Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A career redirection program for unemployed physically disabled workers Harder, Henry G. 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-89363x.pdf [ 3.28MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0053991.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0053991-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0053991-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0053991-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0053991-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0053991-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0053991-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

A CAREER REDIRECTION PROGRAM FOR UNEMPLOYEDPHYSICALLY DISABLED WORKERSbyHENRY G. HARDERB. Ed., University ofBritish Columbia, 1979M.A., University ofBritish Columbia, 1986A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF EDUCATIONinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Counselling Psychology)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardApril, 1994© Henry George Harder, 1994oJIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, 1 agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of____________________The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate ADE-6 (2/88)UAR STRACTThis study investigated the effect of participation in a 14-day career redirectionprogram on the reemployment, explanations for unemployment, and levels ofdepression and self-esteem of 44 unemployed adults who had recently becomephysically disabled. The career redirection program was delivered using an extendedSolomon four-group design. The subjects’ explanations for their unemployment, andtheir levels of depression and self-esteem were measured on at least two of fourpossible occasions: (a) before participating in the program, (b) after completing theprogram, (c) after waiting to participate in the program, or (d) eight weeks aftercompleting the program. The researcher contacted the subjects who completed theprogram after eight weeks to determine their employment status and to request thecompletion of the final questionnaire battery. A random sample of the subjects whofinished the program were also interviewed in-depth to obtain detailed informationabout their experiences of: (a) becoming disabled, (b) being confronted with the needto change jobs as a result of their disabilities, and (c) participating in the careerredirection program. All the incidents reported by the subjects that related to theiremotional reactions to these three experiences were identified from transcripts of theinterviews. Incidents describing similar reactions to components of these experienceswere grouped into categories. Six stages were discerned from the analysis of thecategories of emotional reactions. Taken together, these six stages described a careerredirection process. The results of the study demonstrated the effectiveness of thetreatment program in assisting the subjects through the career redirection process.Eight weeks after finishing the program, 60.5% of the subjects were involved inreemployment activities (11.6% working; 28% independent in job search; 20.9% takingtraining). Contrary to the researcher’s expectations, the subjects did not exhibit theeffects of long-term unemployment documented in the literature, possibly because theyivTABLE OF CONTENTSPageAbstract iiTable of Contents ivList of Tables ixList of Figures xiAcknowledgments xiiCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONNature of the Problem 1Purpose of the Study 7Treatment 8Outcome Goals 9Limitations 13Definitions 14CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEWIntroduction 16Unemployment 17Unemployment of the Physically Disabled 18Psychosocial Impact of Unemployment 20The Impact of Unemployment on Health 21Unemployment and Causal Attribution 23Unemployment and Self-Esteem 25Career Decisions 27Unplanned Job Loss 30VPageGroup Interventions 32Treatment Modalities 34Summary 36CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGYIntroduction 38Design of the Study 38Subjects 40Instruments 41Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Beck, 1972) 41Self-esteem Scale (Waif & Jackson, 1983) 43The Attribution About Unemployment Scale (Gurney, 198 1) 45Causal Dimension Scale (Russell, 1982) 46Questionnaire Battery 48Implementation Checklist 48Demographic Questionnaire 49Follow-up Telephone Interview 49Interview Questions 49Instructors 50Treatment 50Procedures 57Pilot Study 60Data Analysis 60Hypotheses 62Pretest Hypothesis 62Hypothesis 1 62Hypotheses 2 62Hypothesis 3 63viPageCHAPTER 4: RESULTSIntroduction 64Subject Characteristics 64Experimental Mortality 65Reliability of the Instruments 66Analysis of Gender Effects 67Analysis of Instructor Effects 67Analyses of Treatment Effects 68Pretest Hypothesis 73Hypothesis 1 74Hypothesis 2 79Hypothesis 3 81Summary of the Analysis of the Hypotheses 84Analysis of Feedback Questionnaires 85Feedback 1 85Analysis of Open-ended Questions 86Feedback 2 88Analysis of Open-ended Questions 89Feedback 3 90Analysis of Open-ended Questions 91Feedback 4 92Analysis of Open-ended Questions 93Final Analysis Summary 94Eight Week Follow-up 94Analysis of the Effect ofDisability and Group Career Planning Instructionon Career Redirection 95Before Disability 96After Disability 101Before Instruction 105After Instruction 109Category Analysis Summary 120Content Analysis of Interviews 120Attachment to Pre-disability Job 122viiPageReactions to Injury 122Acceptance ofDisability 123Commitment to Change 123Effect of Compensation on Career Redirection 124The Career Redirection Experience 125CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF RESULTSIntroduction 126Summary 126Discussion of Findings 128Findings Related to Employment 128Findings Related to Depression 129Findings Related to Self-esteem 129Findings Related to Attribution 130Findings Related to Participants’ Feedback 131Findings Related to the Category Analysis 132Implications for Career Intervention Theory 133Implications for Career Redirection Programs 136Limitations and Generalizations of the Study 140Suggestions for Future Research 141REFERENCES 143AppendicesAppendix A. Invitation Letter 157Appendix B. Consent Form 159Appendix C. Demographic Information 161Appendix D. Feedback 1 163Appendix E. Feedback 2 167Appendix F. Feedback 3 171Appendix G. Feedback 4 175Appendix H. Implementation Checklist 177Appendix I, Follow-up Telephone Interview 209Appendix J. Eight Week Follow-up Letter 211Appendix K. Interview Questions 213Appendix L. Example of an Interview Transcript 216viiiixLIST OF TABLESTable Page1. Reliabilities for the Test Measures (Cronbach’s Alpha) 662. T-test Results for Gender Effects 673. Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Measures(N=44) 684. Results of All Measures, Pretest and Posttest 735a. Results of All Measures, Pretest and Posttest 755b. Analysis of Combined Group Means, Pretest and Posttest 775c. Adjusted Beck Depression Inventory Results 786. Analysis of Treatment Effects Between Treatment and ControlGroups 807. T-test Results for Posttest/Post-posttest 818. T-test Results, Combined Means, Posttest fPost-posttest 839, Summary of Respondents’ Ratings for Program Modules in Dayslto5 8610. Summary of Respondents’ Ratings for Program Modules in Days6tolO 8811. Summary of Respondents’ Ratings for Program Modules in Dayslltol4 9112. Summary ofRespondents’ Ratings for Days 1 to 14 9313. Rank Ordered Summary of Positive Before DisabilityCategories 97xPage14. Details ofNegative Before Disability Category 10015. Rank Ordered Summary of Positive After Disability Categories ... 10116. Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative After DisabilityCategories 10317. Details ofPositive Before Instruction Category 10618. Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative Before InstructionCategories 10719. Rank Ordered Summary of Positive After InstructionCategories 10920. Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative After InstructionCategories 116LIST OF FIGURESFigure Page1. Design of the Study 392. Career Redirection Process 121xxliAcknowledgmentsI wish to express my heartfelt appreciation to the members of my dissertationcommittee, Dr. Norm Amundson and Dr. Doug Willms for their time, patience, andsuggestions throughout the preparation of this research project. My deepest gratitudegoes to my chairman, Dr. Bill Borgen, for his constant support, encouragement andassistance.Ms. Pauline Davidson, my Research Assistant, was invaluable in herenthusiastic support and more than capable assistance.I could not have completed this study without the unfailing, support of myfamily. Michael, Kari and Christine thank you for your patience, tolerance and forhelping me to keep perspective on what is really important in life. Rita, without yourtireless encouragement and endless forbearance I would not have succeeded. Thisdissertation is as much yours as mine. Thank you.1CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONNature of the ProblemUnemployment continues to be a problem faced by many Canadians. Researchhas identified many specific features of the experience of unemployment (Borgen &Amundson, 1984) as well as certain subsets such as the experience ofunderemployment (Borgen, Amundson, & Harder, 1988). Increasingly, Canadians arefaced with the prospect of involuntary job loss. The trend to downsize largeorganizations is leading to involuntary job loss amongst white collar workers and is nolonger limited to the industrial sector.Job loss can adversely affect physical and mental health. Kasi, Gore, and Cobb(1975) and Warr and Jackson (1984) associated job loss with coronary disease,hypertension, ulcers, and headaches. Liem and Rayman (1982) linked job loss withincreased levels of depression, anxiety and hostility. They showed specifically thatthere was an increased level of anxiety amongst spouses of the unemployed. Margolisand Farran (1981, 1984) documented an increased illness rate amongst children ofunemployed fathers.While job loss has a serious impact on the general population, it has an evengreater impact on persons with physical disabilities. Gower (1988) found in an analysisof the Canadian Health and Disability Survey of 1983-84 that only 48% of persons withdisabilities between the ages of 35-64 were employed, whereas 72% of their nondisabled counterparts were employed. Equally telling, of those with disabilities, 46%had removed themselves from the labour force compared with 23% of the nondisabled.2Gower (1988) identified four causes for the lower labour force participation ratesof the physically disabled. First, the presence of the disability itself may have a negativeimpact on employers and restrict disabled individual& access to job opportunities. Thenegative impact of the disability increases as the disability becomes more severe.Second, a low education level has a greater impact on the disabled population than itdoes on the non-disabled population. Because many jobs available to poorly educatedpeople tend to require physical labour, many uneducated disabled workers do not eventry to look for jobs. Third, disabled workers are more likely to withdraw from theworkforce because they become frustrated with trying to overcome their employmentbarriers. A higher number of recent employment leavers (e.g. individuals who havebeen in the workforce within the preceding five years) are found among the disabledpopulation. Fourth, in three subgroups of the disabled population, younger disabledmen and women and older disabled women, a higher percentage of individuals existwho have never entered the workforce than are found among comparable groups in thenon-disabled population.Society has attempted to provide assistance to reemploy the unemployed throughgovernment agencies such as Employment and Immigration Canada and throughprivate agencies that teach job search skills. Disabled persons have been assistedthrough agencies such as the Canadian Paraplegic Association and its provincialcounterparts, as well as private agencies. Those who have become disabled due to awork-related incident have received assistance through the Vocational RehabilitationDepartments of their provincial Workers’ Compensation Boards.Most of these agencies have designed their job search assistance programsaccording to the Job-Finding Club (JFC) model which was developed by Azrin, Floresand Kaplan (1975). These researchers used the JFC approach with a generalunemployed population and found that job seekers who participated in the program3obtained full time jobs at higher starting salaries in a much shorter average period oftime than job seekers who did not have access to the program. The JFC job seekersbenefited from help with interview techniques, telephone strategies, resumepreparation, counselling and social support. Zadny and James (1977) and Fraser(1978) found that job search training strengthened clients’ coping skills, thereby helpingthem to perform necessary job search activities.The Job-Finding Club model has also been used with a disabled population (Azrin& Philip, 1979) and an economically disadvantaged population (Azrin, Philip, ThienesHontos & Besalel, 1980). Keith, Engelkes & Winborn (1977) used self-help trainingmaterials designed to teach job search concepts and behaviors with 66 rehabilitationclients who ranged in age from 20 - 51 years and had physical, mental or perceptualdisabilities. The researchers tested these materials in a controlled experiment. Theyfound that the self-help materials significantly increased both cognitive and behavioralactivities in the experimental group. The experimental group had a higher number ofjob placements when compared with the control group.Azrin and Besalel (1980) published a counsellor’s manual which outlined theinformation and procedures required for establishing and operating a job finding groupor job club according to the program tested by Azrin et al. (1975). The manualcontains instruction on identification of goals, resume preparation, methods foridentifying the hidden job market and obtaining job leads, interview strategies, andcompletion of applications.Despite these claims, most research on job search training emphasized programsfor non-disabled clients. Few studies have addressed the question of which type ofprogram benefits which specific type of client (Flynn, 1991). Dunn (1981) posed thequestion: “What works best with which people, under what circumstances?” (p.141).Fretz (1981) searched the fields of career psychology, educational instruction and4psychotherapy for evaluations of career counselling and career developmentinterventions. He found few empirical studies and many of these studies did notadequately specifSr the treatment parameters or define the appropriate outcomes forpeople already attached to the labour force. Few studies examined the interactionsbetween treatments and client attributes. Fretz recommended strategies for increasingthe detail and specificity of findings from individual research studies.Career interventions should be described in terms of the three treatmentparameters of content domain, interpersonal context and degree of structure. Contentdomain refers to occupational information, self-knowledge and decision skills.Interpersonal context relates to three options for program delivery: (a) one-to-onecounselling, (b) group counselling, and (c) self or computer-assisted programs.Programs may be highly structured, semi-structured or unstructured. Fretz (1981)directed evaluators to use measures from previous research with established reliabilityand validity. He stated that evaluators should be prepared to report the costsassociated with an intervention. In evaluating studies of career counselling, Fretzrecommended that researchers compare at least two interventions and assign subjectsrandomly to treatment groups. He indicated that in ideal evaluation designs,researchers would have a minimum of four treatment groups in order to assess twolevels in each of two different treatment parameters. If only two treatmentinterventions were evaluated then the interventions should be compared using twolevels of a single treatment parameter (e.g., structured one-to-one counselling centeredon occupational information compared with structured self-administered counsellingfocused on occupational information). When a sufficient number of subjects wereavailable Fretz (1981) recommended that subjects should be divided or blocked intohigh and low groups according to at least one specific attribute or characteristic.Evaluators should check that the groups do not vary significantly on non-blocked5characteristics. Fretz encouraged evaluators to use as many outcome criteria asfeasible including post treatment and follow-up criteria. Finally, Fretz directedevaluators to determine the statistical relationships among the content domain,interpersonal context, and structure variables used in an intervention.After a review of the job-placement research Vandergoot (1987) concluded thatonly clinical services or administrative reward systems related to placement areeffective. He recommended academic upgrading and post-placement support as usefultechniques for providing rehabilitation assistance.Flynn (1991) undertook a study to look at the question of “how best to matchdifferent types of clients with different job search programs” (p.134) following Fretz’s(1981) research design strategies. The study was designed to measure the interactionof a broad range of client attributes with three self-directed job search methodsdelivered in a group format. The three job search methods varied in degree of intensityand structure. The Job Finding Club method was a slightly modified Canadian version(Mills, 1983) of Azrin and Besalel’s (1980) Job Finding Club. It was a highlystructured learning situation. Creative Job Search Techniques (Cote, 1984, 1985) wasless structured, less intensive, more flexible, and briefer than the Job Finding Club.Overcoming Employment Barriers was the least structured, least intensive, and mostflexible in implementation of the three methods.All three treatment methods had a content domain ofjob search training and aninterpersonal context of group format. Two counsellors delivered all treatments in thestudy. They were rotated through the three treatment programs on a predetermined,counterbalanced basis. Pre-treatment and follow-up measures were taken. The followup measures were taken at one-month, six-month and twelve-month intervals. Theoutcome measure for the study was employment status. Flynn used a comparativeexperimental design with three experimental groups and no formal control group. He6used this design to avoid crossing subject attributes with an inactive treatment. Thesubjects were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment programs. The subjectswere 210 clients with special needs who ranged in age from 20 to 62 years; 59% of thesubjects were male. The special needs were distributed in the subject group as follows:(a) 35% psychiatric disability, (b) 34% physically disabled, (c) 25% sociallydisadvantaged, and (d) 5% learning disabled. Almost all the subjects (206) wereunemployed at the time of the study.Flynn (1991) identified three guidelines for matching clients with job searchprograms. He concluded that all three job search programs can be recommended forthe types of clients included in the study. Since his study had no control group, Flynnwas unable to compare the results ofjob search treatment and no job searchintervention. Significant attribute and treatment interactions were found for gender,marital status and age. The Job Finding Club method (Mills, 1985) appears to be apromising method for disabled or disadvantaged women. The Job Finding Club is alsouseful for single job seekers. Flynn concluded that most of the attributes examined inthe study did not prove useful for matching clients with job search programs when onlyemployment status was used as a measure ofjob finding success. Therefore, thequestion of how to match job search programs to client attributes remainedunanswered.Two client attributes that have not been investigated very fuiiy by Canadianresearchers are level of work experience and reason for unemployment. Researchershave studied unemployed subjects (Amundson & Borgen, 1987; Amundson & Borgen,1988; Borgen & Amundson, 1987), underemployed subjects (Borgen, Amundson, &Harder, 1988), unemployed and disabled subjects (Borgen, Amundson, & Biela, 1986)and unemployed subjects with special needs (Flynn, 1991). However, none of thesestudies reported any analysis of interactions between treatment and work experience or7treatment and reason for unemployment. While Flynn collected data on averageduration of past job he did not find significant interactions for this attribute with any ofhis study’s treatment programs. Individuals who have been displaced from their jobs ina restructuring economy or as a result of a work-related injury or disease all have workexperience and a clearly identifiable reason for their unemployment. Therefore,programs designed to assist these individuals with career redirection should includeopportunities for expressing feelings about the reasons for their unemployment andactivities focused on the identification of skills from previous work experience that canbe transferred to new jobsA group format became the preferred choice for job search programs becauseresearch findings demonstrated that the group context was beneficial for helping clientsdevelop the support systems necessary for dealing with the stresses of career indecisionand job search (Amundson, Borgen, & Westwood, 1990). Borgen and Amundson(1984) recommended job search support groups to help job seekers cope with repeatedjob rejections, evaluate their options, and improve their job search techniques.Structured learning groups were found to provide participants with opportunities formutual encouragement and support, comparing experiences, practising career decisionmaking and job search skills, and making commitments for action (Amundson, Borgen,& Westwood, 1990). Amundson and Borgen (1988) found that group participantsvalued the experience of group support beyond their completion of the job searchprogram.Purpose of the StudyAlthough several studies have examined the impact of unemployment (Borgen &Amundson, 1984, 1987; Jahoda, 1982; Tiggeman & Winfield, 1984), research about8how the physically disabled experience unemployment is limited (Borgen, Amundson,& Biela, 1987). Many of the needs of the physically disabled are no different thanthose of their non-disabled counterparts. Research has shown that work plays animportant role in maintaining a healthy identity (Orwell, 1972; Kelvin, 1981) and thatunemployment can lead to psychological reactions (Shaw, 1976; Gurney, 1980; Kelvin,1981). Acton (1981) stated that the disabled need employment for financial reasons, togive meaning to life, to establish social relationships, and to provide a structuredroutine. However, the physically disabled do face unique challenges. Stone andSawatzki (1980) identified three specific areas: (a) initial employment handicaps, (b)management misconceptions, and (c) the job interview process. Meeting andsuccessfully overcoming these challenges requires that the physically disabled receivespecial assistance.One way that this assistance is provided is through Workers’ CompensationBoards (WCBs). Many physically disabled persons are involved with Workers’Compensation Boards yet no research has come to light regarding how WCB clientsfare when they must look for employment. This study evaluated a career planning andjob search program created by combining two separate program modules. Theprogram was adjusted to meet the needs of unemployed, physically disabled WCBclients.TreatmentTreatment took place over 14 days and consisted of two parts. Part one was aprogram designed by Amundson and Poehnell (1993) called Setting New CareerPathways. The Career Pathways part of the program was divided into 2 five-daysegments referred to as Week 1 and Week 2. Part two, called Job Search Skills, was9adapted from the work of Amundson, Borgen, Westwood and Swain (1987). Part twoconsisted of 1 four-day segment called Week 3.The program began with the establishment of a positive group climate to providethe participants with a safe environment for a personal career self-assessment. Theparticipants learned a self-assessment model which they used to examine theirresponses to unemployment. Week 1 ended with a series of guided activities that gaveparticipants a basis for generating career options for themselves.Week 2 focused on career exploration and began with an examination of thecurrent labour market and how to access it. After the participants had generated careeroptions the focus shifted to learning about research methods and developing decision-making and problem-solving skills. Week 2 ended with the establishment of actionplans for the pursuit of career goals.Week 3 centered on acquiring specific job search skills. Due to the importanceof the actual employment interview (Stone & Sawatzki, 1980), increased emphasis wasplaced on preparing for this often intimidating encounter.Outcome GoalsThis study examined four areas of outcome: (a) employment, (b) self-esteem,(c) depression, and (d) explanations about unemployment. Employment of the clientwas the most significant of the outcome measures. Acton (1981) suggested thatemployment is important for four reasons: (a) to create income, (b) to have value, (c)to fit in to the normal flow of society, and (d) to add structure and discipline to life.Both society and the WCB place a high value on work. The WCB providesclients with an income while they are recuperating from an injury. When clients haverecovered, they are expected to return to gainful employment. Usually, benefits are10paid until the client has returned to employment. As a result of this policy of payingbenefits until clients return to work, the WCB emphasizes reemployment assistance forclients. Most clients are eager to return to a normal life and view reemployment as thequickest way to achieve their goal.Self-esteem is an important part of every individual. Researchers such asTiggemann and Winefield (1984), Warr (1983), and Hayes and Nutman (1981) haveshown that unemployment can have a negative impact on people’s psychological wellbeing. Tiggemann and Winefleld (1984) stated that: “Perhaps the most consistentlynoted effect is that of a loss of morale or self-esteem” (p.34). Borgen, Amundson andBiela (1987) found that one of the four major internal factors that influenced people’sreaction to unemployment was their sense of self-worth apart from work. Therefore,these researchers thought that increasing people’s sense of self-worth would increasetheir likelihood of success in becoming reemployed.Depression seems to be a common reaction to unemployment (Tiggemann &Winefield, 1984). However, depression usually takes some time to become a factor(Frese & Mohr, 1987). These researchers completed a longitudinal study with 51German, male, blue-collar workers who were 45 years or older. A questionnaire wasadministered to the subjects in July and August 1975 and again in February 1977. Thequestionnaire included a depression scale, a hope for control scale, an internal/externalcontrol scale, and two indices of leisure time activities. Although the researchersacknowledged that their study had limitations because of the homogeneity of subjectcharacteristics and small sample size, they concluded that unemployment had a strongand consistent impact on depression. Frese and Mohr determined that long termexposure to the daily hassles of unemployment, such as financial problems anddisappointments, increases depression. The attending effects of depression such aslethargy and sleep disturbance can negatively affect people’s job seeking behaviour.11They postulated that an improvement in people’s mood, with an attending decrease inthe effects of depression, would lead to increased success in finding employment.Conventional wisdom suggests that when people have a problem, the more theytake responsibility for it the sooner they will be able to resolve it. This is often not thecase with unemployment. For unemployed people, placing blame on an external sourceis often an attempt to maintain the last shreds of self-esteem (Tiggeman & Winefield,1984). If people accept responsibility for their unemployment, based on theircharacteristics or actions, they are at risk for slipping into a state of despair.Seligman’s (1975) learned helplessness model provides a combined behavioraland cognitive explanation for the experience of loss of control during periods ofunemployment. This model contends that the motivation to make a response to controlan outcome comes from the expectation that responding will produce that outcome.For example, if people expect that