes, in two ways. In the bivariate analysis, we found that the
mean scores of all self-efficacy beliefs for the non-participants
changed--but in ways opposite of those of the FDC participants. The
comparison group's scores of positive self-efficacy beliefs went
down slightly (the FDC group's score significantly increased) and
the negative self-efficacy beliefs increased at a significant level
while the FDC group's scores showed no change. Given the stressful
nature of these jobs, it is encouraging that FDC participants seem to be
lower in negative self-efficacy beliefs than non-participants at Wave 2.
A noteworthy contextual factor influencing the human service sector
during the time the evaluation data were gathered makes clear that the
lack of change in the FDC participants' negative self-efficacy
belief scores is actually an extremely meaningful finding. At the time,
a horrific situation occurred where a two-year old child who had been
placed in foster care by a state child protective services worker was
killed by his foster father (Missouri Task Force on Children's
Justice, 2007). As a direct result of this tragedy, the Missouri
Children's Division underwent an extensive review. During this
review, a bill was introduced in the Missouri legislature that would
have held a state child protective service worker personally liable if
such a situation occurred in the future. This bill never passed but the
effect on the state's human service community was chilling. Indeed,
the comparison group in our study showed a significant increase in
feelings of futility and negativity toward their jobs. That the FDC
participants did not increase their negative self-efficacy beliefs
during this time suggests the program may be able to buffer the
consequences of pressures frequently exerted on human service workers.
Our evaluation of the FDC Training suggests that human service workers
who participated in the program showed increased positive self-efficacy
beliefs and did not experience greater levels of negative self-efficacy
beliefs as others did when the state's whole human service sector
was under fire.
Implications for Research
Our FDC Training findings indicate that employing a self-efficacy
theoretical perspective from the organizational literature is a viable
tool to evaluate FDC Trainings. Both our quantitative and qualitative
data provide support that the FDC Training touches on all four
components that influence self-efficacy beliefs: verbal persuasion,
enacted mastery, assessment of physiological states, and vicarious
experience. In our quantitative analyses, we found that participation in
the FDC Training contributed to significant variance in our measures of
self-efficacy beliefs--both positive and negative--after controlling for
other antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs in the regression analyses.
FDC participants are more likely than non-participants to report larger
gains in positive and negative self-efficacy beliefs in directions
beneficial to workers.
This study also reaffirms the necessity of including a comparison
group when evaluating any staff development programming. If we had not
gathered data from a group of similar human service workers with which
to compare the differences in changes in self-efficacy beliefs, the
evidence would have suggested that the FDC Training did not impact the
participants' negative self-efficacy beliefs. However, while the
FDC participants' measures of negative self-efficacy beliefs did
not change, the non-FDC participants, in contrast, increased on both
measures of negative self-efficacy beliefs. The differences in the two
groups' findings suggest the FDC Training has some ability to help
reframe the difficult and stressful aspects of this job into something
more manageable. Without the comparison group, we would have come to a
different conclusion. Having the data to compare the two groups
fundamentally influenced our interpretation of the research findings;
the absence of change among the FDC group became meaningful when
contrasted with the group of comparison workers' significant
increase in negative self-efficacy beliefs over the same time period.
The second implication is that those in the human service training
field might be well advised to include in their evaluation the impact
the training has on the workers themselves, rather than looking for
outcome measures solely in the families or individuals being assisted.
Limitations and future research. A true experimental design with
randomized selection into the treatment and control groups would be
optimal and might be possible if a large enough FDC community is willing
to undertake such a rigorous experimental design. Subsequent research
should continue to investigate the mechanisms by which the FDC Training
supports positive worker changes and whether or not FDC participation is
related to retention and other key organizational outcome measures.
Implications for Community Practice
Our analysis shows that participation in the FDC Training is
associated with increased positive self-efficacy beliefs and, when
compared to non-participants, decreased negative self-efficacy beliefs.
Thus, our findings suggest that participation in the FDC Training
provides positive results for human service workers. We offer these
results as evidence that the FDC Training enabled workers to demonstrate
enacted mastery, and thus increase positive self-efficacy beliefs, as it
provides structured opportunities for participants to exhibit competence
in the strengths approach. With workers actively engaged in their own
learning, workers can see for themselves that they do have the abilities
needed to successfully complete their responsibilities, which in turn
will positively influence their self-efficacy beliefs about their jobs.
Another implication of these findings for human service practice is
that the FDC Training is an effective alternative to the 20thcentury
training model where workers participate in a one-time, lecture-based
group setting populated by workers from the same place of employment, a
model that is still the norm for many governmental and human service
sector organizations. Focusing training efforts on collaborative,
"distributed" learning situations (where training occurs over
time), may result in more effective training outcomes. The realistic
outcome of traditional training programs is that workers become
proficient to fill out required forms, but they may not know how to
assist individuals and families reach a higher quality of life. The
evaluation results presented here clearly suggest that the FDC Training
effectively trains human service workers to successfully meet the
challenges of their demanding jobs.
