Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Part 2: Unit 2 Performance Matrix Functional Assessment.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Part 2: Unit 2 Performance Matrix Functional Assessment."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Part 2: Unit 2 Performance Matrix Functional Assessment

2 2 Skip to SO16 Performance Matrix Only SO13 is for the exam I am not going to cover that in lecture - unless someone has a question about it But remember anything I skip in lecture is still fair game for the exam as long as there is a study objective on it!

3 3 No, not that kind of Matrix…!

4 4 SO16: Performance Matrix - Daniels 1 Generated from Felix & Riggs Balanced Scorecard Created as a measurement tool Abernathy Performance Scorecard Unique feature: performance indexing (weighting/prioritizing) 1 Performance Matrix power point slides: © 2006 AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS.

5 5 Sample Matrix Behaviors or Results Weight Raw ScorePoints 100 Total Pts. Baseline (not current) Performance Sub-goals Goal © 2006 AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS. Why 4-12 for columns, with 5=baseline and 10=goal? Above goal Below Baseline

6 6 Sample Matrix: Postal Worker Behaviors or Results Weight Raw Score Points 100 Total Pts. Baseline Performance Sub-goals Goal 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 59% Appropriate Greeting 90%85%98% Number of Bins Sorted Till Correct 91% 92% 93% 96%97%98%99% 100% Number of Complaints Note: number of complaints, less is better

7 7 Sample Matrix Behaviors or Results Weight Raw Score Points 100 Total Pts. Baseline Performance Sub-goals Goal 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 59% Appropriate Greeting 90% 85%98% Number of Bins Sorted Till Correct 91% 92% 93% 96%97%98%99% 100% Number of Complaints Distribution= © 2006 AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS.

8 8 Sample Matrix: What would the points be? Behaviors or Results Weight Raw Score Points 100 Total Pts. Baseline Performance Sub-goals Goal 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 59% Appropriate Greeting 90% 85%98% Number of Bins Sorted Till Correct 91% 92% 93% 96%97%98%99% 100% Number of Complaints Actual performance/Data % 95% 9 1 © 2006 AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS. What would

9 9 Link to rewards: Use points to determine level of reward PointsReward Borders Café gift card, Blockbuster rental extra 1/2 hour for lunch gift certificate for favorite store or restaurant /2 day off on Friday *Group contingency: If everyone reaches 750, the whole office goes to lunch on the boss © 2006 AUBREY DANIELS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR USE EXCLUSIVELY BY EDUCATORS IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS.

10 10 Skipping to SOs 18&19: Lecture study objectives, intro The Pampino et al. article used a functional assessment (the Performance Diagnostic Checklist by Austin) to determine what interventions were needed Functional assessments have received more attention lately, although most practitioners and, many researchers have used some type of assessment to determine what their interventions should be The term “functional assessment” comes from Iwata’s work in DD and autism - determination of what is controlling self-injurious behavior

11 11 Functional Assessment, intro In OBM, the term has become more transparent due to Austin’s PDC and Wilder’s recent publications, but these type of analyses have existed for many years in both OBM and I/O - just not called “functional assessment” An “ABC” analysis is a functional assessment Mager & Pipe, 1970, flowchart to determine whether a performance problem was a training problem or a consequence problem Petrock, 1978, balance of consequences Brown, 1982, included balance of consequences in his book Daniels & Rosen, 1982, modified it into “PIC/NIC” These all focused on the consequences of behavior, without expanding the analysis to management and organizational level systems analysis Brethower was the first to do that in his 1972 systems analysis book with his Total Performance System diagram and concept - but it “didn’t catch on

12 12 SO18: Three types of functional assessment Informant Interviews, questionnaires, rating scales or some other “indirect” (verbal) method: a bit suspect as are all verbal reports Descriptive Direct observation of the employees: generally considered to be more reliable than informant Functional analysis Experimental analysis - the systematic manipulation of specific antecedents and consequences that may affect the target behavior: most reliable, but often difficult in organizational settings Good example, Pampino, Wilder, & Binder (2005) to determine why foremen were entering wrong job codes In OBM, most common is to combine informant and descriptive