job search will produce a new job then they aremotivated to look for work. However, prior experience affects the formation ofexpectations. If people learn that every contact with a prospective employer does notproduce ajob offer their confidence in the success of their job search may diminish andthey may become less motivated to job search. On the other hand, they may have priorexperience with job search eventually resulting in employment and therefore, theypersist in looking for work. Experience can teach people that they can controloutcomes in some situations but not in others. Individuals displaced from jobs infaltering sectors of the economy may understand that they cannot stop economicchange but maintain confidence in their ability to become reemployed in a differentsector of the economy. Expectations of lack of control may generalize from moretraumatic or important events to less traumatic or important events, but not vice versa.For many people losing their job is an important and traumatic event which occurred inspite of their effort, commitment, and skill. People’s expectation of being successful in12finding a new job may be threatened and they may lose motivation to search for work.However, reminding individuals of past situations in which they were in control andwere successful and helping them to accept objective and factual explanations for theirunemployment may encourage them to search for work again.In summary, this evaluation of the Career Redirection and Job Search SkillsProgram investigated the impact of:1. the treatment on the participants’ eventual return to work (thetreatment’s design and implementation was expected to have a positiveeffect on the participants’ return to work).2. the treatment on the participants’ self-esteem ( an increase in self-esteemwas anticipated to have a positive effect on people’s job-seekingbehaviour).3. the treatment on the participants’ level of depression (an elevation inmood was expected to have a positive effect on people’s job-seekingbehaviour).4. attribution on the eventual outcome goal of employment (a balancedview of neither taking nor placing blame was expected to be associatedwith successful reemployment).Findings about these treatment and attribution interactions were supplemented bydata from: (a) feedback questionnaires completed by the participants during theprogram, (b) telephone interviews with the participants eight weeks after theycompleted the program, and (c) in-depth interviews conducted with a random sampleof subjects about their experiences of being disabled, unemployed and taking part in theprogram.13LimitationsThis study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Career Redirectionand Job Search Skills Program in helping physically disabled adults return toemployment. The researcher expected to increase the likelihood of reemployment forphysically disabled adults by bolstering their self-esteem, alleviating their depression,and assisting them in explaining their unemployment in more objective, neutral terms.These changes in self-esteem, depression levels and attribution were forecast to occurin the course of the subjects’ participation in the treatment program.The results of this research were expected to be applicable to other physicallydisabled adult populations. The fact that the experimental group was composed ofWCB clients was not viewed as a limiting factor since the majority of physicallydisabled adults in Canada are eligible for assistance from national, provincial or privateagencies and do access the services of these agencies.An argument could be made for extending claims for the efficacy of the treatmentprogram to all disabled adults and, likely all unemployed adults as well, since theemployment needs of disabled adults do not differ substantially from the work needs ofnon-disabled adults. The reasons that motivate disabled adults to seek employment aresimilar to the factors that prompt non-disabled adults to search for jobs. Both nondisabled and disabled adults are prone to the erosion of self-esteem, increase indepression, and sense of loss of control that can accompany prolonged unemployment.Limitations arising from the design of the study are discussed in Chapter 3.14DefinitionsThe following is a list of definitions of terms used within this paper:Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB)The Workers’ Compensation Board is a corporation set up under the Workers’Compensation Act to administer the provisions of the Act.Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant (VRC)An officer of the WCB directly responsible for the vocational assessment and jobplacement of disabled WCB clients.Structural UnemploymentStructural unemployment results from changes in the structure of the economycaused by falling demand for products, exhaustion of product supplies, foreigncompetition, taxation policies, or new technology. These structural changes are longterm and persistent. Over the last ten years there has been an erosion in resource-basedand manufacturing jobs in Canada through falling demand, supply exhaustion, andforeign competition. New technology has created an information-based economy.These changes have resulted in an ongoing unemployment rate of approximately 10%.15DisabilityAn individual who has a valid WCB claim and who is in the process of beingassessed for a disability pension will be considered to have a disability. The WCBawards permanent partial disability pensions to compensate individuals for sustaining aphysical impairment. Return to work does not jeopardize this award.Career RedirectionThe process whereby an individual who has been displaced from the workforcedue to a disability or structural unemployment becomes reemployed.Job Ready ClientsPeople who have recovered physically from an injury to the extent that they havebeen cleared to plan for a return to work and who have no outstanding compensationissues that would stand in the way of planning for reemployment.16CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEWIntroductionFew activities are as pervasive in peopl&s lives as work. Because of its centralrole in human life, work has been the focus of much social science research in thetwentieth century. The research has concentrated on employment and has ignoredwork outside of contractual arrangements (Jahoda, 1981). In spite of the empiricalresearch on work, employment, and unemployment, no theory exists that binds theavailable knowledge together (Jahoda, 1981). The gap between empirical knowledgeand theoretical explanations has not narrowed as a result of social science research.Jahoda (1981) stated that researchers must find an approach that ‘recognizes thelegitimacy of a variety of theories, counteracts fragmentation, and presents in anorderly and rational manner what we know” (p. 186).As a step toward establishing some order in the development of an approach forreducing the gap between empirical knowledge and theory, Jahoda (1979, 1981)identified the most important reason for employment and suggested secondaryexplanations for the primacy of employment for individuals. Jahoda stated that earninga living is taken for granted as the most important reason for working but employmentalso has psychological implications for individuals. The time structure, social contacts,purpose, activity, status, and identity that result from employment help to tie people toreality. Jahoda (1981) concluded that these psychological benefits override the rewardof wages and explain why employment, even in bad conditions, can be psychologicallysupportive while unemployment can be psychologically destructive.17Winefield, Tiggemann and Winefield (1991) challenged Jahod&s deprivationmodel of employment on the basis of the results of their seven-year longitudinal (1980-1987) study on the psychological impact of unemployment and unsatisfactoryemployment in young Australian men and women. The researchers concluded thattheir findings were difficult to reconcile with the belief that unsatisfactory employmentis preferable to unemployment. However, they recommended that their findings of theopposite impact of unsatisfactory employment against unemployment for young menand young women be investigated further.Winefield, Tiggemann and Winefield’s (1991) analysis of their research findings inlight of Jahoda’s (1979, 1980) theoretical perspective is consistent with her challenge tosocial science researchers to work towards improving our understanding of the impactof unemployment.UnemploymentThe decade spanning the mid 1970’s to the mid 1980’s saw an upsurge in researchon the impact of unemployment (Borgen & Amundson 1987; Hill, 1977; Jahoda, 1982;Warr, Jackson & Banks, 1982). The research followed case study research arising outof the Great Depression such as Jahoda, Lazarsfeld and Zeisel (1971), and quantitativeanalyses of psychosocial (Ferman & Gardner, 1979) and health effects (Durkheim,1951; Marshall & Hodge, 1981; Pierce, 1967).Interest in this field waned with the resurgence of the economy and thesubsequent decrease in unemployment. Recently, interest in unemployment hasincreased due to the effects of another recession, but perhaps more importantly, due tothe effects of a restructuring economy. As the western world moves from a resourceand industrial-based economy to an information-based economy, it is being forced todeal with and accept a high level of structural unemployment. Currently, Canada is18facing the erosion ofjobs in the resource sector, the loss of low skill, labour-intensivejobs in the manufacturing sector and the resulting need to reemploy the largelyunskilled and undereducated workforce who have been displaced from these jobs. Thisfact, along with a commonly held belief that unemployment is causing an increase inhealth care costs has led to a new interest in examining the impact and treatment ofunemployment. Recent studies have demonstrated the impact unemployment has onphysical health (Kessler, Turner & House, 1987, 1988; Leeflang, Klein-Hesselink &Spruit, 1992a, 1992b), depression (Frese & Mohr, 1987; Turner & Noh, 1988) andhealth care usage and costs (Studnicka, et al., 1991). The dramatic rise in health carecosts, particularly in the field of workers compensation, has led to a greater willingnessto examine how persons with disabilities can be assisted to reenter or remain in theworkforce.Unemployment of the Physically DisabledResearchers have examined the impact of unemployment on particular groups(Brenner & Levi, 1987; Jahoda, 1982; Tiggemann & Winefield, 1984; Winefield,Tiggeman & Winefield, 1991). The literature also contains many studies thatdemonstrated the importance ofwork in establishing a healthy identity (Kelvin, 1981;Orwell, 1972; Schaufeli, 1988) and the resulting psychological impact ofunemployment (Dooley & Catalano, 1988; Gurney, 1980; Kaufman, 1982; Rump,1983; Shaw, 1976; Shelton, 1985; Winefield, Tiggeman & Smith, 1987; Winefield,Tiggeman, & Winefield, 1991). The impact of unemployment on the disabled is similar(Borgen, Amundson & Biela, 1987). Acton (1981) identified four reasons why work isan essential goal for disabled persons: (a) they need the income derived from gainfulemployment, (b) nearly all cultures place a high value on work as a part of rich and19complete life, (c) to form social relationships, and (d) it gives structure and discipline toliving. Maslow (1968) and Toffler (1980) consider these to be basic needs foreveryone.While the needs of the physically disabled are similar to the general population,the physically disabled face special challenges in becoming employed (Bean & Beard,1975; Cohen, 1962; Eggers, 1960; Florian, 1978; Leigh, 1987; Perlman & Strudler,1976; Polner, 1958; Rickard, Triandis, & Patterson, 1963; Sears, 1975; Tagalakis,Amsel, & Fichten, 1988; Thoben, 1975; Williams, 1972; Zuger, 1971). Stone andSawatzki (1980) classified these factors into three specific areas: (a) numerousemployment handicaps at the outset ofa job search (e.g., lack of marketable skills, pooremployment record), (b) management’s misconceptions about what disabled personsbring to employment (i.e., lower productivity, higher absenteeism, higher accidentrates, resentment of co-workers, negative attitudes, job site modifications, etc.), and (c)the employment interview process (mainly the interviewer’s preconceived negativeimpressions). Thus the disabled have the same needs for employment as the generalpopulation, but face barriers to employment that may alter their experience of bothworking and job search.Borgen, Amundson and Biela (1987) conducted a study examining how thephysically disabled experience unemployment. Utilizing a combination ofphenomenology and critical incident methodologies, these researchers interviewed 35people whose disabilities ranged from brain injury to arthritis. Their findings suggestedthat individuals with similar disabilities do not necessarily react to unemployment in thesame manner. As a result, type of disability cannot be used to predict peoples’ reactionto unemployment. However, Borgen et a!. (1987) did find that people’s reactions tounemployment were influenced by four factors: (a) the importance they placed on theidea of work, (b) their personal sense of self-esteem apart from work, (c) whether they20believed they were in control of their destiny, and (d) who they blamed when theycould not find a job. If they blamed themselves their self-esteem suffered and they haddifficulty continuing a j oh search. However, if they attributed their lack of success toexternal factors, the impact on self-esteem was minimal and they were able to continuewith their job search. These findings indicate that the physically disabled react tounemployment in much the same manner as the non-disabled and that the psychologicalimpact of unemployment is felt equally by both these groups.Psychosocial Impact of UnemploymentUnemployment is a stressful event that has been shown to have negativepsychosocial and health consequences (Dean & Lin, 1977; Dohrenwend, B. S. &Dohrenwend, B. P., 1974; Greenblatt, Becerra & Serafetinides, 1982; Liang, Dvorkin,Kahana & Mazian, 1980; Liem, R. & Liem, J., 1978; Pearlin & Lieberman, 1979) andhas been directly linked to depression, substance abuse and suicide (Atkins, Ferguson,& Blankenship, 1983; Dooley & Catalano, 1988; Jones, 1991; Peregoy & Schliebner,1990; Shelton, 1985). Finding ways to mitigate the reactions to this psychologicaldistress is necessary in a society that is going to continue to have high levels ofunemployment.The unemployment literature reveals several important factors regarding theimportance of work. Western, industrialized and increasingly high-technology societiesplace a great deal of value on gainful employment (Feather & Bond, 1983;Winegardner, Siminetti & Nykodym, 1984). People’s work environments may wellrepresent the most important group membership and focus of time in their lives. Infact, Uris and Tarrant (1983) suggested that the work group is more important thanfamily, friends and community. Peregoy and Schliebner (1990) examined the effects of21long-term unemployment and found that people look to the work place to meet theirneeds for primary social interaction, and as a surrogate family system.Sullivan (1972) linked Maslow’s hierarchy of needs with employment and foundthat most people use work as a way of satisfying personal needs ranging from survivalto self-actualization. Erikson (1980) suggested that productivity in the workplace is amajor contributor to healthy ego identity. If this productivity is reduced or eliminatedthrough unemployment, for example, ego identity is strained and begins to disintegrate.This weakened ego identity can lead to feelings of inadequacy, loss, and doubting ofone’s self-worth and belonging. Erikson (1980) suggested that if this occurs theindividual can begin to stagnate and die.Shelton (1985) reviewed studies on the social and psychological impact ofunemployment which considered the economic costs of unemployment and the impactof unemployment on the individual and the family. Based on her review Shelton statedthat “professionals who work with the unemployed should be prepared to deal withdepression, anxiety, and loss of self-esteem in the individual. These emotions maydirectly interfere with the job-seeking process”.The Impact of Unemployment on HealthCompared with unemployment in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the structureof unemployment in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s is changing. Even though thepercentage of people unemployed is smaller, those who are unemployed remain so forlonger periods of time. This change has been documented in Europe (Studnicka &Scheiber, 1988) and is often discussed in the popular media in North America. Theincrease in long-term unemployment is having an impact on the amount of money spenton health care (Kessler, Turner, & House, 1987; Leeflang, Klein-Hesselink, & Spruit,221992; Studnicka, et al., 1991). Studies on mortality have shown that those who havebeen unemployed at least once in their lives die younger than those who have not beenunemployed (Cook, 1985; Iversen, Andersen, 0., Andersen, P. K.; Cristoffersen &Keiding, 1987; Moser, Goldblatt, Fox, & Jones, 1987). Westin, Schiesselman andKorper (1989), examining the effects of a factory closure over a ten-year period, foundthat levels of illness and disability increased with unemployment and that this increasecould not be explained by preexisting health problems. More commonly the literatureexamines the impact of unemployment on the mental or physical health status of men.For example, Linn, Sandifer, and Stein (1985) studied unemployed veterans and foundan increase in somatization, anxiety, depression, and disability behaviour six monthspost job loss. These results were also not attributable to preexisting conditions.Negative effects on health can precede unemployment. The prospect ofbecoming unemployed increases the level of stress in workers (Schwefel, 1986),especially for those who feel immediately threatened (Grayson, 1985). The experienceof being dismissed has a varied impact. Some workers experience short term healthimprovement after dismissal (Joelson & Wahlquist, 1987; Waif, 1987). For otherstheir dismissal has an immediate negative health impact (Lahelma & Kangas, 1989).The most likely explanation for this variance is that the research tends to focus oncertain categories of workers and some of these categories may be more vulnerable tothe negative impact of unemployment. For people employed in an unhealthy industry,their health may actually improve if they are removed from the work place (Studnickaet al., 1991).The impact of long-term unemployment on health varies over time. In the longterm, some people find their health remains the same; others find that it improves, butthe majority find that long-term unemployment has a negative impact on their health(Grayson, 1985; Sabroe & Iversen, 1989; Verkleij, 1989).23A possible explanation of this variation is that unemployment leads to financialstrain or hardship which in turn results in poorer health. In cases where workers havereceived substantial severance packages there was no negative impact on health untilthe money began to run out (Kessler, House, & Turner, 1987; Studnicka et al., 1991).For most people unemployment causes financial problems which create daily hardshipsand personal disappointments (Spruit, 1983; Spruit, 1985). Olafsson and Svensson(1986), studying the impact of unemployment on the lifestyle changes and health ofadolescents, concluded that unemployment concentrates risk factors such as poverty,low levels of education, and low status on workers and their families.Unemployment and Causal AttributionA commonly held belief is that unemployment leads to psychological depression.However, Frese and Mohr (1987) suggested that empirical studies have had difficultydemonstrating a causal relationship and that it may be more appropriate to say that:“Depressed persons who are inactive and pessimistic in their outlook will beunemployed much longer or will become unemployed more readily” (p.173). Theyfurther suggested that unemployment should not be viewed as one major life event, butrather as a life event that leads to a host of daily problems such as financial hardshipand learned helplessness.The concept of learned helplessness (Seligman, 1975) is a useful frameworkthrough which to view the financial impact of unemployment. Learned helplessness iscaused by repeated experiences of aversive, noncontrollable situations. A personcaught up in learned helplessness exhibits passive, resigned, inflexible behaviour, linkedto dysphoric feelings of depression brought on as a result of repeating these situations.The only escape from this condition is to exercise control over these situations.24Individuals’ reactions to being unemployed may be affected by how they explain thesource of their job loss. People with an external locus of control are more passive,generally achieve less (Lefcourt, 1976), and are more depressive (Prociuk, Breen &Lussier, 1976) than people with an internal focus. The locus of control construct refersto how people view themselves in conjunction with the events that befall them. Theconstruct also encompasses the meaning that people give to the interaction betweenself and experiences (Lefcourt, 1982). Individuals with an external locus of controltend to perceive experiences as the result of causes outside of their behaviors andthoughts. Conversely, people with an internal locus of control make sense ofexperiences in terms of their own actions and thoughts. If people do not understandexperiences as a result of their actions, then the experiences, either positive or negative,are not effective in altering their locus of control and therefore have no impact on theiractions.Gurney (1981) suggested that the kind of causal ascription made aboutunemployment by those who want to work can have important implications on theirwell-being. He further stated that “their attribution about the reasons for not having ajob may play an appreciable role on either intensifying or mitigating their feelings offailure and self-worth” (p. 79). Causal attribution has seen widespread academicinterest arising out of the work of Heider (1944), who stated that “when we have adisagreeable experience, or a pleasant one, we may locate its origin in another person,in ourselves, or in fate” (p. 358). Later Heider (1958) limited attribution to twofactors, internal or external. In interpreting how people choose among possible causes,attribution theorists have identified two general categories. The first category positsthe perceiver as a systematic analyst looking for covariation between a given effect anddifferent possible causes (Kelley, 1967, 1971, 1973). The second categorizes the25perceiver as tending to seek a single, salient, explanation for a behavior (Jones & Davis,1965).Applying these two categories to predict the kind of causal attributionsunemployed workers would make about their unemployment is useful. The conclusioncan be drawn that people in the second category would look for a single external cause,like the economy, and be unlikely to change their causal attributions unless theeconomy changed. The first category suggests that individuals would see many causes,apply the principles of consistency and distinctiveness (Kelley, 1973) and come up withinternal reasons for their unemployment. An internal focus would make it easier for anindividual to deal with unemployment and eventually become reemployed. However,Gurney (1981) stated that this may not be the case. He suggested that causalattribution and locus of control are largely independent of each other. For example,unemployed people may believe themselves to be powerless to change theircircumstances thus exhibiting an external locus of control. However, the fact that theyare unemployed when others are not may eventually lead them to see themselves asresponsible for their unemployment, an internal focus, and blame themselves for theirsituation. Gurney (1981) concluded that this particular combination of an internalattribution with an external locus of control may be the cause for the devastatingimpact that unemployment has on self-esteem.Unemployment and Self-esteemUnemployment is related to psychological distress (Donovan & Oddy, 1982;Feather, 1982; Feather & O’Brien, 1986; Warr, 1984). More specifically,unemployment is directly related to poorer self-esteem (Gurney, 1980; Shamir, 1986;Winefield & Tiggeman, 1985). Most research into the effect of unemployment on self-26esteem (Feather, 1982; Gurney, 1980; Shamir, 1986; Waif & Jackson, 1983; Winefield& Tiggeman, 1985) has used the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE) (Rosenberg,1965) or measures derived from it (Bachman & OMalley, 1977; Bachman, O’Malley, &Johnston, 1978; Sheeran & McCarthy, 1990; Sheeran & McCarthy, 1992). Waif andJackson (1983) developed the Self-esteem Scale using items from Bachman andO’Malley’s (1977) measure, O’Malley and Bachman’s (1979) index, and the RSE(Rosenberg, 1965). The Self-esteem Scale contains a positive and a negative subscale.Warr and Jackson (1983) used their scale in a study of self-esteem and unemploymentin two cohorts of recent school leavers in a British city. The researchers found that,although the content of the positive and negative items in their scale appeared to besimilar, the intercorrelation between the scales was low and the two subscales yielded adifferent pattern of relationships with employment status. Waif and Jackson (1983)concluded that their findings suggested that unemployment affects only some aspects ofself-perception and recommended further conceptual and empirical examination of theimpact of unemployment.An important distinction has been made in the self-esteem literature between self-evaluation and self-affection (Wells & Marwell, 1976). Self-evaluation refers to thetendency of individuals to judge themselves against their ideals, and thereby determinesuccess and failure. Self-affection is not tied to performance and notions about successand failure. It is concerned with personal feelings of worthiness or value. Wells andMarwell (1976) point out that RSE and RSE-derived scales measure only selfaffection, and as Sheeran and McCarthy (1992) stated, this means that ‘unemploymentresearch has only measured self-affection. Self-evaluation has not been operationalizedin previous job loss studies” (p.118).In a study designed to examine the impact of unemployment on six self-conceptmeasures: self-consistency, self-involvement, self-evaluation, self-affection, positive27self-esteem, and negative self-esteem, Sheeran and McCarthy (1990) demonstrated thatunemployed individuals had poorer evaluation and consistency scores, and that long-term unemployment was associated with poorer self-affection and lower negative self-esteem scores. They further noted that while poor self-evaluation is an immediateresult of unemployment, only self-affection is affected by long-term unemployment.For example, people who become unemployed may exhibit immediate poorer self-evaluation when they realize that they are not going to meet their goals, but they canstill feel good about themselves, thus demonstrating unchanged self-affection. With thelong-term unemployed however, feelings of worthlessness and rejection eventually setin, which are indicators of poorer self-affection (Wells and Marwell, 1976).Career DecisionsSince the 1950’s there has been an increasing trend toward self-determination andpersonal planning with individuals taking control of their lives and accepting moreresponsibility for personal choices and life developments (Forster, 1985). An interest inthe elements of personal decision making and planning has generated a great deal ofacademic and public attention on the concept of personal goal (Forster, 1985). Sinceestablishing a personal goal is essential in career planning and job search, developmentsin the theory related to personal decision-making are relevant for designing programsto assist unemployed people to return to work. Forster concluded that “personalconstruct psychology would seem to be a theoretical framework well suited for thearticulation and study of personal goals” (p. 261).The fundamental unit in personal construct psychology is the “personalconstruct” (Forster, 1992). A personal construct is a transparent pattern created byindividuals to organize the realities of their world. Individuals create constructs by28deciding what theme is common in two or more events. This common theme isdetermined through a process of comparing and contrasting events until a similarity isfound between at least two of these events. Personal constructs are developed overtime, as a result of personal experience, and are formed into systems. Constructsprovide a window or lens through which people perceive and understand events andalso supply a mechanism