An Evaluation of the Interactive Effects of Feedback Sequence and Timing on Efficacy and Preference

Feedback is an effective method for increasing employee performance in a wide range of settings, although questions remain regarding the most effective characteristics of feedback. Despite the fact that there is little research on the sequence of feedback messages, recommendations advocating a particular sequence are often made in practice. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the efficacy of and preference for feedback sequence (positive-corrective-positive, positive-positive-corrective, corrective-positive-positive, and no feedback), and the influence of feedback timing on efficacy and preference. Undergraduate participants performed four simulated office tasks each associated with a feedback sequence, presented in a counterbalanced fashion. Half of the participants received feedback delivered immediately after each session (post-session feedback) and the other half of the participants received feedback immediately prior to each session (pre-session feedback). The present findings suggest that (1) the sequence of feedback statements differentially influences performance, (2) the timing of feedback does not appear to influence performance unless incorporating a no feedback condition, and (3) participants may have differential preferences for feedback sequences. The results are discussed in terms of potential behavioral processes responsible for the observed effects

How to Avoid the Tap Out

Description: Be the reigning champion in your classroom as you effectively plan to manage your learning environment! Come to the ring to wrestle with challenging situations and walk away with new strategies to be victorious! Target Audience: PK-5th grad

Translating reinforcer dimensions and behavioral economic demand to inform incentive delivery in organizational behavior management

Recent research has effectively translated behavioral economic demand curve analyses for use with work-related behavior and workplace incentives (e.g., Henley, DiGennaro Reed, Reed, & Kaplan, 2016). The present experiments integrated a hypothetical and experiential demand preparation into a computerized task for use with Amazon Mechanical Turk Workers to evaluate the effects of parametric manipulations of reinforcer dimensions on performance using a behavioral economic demand framework. The first experiment examined the effects of three incentive magnitudes ($0.05,$0.10, and $0.20) on performance assessed with a progressive ratio schedule. Results indicate responding on the hypothetical and experiential demand assessments was sensitive to incentive magnitude, with higher responding in the higher incentive magnitude conditions. Participant responses on the hypothetical assessment were in general agreement with observed responding in the experiential assessment. The second experiment extended the methods of Experiment 1 to evaluate the effects of three parametric values of reinforcer probability (10%, 50%, and 90% probability of earning incentives). Responding was generally comparable for all three probability conditions. Experiment 3 evaluated the effects of three delays to incentive receipt (1, 14, and 28 days). Responding was higher in the condition in which incentives were delayed by 1 as compared to 28 days. Results of the current studies may inform the development of novel methods for measuring reinforcer efficacy in organizations

Development and evaluation of a collaborative care intervention for male prison leavers with mental health problems: the Engager research programme

BackgroundMany male prison leavers have significant mental health problems. Prison leavers often have a history of trauma, ongoing substance misuse and housing insecurity. Only a minority of prison leavers receive mental health care on release from prison.ObjectivesThe aim of the Engager research programme was to develop and evaluate a theory- and evidence-informed complex intervention designed to support individuals with common mental health problems (e.g. anxiety, depression) and other complex needs, including mental health comorbidity, before and after release from prison.MethodsIn phase 1, the intervention was developed through a set of realist-informed substudies, including a realist review of psychosocial care for individuals with complex needs, case studies within services demonstrating promising intervention features, focus groups with individuals from under-represented groups, a rapid realist review of the intervention implementation literature and a formative process evaluation of the prototype intervention. In a parallel randomised trial, methodological development included selecting outcome measures through reviewing literature, piloting measures and a consensus process, developing ways to quantify intervention receipt, piloting trial procedures and modelling economic outcomes. In phase 2, we conducted an individually randomised superiority trial of the Engager intervention, cost-effectiveness and cost–consequence analyses and an in-depth mixed-methods process evaluation. Patient and public involvement influenced the programme throughout, primarily through a Peer Researcher Group.ResultsIn phase 1, the Engager intervention included multiple components. A practitioner offered participants practical support, emotional help (including mentalisation-based approaches) and liaison with other services in prison on the day of the participant’s release and for 3–5 months post release. An intervention delivery platform (i.e. training, manual, supervision) supported implementation. Outcome measures were selected through testing and stakeholder consensus to represent a broad range of domains, with a general mental health outcome as the primary measure for the trial. Procedures for recruitment and follow-up were tested and included flexible approaches to engagement and retention. In phase 2, the trial was conducted in three prison settings, with 280 participants randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to receive either Engager plus usual care (n = 140) or usual care only (n = 140). We achieved a follow-up rate of 65% at 6 months post release from prison. We found no difference between the two groups for the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure at 6 months. No differences in secondary measures and sensitivity analyses were found beyond those expected by chance. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that Engager cost significantly more at £2133 (95% of iterations between £997 and £3374) with no difference in quality-adjusted life-years (–0.017, 95% of iterations between –0.042 and 0.007). The mixed-methods process evaluation demonstrated implementation barriers. These barriers included problems with retention of the intervention team, and the adverse health and criminal justice system context. Seventy-seven per cent (108/140) of individuals had at least one community contact. Significant proportions of participants engaging received day release work and practical support. In contrast, there was evidence that the psychological components, mentalisation and developing a shared understanding were used less consistently. When engagement was positive, these components were associated with positive achievement of goals for individuals. We were also able to identify how to improve the intervention programme theory, including how to support individuals who were unrealistic in their perception of their ability to cope with challenges post release.Strengths and limitationsOur development work provides a worked example of the development of a complex intervention, particularly given little prior evidence or theory specific to male offenders to build on. Our trial methodological development enabled the completion of, to the best of our knowledge, the first fully powered trial of a mental health intervention for prison leavers with common mental health problems. There were potential weaknesses in the trial methodology in terms of follow-up rates and outcome measures, with the latter potentially being insufficiently sensitive to important but highly individual changes in participants who responded to the intervention.ConclusionsDelivering a randomised controlled trial for prison leavers with acceptable levels of follow-up is possible, despite adverse conditions. Full intervention implementation was challenging, but this is to be expected. Some individuals did respond well to the intervention when both practical and psychological support were flexibly deployed as intended, with evidence that most components were experienced as helpful for some individuals. It is recommended that several key components be developed further and tested, along with improved training and supervision, to support delivery of the Engager intervention within existing teams working with prison leavers