13 13 SO19: Three popular functional assessment procedures in OBM Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering Model, 1978 Earliest one that “caught on” and is still very popular The next two are based on his Binder’s Six Boxes  (very nice ABA presentation, 2006) Directly derived from Gilbert, but copyrighted Austin’s Performance Diagnostic Checklist Based on Gilbert but also expert consultant analyses of case studies (his dissertation) NFE Rummler’s Human Performance System Very similar to Gilbert’s BEM (all systems oriented, that is they don’t just target the antecedents and consequences of behavior, but also look at systems variables)

14 14 Gilbert’s BEM (NFE) InformationInstrumentationMotivation Environmental Supports Data Relevant & frequent feedback Descriptions of what is expected Clear and relevant guides Resources Tools and materials designed to match human factors Incentives Adequate contingent $$ incentives Nonmonetary incentives Career development Person’s Repertory of Behavior Knowledge Training for exemplary performance Placement Capacity Work scheduling for peak performance Prosthesis Selection Motives Assessment of motives to work Recruitment of people to match job Binder’s Six Boxes Expectations & Feedback 1 Tools & Resources 2 Consequences & Incentives 3 Skills & Knowledge 4 Selection & Assignment “Capacity” 5 Motives & Preferences “Attitudes” 6 (click for binder)

15 15 Austin’s Performance Diagnostic Checklist (NFE) Four areas that are assessed Antecedents and Information Equipment and processes Knowledge and skills - training Consequences (A lot of overlap among all of these)

16 16 SO22B What influences the effectiveness of lotteries? Pampino et al. used a monthly lottery where each of the 5 employees had an opportunity to win $20.00 based on the number of lottery tickets they earned for each shift Iwata et al. used a weekly lottery where staff who met performance criteria had an opportunity to schedule/reschedule the two days they wanted off the following week. What factors could influence how effective a lottery is? (lotteries have been used in a number of studies; appear effective; benefit? Cost effective - Which certainly has advantages in human service settings - note Iwata used something that did not cost anything.)

17 17 Iwata et al. Setting Residential setting for multiply-handicapped retarded Purpose Compare staff assignments to staff assignments plus a performance lottery to increase staff performance (in hss, staff scheduling and assignment popular intervention - antecedent vs. consequences)

18 18 SO24: Why PM is needed in human service settings Percentage of time staff spend in training clients or socially playing with them? Percentage of time staff spend in off-task leisure activity such as reading newspapers, watching TV? Less than 1% in some cases! 20% to 40%! (might believe things have changed for the better - old data)

19 19 NFE, but more data why PM is needed in human service settings Percentage of time residents were found to be off-task by Parsons et al. (1989)? Percentage of time staff was off-task in Iwata’s study - 4 units? 67% (data the same as in the early studies from the 1970s! Any similar data in gerontology?) Percentage of time staff spent in stimulation training in Iwata’s study in the four units? 1%-5% 24%-30%

20 20 SO26: Staff and resident behavior Some aspects of the behaviors of residents were measured as well as the behavior of the staff (which was the primary DV) Why? (hint: Gilbert; same issue as in Quilitch last unit)

21 21 SO30: Custodial care The intervention did not affect either indirect or direct custodial work. Why do you think this is the case? (last slide; mention Green & Reid study - structural analysis to determine times to conduct training)

22 22 Questions? Exercise time!

23 23 Gilbert’s BEM (NFE) InformationInstrumentationMotivation Environmental Supports Data Relevant & frequent feedback Descriptions of what is expected Clear and relevant guides Resources Tools and materials designed to match human factors Incentives Adequate contingent $$ incentives Nonmonetary incentives Career development Person’s Repertory of Behavior Knowledge Training for exemplary performance Placement Capacity Work scheduling for peak performance Prosthesis Selection Motives Assessment of motives to work Recruitment of people to match job


Download ppt "1 Part 2: Unit 2 Performance Matrix Functional Assessment."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google