for anticipating events and experiences. For example,suppose that a woman notices that her supervisor is more irritable at the end of thework week than at the beginning of the week. She has a construct that enables her torecognize irritability. She may also use related constructs such as (a) more rest on theweekend, and (b) time to participate in relaxing activities, as she attempts to interprether experience with her supervisor and anticipate future interaction. Forster (1992)selected the personal construct as the “primary conceptual unit for investigating theelicitation and articulation of a person’s goals” (p. 176)Neimeyer (1992) and Kortas, Neimeyer and Prichard (1992) stated that the areaof employment was accepted as a logical field of study for investigating the applicationof the concept of personal construct because Kelly (1955), the creator of personalconstruct theory, felt that vocational development “is one of the principal means bywhich one’s life role is given clarity and meaning” (p. 751). Construct systemsdeveloped by individuals in the course of their work experience are called vocationalconstruct systems. Vocational construct systems might contain constructs like outdoorwork, desk jobs, high wages and low salary. Individuals would use these constructs toorganize and systematize their work experience and to anticipate future employmentexperiences. Gimenes (1990) assigned the label of vocational development construct tothe interaction of: (a) the factors which motivate people to form vocational constructsystems, (b) the elements which prevent people from forming vocational constructsystems, and (c) the factors which trigger specific employment decisions. Since29vocational development is based on work experience and all previous vocationaldecisions, Gimenes concluded that the construct clearly indicated that selecting anoccupational goal is a complex process that takes time.Efforts to organize findings of the research on the relationship between aspects ofthe vocational construct system and a wide variety of career variables led to theformulation of the structural model of vocational development (Kortas, Neimeyer &Prichard, 1992). The structural model emphasizes both the individual variation incareer decision making and its developmental progression (Kortas et al., 1992). Themodel is based on the premise that individuals move through stages of structuraldevelopment that are characterized by progressively higher levels of integration anddifferentiation. Differentiation refers to the different dimensions ofjudgment used by aperson and integration relates to the interrelationship among dimensions in a system.The structural model holds that vocational maturation should be marked by increasinglydiverse perceptions of the world of work. These diverse perceptions are organized byan overall integration that gives the system coherence and directs evolution (Kortas eta!., 1992).In a quasi-experimental study, Kortas, Neimeyer and Prichard (1992) measuredthe relationship between the level of development of a vocational construct system andstyles of vocational decision-making in a group of 598 community college students whoranged in age from 16 to 75 years (85.5% 16 - 30 years). The majority of the samplewere employed (either part time or full time), and 83% of the group had one year orless of college education. These researchers found that the level of integration invocational construct systems was a better predictor of decision-making style than levelof differentiation. Higher levels of integration were linked to a rational style ofdecision-making and lower levels of integration were associated with more dependentand intuitive styles. Lower levels of integration were also found to be connected to30higher levels of career indecision. The investigators cautioned that their findingsindicated a correlation only because of the lack of rigor in their experimental design.Evidence of some relationship between level of integration in vocationalconstruct systems and career decision-making has implications for the design of atreatment program that includes the identification of skills based on previous workexperience and the selection of new job goals. Successful career redirection mayrequire higher levels of integration in vocational construct systems. All unemployedpeople, but particularly individuals faced with the reality of having to make anoccupational change in order to be reemployed, must reorganize their vocationalconstruct systems to incorporate both the experience of becoming unemployed and thevocational constructs that will guide their decision-making throughout their vocationalplanning and job search.Unplanned Job LossThe process of becoming unemployed varies according to the experience of eachindividual. Generally, there are two categories for classifying employment terminationscenarios: voluntary unemployment and involuntary unemployment. Voluntaryunemployment is understood to include activities like switching to a new employer inthe same industry or type of business, retiring from the labour force, changing to selfemployment, and making a career change. The common themes in voluntaryunemployment are the worker’s selection of the timing of the termination and theworker having a pre-determined goal for the future.Voluntary unemployment, although planned, is not without risk. One of theriskier types of voluntary unemployment is career change, especially when the changerequires some form of preparation such as training. Doering and Rhodes (1989) found31that the phenomenon of career change has received limited research attention. Theseresearchers undertook a qualitative study with 20 public school teachers to identify therange of factors important to the career change decision and process. They usedLawrence’s (1980) definition of career change as movement to an occupation that is notpart of a traditional career progression. They found that the major reasons for careerchange were job-related and included factors such as inadequate pay, and lack ofadvancement opportunities, challenge, and stimulation. Their results also indicated thatcareer change was planned. These findings support the themes of personal control andplanned future activity for voluntary unemployment.Involuntary unemployment, on the other hand, is generally understood to referto the displacement of workers that results from cyclical downturns in the businesscycle, the growth of the global economy, technological advances, and pressures forincreased productivity (Gordus, 1986). Although Gordus listed these factors as thereasons for the displacement of American workers in 1986 they remain relevant forCanada in the 1990’s. Leana and Ivancevich (1987) concluded that job loss is a worldwide phenomenon that is likely to continue to be a problem for many years.Unplanned job loss from plant closures, layoffs resulting from technologicalinnovations, and the resulting reduction in supervisory and management staff requiredcontribute to the displacement of workers. Displaced workers are often notcompetitive because of the limited transferability of their job-specific or firm-specificskills. They are at risk for negative physical and health outcomes and may exhibitunemployment-related behavioral changes that tend to reduce their employability. Forthese reasons displaced workers are in need of support to help prevent thepsychosocial, health and self-esteem problems that can accompany unemployment(Gordus, 1986). Gordus suggested that displaced workers may seek help for their32unemployment-related problems from career development services rather than mentalhealth services.Researchers investigating the problems of displaced workers have ignored theplight of workers that are disabled through injury or disease in the course of their workcareers. Workers with employment-related disabilities and individuals with non work-related injuries can be displaced from their jobs if their work restrictions prevent themfrom continuing to work in their pre-injury occupations. They can be left with areduced repertory ofjob specific skills that are not transferable to occupations that arecompatible with their limitations in physical activity and therefore, end up unemployed.Like other unemployed workers they are at risk of developing psychosocial, health andself-esteem problems and may need help and support to become reemployed.Group InterventionsUnemployed people, both those displaced through structural changes in theeconomy and those with disabilities who are physically unable to continue working intheir pre-injury jobs, are cut off from the essential activity of work. Their financialsecurity is threatened and their interactions with people outside of their family unit areoften greatly reduced. Financial hardship resulting from prolonged unemployment canlead to health problems. The obvious solution to the financial, social, and healthproblems associated with job loss is reemployment. However, research has shown thatunemployment can lead to poor self-evaluation in the short term and poor self-affectionin the long term. Loss of self-esteem and the associated feelings of worthlessness andrejection can make vocational decision making and job search very difficult forunemployed people. Gordus (1986) stated that unemployed people need support toprevent the psychosocial, health and self-esteem problems that accompanyunemployment. Based on a thorough review of the empirical research relevant to the33temporal relationship between job loss and the manifestation of consequences, Jones(1991) formulated the generalization that “social support has been found to be animportant factor in mitigation of the stress of unemployment” (p. 49).Group employment counselling has been reported as a positive experience byunemployed individuals (Amundson & Borgen, 1987; Borgen & Amundson, 1987).This positive reaction is not surprising when viewed from a broad counsellingperspective because a group approach helps job seekers to: (a) understand otherpeople’s point of view, (b) develop social interaction skills, (c) learn to share concernsand ideas with others who face similar problems, (d) obtain several reactions toproblems expressed, (e) receive support and encouragement from others, and (f) obtainrelevant information (Amundson & Borgen, 1980, 1987; Bailey, 1993).Desmond and Seligman (1977) also reported the merits of a group approach tovocational counselling with rehabilitation clients because “the clients can benefit fromthe input, interaction and experiences provided by their peers” (p. 273). These authorssuggested that vocational groups usually involve participants exploring their personalself-concept and the world of work. In the course of this exploration participantsassess their needs, interests, skills, abilities, and limitations. They also must evaluatethe benefits ofjobs and the requirements of specific occupations in order to makedecisions on job goals. Information and feedback from other group members can behelpful in vocational decision making.The group setting can provide a realistic and supportive environment for practiceofjob search tasks like completing applications and job interviews. Other groupparticipants can support job seekers in coping with the ups and downs ofjob search(Desmond & Seligman, 1977; Rife & Beicher, 1993).Shulman (1984) described the group as a “mutual aid system” (p. 163).However, he cautioned that simply bringing people together to form a group does not34guarantee mutual aid. Shulman stated that a group worker or leader is necessary inorder to help members create the conditions necessary for mutual aid to occur.Amundson and Borgen (1988) suggested that the group serves as an efficient systemfor a counsellor to deliver services to clients. The mutual aid process that occurs ingroups includes sharing of information, debate of ideas, discussion of difficult topics,empathy, expectations for participation, and opportunity to try out new ideas or skills.Unemployed individuals can benefit from participating in a group led by a skilledand knowledgeable counsellor. They can gain support from knowing that they are notalone in their struggle to become reemployed. They can learn to accept the reality oftheir job loss and gain confidence in their ability to achieve new job goals. Participationin an employment group provides people with an opportunity to receive vocationalinformation and practice their job search skills.Treatment ModalitiesAmundson and Borgen (1988) reported that group counselling with theunemployed gathered momentum in the 1980’s. However, this increase in the use ofgroup techniques for helping the unemployed was not accompanied by research into thefactors responsible for the success ofjob finding groups. To address this research gap,Amundson and Borgen undertook a study with 77 participants (41 men; 36 women;average age 34.6 years; variable educational background) who had been unemployed anaverage of eight and a half months before entering a job search group. The researchinterviews were held about three months after the participants finished their attendanceat the job search groups. At the time of the interviews 37 participants were workingand the remaining 40 people were unemployed. The interviews started with an openended question to elicit information about each participant’s experience of35unemployment and the subsequent questions focused on the positive and negativeaspects of each participant’s experience with the job search group. The researchersfound that most participants were extremely satisfied with the group experience andhad difficulty thinking of anything that was negative about the job search group.Amundson and Borgen (1988) further organized the positive and negative factorsreported by the participants into the two categories of task-orientation factors andfactors that promote support and self-esteem. The task orientation factors related tojob search techniques, information, and practice. The support and self-esteem factorsfocused on interpersonal relations and self-concept development. The list of supportand self-esteem factors included belonging, mutual support and encouragement,absorbing others’ enthusiasm and success, social comparison, contribution, ventilating,positive outlook, and leadership. The authors drew a parallel between the support andself-esteem factors in this list and the developmental factors (support from family andfriends and participating in job search groups) identified in their earlier research(Amundson & Borgen, 1987; Borgen & Amundson, 1987).Amundson and Borgen (1988) concluded that the power of the group in haltingthe downward emotional slide of unemployed people was quite striking. They werealso impressed by the perseverance of the positive stance of the job search groupparticipants even when they were not yet employed. The researchers reported that theunemployed participants stated that they were able to maintain a more effective jobsearch and positive self image based on their participation in the job search group.These findings on the importance of providing social and self-esteem support tounemployed individuals challenges the effectiveness of treatment programs focused onjob search strategies and labour market information (Azrin & Besalel, 1980; Azrin,Flores & Kaplan, 1975; Gordus, 1986). From the research highlighted in this review itcan be seen that group-based counselling interventions are an effective strategy in36assisting unemployed people back to work. A case has been made that unemploymentaffects disabled individuals in much the same way as non-disabled people. However,the unemployment of people with disabilities is complicated by special challengesassociated with their disabilities. Therefore, special programs are needed to helpindividuals with disabilities to become reemployed (Roessler, 1988).SummaryThis study was designed to address three specific gaps in the literature and to addto the general understanding of the treatment of unemployment. First, the literaturereview revealed that existing treatment programs are based extensively on the work ofAzrin and colleagues (Azrin, Flores & Kaplan, 1975; Azrin & Besalel, 1980) whichfocused on the development and maintenance ofjob search behaviours. The review ofpersonal construct literature suggests that this is not sufficient. Programs designed toassist the unemployed return to work must also include time and mechanisms for themto rebuild their vocational construct systems. Second, the literature review identified alack of experimental evaluation of treatment programs and suggested a need toexamine the assistance provided to the unemployed using true experimental designs andreliable, standardized instruments. Third, the literature review showed that studies ofthe unemployed, and programs designed to help them, were focused on only certainpopulations. Also, the literature suggests that the evaluation of treatment programswould be enhanced by gaining a more thorough understanding of the subjectsexperience of the treatment program through the use of qualitative methodologies suchas phenomenology and critical incident analysis.This study was designed to evaluate a new treatment program which was createdto assist unemployed people develop feasible job goals and learn job search skills. The37evaluation of this treatment program employed a true experimental design and reliable,standardized instruments combined with a qualitative methodology. The researcheranticipated that1. People who participated in the program would enhance their self-esteem,develop a more internal focus towards causation and increase their job search skills.2. If people experienced changes in these three areas their attitude towards jobsearch and eventual reemployment would change, resulting in a more focused approachand positive attitude.3. This focus and attitude change would result in a successful return to work.This study was also designed to examine a new population. Previous studieshave focused almost entirely on young people, recent school leavers or the long-termunemployed. Generally these were people who either no longer or never had a strongattachment to the workforce. This study’s population were adults who had strong tiesto the workforce, had become unemployed due to a traumatic injury or industrialdisease and were having difficulty returning to work because of the resulting disability,and who were also receiving WCB benefits while unemployed.The qualitative component of this study followed a model outlined by Borgenand Amundson (1984) which combined critical incident analysis with phenomenology.The use of this method added richness and depth to the evaluation by encouraging thesubjects to express their experience of participating in the treatment program.Based on the above, it was anticipated that this study would make a contributionto the literature by adding further understanding to the treatment of unemployment andthe evaluation of such treatment programs.38CHAPTER 3METHODOLOGYIntroductionThis chapter describes the design of the study, the client population, and theinstruments. It also describes the treatment program, the instructors, the procedures,and the data analysis. It concludes with a statement of the hypotheses underinvestigation.Design of the StudyThis study employed a Solomon four-group design. The validity of a repeatedmeasures design is threatened by the fact that a pretest may predispose subjects to reactin a particular way to the treatment. The Solomon design was used for three reasons:(a) to assess the effect of the experimental treatment relative to the control treatment,(b) to assess the effect of a pretest, and (c) to assess the interaction between pretestand treatment conditions (Borg & Gall 1983, p.692). This design requires more effortthan some simpler designs but it is a powerful experimental design which provides atest of whether or not the pretest affects the treatment.Sixty unemployed, physically disabled workers who had been referred by theirVocational Rehabilitation Consultants (VRCs) were blocked (Reichardt, 1979) ongender, level of disability and length of time out of work. Subjects within each blockwere then randomly assigned to the four treatment groups. Following randomassignment, Groups 1 and 3 were brought in for pretest measures (0 i). Group 1 thenproceeded to treatment while Group 3 waited. Group 2 received treatment at the39same time as Group 1 but did not receive a pretest. After Groups 1 and 2 hadcompleted their treatment, all four groups were tested (02). A traditional Solomonfour-group design normally stops at this point; however, since the researcher wasethically obliged to treat the wait-listed groups, the design was extended. The posttests(02) were treated as pretests for Groups 3 and 4 and these groups were treated andtested again (03). This extension ftirther strengthened the design because it providedtwo additional tests of the effect of treatment and waiting.Figure 1Design of the StudyGroup1 R Oi T 02 042 R T 02 043 R Ui 02 T 03 044 R 02 T 03 04Note. R = Random Assignment; 0 = Observation; T = TreatmentEight weeks after treatment (04) all groups were contacted by telephone. Theywere asked a series of questions, and notified that the test battery had been mailed tothem. They were asked to complete the instruments and mail them back to theresearcher. A number of participants, previously selected, were also asked toparticipate in an in-depth interview and appointments were arranged with participantswho agreed to be interviewed. These interviews were analyzed using a combination ofcritical incident and phenomenological techniques based on a refinement of Flanagan’s(1954) and Fischer’s (1979) work for research on unemployment (Borgen andAmundson, 1984). The purpose of these interviews was to gain in-depth knowledge of40the subjects’ experience of the program. Swinburne (1981) stated that “learning aboutthe consequences of unemployment entails understanding sensitive thoughts andfeelings which do not lend themselves to survey techniques, hence the need for smallsample, in-depth studies” (p.47). Phenomenology allows people to tell their own story,emphasizing their own values and beliefs. It allows a comprehensive recounting of theexperience as it was lived and a further analysis of that experience and others for theircommon structure (Fischer, 1979).A research methodology that combines a subject’s viewpoint with a directiveinterviewing style, the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), has proven to bevery effective in identifying the facilitating and hindering factors of an experience(Anderson & Nilsson, 1964; Flanagan, 1978; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman,1959). When these two techniques- phenomenology and critical incident - arecombined, they can be highly effective in documenting the experience of beingunemployed (Borgen & Amundson, 1984; Borgen, Amundson & Biela, 1987), orunderemployed (Borgen, Amundson & Harder, 1988). This study used thesemethodologies to acquire an understanding of the subjects’ experience of participatingin the treatment program.SubjectsA total of 60 subjects were selected from a waitlist of clients referred for jobsearch training by VRCs at the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) of BritishColumbia. VRCs ensured that the clients were job ready before referral. Theresearcher screened the clients on the waitlist to ensure that they were disabled and hadno outstanding compensation issues. Subjects with unresolved compensation issues orno disability were excluded. The subjects were informed about the research study prior41to their commencement of the Program. While the subjects could decline participationin the research component of the Career Redirection and Job Search Program, noncompletion of the actual Program was not an option since the WCB required thesubjects to attend the program in order to continue receiving benefits.InstrumentsBeck Depression Inventory (Beck & Beck. 1972)The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was created in 1961 as a structuredinterview, but evolved into a questionnaire which was revised in 1971 (Sundberg,1992). Sundberg has described the BDI as “probably the most widely used clinical self-report test of depression” (p. 79).The original BDI was based on clinical observations of attitudes and symptomsfrequently displayed by depressed psychiatric patients (Beck, Steer & Garbin, 1988).The clinical observations were consolidated into 21 items or sets of statements asfollows: (a) mood, (b) pessimism, (c) sense of failure, (d) lack of satisfaction, (e) guiltfeelings, (f) sense of punishment, (g) self-dislike, (h) self-accusation, (i) suicidal wishes,(j) crying, (k) irritability, (i) social withdrawal, (m) indecisiveness, (n) distortion ofbody image, (o) work inhibition, (p) sleep disturbance, (q) fatigability, (r) loss ofappetite, (s) weight loss, (t) somatic preoccupation, and (u) loss of libido. The itemswere selected to measure the intensity of depression. Although Beck used a cognitivetherapy approach (Sundberg, 1992), the items were not based on a specific theory ofdepression (Beck, Steer & Garbin, 1988). Items and item weights were determined byjudgment rather than empirically (Sundberg, 1992).42Each item in the original BDI included four alternate statements ranging inseverity from 0-3 with 0 indicating no complaint and 3 showing a severe complaint.The original BDI contained two subscales: a cognitive-affective subscale and asomatic-performance subscale. The first 13 items constituted the cognitive-affectivesubscale (e.g., pessimism, guilt, self-accusations, crying, indecisiveness) and the finaleight items formed the somatic-performance subscale (e.g., body image, work and sleepdifficulties, loss of interest in sex). However, the manual for the instrument gives noinformation about the origin or uses of the subscales (Conoley, 1992).Conoley (1992) reported that “the BDI is a well-researched assessment tool withsubstantial support for its reliability and validity” (p. 79). The split-half reliability forthe long form is 0.93 (Beck, A. T. & Beck, R. W., 1972). Recent studies supportedthe internal consistency and the content, construct, concurrent and factorial validity ofthe BDI (Conoley, 1992; Sundberg, 1992).Beck and Beck (1972) developed a 13-item, short form of the BDI for familyphysicians to use in the identification of depressed patients. They used multipleregression analysis to select items that would permit reduction of the length of theinstrument without loss of reliability and validity of the inventory. These researchersrescored the inventories of 598 patients used to test the original BDI, scoring only the13 items from the shortened form. The short form correlated 0.96 with the long formtotal score. The short form correlated 0.61 with independent clinician ratings of depthof depression. This correlation was higher than the long form correlation with clinicianrating of 0.59.The short form of the BDI has the following items: (a) sadness, (b) pessimism,(c) sense of failure, (d) dissatisfaction, (e) guilt, (f) self-dislike, (g) self-harm, (h) socialwithdrawal, (i) indecisiveness, (j) self-image change, (k) work difficulty, (1) fatigabilityand (m) anorexia. The cut-off scores for the short form are: 0-4, none or minimal43depression; 5-7, mild depression; 8-15, moderate depression, and 16+, severedepression (Beck & Beck, 1972). No subscales were reported for the short form of theBDI. The short form of the BDI was used in this study.Self-esteem Scale (Warr & Jackson. 