Workers are the most valuable asset of the human service sector.
There is no doubt that the workers who fill a critical need in our
society on a daily basis deserve the benefits our research determined is
available from participation in the Family Development Credential
Training. Our communities will be the better for it.
University of Missouri-Kansas City
REFERENCES
Acker, G. M. (2003). Role conflict and ambiguity: Do they predict
burnout among mental health service providers? Social Work in Mental
Health, 1(3), 63-80.
Ansay, S. J., Perkins, D. F., & Nelson, J. (2004). Interpreting
outcomes: Using focus groups in evaluation research. Family Relations,
53(3), 310-316.
Armstrong-Stassen, M.. (2008). Factors associated with job content
plateauing among older workers. Career Development International, 13,
594-613.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through
perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729-735.
Boehm, A., & Staples, L. H. (2002). The functions of the social
worker in empowering: the voices of consumers and professionals. Social
Work, 47(4), 449-460.
Bouffard, S. (2004). Promoting quality out-of-school time programs
through professional development. The Evaluation Exchange, 10(1), 10,
19.
Cochran, M., & Henderson, Jr., C. R. (1986). Family matters: A
summary of a final report to the National Institute of Education.
Cornell Department of Human Development and Family Studies.
Crane, B. (2000). Building a theory of change and a logic model for
an empowerment-based family support training and credentialing program.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Forest, C. (2003). Empowerment skills for family workers: A worker
handbook (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Family Development Press.
Gist, M. (1987). Self-efficacy: Implications for organizational
behavior and human resource management. Academy of Management Review,
12(3), 472-485.
Greenglass, E., & Burke, R. (2002). Hospital restructuring and
burnout. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 25(1),
89-114.
Hall, M. N., Amodeo, M., Shaffer, H. J., & Vander Bilt, J.
(2000). Social workers employed in substance abuse treatment agencies: A
training needs assessment. Social Work, 45(2), 141-154.
Harvey, J. P. (2011). The impact of the Family Development
Credentialing program on school readiness: Outcomes in family support.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
Indiana, PA.
Hewitt, N. M., Crane, B, & Mooney, B. (2010). The Family
Development Credential program: A synthesis of outcome research on an
empowerment-based human service training program. Families in Society,
91, 76-84.
Holm, U. (2002). Empathy and professional attitude in social
workers and non-trained aides. International Journal of Social Welfare,
11(1), 66-75.
Howell, D. C. (2007). Statistical methods for psychology (6th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Jaina, J., & Tyson, S. (2004). Psychological similarity in
work-based relationships and the development of self-efficacy beliefs.
Human Relations, 57(3), 275-296.
Johnson, D. (2005). Two-wave panel analysis: Comparing statistical
methods for studying the effects of transitions. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 67(4), 1061-1076.
Jones, F., & Riazi, A. (2011). Self-efficacy and
self-management after stroke: A systematic review. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 33(10), 797-810.
Kolomer, S., Quinn, M. E., & Steele, K. (2010).
Interdisciplinary health fairs for older adults and the value of
interprofessional service learning. Journal of Community Practice, 18,
267-279.
Lee, J., & Akhtar, S. (2007). Job burnout among nurses in Hong
Kong: Implications for human resource practices and interventions. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45(1), 63-84.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1990). On the meaning of
Maslach's three dimensions of burnout. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75(6), 743-747.
Lent, J., & Schwartz, R. C. (2012). The impact of work setting,
demographic characteristics, and personality factors related to burnout
among professional counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,
34(4), 355-372.
Lin, W. (2008). Factors enhancing the intentions of employees
toward customer-oriented behaviors. International Journal of Commerce
& Management, 18.
Magennis, R., & Smith, D. B. (2005). All used up: Factors
associated with burnout among Missouri social services workers. Missouri
Electronic Journal of Sociology, 5, 1-33.
Maslach, C., Jackson, J. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996). Maslach
Burnout Inventory Manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Counsulting
Psychologist Press.
Mathieu, J., Martineau, J., & Tannenbaum, S. (1993). Individual
and situational influences on the development of self-efficacy:
Implications for training effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 46(1),
125-147.
McNatt, D. B., & Judge, T. A. (2008). Self-efficacy
intervention, job attitudes, and turnover: A field experiment with
employees in role transition. Human Relations, 61, 783-.
Missouri Task Force on Children's Justice. (2007).
Implementation assessment of the Dominic James Memorial Foster Care
Reform Act of 2004. Jefferson City.
Parker, S. M. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The
roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 835-852.
Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19(1), 2-21.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research
(3rd ed.). New York: Rinehard & Winston.
Ramirez, O. A., Moss, C. B., & Boggess, W. G. (1994).
Estimation and use of the inverse hyperbolic sine transformation to
model non-normal correlated random variables. Journal of Applied
Statistics, 21(4), 289-304.
Rolison, M. D., & Watrous, S. (2003). Family Development
Credential Project (pp. 54). Los Angeles, CA: The Community College
Foundation.
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher
self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress and burnout: Mediation
analyses. Applied Psychology, 57, 152-171.
Sexton, D., Lobman, M., Constans, T., Snyder, P., & Ernest, J.
(1997). Early interventionists' perspectives of multicultural
practices with African-American families. Exceptional Children, 63,
313-328.
Shapiro, J., Burkey, W., Dorman, R., & Welker, C. (1996). Job
satisfaction and burnout in child abuse professionals: Measure
development, factor analysis, and job characteristics. Journal of Child
Sexual Abuse, 5, 21-38.
Smith, D. B. (2009). Change in frontline family workers'
burnout and job satisfaction: Evaluating the Missouri Family Development
Credential program. Professional Development: The International Journal
of Continuing Social Work Education, 12(1), 51-60.
Smith, D. B., McCarthy, M., Hill, J. N., & Mosley, J. (2007).
Changes in family workers: Results from the Missouri Family Development
Credential program evaluation. Kansas City, MO: University of
Missouri-Kansas City Family Studies Program.
Smith, D. B., & Shields, J. (2013). Revisiting Herzberg's
motivation to work. Administration in Social Work, 37(2), 189-198.
Sullivan, K. R., & Mahalik, J. (2000). Increasing career
self-efficacy for women: Evaluating a group intervention. Journal of
Counseling and Development: JCD, 78(1), 54-62.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th ed.): Allyn & Bacon.
Tang, C. S., Au, W. T., Schwarzer, R., & Schmitz, G. (2001).
Mental health outcomes of job stress among Chinese teachers: Role of
stress resource factors and burnout. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22(8), 887-901.
Um, M., & Harrison, D. F. (1998). Role stressors, burnout,
mediators, and job satisfaction: A stress-strain-outcome model and an
empirical test. Social Work Research, 22(2), 100-115.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of
organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384.
Zellars, K., Hochwarter, W., Perrewe, P., Miles, A., & Kiewitz,
C. (2001). Beyond self-efficacy: Interactive effects of role conflict
and perceived collective efficacy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13(4),
483-499.
Zimmerman, S., Williams, C., Reed, P. S., Boustani, M., Preisser,
J. S., Heck, E., & Sloane, P. D. (2005). Attitudes, stress, and
satisfaction of staff who care for residents with dimentia. The
Gerontologist, 45(Special Issue I), 96-105.
Zunz, S. (1998). Resiliency and burnout: protective factors for
human service managers. Administration in Social Work, 22(3), 39-54.
JHHSA WINTER 2015
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Variables for Quantitative Sample
FDC Participants Comparison Group
Variable N Percent N Percent
Type of Organization
State/Federal
Government 22 28 30 32
Not-for-Profit 53 67 58 61
For-Profit 1 1 2 2
Other 3 4 5 5
Totals 79 100 95 100
Level of Education
Some High School 1 1 2 2
High School Graduate 3 4 7 7
Some College 22 28 12 13
College Graduate 28 35 35 37
Some Graduate or
Professional School 13 17 14 15
Graduate or Professional
School Graduate 2 15 24 25
Totals 9 100 94 99
Ethnicity
White 36 44 62 63
Hispanic, Latino, Chicano 4 5 0 0
African American 36 44 27 28
Asian, Asian American 1 1 2 2
Native American 3 4 4 4
Other Ethnicity 1 1 3 3
Totals 81 99 98 100
Gender
Male 6 8 17 18
Female 73 92 79 82
Totals 79 100 96 100
Marital Status
Married 43 55 42 46
Separated 3 4 3 3
Divorced 12 15 19 21
Widowed 0 0 4 4
Never Married 20 26 24 26
Totals 78 100 92 100
Years of Experience
1 - 5 0 0 0 0
6 - 10 29 37 33 34
11 - 20 29 37 37 38
21 - 30 16 20 16 16
Over 30 5 6 12 12
Totals 79 100 98 100
Years in Job
1 - 5 0 0 0 0
6 - 10 54 69 67 70
11 - 20 19 24 23 24
21 - 30 5 6 5 5
Over 30 0 0 1 1
Totals 78 100 96 100
Note. Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
JHHSA WINTER 2015
Table 2
Paired T-Tests for FDC Participants and Comparison
Group: Means with Standard Deviations in parentheses
Wave 1 Wave 2
Mean Mean
(Std. Dev.) (Std. Dev.) t df
FDC Participants 3.18 3.33 -2.59 (*) 59
Mastery (0.43) (0.40)
Feelings of 1.56 1.52 0.34 59
Futility (0.69) (.83)
Negative Attitude 1.40 1.41 -0.10 59
(0.59) (0.60)
Comparison Group
Mastery 3.15 3.04 1.97 [dagger] 67
(0.50) (0.46)
Feelings of 1.44 1.64 -2.33 (*) 66
Futility (0.91) (0.81)
Negative Attitude 1.39 1.66 -4.39 (***) 63
(0.65) (0.66)
Note. [dagger]p <.10; (*) p <.05; (**) p <.01; (***) p <.001.