Integrating qualitative research within a clinical trials unit: developing strategies and understanding their implementation in contexts

Background/aims: The value of using qualitative methods within clinical trials is widely recognised. How qualitative research is integrated within trials units to achieve this is less clear. This paper describes the process through which qualitative research has been integrated within Cardiff University’s Centre for Trials Research (CTR) in Wales, UK. We highlight facilitators of, and challenges to, integration. Methods: We held group discussions on the work of the Qualitative Research Group (QRG) within CTR. The content of these discussions, materials for a presentation in CTR, and documents relating to the development of the QRG were interpreted at a workshop attended by group members. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used to structure analysis. A writing group prepared a document for input from members of CTR, forming the basis of this paper. Results: Actions to integrate qualitative research comprised: its inclusion in Centre strategies; formation of a QRG with dedicated funding/roles; embedding of qualitative research within operating systems; capacity building/training; monitoring opportunities to include qualitative methods in studies; maximising the quality of qualitative research and developing methodological innovation. Facilitators of these actions included: the influence of the broader methodological landscape within trial/study design and its promotion of the value of qualitative research; and close physical proximity of CTR qualitative staff/students allowing sharing of methodological approaches. Introduction of innovative qualitative methods generated interest among other staff groups. Challenges included: pressure to under-resource qualitative components of research, preference for a statistical stance historically in some research areas and funding structures, and difficulties faced by qualitative researchers carving out individual academic profiles when working across trials/studies. Conclusions: Given that CTUs are pivotal to the design and conduct of RCTs and related study types across multiple disciplines, integrating qualitative research into trials units is crucial if its contribution is to be fully realised. We have made explicit one trials unit’s experience of embedding qualitative research and present this to open dialogue on ways to operationalise and optimise qualitative research in trials. NPT provides a valuable framework with which to theorise these processes, including the importance of sense-making and legitimisation when introducing new practices within organisations

Moderating impact of narcissism on the link between contextual variables and perceptions of fairness

The present study explores how the personality variable, grandiose narcissism, moderates an individual\u27s fairness perceptions when presented with situations involving different contextual variables (outcome severity and target knowledge). In two studies, individuals were presented with scenarios common to everyday life and asked to rate their perception of the outcome. Results indicate that fairness perceptions for individuals who score higher on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) are lower when the outcome was severe and when the referent involved had knowledge of the situation. However, lower fairness perceptions were not seen for these outcomes for individuals who score lower on the NPI. The consequences of how narcissism may moderate perceptions of fairness in specific contextual situations are discussed with suggestions for future studies

Connect with Coaches

Feeling overwhelmed? Don’t know where to begin on the road to PBIS implementation? Don’t let roadblocks and speed bumps slow down your journey. Connect with PBIS Coaches as we work together to merge the school, home and community connection. Join our team as we share practical steps to help you prepare for a successful journey on the road to implementation