1983)The Self-esteem Scale is a further refinement of Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale(RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) as amended by Bachman and O’Malley (1977) and O’Malleyand Bachman (1979). Warr and Jackson (1983) simplified the Bachman and O’Malleyscale for use with their low education sample. Easy readability made the Self-esteemScale appropriate for use with this study’s subjects.Bachman and O’Malley (1977) reported the reliability and construct validity forthe self-esteem instrument they used in their study of self-esteem in young men. Theresearchers collected their data in 1966 and 1974. Bachman and O’Malley’s 10-itemindex included six items from the RSE and four items, similar in content, developed byCobb, Brooks, Kasl and Connelly (1966). The scale contained six positive items andfour negative items. The self-esteem index was an unweighted mean of the 10 items,with up to two missing values permitted. The index was tested on 1,608 subjects. The1966 item-index correlations ranged from 0.48 to 0.62. The 1974 item-indexcorrelations ranged from 0.5 ito 0.69 (Bachman & O’Malley, 1977). The researchersreported a test-retest reliability of 0.75 for their instrument.To establish the validity of their instrument Bachman and O’Malley (1977)hypothesized that self-esteem would correlate in specific directions with the followingvariables: (a) intellectual ability (positive), (b) somatic symptoms (negative), (c)negative affective states (negative), (d) happiness (positive), (e) rebellious behaviour inschool (negative), (f) needs for self-development (positive), and (g) social approval111were receiving compensation benefits. Consequently, there was little room forimprovement on the psychological measures used in the study. Nevertheless, thefindings indicated that subjects were less dependent and perceived themselves as beingmore in control of their lives following participation in the career redirection program.The program was effective in reducing depression but participation in the program didnot appear to affect the subjects’ levels of self-esteem, or their identification of theirdisabilities as the cause of their unemployment. Most subjects maintained a willingnessto consider taking action to change their situations. The researcher concluded thatindividuals who are faced with the need to redirect their careers must develop newguidelines for making vocational decisions. Broadening their knowledge ofoccupations may enhance people’s ability to identify their transferable skills and selectnew job goals. Helping individuals to understand and accept these new guidelines mayencourage them to make rational career decisions. Future research on careerredirection programs should assess the effects of building confidence, reducing stress,and acquiring the knowledge necessary for applying rational decision-making skills toreemployment planning.44(lositive). They obtained the following correlations: (a) intellectual ability (.2 1), (b)somatic symptoms (-.34), (c) negative affective states (-.52), (d) happiness (.54), (e)rebellious behaviour in school (-.33), (f) need for self-development (.44), and (g) socialapproval (.29). Bachman and O’Malley (1977) concluded that obtaining correlationsbetween self-esteem and these seven variables in the anticipated direction could beaccepted as confirmation of the construct validity of their instrument.O’Malley and Bachman (1979) looked at self-esteem data for two groups of highschool students. For a group of male students, the researchers used an eight-item indexsimilar to the RSE (Rosenberg, 1965). Measures were taken for this first group in1969. For the second group of male and female students, the researchers employed a10-item index which contained seven items from the index used by Bachman andO’Malley (1977). Seven items were common to both indexes. The coefficient alpha formales in the first group (0.79) was the same as the value for males in the second group.Given the similarity in content between the self-esteem indices and the indexcharacteristics (coefficient alphas and item-index correlations) O’Malley and Bachmanwere confident in deciding that correlations of either index with other variables wouldbe comparable. They enhanced the comparability of the two indices by using subscalesbased on the seven items common to both indices.Warr and Jackson’s (1983) Self-esteem Scale is comprised of eight itemscompiled from Bachman and OMalley’s (1977) instrument, O’Malley and Bachman’s(1979) index, and the RSE (Rosenberg, 1965). Each item contains five responsealternatives. The items in the Self-esteem Scale were shown to be reliable by Bachmanand O’Malley (1977), O’Malley and Bachman (1979) and Waif and Jackson (1983).Bachman and O’Malley established the construct validity of an instrument whichcontained six items that are identical to six items in the Self-esteem Scale.45The Attribution About Unemployment Scale (Gurney, 1981)Gurney (1981) constructed an eight-item scale to measure how jobless peopleexplain the causes of their unemployment. He used four propositions and developedtwo items for each proposition. To ensure that the items were appropriate for bothemployed and unemployed respondents the items were general and referred to bothgetting work and not getting work. Gurney expected that the respondents wouldproject their beliefs about themselves into their answers.The following four propositions were the basis for items developed for the scale:1. The ability to get work is mainly a function of factors internal to jobseekers.2. The ability to get work is mainly a function of factors external to jobseekers.3. The inability to get work is mainly a function of factors internal to jobseekers.4. The inability to get work is mainly a function of factors external to jobseekers.Gurney created a pool of items based on these four propositions that includedstatements like: (a) it is mainly a matter of luck whether a school leaver gets a job ornot, and (b) unemployed kids haven’t tried hard enough and don’t know how to sellthemselves. Two items were selected for each proposition, randomly ordered andpresented in a format with a five-point Likert scale. Possible scores for each itemranged from 1 to 5 with lower scores representing a more external attribution.Gurney (1981) tested the questionnaire in a cross-sectional study with Australianschool-leavers. He obtained an alpha coefficient of 0.442 (N=13 1). Gurney suggested thatthe shortness of the questionnaire may have contributed to this modest reliability.46Gurney revised the questionnaire by adding items and eliminating ambiguitiesdiscovered during the cross-sectional study. The extended version contained threeitems for each of the four causal propositions. The revised questionnaire was used in alongitudinal study with measures taken in November 1978 and April 1979. Gurneyreported an alpha correlation of 0.51 (N=688) for November 1978 and 0.54 (N=434)for April 1979. He obtained inter-item correlations ranging from -.24 to .52 with amedian of 0.06.The revised 12-item Attribution Questionnaire was used for this study.Causal Dimension Scale (Russell. 1982)Russell (1982) formulated the Causal Dimension Scale to measure how peopleperceive their explanations for the causes of events. He developed a questionnaire thatconsisted of descriptions of eight different achievement situations, which includedeither a successful or an unsuccessful outcome. Each description was followed by 12semantic differential scales that posed questions about locus of causality, stability ofeffort, and controllability factors. Locus of causality was defined as referring towhether the cause was something about the person making the attribution (internal) orsomething outside of the attributer (external). Stability was defined as referring towhether the cause was constant over time (stable) or variable over time (unstable). Acontrollable cause was defined as a cause that could be changed or affected bysomeone, either the actor or other people and an uncontrollable cause was one thatcould not be changed or affected by anyone. Therefore, both internal and externalcauses were potentially controllable.A group of 189 undergraduate students (117 females; 72 males) completed thequestionnaire. Each student made 96 ratings, evaluating the eight achievement47situations on the 12 semantic differential scales. Russell (1982) obtained an alphacoefficient of 0.88 for both the locus of causality and stability items. He concluded thatthe three items for each of these two factors could be considered subscales, and thatthese two subscales were reliable. Russell tested the validity of the individual semanticdifferential scales by completing an analysis of variance on each item. He found thatthe locus of causality main effect accounted for 46-59% of the variance in the internaland external cause items, and that the locus of causality items adequately differentiatedbetween internal and external causes. Russell also determined that the stability maineffect accounted for 18-19% of the variance in the stability items. He concluded thatthe stability scales differentiated stable from unstable causes. However, Russell foundthat the controllability items were confounded by the locus of causality dimension so herevised the controllability items.Russell (1982) tested the revised nine-item Causal Dimension Scale on a secondgroup of 99 undergraduates (33 females; 61 males) using a design identical to his firststudy. He obtained an alpha coefficient of 0.867 for the locus of causality subscale and0.83 7 for the stability subscale in his second study. For the controllability dimensionRussell obtained an alpha coefficient of 0.730. He found that all three subscales wereinternally consistent.Russell (1982) reported preliminary evidence for the construct validity of theCausal Dimension Scale by relating initial findings of strong relationships betweenscores on the locus of causality subscale and affective reactions to success and failure.This relationship was consistent with predictions based on Weiner’s (1979) model ofattribution categories. Russell reported that he had established the validity of theCausal Dimension Scale for assessing perceptions of causes in particular or isolatedsituations but the validity of the instrument for evaluating causal dimensions in realworld settings where situational factors come into play remained untested.48Questionnaire BatteryThese four instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory (short form), the S elf-esteem Scale, the Attributions about Unemployment Scale, and the Causal DimensionScale were used recently in a national, longitudinal study on the effects ofunemployment, employment and post secondary education on psychological well-being.The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council ofCanada (W. A. Borgen, personal communication, March 1993).Both the Attributions about Unemployment Scale and the Causal DimensionScale measure causality. By obtaining two measures of causality in this study theresearcher created an opportunity for strengthening the research findings about thevalidity of these instruments for the assessment of causality in unemployed populations(Feather & Barber, 1983).Implementation ChecklistThe implementation checklist (Appendix H) consisted of categories which aredescriptive of the interventions implemented by the instructors. The interventions wererated by this instrument to determine whether the treatment program was deliveredconsistently to all subjects. An intervention was defined as a statement of direction andobjectives of each of the program modules. The observing instructor completed thisform independently at the end of each module segment. An independent rater sat in onseveral randomly selected segments. These two ratings were compared for consistencyusing Cohen’s (1960) kappa statistic.49Demographic QuestionnaireThe demographic questionnaire (Appendix C) collected information on thefollowing: (a) type of previous employment, (b) type of injury, (c) percentage ofdisability, (d) age, (e) educational level, (f) length of unemployment, and (g) length ofprevious employment (employment history). These data were used to accuratelydescribe the sample. This questionnaire was administered before the subjects startedtreatment.Follow-up Telephone InterviewThe follow-up telephone interview (Appendix I) was used to ascertain whethergains made in the program by the participants were maintained. The programparticipants were asked if they were employed, newly employed or had otheremployment status (e.g., school). This interview was conducted eight weeks after thetreatment.Interview QuestionsThe interview questions (Appendix K) were presented to a random sample ofsubjects who completed the treatment program. The questions were designed to givethe subjects an opportunity to recount their experiences of being disabled, needing tochange jobs as a result of their disability, and participating in the treatment program.All but one interview were in-person interviews; the remaining interview wasconducted by telephone as the subject lived in a remote community. The interview datawere analyzed using a methodology developed by Borgen and Amundson (1984).50InstructorsTwo instructors led the treatment program. They were senior VRCs employed atthe WCB who had extensive experience in teaching job search programs and in careercounselling. One instructor (primary instructor) directed the program activities and thesecond instructor (observing instructor) ensured that the program was presented asintended by helping the primary instructor stay focused, by clarifying objectives, and byintervening when necessary. At the end of each program module the observinginstructor filled out the implementation checklist without consulting with the primaryinstructor.TreatmentThe treatment program was based on the belief that unemployed individuals willbenefit from a group approach to helping them gain employment. Further, the contentwas based on an assumption that all participants in the program had been employed inthe past, had been injured on the job, and needed assistance in finding new, alternativeemployment. These clients had all been previously employed and had successfullydemonstrated job finding skills at some level. Consequently, they needed to focus ontheir existing skills and on learning to apply them in looking for a new job. Therefore,the emphasis of the treatment program was career redirection not just job search skills.This focus required a client-centered approach to teaching that concentrated on theclients’ psychological processes throughout the program.The treatment program consisted of two parts presented over 14 days. A dayconsisted of three hours of classroom instruction, either before or after noon, andhomework assignments. The first part of the treatment program, called Setting New51Career Pathways, was based on the work of Amundson and Poehnell (1993). Onlyminor changes, necessary to meet the needs of this study’s participants, were made tothe content developed by these authors. The second part of the treatment program,entitled Job Search Skills, was based on the work of Amundson, Borgen, Westwood,and Swain (1987). The content of the Job Search Skills section was updated to reflectthe general employment histories and geographical orientation of the participants.The Setting New Career Pathways (Pathways) section was divided into two, five-day segments. The objectives for the Pathways section were that participants wouldacquire the knowledge and skills for: (a) self-assessment, (b) developing strategies foreffective decision making, and (c) developing an action plan to help them access thelabour market effectively. The focus ofWeek 1 was personal career self-assessment.Week 2 centered on career exploration.Week 1 was divided into five, three-hour sessions which were delivered over fiveconsecutive days in either the morning or the afternoon. Day 1 started with anorientation to the program and an introductory activity designed to provide forpersonal introductions among the participants and discussion of their expectations. Themain focus for Day 1 was the handout The Wheel: Self-Assessment for the LabourMarket (Wheel) which was based on the Centric model of career choice (Amundson,1987, 1989). Amundson depicted the Wheel as three circles: (a) an inner circle labeledcareer goals, (b) a middle circle specifying personal factors relevant to setting careergoals like skills, values, and labour market options, and (c) an outer circle whichincludes motivating factors for seeking employment like physical needs (food andshelter), emotional needs (self-esteem), and the expectations of other people. Theinstructor used the Wheel diagram to illustrate all the factors that an individual mustconsider before setting a career goal. Participants were given the handout My UniqueWheel (Unique Wheel) which contained an inner circle with space to write career goals52and an outer circle divided into eight sections with space to record information relatingto: (a) educational background, (b) perceptions of significant others, (c) interests, (d)values, (e) skills, (f) personal style, (g) labour market options, and (h) work experience.The instructor explained that filling in the individual sections on the Unique Wheelwould be accomplished as the participants completed the self-assessment activitiesduring Days 2-5. Participants were asked to complete the work experience andeducational background sections of their Unique Wheel as their homework task.During Day 2 the participants discussed their feelings about being unemployedand were introduced to the portfolio of marketable assets that were identified in thesections of the Unique Wheel. Participants completed the skills and competenciessection of the Unique Wheel. The instructor defined the concept of skill and explainedthe concept of transferable skill. Participants were asked to identify and analyze atleast two personal successes stories in order to create a list of their transferable skills astheir homework assignment. The instructor also discussed the personal style section ofthe Unique Wheel and distributed the Individual Style Survey (Amundson, 1989)booklets with instructions for completion. Participants were requested to complete thesurveys by Day 4.Day 3 led off with a continuation of the discussion on skills and transferableskills. Participants learned to write skill statements and were asked to write aparagraph describing their personal characteristics and transferable skills. Theinstructor referred to the Wheel and introduced the next marketable asset of interests.The participants completed The Self-Directed Search (SDS) to determine their interestsand recorded their interests on their Unique Wheels.On Day 4 the instructor introduced the topic of values and explained the role thatvalues play in career decision-making. Participants completed the handouts WorkValues Checklist and Prioritizing Work Values. Participants recorded their most53important work values on their Unique Wheel. The instructor led the participants in areview of the self appraisal and three appraisals completed by others in the IndividualStyle Survey and helped the participants to identify their own personal style. Theinstructor distributed the handout Using Your Individual Style in Career DecisionMaking and Job Search.During Day 5 the participants began to identify potential career options in light oftheir marketable assets which they had recorded on their Unique Wheels during theprevious four days. The instructor distributed the handout Main Considerations forCareer Choice. The participants were requested to complete the rank ordering of theirmain considerations for career choice as their homework assignment.Day 6 was the start of Week 2 which focused on career exploration. Week 2 wasdelivered in five, three-hour sessions which were presented over five consecutive daysin either the morning or the afternoon. Week 2 was the second section of Setting NewCareer Pathways.Day 6 began with a discussion of the current labour market trends in BritishColumbia and Canada. The instructor distributed the Current Labour Market Trendshandout. The instructor outlined a strategy for the participants to use in accessing thelabour market: (a) action planning, (b) researching, and (c) decision making andexplained that techniques relating to this strategy would be discussed in followingprogram sessions. The instructor led the participants in brainstorming ideas onresources that were available to them for researching the labour market and outlinedguidelines for the participants to follow in their labour market research. The instructordistributed the Occupational Assessment and Company Assessment handouts. Theparticipants were asked to complete a library research assignment for homework.Day 7 began with a review of the participants’ experiences in completing theresearch assignment. The instructor presented information on the barriers to decision54making and described three typical styles of decision making. The participants wereasked to select a decision making style that they felt was appropriate for them and, onan individual basis, to apply the style to their career situation. The participants formedsmall groups to share their experiences with attempting to apply a decision makingstyle. The instructor then reconvened the entire group to help the participantsunderstand that decision making is a flexible process that proceeds one step at a timeand changes with experience. The participants were requested to read theInformational Interviews handout as their homework assignment.On Day 8 the participants received guidelines for giving feedback to other peopleand learned about the four communication skills: (a) active listening, (b) paraphrasing,(c) empathy, and (d) c1arifjing. The instructor distributed the Facilitating Feedback, AModel of Communication, and Communication Skills handouts. The instructorpresented the informational interview technique as an effective tool for maneuvering inthe labour market. The participants took part in a role-play of an informationalinterview in order to gain experience in giving and receiving feedback. For homeworkthe participants were asked to complete their selection of career options and mainconsiderations for career decision making.Day 9 began with a presentation from the instructor on a systematic approach toproblem solving which included five steps: (a) locate the problem, (b) assess theproblem, (c) generate, examine and choose among alternative solutions, (d) implementa likely solution, and (e) evaluate the result of the implementation of the solution. Theinstructor led the participants through a review of an example using the problemsolving strategy. The instructor distributed the Barriers to Occupational Optionshandout and asked participants to write down their three top job options and to list themain barriers to each option. Participants then discussed one of their major barrierswith other members of the group. The leader reconvened the group to discuss major55barriers and methods for overcoming the barriers. For homework, participants wereasked to consider what their next steps should be.On Day 10 the instructor started with a presentation on the importance of goalsetting and action planning. The instructor distributed the Commitment to Actionhandout and asked the participants to answer the six questions on the handout forhomework. Participants were requested to explain their individual action plans to thegroup and to identify the barriers that they may encounter in following their actionplans. The instructor distributed the Contract handout and asked the participants towrite down a contract for initiating activity on their action plans. Participants werealso requested to list strengths or insights that would assist them in completing theircontracts. The session ended with the participants completing an evaluation of theprogram.The second part of the treatment program was called Job Search Skills and beganon Week 3, Day 11. The general objectives for the Job Search Skills section were: (a)to enable participants to learn the key steps necessary to carry out a job search, (b) toreinforce the self-confidence necessary for an effective job search, and (c) to use thegroup as support for the participants. The Job Search Skills component of thetreatment program was delivered in four consecutive three-hour sessions withhomework assignments.Day 11 began with the instructor leading the participants in developing a list ofjob search strategies. The instructor organized the strategies identified by theparticipants under the headings of: (a) developing job leads, (b) job application, and (c)interviews. The instructor helped the participants develop goals for the group based ontheir needs for information and skill development related to the strategies in these threeareas. The instructor divided the participants into two groups to discuss methods fordeveloping job leads. One group was assigned the topic of networking and the other56group was given the topic of direct employer contacts. The instructor distributedhandouts relevant to each topic to the appropriate group. Both groups made apresentation to the participants on their topic. The participants were asked to bringtheir current resumes on Day 12.On Day 12 the instructor began with a discussion about the participant&experience in using the techniques for developing job leads that were presented on Day11. Then, the instructor moved on to a presentation on the types of resumes anddistributed handouts to illustrate different kinds of resumes. The participants worked inpairs to write their resumes using guidelines in handouts distributed by the instructor.The instructor reviewed the resumes as they were completed. For participants who haddifficulty writing a resume the instructor scheduled appointments to provide individualassistance. The instructor explained the importance of covering letters in job searchand distributed samples of covering letters. The participants divided into groups anddrafted covering letters for sample job advertisements provided by the instructor. Theinstructor gave the participants guidelines for completing an application form and theparticipants discussed strategies for completing difficult questions on application forms.The instructor gave the participants application forms which were to be completed as ahomework assignment. Participants were also asked to complete their resumes.Day 13 focused on preparing for and practicing for the job interview.Participants watched and discussed a videotaped model interview featuring theinstructor and another staff member. The instructor distributed The InterviewPlanningForm and Sample of a Completed Interview Planning Form to the participants as aguide for the discussion. The instructor showed the participants two additionalvideotaped model interviews illustrating actors in an informal and a formal interview.The participants critiqued the interviews commenting on the positive behaviors andattitudes demonstrated by the job seekers and the differences in the structure of the two57interviews. The instructor distributed handouts relating to participating in a jobinterview, responses to typical interview questions and analyzing a videotapedinterview. The participants worked in pairs to create interview scenarios for eachmember of the pair. The instructor attempted to pair participants with similar jobobjectives. The participants were requested to complete and practice their interviewscenarios for homework so they would be prepared to take part in mock interviews tobe taped on Day 14.Day 14 started with videotaping the mock interviews. Participants signed up forinterview times. The instructor functioned as the interviewer and one of theparticipants, who was not being interviewed at that time, operated the video camera.The interviewer used the participant’s resume and completed application form togenerate interview questions. Immediately after the mock interviews the participantsevaluated their own performance and the other members of the group gave feedback tothe participant who has just been interviewed. The instructor ensured that positivefeedback was given initially to make the participants more receptive to feedback. Theinstructor explained the importance of the job seeker maintaining contact with theemployer after the interview and initiated a discussion on follow-up techniques. Theinstructor distributed handouts giving examples of follow-up letters. The day endedwith a debriefing with the participants about their experience of taking part in the jobsearch group.ProceduresPrior to the beginning of the study, VRCs were asked to refer appropriate clientsto the Career Redirection and Job Search Program (JSP). A waitlist was created andclients were randomly assigned to one of the four treatment groups. Groups 1 and 358received the pretest at the outset of the program. Groups 2 and 4 were not pretested.Groups 1 and 2 then proceeded to treatment while Groups 3 and 4 waited. Thesubjects were not inconvenienced by this delay since they were maintained on WCBbenefits during the wait and experienced no undue financial hardship. The researcherset the goal of 15 clients for each group but the final numbers for the individual groupswere as follows: (a) 13 clients in Group 1, (b) 13 participants in Group 2, (c) 11 clientsin Group 3, and (d) 14 participants in Group 4. The groups were slightly unbalancedbecause two subjects declined to participate in the program and eight subjectswithdrew while the program was in progress for a variety of reasons. Clients wereinformed of their selection and the requirements of participation in a letter at least 1week before the commencement of treatment (Appendix A). Receipt of the letters wasverified by telephone.Groups 1 and 2 completed posttests immediately following treatment. Groups 3and 4 were tested at the same time, just prior to their treatment. This procedureallowed the researcher to assess the effects of the pretest on treatment. Groups 3 and 4then proceeded to treatment and were tested again upon completion of treatment. Thisstrategy allowed the researcher to assess the effects of the waiting period on theoutcomes.At the end of each section of the treatment program the subjects were asked tocomplete a short questionnaire to convey their experience of participating in each partof the program. The questionnaires for the first three sections of the programcontained the following items (Appendices D, E, and F):1. Please read the following items and circle a number on the five point scale.2. Please write down your overall impression of the last five days of theprogram.3. Please write down any suggestions you have for changing this part of the59program.4. If there is anything that I have not asked you about that you think Ishould know about please write it down below.The subjects were requested to complete a fourth questionnaire to report theirexperience of participating in the entire program. The final questionnaire containedthe following items (Appendix G):1. Now that you have completed the program please take a moment to rate theentire program. Before you begin, please think back over the entire length of theprogram.2. Please write down your overall impression of the entire program.3. Please write down any suggestions you have for changing any part of theprogram.4. If there is anything that I have not asked you about that you think Ishould know about please write it down below.The results of these questionnaires were used to add anecdotal data to the quantitativefindings.Eight weeks after completion of the program each participant was contacted bytelephone. Three things occurred during this contact. First, the subjects were asked toanswer up to five questions from the following list (Appendix I):1. Are you currently employed?2. If yes, are you newly employed?3. If no, are you currently enrolled in a training program?4. Are you feeling positive about your job search?5. To what do you attribute your unemployment?6. Any comments regarding the JSP?60Questions 4 and 5 were asked of only clients who responded negatively to questions 1,2, and 3. Second, the subjects were notified that the instruments had been mailed tothem. They were asked to complete the instruments and mail them back to theresearcher. Third, a number of subjects, previously randomly selected, were asked toparticipate in an in-depth interview. If they were willing to cooperate, a time and placefor the interview was arranged. Everyone was thanked for their participation in thestudy.Pilot StudyA pilot study was undertaken prior to the full implementation of the program. Afrill 14 day cycle was completed with a group of 15 subjects. The subjects completedthe questionnaire battery before and after treatment. The participants were asked tocomplete the feedback questionnaires (Appendices D, E, F, and G) and the observinginstructor and the independent rater completed the Implementation Checklist(Appendix H). One of the subjects from the pilot group completed an in-depthinterview eight weeks after treatment. The instructors and the investigator refined theprogram content based on the results of the pilot. Adjustments were made to the HowIt Feels to be Unemployed and Getting Off the Roller Coaster modules and the order ofthe modules in the first two days of the Job Search section of the program was alteredto give the participants more time to write their resumes.Data AnalysisData analysis was performed in several stages: (a) a preliminary analysisinvolving the reliability of the instruments, sample characteristics, gender and instructor61effects; (b) an analysis of treatment effects, (c) an analysis of the eight week follow-updata, and (d) an analysis of descriptive data. The SPSS program was used to computereliabilities and to calculate inferential statistics.The data from the interviews were analyzed following the model developed byBorgen and Amundson (1984), which consists of four steps.1. Transcribe the taped interviews.2. (a) List all emotional shift incidents and related situational factors on a ratingsheet developed by Borgen and Amundson (1984).