Table 3
Regression Analyses of Factors Influencing Change between Wave 1 and
Wave 2 in Mastery, Feelings of Futility, and Negative Attitude
B
(Std
Err.) [beta] t [R.sup.2]
Change in Mastery
Step 1 (Constant) 0.34 1.26 0.03
(0.27)
Expert Advice & -0.05 -0.10 -1.08
Support (0.04)
Level of Education -0.01 -0.04 -0.48
(0.03)
Years of 0.19 0.12 1.17
Experience (log) (0.16)
Years in Job (log) -0.39 -0.18 -1.74[dagger]
(0.22)
Step 2 (Constant) 0.28 1.05 0.12
(0.26)
Expert Advice & -0.06 -0.12 -1.37
Support (0.04)
Level of Education -0.01 -0.03 -0.34
(0.03)
Years of 0.20 0.13 1.28
Experience (log) (0.16)
Years in Job (log) -0.43 -0.19 -2.00 (*)
(0.21)
FDC Participant 0.23 0.30 3.51 (***)
(0.07)
Change in Feelings of
Futility
Step 1 (Constant) -0.01 -0.02 0.02
(0.39)
Expert Advice & 0.09 0.13 1.39
Support (0.06)
Level of Education -0.03 -0.06 -0.67
(0.04)
Years of 0.08 0.03 0.33
Experience (log) (0.24)
Years in Job (log) -0.15 -0.05 -0.47
(0.32)
Step 2 (Constant) 0.04 0.09 0.04
(0.39)
Expert Advice & 0.09 0.13 1.49
Support (0.06)
Level of Education -0.03
(0.04) -0.06 -0.71
Years of 0.08
Experience (log) (0.24) 0.03 0.33
Years in Job (log) -0.13
(0.32) -0.04 -0.41
FDC Participant -0.16
(0.10) -0.14 -1.57
Change in Negative
Attitude
Step 1 (Constant) 0.35 1.13 0.06
(0.31)
Expert Advice & 0.00
Support (0.05) 0.00 -0.03
Level of Education -0.06
(0.03) -0.18 -2.05 (*)
Years of 0.38
Experience (log) (0.19) 0.20 1.99 (*)
Years in Job (log) -0.41
(0.25) -0.17 -1.65
Step 2 (Constant) 0.42 1.38 0.12
(0.30)
Expert Advice & 0.01
Support (0.05) 0.01 0.12
Level of Education -0.07
(0.03) -0.19 -2.16 (*)
Years of 0.38
Experience (log) (0.19) 0.20 2.05 (*)
Years in Job (log) -0.39
(0.24) -0.16 -1.60
FDC Participant -0.22
(0.08) -0.25 -2.85 (**)
Adj. [R.sup.2]
(Std Err.) [R.sup.2] [DELTA] F [DELTA]
Change in Mastery
Step 1 (Constant) 0.00 0.03 1.09
(0.39)
Expert Advice &
Support
Level of Education
Years of
Experience (log)
Years in Job (log)
Step 2 (Constant) 0.09 0.09 12.30 (***)
(0.37)
Expert Advice &
Support
Level of Education
Years of
Experience (log)
Years in Job (log)
FDC Participant
Change in Feelings of
Futility
Step 1 (Constant) -0.01 0.02 0.69
(0.56)
Expert Advice &
Support
Level of Education
Years of
Experience (log)
Years in Job (log)
Step 2 (Constant) 0.00 0.02 2.47
(0.56)
Expert Advice &
Support
Level of Education
Years of
Experience (log)
Years in Job (log)
FDC Participant
Change in Negative
Attitude
Step 1 (Constant) 0.03 0.06 2.01[dagger]
(0.43)
Expert Advice &
Support
Level of Education
Years of
Experience (log)
Years in Job (log)
Step 2 (Constant) 0.09 0.06 8.14 (**)
(0.42)
Expert Advice &
Support
Level of Education
Years of
Experience (log)
Years in Job (log)
FDC Participant
Note. [dagger] p<.10; (*) p<.05; (**) p<.01; (***) p<.001.