(b) Complete a reliability check of the rating sheet categories and thenumber of incidents recorded. This was computed by having a vocationalrehabilitation professional, not involved with the research, place a selection of the dataon the rating sheets and compare it to that done by the researcher. A 90% agreementrate was considered acceptable.3. (a) Sort emotional shift incidents by themes thereby establishing categories ofthese incidents.(b) Complete a reliability check of the established categories.Another vocational rehabilitation professional was asked to sort through all of therating sheets, placing the incidents into the categories developed by the researcher. A90% agreement rate was considered acceptable.4. (a) Establish a description of the experience by a combination ofcategory analysis, rating sheet analysis, and individual question analysis.(b) Conduct a validity check of the final outcome by a follow-uptelephone interview with a selection of respondents. The respondents wereasked to verif,’ whether or not the description accurately reflected theirexperience. The portion of the rating sheet which describes events orbehaviours was read to the respondents who were asked to comment on the62accuracy of this summary of their experience.HypothesesPretest HypothesisIt was hypothesized that there would be no difference in the mean scoresbetween the pretest and non pretest groups on the following measures: (a) BeckDepression Inventory, (b) Self-esteem Scale, (c) Gurney’s (1981) Attribution Scale, and(d) Causal Dimension Scale.Hypothesis 1It was hypothesized that the mean scores of all four groups would not differbetween the pretest and posttest on the following measures: (a) Beck DepressionInventory, (b) Self-Esteem Scale, (c) Gurney’s (1981) Attribution Scale, and (d) CausalDimension Scale. Based on the review of the literature it was expected that thishypothesis would not be supported. It was expected that the participants would showan improvement on all of the scales.Hypothesis 2It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in the mean scores of the:(a) Beck Depression Inventory, (b) Self-Esteem Scale, (c) Gurney’s (1981) AttributionScale, and (d) Causal Dimension Scale between the treatment and control groups atTime 2. It was anticipated that the participants in the treatment group would show63significantly more improvement on these measures than the participants in the controlgroup.Hypothesis 3It was hypothesized that gains made during treatment would not be maintainedby the eight week follow-up. The literature is relatively silent regarding themaintenance of gains made during treatment. It was expected that this hypothesiswould not be supported and that any gains made during treatment would be maintainedeight weeks post-treatment.64CHAPTER 4RESULTSIntroductionThis chapter opens with a description of the sample and a report on the researchprocedures. The results of the analyses of the tests of the hypotheses are thenpresented, followed by the analysis of the participants’ evaluation of the treatmentprogram, the analysis of the eight-week telephone interviews and the analysis of the in-depth interviews. The chapter concludes with a summary of the results.Subject CharacteristicsOf the 44 subjects who completed the pretest and posttest measures, 35(79.5%) were male and 9 (20.5%) were female. This ratio is similar to the gender ratiofor the total number of compensation claims accepted by WCB on an annual basis. In1993, WCB accepted 79,503 claims in total; 60,398 (75.9%) claims were for males and19,105 (24.1%) were for females. Group 1 consisted of 11 males and two females;Group 2, six males and two females; Group 3, nine males and two females; Group 4,nine males and three females. The subjects ranged in age from 26 to 58 years with anaverage age of 40.9 years. Group 1 had an average age of 42.2 years; Group 2, 41.4years; Group 3, 40.5 years; and Group 4, 39.5 years. The education level of thesubjects ranged from 6 to 14 years with an average of 10.8 years. Group 1 had anaverage educational level of 10.4 years; Group 2, 11.5 years; Group 3, 10.7 years; andGroup 4, 10.8 years.65The subjects’ type of physical disability was coded into the following 11categories: back (n=19, 43.2%), shoulder (i3, 6.8%), leg (4, 9.1%), knee (=3,6.8%), foot (n=4, 9.1%), skin (allergies) (n=3, 6.8%), carpal tunnel (=3, 6.8%), hand(=l, 2.3%), head (=1, 2.3%), elbow (n=2, 4.5%), and hip (=1, 2.3%). Three levelsof disability were possible: severe, medium or mild. Twelve (27.3%) subjects wererated severe; 28 (63.6%) medium, and four (9.1%) as mild.The types ofjobs the subjects were employed in at the time of their injury werecoded into the following 11 categories: driver (=6, 13.6%), logger (n=3, 6.8%),labourer (n=8, 18.3%), service sector (n=6, 13.6%), nurse (n=1, 2.3%), mill worker(n=4, 9.1%), trades person (=7, 15.9%), mover (n=2, 4.5%), fisher (=1, 2.3%),supervisor (n=3, 6.8%), and clerical (=3, 6.8%). The subjects had been in these jobsfor an average of 9.3 years, ranging from a low of .1 year to a high of 30 years. Theyhad been out of the workforce for an average of 1.7 years, ranging from .4 years to 5years.Experimental MortalityThe experiment began with 15 subjects being invited to attend each of the fourgroups, for a projected N of 60. Due to the nature of the location of the treatmentprogram, the subjects were given the choice of participating in the research by takingpart in the treatment program and completing the instruments, or just taking part in thetreatment program. Fifty-three subjects elected to consider participating in theresearch. Group 1 began with 13 subjects and all 13 completed the instruments.Group 2 also began with 13 subjects, three of whom dropped out early in the program.The remaining eight completed the instruments. Since the instruments were completedconfidentially the researcher did not have an opportunity to inquire about the subjects’66reasons for not participating in the research. Group 3 began with 12 subjects, one ofwhom dropped out. The remaining 11 completed the instruments. Group 4 began with15 subjects, of which 12 completed the instruments. Therefore, of the 53 subjects whoconsidered participating in the research, 44 completed the instruments.Reliability of the InstrumentsReliability coefficients were calculated for the four measures used for thepretest and posttest analyses. Internal consistency reliabilities of pretest scores for thethree subscales of the Causal Dimension Scale and the total scores of the Attributionabout Unemployment Scale, the Self-Esteem Scale and the Beck Depression Inventoryare given in Table 1. The combined pretest scores for Groups 1 and 3 were used.Table 1Reliabilities for the Test Measures alpha)Instrument CDS/I CDS\S CDS\C ATTRTB SELF-EST BDICronbach’salpha .85 .77 .64 .97 .98 .89No. of items 3 3 3 12 9 13Note. CDS/I = Causal Dimension Scale, internal causation subscale; CDS/S = CausalDimension Scale, stability subscale; CDS/C = Causal Dimension Scale, controllabilitysubscale; ATTRIB = Attribution about Unemployment Scale; SELF-EST = SelfEsteem Scale; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory.67Analysis of Gender EffectsThe possibility of differential effects of treatment on males and females wastested. Independent t-tests were conducted at posttest comparing the pooled results ofmales with the pooled results of females. The analyses showed no significantdifferences between males and females in the mean scores on all of the instruments.Table 2T-test Results for Gender EffectsCD S/I CD S/S CD S/C ATTRIB SELF-EST BDIt-value .02 -.62 1.11 -.89 -.88 .88p .981 .536 .272 .378 .382 .384Analysis of Instructor EffectsOne person provided the instruction for all four groups. A second observinginstructor ensured that the program was delivered consistently to all groups.An implementation check was conducted to determine if the treatment wasimplemented according to the program guidelines. Interventions were rated using theimplementation checklist (Appendix H). A second observing instructor was presentduring the entire program and rated the presentation program on the checklist. A third,trained, independent rater was present during two, randomly selected days of eachweek of the program and rated the implementation of the program on the same68checklist. A total of 424 interventions were evaluated by this rater. These ratings werecompared with the observing instructo?s ratings for the same period.Of the 848 (424 X 2) interventions, 13 (1.5%) were coded to reflectdisagreement between the raters. The two raters agreed on 835 of the interventionsrated (98.5% agreement). Interrater reliability was then calculated at .93 using Cohen’s(1960) kappa statistic. This statistic is designed to measure the amount of agreementbetween two raters and corrects for the proportion of agreement expected by chancealone. These results indicate that the program was implemented with a high degree ofconformity.Analyses of Treatment EffectsIn this section, the means and standard deviations for all measures are presentedfirst (Table 3). Results of tests of the hypotheses are then described, followed by theanalysis of the subjects’ evaluation of the treatment, and analysis of the eight weekfollow-up interviews. The section concludes with the results of the analysis of the in-depth interviews.Table 3Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Measures (N=44)Beck Depression InventoryTime 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5Group 1 M 6.15 4.62 5.50SD 4.56 4.54 5.01n 13 13 669Group 2 M 5.38 6.717.01 4.7913 8 7Group 3 M 7.64 8.09 8.00 9.75SD 5.46 6.60 10.18 7.3211 11 11 8Group 4 M 5.50 4.17 2.714.28 4.47 1.3815 12 12 7Self-Esteem ScaleTime 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5Group 1 M 24.62 25.69 26.174.09 3.30 1.7213 13 6Group 2 M 23.25 24.43SD 2.61 2.3013 8 7Group 3 M 25.36 27.18 25.27 27.75SD 4.15 3.57 1.90 4.27n 11 11 11 870Group 4 M 25.83 28.33 24.295.32 4.19 3.25n 15 12 12 7Attribution about Unemployment ScaleTime 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5Group 1 M 30.54 31.31 34.50SD 4.46 6.05 7.9913 13 6Group2 M 32.25 31.723.90 2.6913 8 7Group 3 M 33.27 32.09 31.91 32.004.45 2.91 4.72 3.02n 11 11 11 6Group4 M 33.17 31.83 31.71SD 5.57 3.41 4.65n 15 12 12 771Causal Dimension Scale (Internal Causation SubscaleTime 3 Time 417.334.46615.914.811115.083.901210.144.187Time 512.883.48813.717.377Causal Dimension Scale (Stability Subscale)Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5Group 1 M 13.23 14.00 19.00SD 4.71 7.05 4.60n 13 13 6Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 4MSDnMSDnMSDnMSDnTime 112.156.58131312.736.071115Time 214.234.341316.125.98814.913.151115.585.581272Group 2Group 3Group 4MSDnMSDnMSDn1314.915.92111512.756.54814.634.521112.834.0912Causal Dimension Scale (Controllability Subscale)Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5Group 1 M 10.62 13.23 11.004.52 5.90 6.5413 13 6Group 2 M 12.25 9.57SD 3.81 5.0913 8 7Group 3 M 10.55 8.91 10.18 10.005.05 3.56 4.02 5.9811 11 11 818.864.71715.826.571113.835.491216.635.15816.145.40773Group 4 M 9.83 10.33 15.71SD 6.19 5.76 6.2115 12 12 7Pretest HypothesisIt was hypothesized that there would be no difference in the mean scores on allof the instruments between pretest and non-pretest groups.Independent t-tests were conducted for the Time 2 scores between Group 1(pretested) and Group 2 (no pretest), and between Group 3 (pretested) and Group 4(no pretest). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4. Differences betweenthe groups are expressed as effect sizes; that is, as fractions of the pooled standarddeviation of the posttest scores.Table 4Comparison ofMeans between Groups at T2Group 1 (=13) vs. Difference t-value df 2-tail sig EffectGroup2(=8) between sizemeansBeck -.76 -.30 19 .765 -.13Self-esteem 2.44 1.77 19 .092 .83Attribution -.94 -.39 19 .700 -.19CDS/I -1.89 -.84 19 .411 -.37CDS/S 1.25 .41 19 .690 .18CDS/C .98 .42 19 .681 .2074Group 3 (w= 1 1) vs. Difference t-value df 2-tail sig EffectGroup4(=l2) between sizemeansBeck 2.59 1.13 21 .272 .48Self-esteem 1.35 .71 21 .488 .30Attribution -1.08 -.57 21 .574 -.25CDS/I -.67 -.35 21 .728 -.15CDS/S 1.80 1.00 21 .327 .42CDS/C -.92 -.43 21 .669 -.19The above results show that there were no significant differences in the meanscores on any of the measures between the pretest and non-pretest groups. Thehypothesis that pretesting did not predispose subjects to react differently to thetreatment was therefore accepted.Hypothesis 1It was hypothesized that the mean scores of all four groups would not differbetween pretest and posttest on the following measures:a) Beck Depression Inventoryb) Self-esteem Scalec) Gurney’s (1981) Attribution Scaled) Causal Dimension ScaleDependent t-tests were conducted for Groups 1, 3 and 4 comparing pretest andposttest means. Effect size was calculated by taking the difference of the pooled means75of posttest scores for each group divided by the pooled standard deviation of thesescores. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5a.Table 5aResults of All Measures, Pretest and PosttestBeck Depression InventoryDifference t-value df 2-tail sig Effect sizebetweenmeansGroup 1 -1.54 -1.69 12 .117 -.34Group 3 -.09 -.04 10 .967 -.01Group4 -1.33 -.77 11 .457 -.30Note. Negative effect sizes indicate a lowering of depression after treatment.Self-esteem ScaleDifference t-value df 2-tail sig Effect sizebetweenmeansGroup 1 1.08 1.09 12 .298 .29Group 3 -1.91 -2.45 10 .034 -.69Group 4 2.50 1.27 11 .232 .53Note. Positive effect sizes indicate an increase in self-esteem after treatment.76Attribution ScaleDifference t-value df 2-tail sig Effect sizebetweenmeansGroup 1 .77 .44 12 .671 .15Group3 -.18 -.17 10 .868 -.05Group4 -1.33 -.85 11 .412 -.30Note. Positive effect sizes indicate more internal attribution after treatment.Causal Dimension Scale. Internal Causation SubscaleDifference t-value df 2-tail sig Effect sizebetweenmeansGroup 1 2.08 1.42 12 .182 .38Group 3 1.00 .62 10 .548 .25Group 4 -.50 -.23 11 .823 -.11Note. Positive effect sizes indicate explanation of unemployment based more oninternal factors after treatment.Causal Dimension Scale. Stability SubscaleDifference t-value df 2-tail sig Effect sizebetweenmeansGroup 1 .77 .50 12 .628 .13Group 3 1.18 .50 10 .625 .2177Group 4 1.00 .41 11 .692Note. A negative effect size would indicate less stable attributions.Causal Dimension Scale. Controllability SubscaleDifference t-value df 2-tail Sig Effect SizebetweenmeansGroup 1 2.62 1.64 12 .128 .50Group 3 1.27 1.53 10 .157 .34Group 4 .50 .19 11 .854 .08Note. Positive effect sizes indicate more control.As can be seen from the above results, significant findings were demonstratedfor Group 3 on the Self-esteem Scale. However, no significant findings weredemonstrated on any of the other measures.The next step of the analysis was to pooi the mean results for all of the groupsfor each of the scales and conduct t-tests comparing pretest and posttest means. Theresults of this analysis are presented in Table 5b.Table 5bAnalysis of Combined Group Means, Pretest and PosttestDifference t-value df 2-tail sig Effect sizebetweenmeans.21Beck -1.03 -1.12 35 .269 -.1778Self-esteem .64 .78 35 .442 .16Attribution -.22 -.25 35 .801 -.05CDS/I .89 .88 35 .386 .18CDS/S .97 .82 35 .418 .18CDS/C 1.50 1.41 35 .169 .29Analysis of each individuaPs pretest to posttest gains (or losses) revealed threesubjects with extreme changes in their scores. Further investigation revealed that allthree of these subjects had serious personal crises during the treatment program. Whenthese scores were removed, further t-tests indicated that the difference between themeans on this measure was significant (Table 5c).Table ScAdjusted Beck Depression Inventory ResultsDifference t-value df 2-tail Sig Effect SizebetweenmeansBeck -1.82 -2.58 32 .015 -.46Note: Negative effect size indicates a lowering of depression after treatment.Hypothesis 1, which stated that the mean scores of all four groups would notdiffer between pretest and posttest on any of the four instruments, was rejected for allgroups on the Beck Depression Inventory. The results of the statistical analysisindicated that the treatment program did have a significant overall impact on this scale.79Hypothesis 1 was not rejected for all groups on the Self-esteem Scale, theAttribution about Unemployment Scale and all subscales of the Causal DimensionScale.Given the liberal alpha resulting from comparing six measures it was necessaryto guard against the possibility of making a Type 1 error. Consequently, the researcherdivided that alpha (.05) by six (the number of measures) to establish a new alpha of.008. As P equaled .015 on the t-test, Hypothesis 1 was not rejected on the BDI for allgroups. However, if one had used a one-tailed test, the hypothesis would have beenrejected.The possibility of a Type 2 error exists for these findings, because of the smallsample sizes. Changes in pretest to posttest scores on four of the six instruments (theexceptions were Attribution and the CDS/S) were in a favourable direction (e.g.,decreased depression and increased self-esteem). However, the effect sizes for thesefour measures were small, averaging about .20. To adequately guard against making aType 2 error requires increasing the power of the experiment. With an observed effectsize of approximately .20, an N of 50 per group (an overall N of 200) would berequired to begin showing statistical significance on these measures (Glass & Hopkins,1984). An N of this size would be difficult to establish given the problems in accessinga recently unemployed physically disabled population.Hypothesis 2It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in the mean scores of allof the instruments between the Treatment and Control groups at Time 2.80Independent t-tests were conducted between the Treatment Group (Groups 1 &2) and the Control Group (Groups 3 & 4) at Time 2. The results of the analysis arepresented in Table 6. Effect sizes were also calculated.Table 6Analysis of Treatment Effect Between Treatment and Control GroupsMeasures Difference t-value df 2-tail sig Effect sizebetweenmeansBDI -1.31 -.80 42 .428 -.24SELF-EST -1.71 -1.44 42 .158 -.44ATTRIB -.99 -.67 42 .504 -.20CDS/I -.59 -.42 42 .677 -.13CDSIS -.61 -.36 42 .721 -.11CDS/C 3.51 2.29 42 .027 .69Hypothesis 2 was not rejected for the Beck Depression Inventory, the Self-esteem Scale, the Attributions about Unemployment Scale, and the Internal andStability subscales of the Causal Dimension Scale.Hypothesis 2 was rejected for the Controllability subscale of the CausalDimension Scale. The Treatment Group perceived that they had more control of theirlives following treatment than did the Control Group.81Hypothesis 3It was hypothesized that gains made during treatment would not be maintainedat the eight week follow-up.Dependent t-tests were conducted on all dependent measures at T2 and T4 forGroups 1 and 2, and at T3 and T5 for Groups 3 and 4. The results of this analysis arepresented in Table 7.Table 7T-test Results for Posttest/Post-posttest MeasuresGroup 1 Difference t-value df 2-Tail Sig Effect SizebetweenmeansBeck .00 .00 5 1.00 0Self-esteem .00 .00 5 1.00 0Attribution -3.33 -.88 5 .420 -.39CDSII 2.67 .89 5 .413 .54CDS/S 2.17 .85 5 .434 .38CDS/C -.83 -.24 5 .820 -.11Group 2t-value df 2-Tail Sig Effect SizeDifferencebetweenBeck 3.71 2.04 6 .088 1.07Self-esteem 1.71 2.30 6 .061 .75Attribution .00 .00 6 1.00 0.0CDS/I -6.29 -1.73 6 .135 -1.19CDS/S 7.14 2.00 6 .093 1.2982CDS/C -1.71 -.61 6 .565 -.43Group 3 Difference t-value df 2-Tail Sig Effect SizebetweenmeansBeck .88 .36 7 .731 .09Self-esteem 2.25 1.74 7 .125 .69Attribution -.13 -.08 7 .941 -.03CDS/I -3.75 -1.47 7 .185 -.85CDS/S 1.38 .60 7 .567 .23CDS/C 0.00 .00 7 1.00 .00Group 4 Difference t-value df 2-Tail Sig Effect SizebetweenmeansBeck -.57 -.51 6 .625 -.30Self-esteem -2.57 -1.29 6 .246 -.68Attribution .86 .54 6 .610 .21CDSII -3.71 -1.56 6 .171 -.72CDS/S 3.57 1.11 6 .309 .80CDS/C 4.43 1.24 6 .262 1.0As can be seen from the above results the lack of significant t-values indicatedthat most follow-up scores did not vary significantly from posttest scores. However,significant t-values for Group 2 on the Beck Depression Inventory, Self-esteem Scale,and Stability subscale of the Causal Dimension Scale indicated that this group’s scoresincreased significantly on these measures. These results showed that the subjects in83Group 2 became more depressed, felt less worthy, and became less willing to expecttheir situation to change.Further analysis was conducted with combined means for all groups on eachmeasure at posttest and post-posttest. The results of this analysis are presented inTable 8.Table 8T-test Results, Combined Means, Posttest and Post-posttestDifference t-value df 2-Tail Sig Effect SizebetweenmeansBeck 1.04 1.08 27 .290 .16Self-esteem .43 .54 27 .597 .12Attribution .89 .86 27 .396 .17CDS/I -3.00 -2.00 27 .056 -.55CDS/S 3.54 2.43 27 .022 .65CDS/C .50 .35 27 .726 .09Based on the above results, Hypothesis 3, which stated that gains made duringtreatment would not be maintained at eight week follow-up, was accepted for the BeckDepression Inventory, the Self-esteem Scale, the Attributions About UnemploymentScale and the Controllability subscale of the Causal Dimension Scale. However,Hypothesis 3 was rejected for the Internal Causation and Stability subscales of theCausal Dimension Scale.84Summary of the Analysis of the HypothesesThe Pretest Hypothesis predicted that there would be no differences in the meanscores on all of the above instruments between pretest and non-pretest groups. Thishypothesis was accepted as no significant differences were found. This confirms thatthe pretest had no effect on the eventual treatment outcome.Hypothesis 1 was rejected on one measure. This hypothesis predicted thatthere would be no differences in the mean scores of all four groups on the BeckDepression Inventory, the Self-esteem Scale, Gurney’s (1981) Attribution Scale, andthe Causal Dimension Scale from pretest to posttest. Treatment was found to beeffective in the reduction of depression. However, there were no significant differencesin self-esteem, attribution or causation.Hypothesis 2 was also rejected on one measure. This hypothesis predicted thatthere would be no difference in the mean scores of the Treatment and Control Groupson all four measures. Treatment was found to be effective in increasing the subjects’sense of control over their lives.Hypothesis 3 predicted that the gains made during treatment would not bemaintained at the eight week follow-up. Hypothesis 3 was rejected on the InternalCausation and Stability subscales of the Causal Dimension Scale. Significant changeswere noted in the scores for the internal causes and stability subscales, but there was nochange in the scores for the scale relating to having a sense of control over one’sunemployment. The subjects tended to revert to accepting stable, internal reasons fortheir unemployment. Gains made during treatment on the depression measure weremaintained at follow-up. There were no significant changes in the scores on themeasures of self-esteem and attributions about unemployment.85Analysis ofFeedback QuestionnairesEvery participant in the four research groups was asked to complete a feedbackquestionnaire at the conclusion of each section of the Program. As well, all theparticipants were requested to fill out a questionnaire to rate the overall program at theend of Week 3. The respondents completed the questionnaires anonymously. Thequestionnaires were designated Feedback 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively (Appendices D, E,F, & G). The ratings for the program modules and the responses to the open-endeditems contained within each questionnaire have been summarized for all four researchgroups.Feedback 1This questionnaire requested ratings on the self-assessment modules that made upthe first five days of the treatment program. Full completion of the questionnairerequired rating a total of 13 program modules, giving an overall rating of the first fivedays of the program, and answering three questions relating to overall impression,suggestions for change, and any other relevant information. The rating scale had fiveoptions ranging from not helpful (1) to helpful (3) and very helpful (5). Table 9 gives asummary of the respondents’ ratings for the 13 program modules and the first five daysof the program.The majority of respondents (80% or higher) rated each of the self-assessmentmodules in Days 1 to 5 as helpful to very helpful. Four modules were rated as veryhelpful by more than 25% of the respondents. These four modules were: (a)marketable assets, (b) discovering significant others, (c) discovering personal style, and(d) discovering career options. Overall, 95.4% of the respondents rated the selfassessment section of the program as helpful to very helpful.86Table 9Summary of Respondents’ Ratings for Program Modules in Days 1 to 5% of Respondents Who Chose RatingModule N 1 2 3 4 5 3 +4+5Introductory exercises 45 6.7 64.4 13.3 15.6 93.3Norms and expectations 45 15.6 60.0 15.6 8.9 84.5The wheel 45 2.2 17.8 42.2 22.3 15.6 80.1Joblosscycle 44 2.3 13.6 45.5 22.7 15.9 84.1Marketable assets 45 11.1 28.9 33.3 26.7 88.9Discovering skills 44 11.4 15.9 50.0 22.7 88.6Individual style survey 45 13.3 33.3 33.3 20.0 86.6Self-directed search 44 2.3 9.1 38.6 29.5 20.5 88.6Discovering values 44 6.8 27.3 43.2 22.7 93.2Discovering significant others 43 9.3 27.9 37.2 25.9 91.0Discovering personal style 45 6.7 28.9 35.6 28.9 93.4Discovering career options 45 2.2 8.9 28.9 28.9 31.1 88.9Art of putting it all together 45 4.5 46.7 28.9 20.0 95.6Days 1 - 5 45 2.2 2.2 42.2 35.5 17.7 95.4Analysis of Open-ended QuestionsOverall impression question.A total of 37 respondents answered the questionnaire item relating to informationabout each participant’s overall impression of Days 1 to 5 of the program. Positiveimpressions were reported by 29 (78.3%) respondents. The positive impressions87referred to: (a) benefit from specific program topics, (b) motivation and confidence,(c) general overall benefit, and (d) program delivery. Mixed impressions were reportedby five respondents and only three respondents gave negative impressions. In general,the respondents had a positive impression of the self-assessment section of theprogram. They cited increased understanding of their personal experiences and fhtureoptions and improved motivation and confidence as the reasons for their positivefeelings.Changes question.Thirty of the 45 potential respondents to this question made no suggestions forchange in the self-assessment section of the program. Although 14 respondents dididentify items for change, there was no pattern to their suggestions and somesuggestions were contradictory. For example, one respondent recommended that moretime be given to introductions and getting acquainted on the first day but two otherrespondents suggested that time be devoted to outlining vocational rehabilitationguidelines and personal concerns about the compensation system on the first day. Thisfact led the researcher to conclude that the changes suggested were indicative ofindividual ideas that were not shared by the respondents as a group.Other information question.The final item in this questionnaire gave the respondents the opportunity toreport any other information that they wanted to give to the researcher. A total of fourrespondents answered this item but again there was no pattern to their replies. Forinstance, one respondent answered that the instructor’s effectiveness in meetingparticipants’ needs would be improved by having detailed information about theirhistories but another respondent simply replied “everything’s cool”.88Feedback 2This questionnaire asked for ratings on the nine career exploration modules thatconstituted Days 6 to 10 of the program. In addition to rating the program modules,respondents were requested to give an overall rating to the second five days of theprogram and to answer three questions relating to overall impression, suggestions forchange, and any other relevant information. The rating scale for Feedback 2 wasidentical to the scale on Feedback 1. Table 10 gives a summary of the respondent&ratings for the nine modules and the second five days of the program.Eight of the nine program modules were rated as helpful to very helpful by atleast 77% of the respondents. The field trip/library module was rated as helpful to veryhelpful by 69.8% of the respondents. Three modules were rated as very helpful by20% of the respondents: (a) decision making, (b) overcoming barriers, and (c) actionplanning. Overall, 90.9% of the respondents rated the career exploration section of theprogram as helpful to very helpful.Table 10Summary ofRespondents’ Ratings for Program Modules in Days 6 to 10% ofRespondents Who Chose RatingModule N 1 2 3 4 5 3+4+5The changing labour market 45 4.4 15.6 53.3 15.6 11.1 80.0Accessing the labour market 45 4.4 11.1 46.7 24.4 13.3 84.4Research 45 13.3 42.2 26.6 17.8 86.6Field trip/library 43 9.3 20.9 41.9 16.3 11.6 69.889Decision making 45 22.2 37.8 20.0 20.0 77.8Communication skills 45 2.2 8.9 55.6 15.6 17.8 89.0Information interviews 45 2.2 13.3 37.7 28.9 17.8 84.4Overcoming barriers 44 2.3 20.5 43.2 13.7 20.5 77.4Actionpianning 44 13.3 54.5 11.4 20.5 86.4Days 6 - 10 44 2.3 6.8 40.9 20.5 29.5 90.9Analysis of Open-ended OuestionsOverall impression question.A total of 19 respondents answered the questionnaire item pertaining to eachparticipant’s overall impression ofDays 6 to 10 of the program. Positive impressionswere reported by 12 (63.2%) of the respondents to this question. The positiveimpressions referred to (a) benefit from specific topics, and (b) general, overall benefit.Mixed impressions were reported by five respondents and two respondents reportednegative impressions. Generally, the respondents had a positive impression of thecareer exploration section of the program. They reported improvement in theirdecision making and research skills as the reasons for their positive impressions.Changes question.Thirty-seven of the potential 45 respondents to this question made nosuggestions for change in the career exploration section of the program. In fact, tworespondents specified that no changes be made in Days 6 to 10. The recommendationsfor change given by eight respondents were random, personal comments that did not fitinto any cohesive pattern.90Other information question.A total of four respondents answered the final item on this questionnaire whichgave participants the chance to report any other information that they wanted to give tothe researcher. These responses repeated earlier suggestions for change in the programschedule and location. None of these comments referred to the content of the program.Feedback 3The third feedback questionnaire solicited ratings on the nine job search modulesthat made up Days 11 to 14 of the program. As with the previous questionnaires,respondents were also asked to report an overall rating for the third segment of theprogram and to respond to three questions relating to a general impression of the jobsearch section of the program, suggestions for change, and any other information thatthe respondent wanted to give to the researcher. This questionnaire contained the samefive point rating scale.The nine modules in Days 11 to 14 were rated helpful to very helpful by a strongmajority (84% or higher) of the respondents to this questionnaire. Five modules weregiven very helpful ratings by 30% or better of the respondents: (a) writing the resume(39.2%), (b) preparing the covering letter (32.6%), (c) preparing for the interview(39.1%), (d) practicing the interview (38.1%), and (e) feedback on the interview(31.8%). Overall, the job search section of the program was rated as helpful to veryhelpful by 93.2% of the respondents to this questionnaire. Table 11 gives a summaryof the ratings for the modules in Days 11 to 14.91Table 11Summary ofRespondents’ Ratings for Program Modules in Days 11 to 14% of respondents Who Chose RatingModule N 1 2 3 4 5 3 +4+5Settingthestage 45 2.2 6.6 60.0 15.6 15.6 91.2Getting job leads 46 2.2 13.1 37.0 26.1 21.8 84.9Writing the resume 46 2.2 2.2 28.3 28.3 39.2 95.8Preparing the covering letter 46 2.2 2.2 39.2 23.9 32.6 95.7Completing the application form 46 4.3 8.6 43.5 23.9 19.6 93.5Preparing forthe interview 46 2.2 6.5 26.1 26.1 39.1 91.3Practising for the interview 42 2.4 7.1 26.2 26.2 38.1 90.5Feedbackontheinterview 44 2.3 6.8 36.4 22.7 31.8 90.9Final debriefing 44 2.3 9.1 22.7 40.9 25.0 88.6Days 11 - 14 44 4.5 2.3 22.7 27.3 43.2 93.2Analysis of Open-ended QuestionsOverall impression question.Eighteen respondents answered this question for Feedback 3. Positiveimpressions were reported by 15 (83.3%) respondents. The positive impressionsreferred to: (a) general overall benefit, (b) benefit from specific topics, and (c)motivation. Three respondents reported mixed impressions. The respondents had apositive impression of the job search section of the program. They described the jobsearch section as helpful, educational and beneficial.92Change question.Thirty-five of the 46 potential respondents to this question on Feedback 3 madeno suggestions for change to the job search section of the program. Again, tworespondents stated that no changes were necessary in Days 11 to 14. The suggestionsfor changes made by the remaining nine respondents related to adjustments in programdelivery, not content.Other information ciuestion.A total of seven respondents answered the last item in Feedback 3 which gavethe respondents an opportunity to report any additional information to the researcherbut their responses had very little in common and did not add any new information.Feedback 4The participants were asked to complete Feedback 4 immediately after theyanswered Feedback 3. On Feedback 4 the respondents were requested to give anoverall rating for the complete 14 days of the program and to respond to threequestions relating to their overall impression of the entire program, suggestions forchange to any part of the program, and any other information that they wanted to giveto the researcher. The same five point rating scale was included in this questionnaire.The full 14 day program was rated as helpful to very helpful by 93.6% of therespondents. A rating of helpful was selected by 15 (32.6%) respondents and a ratingof very helpful was assigned by 16 (34.8%) respondents. Table 12 gives a summary ofthe ratings on the full 14 days of the program.93Table 12Summary ofRespondents’ Ratings for Days 1 to 14% ofRespondents Who Chose RatingModule N 1 2 3 4 5 3+4+5Days 1 - 14 46 2.2 4.3 32.6 26.1 34.9 93.6Analysis of Open-ended OuestionsOverall impression question.In total, 39 respondents answered this question on Feedback 4. Positiveimpressions were reported by 32 (82.1%) respondents. The positive impressionsrelated to: (a) overall general benefit, (b) specific topics, and (c) program delivery.Although four respondents reported mixed impressions and three respondentsanswered with negative impressions, the positive impressions of the fhll 14 dayprogram far outweighed the negative or ambivalent impressions.Changes question.Thirty-one of the potential 46 respondents to Feedback 4 made no suggestionsfor change. Suggestions offered by 13 of the respondents who answered this questionwere repetitions of ideas from previous questionnaires. Two participants gave newideas for adjustment. One respondent recommended a reshuffling of the order ofpresentation for the modules. Another respondent suggested that reviewing coursecontent both at the end of the day and the beginning of the next day was unnecessary.94Other information question.The final question on Feedback 4 elicited responses from six respondents. Theresponses given were statements of individual preference, or need, that correspondedgenerally to other single comments made on earlier questionnaires.Final Analysis SummaryThe respondents found the 14 day Career Redirection and Job Search SkillsProgram helpful, interesting, and informative. Thirty of the 31 specific topic modulesin the Program were rated as helpful to very helpful by at least 77.0% of therespondents. Only the field trip/library module was rated slightly lower (69.8%).Some respondents suggested that adjustments be considered in these areas: (a)program location, (b) scheduling of classes, (c) amount of individual consultationbetween the instructor and participants, (d) adding an explanation of WCB vocationalrehabilitation guidelines early in the program, (e) increasing coaching on interviews,and (f) repetition of topics covered both at the end of each class and at the beginning ofthe subsequent class. The respondents commented on the benefit of effectiveinstruction for their experience of participating in the program.Eight Week Follow-upAt eight weeks following the conclusion of the treatment program all participantswere contacted by telephone. The purpose of this contact was to ask eightemployment status and general feedback questions (Appendix I) and to arrange for anin-depth follow-up interview. Of the 46 potential candidates for these questions theresearcher were able to contact 42.95Analysis of these questions showed that five (10.9%) were employed; 12 (26.1%)were job searching; nine (19.6%) were in training; eight (17.4%) were undergoingfurther medical treatment or assessment; five (10.9%) were engaged in further activitieswith the WCB; and three (6.5%) were not engaged in any return to work activity.There were 4 (8.7%) no comments.Analysis of the unemployment attribution question revealed that 12 (46%) of thesubjects attributed their continued unemployment to the poor economy; 10 (3 8%) totheir disability; 2 (8%) to further medical treatment and; 2 (8%) to non WCB issues.Responses to the comments question were generally short, often one word. Intotal 52 responses were received; 31(59.6%) responses stated that the program washelpful or good and 11(21.2%) stated that they had learned new skills or increasedtheir level of self-confidence. The value of group support was mentioned twice (3.8%).There were four (7.7%) negative responses focusing on the scheduling or location ofthe program. There were four (7.7%) no comments. In summary, of the 52 commentsmade, 44 (85%) were positive, 4 (7.5%) were negative and 4 (7.5%) participants hadno comment.Analysis of the Effect of Disability and Group Career Planning Instruction on CareerRedirectionThe interview data were analyzed according to the model developed by Borgenand Amundson (1984). From transcripts of the taped interviews, the researcheridentified 350 emotional shift incidents and recorded these incidents, with relatedsituational factors, on rating sheets designed by Borgen and Amundson (1984). Theresearcher sorted the emotional shift incidents into 34 categories.96The reliability of the researcher’s identification of the emotional shift incidentswas checked. An independent vocational rehabilitation professional, not involved inthe research, reviewed a random sample of eight interview transcripts, identified theemotional shift incidents in the transcripts and recorded the incidents on the same ratingsheets used by the researcher. The independent vocational rehabilitation professional’srating sheets were compared with the researcher’s rating sheets for the same sample ofinterview transcripts. Comparison of the rating sheets yielded a 99.0% rate ofagreement.A second independent vocational rehabilitation professional was asked toreplicate the sort of the emotional shift incidents into the categories created by theresearcher. The researcher wrote the emotional shift incidents on file cards andprepared title cards for the 34 categories. The independent vocational rehabilitationprofessional was instructed to place the emotional shift incident cards under thecategory title that she decided was appropriate. The vocational rehabilitationprofessional’s resorting of all the emotional shift incident cards in each categoryachieved a 98.5% agreement rate with the researcher’s original sort of the cards.To facilitate description and discussion of the category analysis the researchergrouped the 34 categories into four time periods: (a) before disability, (b) afterdisability, (c) before instruction, and (d) after instruction. Within each time period, theresearcher separated the categories into positive and negative lists.Before DisabilitySix positive categories and one negative category were identified in the beforedisability time period. The largest positive category related to the importance of the97participants’ pre-disability jobs. The negative category dealt with the expectation of ajob change sometime in the future held by three participants.Positive Before Disability CategoriesTable 13 gives a rank ordered summary of the six positive categories in thebefore disability time period. The following descriptions outline the range ofexperiences reported by the respondents within each category, the number of emotionalshift incidents placed in each category, and the number of respondents who reportedthe incidents. A direct quotation from one respondent is included to illustrate eachcategory.Table 13Rank Ordered Summary ofPositive Before Disability CategoriesRank Category Number Number of Respondents!of ESIs ESI Category1 Liked working in pre-disability job 33 182 Expected to remain in pre-disability job 15 15for rest of career3 Enjoyed social aspects of pre-disability 8 6job4 Enjoyed benefits of pre-disability job 6 65 Expected to advance career with pre- 2 2disability employer6 Pre-disability job was priority in life 2 2Note: ESI = Emotional Shift Incident.98Liked working in pre-disability job.Included in this category were references to fulfillment from (a) working,enjoyment of specific occupations, (b) the adrenalin rush from managing a busyschedule, (c) the anticipation of heading off to work each day, and (d) the benefits ofemployment, both concrete (money) and attitudinal (pride, respect, autonomy). A totalof 18 (75%) people interviewed mentioned this category. This category contained atotal of 33 emotional shift incidents. The following quotation is representative of theincidents that were included in this category: “Working was something I lookedforward to. I got out into nature and met some new people, even whether I waslogging or tree planting. It was something I really looked forward to and I made goodmoney.”Expected to remain in pre-disability job for rest of career.This category explored the respondents’ orientation to making a job changesometime in the future. The respondents were very consistent in their lack of planningfor ajob change. Of the people interviewed, 15 (62.5%) stated that they had noexpectation of making a change in their jobs during the remainder of their career. Atotal of 15 emotional shift incidents were included in this category. One respondentexplained: “I never thought about going into any other job.”Enjoyed social aspects of pre-disability job.Included in this category were allusions to: (a) friends at work, (b) being amember of a team, (c) helping people learn, and (d) belonging to a community. Thiscategory was mentioned by six (25%) individuals and included eight incidents. Arespondent described the social aspects of her pre-disability job in the followingmanner: “I find now, with not working, I’m off the mainstream because when I was99working you’re always in touch with people and what’s going on and now, I find withnot working, you seem like you’re left behind”.Enjoyed benefits of pre-disability job.The majority of respondents in this category mentioned making money as themain benefit of employment. One respondent talked about being his own boss andhaving a company vehicle. A total of six (25%) people mentioned this category,specifying six incidents. One respondent stated that he had: “a very good paying job,lots of benefits. My family was very well taken care of’ both while I was working andif anything did happen to me.”Expected to advance career with pre-disability employer.Only two (8.3%) respondents talked about career progression with their predisability employer. Each respondent spoke of one incident each for a total of twoemotional shift incidents in this category. One of the respondents in this categorystated: “I expected maybe to get into the supervisory part of tree planting.”Pre-disability job was priority in life.Two (8.3%) respondents spoke of their pre-disability jobs as the focus of theirlives. Again each respondent mentioned one incident each. One respondent expressedthe sentiment of this category clearly: “My job was the focus of my whole life andeverything else centered around it.”100Negative Before Disability CategoryTable 14 lists the one negative emotional shift incident category identified in thebefore disability time period. Three respondents stated that they planned to make a jobchange sometime in the future even before they were disabled. The accompanyingcategory description describes the range of incidents included in the category and givesthe number of emotional shift incidents and respondents. A quotation illustrates thetype of incident that was placed in this category.Table 14Details ofNegative Before Disability CategoryRank Category Number of Number of Respondents!ESIs ESI Category1 Did not expect to remain in pre- 3 3disability job for rest of careerDid not expect to remain in pre-disability job for rest of career.Emotional shift incidents in this category were mentioned by three (16.7%)respondents. Each respondent talked about one incident each. One of the respondentsoutlined his thoughts for his employment future: “I was starting to think about what Iwas going to do in the future because I didn’t think I would be able to labour for therest of my life”.101After DisabilityIn the after disability time period, two positive and four negative categories wereestablished. The largest positive category focused on participants learning to cope withtheir disabilities. The biggest negative category dealt with respondents experiencing asense of loss of control over their physical health and life activities.Positive After Disability CategoriesTable 15 gives a rank ordered listing of the two positive emotional shift incidentcategories in the after disability time period. The category descriptions following thetable give information about the type of incidents placed in the category with anexample, the number of emotional shift incidents in the category and the number ofrespondents that reported the incidents.Table 15Rank Ordered Summary of Positive After Disability CategoriesRank Category Number Number of Respondents!of ESIs ESI Category1 Learned to cope with disability and pain 25 142 Hoped for recovery 3 3Learned to cope with disability and pain.Emotional shift incidents relating to the realization of the permanency of thedisability and the acceptance of the consequences of the disability on employment andlife style were placed in this category. Respondents expressed a range of emotions102including: (a) frustration, (b) disappointment, (c) alarm, and (d) hurt. They spokeabout their inability to complete tasks that previously they had performedautomatically. They talked about coping with the uncertainty of when they wouldexperience pain and realizing that they could no longer tolerate the physical demands oftheir previous jobs. The common theme in all the incidents in this category was theacceptance of change and the need to understand filly the impact that the changewould have on their lives. In this category a total of 14 people (58.3%) reported 25shifts. As one respondent stated: “I guess you’re always going to be a littledisappointed with the fact that you do have a bit of a disability but you learn to livewith it.”Hoped for recovery.A few respondents persevered in thinking about their disabilities as temporaryconditions and maintained hope for a fill recovery. One respondent was encouragedby the return of sensation in his leg and took this improvement as an indication that hemight be able to return to his former job. A second respondent’s spirits improved as hissymptoms diminished while a third respondent held on to the hope that he wouldrecover in spite of the fact that his improvement was proceeding more slowly than withprevious injuries. A total of three (12.5%) respondents reported three emotional shiftincidents in this category. In the words of one respondent: “I was fairly positivethrough the whole thing, when the injury started to get much better I was in a lot betterspirits and I was never really worried about my job that much.”103Negative After Disability CategoriesTable 16 gives a rank ordered summary of the four negative categories in theafter disability time period. The category descriptions give information about the rangeof emotional shift incidents, including an example, and about the numbers of incidentsand respondents.Table 16Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative After Disability CategoriesRank Category Number Number ofRespondents!of ESIs ESI Category1 Experienced a sense of loss of controlover physical health and!or life activities 24 132 Denied impacts of disability 8 83 Concerned about physical symptoms 7 54 WCB issues before instruction 6 4Experienced a sense of loss of control over physical health or life.Emotional shift incidents that described: (a) fear related to prolonged incapacity,(b) depression resulting from inactivity, (c) helplessness after an injury, and (d) thecomplete unexpectedness of an injury were included in this category. One respondentreported that she felt that she had no choice but to agree to surgery. Another persontalked about deep disappointment after undergoing surgery because of limitedimprovement in his shoulder. For one respondent, the initial diagnosis of her problemwas wrong and the treatment prescribed on the basis of the incorrect diagnosisworsened her condition greatly. The timing of an injury angered a respondent who was104beginning to think about retirement. A total of 24 incidents, reported by 13 (54.2%)people, were grouped in this category. As one respondent explained: “You know yougot this job there, everything was doing fine up to that point and then you are cut ofljust as if the rug has been pulled out from under you - it’s something very unexpected.”Denied impacts of disability.The common theme in the emotional shift incidents collected together in thiscategory was the reluctance to accept the need for ajob change because of alteredphysical activity tolerances. Respondents stated that they did not want to admit tothemselves that their physical activity limitations were permanent. They held on to thehope that they would eventually return to normal again and simply go back to work intheir jobs with their former employers. A total of eight (33.3%) people reported eightincidents in this category. The theme of this category was expressed clearly by onerespondent: “I still believe if you are able to work you can go back to your job andthat’s where I am up to today.”Concerned about physical symptoms.In this category, the emotional shift incidents related to the respondents’ reactionsto physical symptoms either at the time of the injury or after the disability wasacknowledged as permanent. A respondent reported that she was scared when she lostall sensation in her hand and wrist. Another respondent talked about feeling badly thatit was too late to correct the improper healing of a fracture in his ankle. A thirdrespondent complained about inadequate care from her family doctor and specialistbecause she wanted more information about treatment regimes that were helping otherdermatitis suffers and her physicians did not give her this information. In all, five(20.8%) individuals discussed a total of seven incidents which were placed in this105category. One respondent described her symptoms: “I started losing feeling in myhand and my wrist and it was scary because I didn’t know what was going on and then Istarted dropping things on people.”WCB issues prior to instruction.Some respondents talked about the problems that they had in communicatingwith WCB officers and in trusting the information given to them by WCB officers. Onerespondent related that he accepted that he had to make a change in his job in order tobecome reemployed and developed a plan on his own for making a job change.However, when he presented his plan to his Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant theplan was rejected. A second respondent said that he had no trust in WCB officers atfirst because of comments he had heard other claimants make about their problemsinteracting with WCB officers. A third respondent stated that she agreed to attend theCareer Redirection and Job Search Skills Program in spite of her feeling that she didnot need job search training because attendance at the Program was a condition ofcontinued receipt of compensation benefits. For this category a total of four (16.6%)people related six separate incidents. One respondent related an illustrative incident: “Iwas forever every day explaining to somebody what happened. I said, look- I spent 21/2 hours talking to that fellow yesterday. Go ask him, it’s all written down. Well, hesays,.. .1 need a separate report”.Before InstructionOne positive category and two negative categories were identified in the beforeinstruction time period. The positive category related to the participants’ eagerness toattend the Career Redirection and Job Search Skills Program. The larger negative106category contained emotional shift incidents relating to respondents’ concerns aboutattending the Program.Positive Before Instruction CategoryTable 17 gives information about the positive before instruction category according tothe parameters of range and number of emotional shift incidents and number ofrespondents.Table 17Details ofPositive Before Instruction CategoryRank Category Number of Number of Respondents!ESIs ESI Category1 Eager to attend program 9 6Eager to attend program.The emotional shift incidents placed in this category described the positivereactions of respondents who wanted to attend the Career Redirection and Job SearchSkills Program. They used words like: (a) eager, (b) excited, (c) happy, and (d)hopeful to convey their reactions. Two respondents stated that they wanted to attendthe Program because they needed jobs. Another two respondents looked forward toattending the Program because participating in a career planning and job search skillsprogram would be a novel experience for them. One respondent said that he wanted toattend the Program in order to get an opportunity to talk about personal issues relatingto his feelings about being injured and the impact of his disability on his family. This107category was created to include a total of nine incidents reported by six (25%)individuals. One respondent’s comment was very representative of this category:“When I was phoned regarding the Program I was happy to go because I thoughtmaybe with all the other people and the teacher, something would come up for me outof it.”Negative Before Instruction CategoriesTable 18 presents a rank ordered summary of the two negative categories in thebefore instruction time period. The category descriptions following the table outlinethe range and number of emotional shift incidents and the number of respondents foreach category.Table 18Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative Before Instruction CategoriesRank Category Number Number ofRespondents!of ESIs ESI Category1 Negative responses to referral to Program 10 62 Concerned about the fhture beforestarting Program 4 4Negative responses to referral to program.The emotional shift incidents grouped together in this category covered aspectrum of negative responses ranging through: (a) disdain, (b) skepticism andapprehension, (c) incomprehension, (d) surprise, and (e) a waste of time. Two108respondents stated that they felt that attendance at the Program would be a waste oftheir time. One respondent said that his feeling was based on the fact that he alreadyhad a career redirection plan. The second respondent was hoping that a further medicalinvestigative procedure ordered by his doctor would show that he would recoversufficiently to return to his former job and therefore, he would not require assistancewith career redirection. Another respondent said that she was disdainful of theProgram initially because she felt that almost everybody knew how to find a job. Onerespondent who was a shipyard worker with 20 years experience talked about hisskepticism about what the Program could do for him. A fifth respondent related thatshe did not understand how important participating in the Program would be for herwhen she was invited to attend the Program. This category included a total of 10incidents reported by six (25%) people. As one respondent stated: “Well it wassomething that I didn’t expect. It was nothing I knew anything about. I hadn’t beeninvolved in any programs with the WCB before that so I didn’t know what to expect.”Concerned about the future before starting the program.The common element in three of the four emotional shift incidents included inthis category was uncertainty about a future direction. One respondent was unsureabout sorting out some job options for himself when the jobs that he thought would beavailable in the future were both low-paying and unsuitable for him. A secondrespondent was confused about what to do in the future and the third respondent wasuncertain about the future because his initial plan was not endorsed by his VRC. Thefourth respondent stated that he lacked confidence before starting the Program. Thesefour incidents were reported by four (16.6%) individuals. The theme of this categorywas expressed in the words of one respondent as: “Well, before the Program, before Ieven knew about the Program I really didn’t know what I was going to do.”109After InstructionEleven positive categories, all referring to the benefits of participating in theCareer Redirection and Job Search Skills Program, were identified in the afterinstruction time period. Seven negative categories were established for this timeperiod. The largest negative category contained emotional shift incidents relating toparticipants’ issues with the WCB.Positive After Instruction CategoriesTable 19 lists the eleven positive after instruction categories in order of rank.The category descriptions following the table contain facts about the range and numberof emotional shift incidents in each category and the number of respondents for eachcategory.Table 19Rank Ordered Summary ofPositive After Instruction_CategoriesRank Category Number Number of Respondents!ofESIs ESI Category1 Benefited from participating in program 26 162 Optimistic about the future 25 203 Gained confidence from participating inprogram 20 114 Supported by group during the program 15 105 Helped by instruction on interviews 11 81106 Helped by instruction on resumes 8 77 Helped by instruction on transferableskills 6 58 Helped by instruction on self-assessment 5 59 Supported by instructors 3 210 Helped by instruction on job leads 2 211 Settling into a retraining plan 2 2Benefited from participating in the program.All 26 emotional shift incidents placed in this category referred to the benefits ofattending and participating in the Career Redirection and Job Search Skills Program. Atotal of 16 respondents (66.6% of the participants interviewed) stated that they foundparticipating in the Program helpful.The emotional shift incidents placed in this category logically fall into twosubcategories: (a) task-related benefits and (b) self-esteem/relationship benefits. Thetask-related benefits reported by respondents referred to the acquisition of careerplanning and job search skills. Three respondents reported that they learned newinformation and skills during the Program. Two respondents explained that theProgram gave them direction and energy for job search. Another two respondentsstated that they established goals and identified job options.The self-esteem/relationship benefits reported by the respondents referred to thedevelopment of self-awareness and emotional support from the other participants. Onerespondent reported that he became aware that, prior to attending the Program, he hadbeen feeling sorry for himself and avoiding planning for the future. Another respondentreported that he had enjoyed the brand new experience of getting career planningassistance and being a member of a support group. Three respondents stated that they111found having the opportunity to share their experiences with other individuals in asimilar situation helpful. One respondent reported that he liked participating in thedevelopment of the norms that guided the group interaction during the Program.A respondent summed up his experience of participating in the Program: “It got megoing in the right direction and it also gave me a lot more energy to be able to go outand look for a job”.Optimistic about the future.More than 80% of the participants who were interviewed stated that they wereoptimistic about the future after completing the Career Redirection and Job SearchSkills Program. Six respondents based their optimism on the fact that they had startedfollowing through on a career redirection plan that they were confident would helpthem become reemployed. Another group of six respondents expected to be successfulin their search for a new job. A third group of six respondents were developing careerredirection plans that they were sure they would be able to complete. Two respondentsstated that they were optimistic about the future because they always have a positiveapproach to life. One respondent based his optimism on the fact that he liked his newjob. In total, 25 emotional shift incidents reported by 20 (83.3%) people were placedin this category. One respondent expressed his overall optimism in the words: “I amgenerally optimistic about the future. Definitely optimistic and I definitely think thereare lots ofjobs out there. It’s just a matter of finding something that’s going to besuitable for me.”Gained confidence from participating in the program.Eleven respondents reported that the Program gave them confidence. Therewere three factors cited as the source of confidence. Some respondents took112confidence from the fact that they had learned that they did have options forreemployment. Other respondents were encouraged by the realization that they hadtransferable skills that could be used in new jobs. Four respondents explained that theirconfidence had grown out of the support they got from the other participants duringthe Program. One respondent talked about deriving confidence from the message givenduring the Program that individuals must take control of planning for their employmentfuture. A respondent commented that she had continued to feel confident after theProgram had finished. in all, 11(45.8%) respondents reported 20 emotional shiftincidents that were grouped in this category. One respondent expressed confidence inthe following statement: “It helped me in setting my goals on a new career and a newdirection”.Supported by group during the program.All the emotional shift incidents placed in this category related to theestablishment of bonds of friendship and emotional support among the groups ofparticipants. Several respondents talked about how comforting it was to meet and getto know people who were trying to cope with the same kinds of changes that they wereattempting to handle. One respondent expressed a wish for a newsletter to help himkeep in touch with the people he had met during the Program and to assist him incontinuing to access their help and support. Two respondents said that they enjoyedhaving the opportunity to meet new people and get their perspectives on commonissues and concerns. Two respondents used the term friendship to describe therelationship that they felt they had established with other participants in their group.The total number of emotional shift incidents in this category was 15 and theseincidents were reported by 10 (4 1.6%) people. The following statement isrepresentative of the incidents included in this category: “Well, one of the highest113points was when I met everybody in the Program.... The second highest point wastalking about your problems with everybody else and everybody else listening andunderstanding”.Helped by instruction on interviews.The emotional shift incidents included in this category all refer to the benefits thatthe respondents felt resulted from the instruction on informational interviews and jobinterviews during the Program. Some respondents appreciated having the opportunityto practice job interviews because many years had elapsed since their last interview.Others valued the improvement in their interview skills and the reduction in theiranxiety about completing interviews. In this category, a total of eight (33.3%) peoplereported 11 incidents. One respondent outlined the benefit of instruction on jobinterviews: “When we did the job interviews.. .1 found that to be really helpful sothat when I do go now to look for ajob I’m more aware of what I need to sayand do”.Helped by instruction on resumes.All the emotional shift incidents grouped in this category deal with therespondents’ reports on the usefulness of the instruction and assistance on resumesprovided during the Program. There was a range of knowledge about resumes amongthe respondents which went from one respondent who had never written a resume toanother respondent who appreciated the opportunity to refine his resume. Sevenrespondents (29.2%) reported a total of eight incidents in this category. The generalopinion of the respondents in this category was expressed well by one person whostated: “I found resumes and the development of resumes very, very helpful. It’s114something I had never done before ever, I’d always had a job at one time or another, soI found that very helpful.”Helped by instruction on transferable skills.All the emotional shift incidents placed in this category related to theencouragement that respondents got from learning about the transferability of theirskills to alternate occupations. They reported that knowledge of their transferableskills opened up job options for the future and made them feel more hopeful aboutsearching for a job. Five (20.8%) respondents reported a total of six incidents thatwere included in this category. As one respondent put it: “I realized that I have otherskills that I can put in use for my life.”Helped by instruction on self-assessment.The five emotional shift incidents included in this category all referred to therespondents’ feelings about the benefits of the self-assessment activities in the Program.The respondents liked receiving confirmation of their knowledge of their personalattributes. The incidents placed in this category were reported by five (20.8%)respondents. One respondent gave the following example: “The wheel that we madeup has been very helpful in sort ofjust determining what my expectations are”.Supported by instructors.In this category, two (8.3%) respondents related a total of three emotional shiftincidents which described the support that the respondents got from the Programinstructors. The respondents talked about receiving confirmation of plans for thefuture and being encouraged by the confidence and strength of the instructors. One ofthe respondents described his experience of support as: “You [instructor] seem to115exude a lot of confidence and I think that rubs off on the people you come in contactwith so I thought that was really good.”Helped by instruction on job leads.This category included two emotional shift incidents, each reported by a separaterespondent, which described the instruction on job leads as a high point of theProgram. In total, two respondents (8.3%) recounted two incidents which were placedin this category. One of the respondents stated: “the sources ofjob leads. That wasgood too.”Settling into a retraining program.The two emotional shift incidents placed in this category both related to arespondent’s participation in a training course. One respondent explained that she wasadjusting to being a student and a second respondent stated that he was enjoying takingupgrading classes. Two respondents (8.3%) related the two incidents included in thiscategory. The following statement is typical of the incidents placed in this category:“Right now I’m doing this course on computers and then probably bookkeeping andaccounting and all that stuff so I’m doing okay”.Negative After Instruction CategoriesTable 20 gives a rank ordered summary of the seven negative after instructioncategories. In the category descriptions following the table details of emotional shiftincidents range and number and number of respondents is given for each category.116Table 20Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative After Instruction CategoriesRank Category Number Number of Respondents!ofESIs ESI Category1 WCB issues after instruction 27 132 Unsure about the future 11 93 Pessimistic about the future 7 44 Disliked participants’ complaints andnegative attitudes 6 65 Disliked self-assessment activities 4 36 Disliked program content 4 37 Unsupported by the instructors 3 2WCB issues after instruction.The emotional shift incidents placed in this category were different from theWCB issues described in the earlier after disability category. These incidents identifiedissues that arose after the respondents had completed the Career Redirection and JobSearch Skills Program. Several of the incidents in this category had common themes.Five respondents were disgruntled about the location of the Career Redirection and JobSearch Skills Program because they had to commute long distances on a daily basis toattend the Program, or they had to be away from their families for the duration of theProgram, or they were exposed to the complaints and grumblings of claimantsparticipating in other programs in the same location. Several respondents complainedthat they received no help with reemployment planning from their VRCs after the117Program. Another respondent said that he experienced a great deal of stress fromtrying to meet the requirements for receiving compensation benefits when he felt thathe should be in school taking upgrading courses. Three other respondents related thatthey were overwhelmed by the task of searching for a suitable new job. Onerespondent was concerned about how to integrate his need for a high salary and hisspouse’s career with his struggle to find suitable job vacancies for himself. Onerespondent reported that he wanted an official mechanism for keeping in touch with thecolleagues that he met while attending the Program. In all, 13 (54.2%) people related atotal of 27 emotional shift incidents which were placed in this category. Onerespondent expressed his concern in the following statement: “Yes, that’s [job search]a big job. Stressful. It is, it’s very stressful. It’s hard because you need three to fivejob search [contacts] per day and you know, you just don’t know where to go. It’sreally hard but I’m doing it.”Unsure About the Future.The emotional shift incidents that demonstrated that respondents were unsure orambivalent about what the future held for them were put in this category. Respondentsused words like: (a) frustrated, (b) confused, (c) baffled, (d) scared, (e) unsure, and (f)ambivalent to describe their state of mind in these incidents. One respondent wasfrustrated with his new job because he was making less money and he had not been ableto take his family on a vacation in the past year. Four respondents were unsure aboutthe future because they did not have job options identified or a plan for returning towork. Two respondents were uncertain about the future because they were stillresisting the fact that they would have to make a job change in order to be reemployed.Another respondent insisted that it is impossible to predict the future so heconcentrates on trying to cope with the present. A total of 11 incidents were identified118words: “I’m definitely unsure about the future. I wouldn’t say I’m pessimistic but I’mvery unsure. I still don’t know what I want to do which for me is bad.”Pessimistic About the Future.The common theme in the seven emotional shift incidents which were placed inthis category was the lack of a goal or direction for the future which gave therespondents a pessimistic outlook. All four (16.6%) respondents who recountedincidents that were grouped in this category did not have a clearly articulated goal forthe future. One of the four respondents stated: “I don’t really see much of a future formyself at this time. Things really just don’t look good right now.”Disliked participants’ complaints and negative attitudes.Six emotional shift incidents dealing with the negative attitudes and grumblingsof some of the participants were placed in this category. The magnitude of therespondents’ reactions to other participants’ complaints and negativity ranged frombeing annoyed about complaints interrupting the Program agenda to feelings of notwanting to attend the Program some days because of the negative atmosphere createdby the complainers. A total of six (25%) respondents recounted the six incidents thatwere placed in this category. One respondent described this issue in the statement:“So just by listening to everybody’s complaints, that’s what the low point, because whenwe were discussing that we, we had to stop the Program.”Disliked self assessment activities.A few respondents disliked the self assessment activities in the first part of theProgram. Two emotional shift incidents related to complaints about the amount ofpaperwork required in the self assessment activities. One respondent stated that he did119paperwork required in the self assessment activities. One respondent stated that he didnot appreciate the value of the self assessment exercises until later in the Program andone respondent said that he did not understand the point of the self assessmentactivities. Three (12.5%) respondents cited a total of four incidents that were placed inthis category. One respondent explained: “Well sometimes when we were filling outsome of the graphs and stuff like that, I found it kind of tedious and sort of likeschool.”Disliked program content.Four emotional shift incidents were recounted by respondents that specified partsof the Program content that the respondents found either surprising orincomprehensible. Two respondents stated that they expected the Program to focusmore on the participants’ disabilities than on their needs for career planning. Onerespondent stated that he did not understand the concept of transferable skills fhlly.Another respondent felt pressured by the expectation of searching for a job eventhough he did not know how to job search. A total of three (12.5%) respondentsdescribed four incidents that were placed in this category. One of the respondents said:“I thought it [Program] should have dealt more with the person being injured and thentrying to rejoin the workforce in a new career, not what it dealt with.”Unsupported by instructors.This category contained a total of three emotional shift incidents which describedthe disappointment that two (8.3%) respondents felt with respect to the Programinstructors. One respondent expressed his belief that the instructors could not fullyunderstand the problems that the participants were facing in trying to return to workbecause the instructors had not suffered an injury. The second respondent stated that120he would have appreciated more personalized help and counselling from theinstructors. One respondent explained his perspective in this statement: “I think thelow point was not having,.. .the instructors understand what the people in the classroomwere going through. I think until you actually go through it yourself you really don’tunderstand.”Category Analysis SummaryOverall, the positive categories (20) outweighed the negative categories (14).There were substantially more positive categories in the before disability time period (6positive, 1 negative) and the after instruction time period (11 positive, 7 negative). Thecategory analysis demonstrated that the respondents benefited from participating in theCareer Redirection and Job Search Skills Program in terms of confidence building,group support, skill development, and goal setting.Content Analysis of InterviewsA career redirection process was identified as part of the analysis of thecategories that the respondents reported during the interviews. The career redirectionprocess was found to contain six stages: (a) strong attachment to pre-disability job, (b)injury or illness accompanied by sense of loss of control, denial of disability, and/orconcern about symptoms, (c) acceptance of permanency of disability, (d) commitmentto change, (e) development of a return to work plan, and (f) implementation of theplan. The process is depicted in Figure 2.RefusetoChange,ImplementplanwithWCBSupportTreatmentFigure2DevelopRTWPlanCommitmentNoWCBSupport,ResistancetoChangeFight tomaintainbenefitsAcceptanceFighttomaintainbenefits122Attachment to Pre-disability JobAt the beginning of the interview the respondents were asked to explain the rolethat working played in their lives. Of the people interviewed, 75% reported that theyliked working in their pre-disability jobs. They also spoke about their enjoyment of thesocial aspects of their jobs and the benefits (medical plans, vacation, etc.) andpromotional opportunities associated with their pre-disability jobs. Within the group ofrespondents, 62.5% stated that they expected to retire from their pre-disability jobs and25% reported that they hoped to recover sufficiently to return to work in their predisability jobs. These responses supported the conclusion that the respondents hadstrong, positive attachments to their pre-disability jobs. The respondent’s vision of thecontinuation of their employment status quo corresponded to the straight line arrowlabeled as working at the beginning of the career redirection process.Reactions to InjuryWhen they were asked to tell the story of their injury and disability, 75% of therespondents answered by describing feelings of loss and limitation. They talked aboutthe loss of self-sufficiency, their inability to participate in favourite activities, and theirinability to plan for the future. The most significant loss for the majority of respondentswas the loss of their valued pre-disability job. These reactions were represented in thefirst descending mandala of Figure 2.123Acceptance ofDisabilityThe third interview question asked the respondents to identifj when they realizedthat they would not be returning to their pre-disability jobs. The respondents statedthat they did not accept the permanency of their disability quickly or easily. Manyrespondents had lifestyles that were dependent on aspects of their pre-disability jobslike shift schedules that resulted in blocks of time off or personal use of a companyvehicle. Accepting the permanency of a disability and the resultant need for a jobchange was very difficult for these respondents because acceptance of the need for ajob change also meant significant lifestyle adjustments. The respondents talked aboutnot accepting their disabilities until many months of treatment had passed with minimalimprovement or their doctors told them that they would have to change their jobs.This struggle was represented by the disability arrow and the second descendingmandala in Figure 2.Commitment to ChangeThe analysis of the emotional shift incident data pointed out clearly thatparticipation in the Career Redirection and Job Search skills Program was instrumentalin helping the respondents make a commitment to change jobs and to plan for theirreemployment. Before becoming disabled, the respondents had no reason toinvestigate job options because they were satisfied with their pre-disability jobs. Aftertheir disability they felt unprepared to select new job goals and to search foremployment. Participating in the program gave the respondents the confidence,knowledge, and skills that they needed to start to plan for their reemployment. Theyidentified their marketable assets by completing the self-assessment activities. The124other participants gave the respondents confidence and emotional support. Combiningtheir knowledge about their transferable skills with information about job opportunitiesavailable in the current labour market helped respondents to identify potential job goals.Instruction in writing resumes, information on getting job leads, and practice withinterview techniques made the respondents feel more prepared for job search. By theend of the program respondents were progressing along the forward pointing arrowsdesignated as commitment to change, develop a return to work plan and implement theplan shown in Figure 2.Effect of Compensation on Career RedirectionSeveral of the respondents expressed an ambivalence about their relationship withWCB. Some respondents talked about their distrust of WCB officers and theirproblems in establishing rapport with their Vocational Rehabilitation Consultants, butthey also expressed a willingness to comply with WCB demands in order to maintainreceipt of their compensation benefits. For example, one respondent agreed to attendthe Career Redirection and Job Search Skills Program in order to continue to receivecompensation benefits even though he felt unable to compete in the current labourmarket with his present skills. This respondent confessed that he made many of hiscontacts with prospective employers by telephone but stated that he felt guilty aboutnot making the contacts in person.Some respondents related feeling pressured to develop a return to work plan thatwould be endorsed by WCB. Maintaining the payment of compensation benefits waspart of this pressure.The researcher noted that the availability of income through compensationbenefits based on the need for medical treatment may have represented an avenue of125escape for program participants who did not feel ready or able to make a commitmentto change.The Career Redirection ExperienceAll the themes described in the content analysis are encompassed in a commentmade by one respondent: “It’s hard enough to be out ofajob and to find ajob but,being injured as well, I find that very hard to take”. The challenge of disability, coupledwith unemployment, was a big obstacle for the respondents to overcome.126CHAPTER 5DISCUSSION OF RESULTSIntroductionThis chapter begins with a summary of the results followed by a discussion of thefindings for each of the measures, the participant’s feedback and the findings from theinterviews. Implications for career intervention theory, and implications for the designof career redirection programs for both physically disabled and general populations arediscussed. The chapter closes with recommendations for future research.SummaryThe researcher undertook this study to investigate the type ofjob search programthat would meet the needs of workers involuntarily displaced from their jobs as a resultof an employment-related injury or disease. The subjects in this study represented agroup of participants that have not been included in previous investigations of theimpact of unemployment or research on the effects ofjob search programs. However,this study is linked with previous studies on the impact of unemployment on disabledindividuals because the subjects shared three of the four characteristics identified byGower (1988) that are associated with the lower labour force participation rates ofdisabled people: (a) physical activity limitations, (b) low education level, and (c)frustration with trying to overcome employment barriers. All of the subjects in thisstudy had permanent physical activity limitations. The average educational level for thesubjects in this study was 10.8 years. The analysis of the follow-up interviewsdocumented the frustration with having to change jobs that many of this study’s127participants expressed. The subjects in this study differed from Gower’s subjects in thatthey all had been employed prior to their participation in the treatment program. Thisstudy endeavored to build upon Flynn’s (1991) investigation of how to match jobsearch programs to client attributes.The results of this study showed that physically disabled WCB clients benefitedfrom participating in the Career Redirection and Job Search Skills Program. Theresearcher looked at the impact of the treatment program on the four outcomemeasures of employment, depression, self-esteem, and attribution. Eight weeks aftercompleting the treatment program 60.5% of the participants were working in new jobs,were self-sufficient in job search, or were engaged in training that would lead toemployment. The treatment program was found to be effective in the reduction ofdepression but significant differences were not found between the pretest and posttestmean scores for self-esteem, attribution or causation. However, the direction of thefindings suggested that the participants were more in control of their lives followingtreatment. The analysis of the interview data supported this conclusion. Participantsreported that they benefited greatly in areas such as enhanced job search skills, clearervocational direction, and improved morale. After eight weeks, the levels of scores atposttest were maintained for depression, self-esteem, attribution and the sense ofhaving control over one’s unemployment. However, the changes identified on theinternal causes and stability subscales at the end of treatment were not maintained eightweeks after treatment. The subjects reverted to giving stable and internal reasons fortheir unemployment.The analysis of the feedback questionnaires showed that the participants foundthe treatment program informative and helpful. The majority (93.5%) of respondentsrated the overall program as helpful to very helpful.128The emotional shift incident analysis completed on the transcripts of the follow-up interviews demonstrated that the respondents gained confidence, developed goals,enhanced their job search skills, and derived support from the other participants duringthe treatment program. A career redirection process was identified from the responsesthat participants made to the interview questions. The six stages in the careerredirection process are: (a) strong attachment to pre-disability job, (b) injury or illnessaccompanied by sense of loss of control, denial of disability, or concern aboutsymptoms, (c) acceptance of permanency of disability, (d) commitment to change, (e)development of a return to work plan, and (f) implementation of the plan. WCB clientswho refused to accept the need for ajob change or who developed return to workplans not endorsed by the WCB may get sidetracked from the career redirectionprocess and become involved in fighting to maintain their compensation benefits.Discussion of FindingsFindings Related to EmploymentSubjects in this study were disabled and, as a result of this disability, were unableto return to their former jobs. They entered the treatment program as unemployed, butjob ready, which was defined as ready to plan for employment. It was observed thatsubjects who concluded that they were not ready to plan for employment did notcomplete the program.The results of the eight week follow-up showed that 60.5% of the subjects wereworking, self-sufficient in job search or engaged in training that would lead toemployment. The other 3 9.5% of the sample were either unable to engage in return to129work activities due to a need for further medical treatment or assessment (34.8%) orwere not engaged in any form of return to work activity (4.7%).These results clearly showed that the treatment program was helpful in assistingparticipants through the career redirection process. The results also identified the needfor careful screening of referrals to the program to ensure that participation in theprogram is not hindered by unresolved medical or compensation issues.Findings Related to DepressionThe results of the analysis of the Beck Depression Inventory showed that thesubjects were not severely depressed but generally fell into the mildly depressedcategory. Nevertheless, the treatment program did have a positive impact on thesubjects’ level of depression. As outlined in Chapter 4 the adjusted pooled mean scoredropped from 5.7 to 3.8, a significant difference, moving the mean score from the milddepression range into the no depression range.The lack of high scores on this measure may be a function of the fact that allsubjects were receiving Workers’ Compensation benefits for the duration of the study.Unlike subjects of other studies (Kessler, House, & Turner, 1987; Studnicka et al.,1991) they had not yet had to grapple with the loss of their incomes or the loss ofstature in their families or communities. Consequently, they were not exhibiting manyof the negative effects associated with long-term unemployment.Findings Related to Self-esteemParticipation in the treatment program had a minimal effect on self-esteem. It isimportant to note that the subjects began the program with fairly high self-esteem and130had not yet experienced the effects of long-term unemployment. As Wells and Marwell(1976) stated, RSE derived scales measure only self-affection and self-affection is onlyimpacted by long-term unemployment (Sheeran & McCarthy, 1990). Therefore, it isnot surprising that the subjects in this study did not demonstrate a significant change inself-esteem since they had not experienced financial hardship or a change of status intheir families or communities.Findings Relating to AttributionTwo measures of attribution were used in this study: The Attribution aboutUnemployment Scale (Gurney, 1981) and the Causal Dimension Scale (Russell, 1982).The results of the analysis of the findings of the Attribution about UnemploymentScale show that the subjects began the treatment program attributing theirunemployment to internal causes and maintained this focus up to eight weeks aftertreatment. This finding is not surprising given that the subjects could explain theirunemployment in terms of permanent disability resulting from work-related injuries.Significant findings were demonstrated from pretest to posttest on thecontrollability subscale of the Causal Dimension Scale. Scores increased on the internalcausation and decreased on the stability subscale over this time frame, but notsignificantly. The subjects’ scores indicated that following treatment they wereattributing the cause of their unemployment internally, that it was in their control to dosomething about it, and that they were unstable enough to consider action. Thesubjects understood that it was possible to make a career change.The stability subscale increased significantly, and the internal causation subscaledecreased significantly on follow-up indicating that the clients were becoming morestable and less willing to make changes. This may well be attributable to the fact that131they had worked out vocational plans during the program, were now busyimplementing them and were not willing to consider changing them at follow-up. Thiscould be interpreted as an indicator that the subjects were more focused or goaldirected than at posttest.Findings Related to Participants’ FeedbackThe analysis of these questionnaires indicated that the program was very wellreceived since 93.6% of the subjects rated the overall program or above. Thirtyof the 31 specific topic modules in the program were rated as helpful to very helpful byat least 77.0% of the respondents. No component of the program was rated as notbeing helpful.The majority of responses to the overall impression question on all fourquestionnaires related positive impressions. These positive impressions were sortedinto four subcategories: (a) general benefit, (b) benefit from specific topics, (c)motivation and confidence, and (d) program delivery. Not all subcategories wererequired for the responses on each questionnaire. Most responses were of the oneword variety such as good and were placed in the general benefit subcategory. Thebenefit from specific topics subcategory contained items like job options, decision-making skills, and other specific components of the program. The motivation andconfidence subcategory consisted of items such as confidence building, support fromassociating with other people in similar circumstances, and fostering of a positiveattitude. The program delivery subcategory contained comments on the instruction andinstructors as well as course scheduling.Responses to the question about changes focused on structural concerns such asclass schedules, more time for interview practice, more individual attention, more focus132on disability and it’s impact, more time to discuss Workers’ Compensation Board issues,and suggestions to change the venue of the program. There was no agreementamongst the respondents as to scheduling or location except that the program shouldnot be held on Workers’ Compensation Board premises.The question about any other information was answered infrequently, generallyrepeated the contents of the previous changes question, and did not add to theinformation already gathered.Findings Related to the Category AnalysisThe analysis of the data on emotional shift incidents demonstrated that therespondents benefited from participating in the Career Redirection and Job SearchSkills Program in terms of confidence building, group support, skill development andgoal setting. The career redirection process was evident in the categories of emotionalshift incidents. Specific categories of emotional shifts incidents matched individualphases in the career redirection process.The respondents had a background of strong attachment to their pre-disabilityjobs with no plans to change their occupations. Four categories pointed to this finding:(a) liked working in pre-disability job, (b) expected to remain in pre-disability job forrest of career, (c) enjoyed social aspects ofpre-disabilityjob, and (d) enjoyed benefitsof pre-disability job. These four categories corresponded with the working phase ofthe career redirection process.After their injuries, the respondents were focused on their physical symptoms, thedisruption in their lives, and the prospect of ongoing disability. Three categoriessupported this finding: (a) experienced a sense of loss of control over physical health orlife activities, (b) denied impacts of disability, and (c) concerned about physical133symptoms. These categories paralleled the treatment and disability phases of the careerredirection process. The acceptance of disability was documented in the learned tocope with disability and pain category.The commitment to change and development of a plan phases of the careerredirection process were evidenced in four categories: (a) benefited from participatingin the program, (b) optimistic about the future, (c) gained confidence fromparticipating in the program, and (d) supported by the group during the program. Allthe categories that related to specific program topics, such as helped by instruction oninterviews and helped by instruction on resumes, also corresponded with thecommitment to change and development of a plan phases.The career redirection process did not proceed from start to finish for all therespondents. Two categories of emotional shift incidents demonstrated that a fewrespondents resisted making a commitment to change: (a) unsure about the future, and(b) pessimistic about the future.Implications for Career Intervention TheoryThe delineation of the program parameters that contribute to the effectiveness ofcareer interventions has progressed slowly in the last two decades (Flynn, 1991).Agencies set up to assist unemployed adults, both non-disabled and disabled, havetended to rely on the behaviorally-based Job Finding Club model developed by Azrinand other researchers (Azrin, Flores, & Kaplan, 1975; Azrin & Philip, 1979; Azrin,Philip, Thienes-Hontos & Besalel, 1980; Mills, 1983; Cote, 1984, 1985). Keith,Engelkes, and Winborn (1977) investigated the benefits of providing self-help trainingmaterials to unemployed job-seekers and found that the materials increased bothcognitive and behavioral activities in the experimental group. Borgen and Amundson134(1984) recommended support groups as a means of helping job seekers evaluate theiroptions, improve their job search strategies, and cope with job rejections. Vandergoot(1987) concluded that job-seeking skills training is valuable and can be enhanced bygroup and peer support methods.After reviewing career intervention evaluation in the fields of career psychology,educational instruction, and psychotherapy Fretz (1981) found a limited number ofstudies that dealt inadequately with client attribute and treatment interactions,specification of treatment parameters, and definition of appropriate outcome measuresfor people attached to the labour force. Following Fretz’s (1981) research designstrategies, Flynn (1991) evaluated the effectiveness of three self-directed job searchmethods. The results supported the use of group-based job search strategies.Fretz (1981) recommended that describing career interventions in terms of thethree treatment parameters of: (a) content domain (self-knowledge, decision skills, andoccupational information), (b) interpersonal context (one-to-one counselling, groupcounselling, or self or computer-assisted programs), and (c) degree of structure (highlystructured, semi-structured, or unstructured) would increase the specificity ofknowledge that would be obtained from career intervention evaluations, Fretz alsorecommended that evaluators use measures with established reliability and validity,block subjects according to attributes, and utilize several outcome criteria includingpost-treatment and follow-up criteria.This study’s treatment program included the three elements of content domainspecified by Fretz (1981). The self-assessment activities were designed to increase thesubjects’ self-knowledge. Instruction in decision-making was provided during theprogram and the subjects were encouraged to set job goals. During the program, thesubjects were given labour market information and taught research methods likeinformational interviews for obtaining occupational information. Both group135counselling and self-directed career planning were incorporated into the treatmentprogram. The subjects were blocked on gender, level of disability and length of timeout of work. The four outcome measures of employment, attribution, depression andself-esteem were used. The attribution, depression, and self-esteem scales had provenreliability and validity. Both post-treatment and follow-up measures were taken.This study’s findings suggested that effective career intervention programs shouldcontain all the content elements relevant to the identification of a feasible occupationalgoal, provide for both self-analysis and group interaction, and be led by a careerintervention specialist. In addition, successfhl career intervention programs should beconceptualized in terms of the three separate, but time-dependent phases of goalsetting, action planning, and employment search. The action planning phase iscontingent on the goal setting phase because the person’s planning needs (skill training,coaching on interview techniques, etc.) result directly from the job goal that theindividual chooses. Job search training should be delayed until the individual hasidentified a job goal and has acquired the qualifications necessary to seek employmentin the chosen occupation. Therefore, each phase has a natural outcome measure: (a)job goal for the goal setting phase, (b) a plan for the action planning phase, and (c) ajob for the employment phase.The apparent overlap between the content domain element of self-knowledge andthe interpersonal context element of self-directed activities in this study suggests thatthe further development of career intervention theory would be better served by a focuson the identification of the conditions necessary to produce the outcomes ofjob goal,action plan, and employment rather than trying to determine the match between anarray of personal characteristics and all possible instruction methods and learningenvironments.136For individuals who did not expect to be unemployed, one of the conditions thatmay be necessary for the formation of a new job goal is the opportunity to grieve theloss of the former job. In their investigation of the dynamics of unemployment,Borgen and Amundson (1984) described the experience of unemployment as anemotional roller coaster and developed patterns to describe the reactions exhibited bysix groups within their experimental population. The career redirection processidentified in this study resembled the pattern for Group A in Borgen and Amundson’sstudy. Group A responded to the loss of their jobs with initial shock and angerfollowed by worry and anxiety. Eventually Group A accepted the job loss andapproached job search with anticipation. After their injuries, the subjects in this studyfocused on their physical symptoms and the prospect of ongoing disability. With timethey learned to cope with their disabilities. After participating in the treatmentprogram, the majority of the subjects in this study accepted the need for ajob changeand looked to the future with optimism and confidence. Both reaction patternsincluded an initial trough followed by an upswing. The field of trauma counsellingmay give career intervention evaluators guidelines for determining an individual’sreadiness to start thinking about a new job goal.Implications for Career Redirection ProgramsBeing ready to plan for reemployment was one of the referral criteria forparticipation in the treatment program but the analysis of the data on the participants’emotional shift incidents indicated that some participants had not adjusted to thechange in their employment status. The treatment program did not allow much time forthe participants to talk about their feelings about being disabled or the experience of137losing their jobs because of their disabilities. Since their disability was the reason fortheir unemployment and their need to make ajob change, the participants required theopportunity to explore their concerns about their disability in order to incorporate thereality of their physical activity limitations into their vocational construct systems andto use this reality in planning for their employment future.The subjects developed their vocational construct systems (Neimeyer, 1992;Kortas, Neimeyer & Prichard, 1992) in the context of long and successful work careersin physically demanding, lower education jobs that they planned to stay in for theremainder of their careers. Their vocational construct systems were not highlydifferentiated. Their perceptions of the world of work were limited to their careerexperience. While they understood their fields of work well at their own level ofparticipation, they knew little about other occupations or industries. They wereaccustomed to using these construct systems to organize and understand their workexperience, anticipate their future employment experiences and to set job goals. Theystarted the treatment program with vocational construct systems that did not match thereality of their employment situations and were confronted with the task ofreorganizing their construct systems to incorporate disability, the experience of beingunemployed, and the need for a job change. As a result of their restricted knowledgeof occupations and sectors outside their own, the participants were reluctant to trust inthe transferability of their skills to other jobs and industries. It appears that improvingthe level of differentiation in an individual’s vocational construct system may enhancetheir ability to identify job options based on their transferable skills.Successful career redirection may also require improvement in levels ofintegration in vocational construct systems, especially for individuals with recentlyacquired physical activity limitations. The treatment program was designed to assistparticipants to develop new vocational constructs about physical activity tolerances,138transferable skills, interests, and values, and to combine these new constructs into acoherent pattern to be used as a basis for making rational career decisions. Kortas,Neimeyer and Prichard (1992) found that higher levels of integration in constructsystems were associated with a rational decision-making style while lower levels ofintegration were related to intuitive decision-making styles. Career redirectionprograms must be structured to give participants all the time they need to integratetheir new constructs fully and also provide them with the support and direction thatthey require to integrate their new vocational constructs into a meaningful pattern.Otherwise, participants will either revert to using their former, inappropriate constructsfor identifying job goals or make intuitive career decisions based on inadequateinformation. Regardless of which strategy they use, participants who do not formsufficiently integrated and differentiated vocational construct systems to make rationalcareer decisions during the treatment program will be unsure or pessimistic about thefuture at the end of the program and may get sidetracked into a battle to maintainbenefits on the basis of further medical treatment.This study demonstrated that the environment in which participants arechallenged to restructure their vocational construct systems is critical. Desmond andSeligman (1977) reported that group-based vocational counselling is effective forrehabilitation clients and, more recently, the job-search group model was confirmed asan effective strategy for building job-search skills, enhancing self-esteem, and providingsupport (Amundson & Borgen, 1987, 1988; Borgen, Amundson, & Biela, 1987). Rifeand Belcher (1993) found that unemployed peers provided the most highly valuedsupportive messages to the older worker. Amundson (1993) suggested thatunemployed clients need the opportunity to express their ideas and needs and to betaken seriously by others. These opportunities arise in group based job searchprograms. Findings from the analysis of the data on the participants emotional shift139incidents in this study replicated these earlier findings of the benefits of the support ofpeers. Although the subjects in this study did not have the opportunity to maintainmembership in their treatment program group while job searching, it is reasonable toexpect that job seekers would continue to feel supported by a group of their peerswhile they test the accuracy of their vocational decisions by approaching prospectiveemployers for jobs.Shulman (1984) stated that a group needs a leader to help the members form amutual aid system to provide reciprocal help and support. Findings from this study’sanalysis of emotional shift incidents provided confirmation of the benefit of a groupleader. Also, since many of the benefits of participating in the program reported by theparticipants referred to gaining new information and skills, it is reasonable to concludethat an effective career redirection program requires an expert who can lead theparticipants through a career planning process and teach job search skills.The participants held poorly differentiated vocational construct systems at thestart of the treatment program. During the program they were encouraged to formnew vocational constructs to fit their marketable assets and alternate occupations thatwould be available to them in the current labour market. The integration of these newconstructs required reorganization which took time. Not all the participants were ableto complete the reorganization of their construct systems by the end of the careerexploration segment of the treatment program.The results of this study suggested that the needs of Workers’ CompensationBoard clients may be met more effectively by separating the career planning and jobsearch components of the program into two independent programs. Clients who areready to plan for reemployment would be able to take the time they require to discussthe impact that their disabilities are having on all spheres of their lives and to identifyjob options based on a good understanding of their physical activity tolerances,140transferable skills, and labour market opportunities. Clients would not attend the jobsearch component of the program until they had identified a feasible job goal, hadcompleted all necessary assessment or training, and were ready to start an active jobsearch. The results of this study also indicated that clients would benefit from ongoingsupport from an instructor and a peer group during their job search.Limitations and Generalizations of the StudyThe researcher expected that the findings of this study would have implicationsfor all unemployed adults, both disabled and non-disabled. The fact that the subjects inthis study were Worker& Compensation Board clients was not considered to be alimiting factor by the researcher because the majority of physically disabled adults inCanada can access assistance and services from other national, provincial, or privateagencies. As well, the researcher argued that claims for the efficacy of the treatmentprogram could be extended to all unemployed adults since the impact of unemploymentis no different for disabled or non-disabled adults (Borgen, Amundson, & Biela, 1987).After analyzing the quantitative and qualitative data from this study, theresearcher concluded that this studys subjects represented a different population fromthe groups studied in earlier research on unemployment and job-search program design.Although they had been out of the workforce for an average of 1.7 years, the subjectsin this study did not fit the definition of long-term unemployed. They were experiencedworkers who recently had become unemployed due to the ongoing effects of theirdisability and they were receiving financial assistance through compensation benefits.Therefore, the findings of this study can be generalized to individuals who are141unemployed due to a disability, who need or want to return to work, and are receivingfinancial assistance.Desired significant findings were demonstrated on the Beck DepressionInventory. Findings on the Self-esteem Scale, and the internal causality andcontrollability subscales of the Causal Dimension Scale, though not significant, wereincreasing and therefore heading in the right direction. However, analysis of thefindings of the study demonstrated that there was insufficient power and that a largersample size was necessary to demonstrate statistical significance.To assess the effect of pretest on treatment the researcher used a Solomon four-group design. There were no significant differences on any of the measures betweenthe pretest and non-pretest groups. The pretest had no effect on the treatmentoutcome.Suggestions for Future ResearchThe identification of one of the unique characteristics of this study’s subjects, thenewness of their unemployed status, has significant implications for future research onmatching job search program design to client attributes. Previous research in this areahas used subjects who had been unemployed long enough to become depressed and tobegin to attribute their unemployment to factors outside of themselves. Since thesubjects in this study were not depressed and retained their internal attributions, theresearcher had to look for explanations not offered in previous research.Based on the literature from research using long-term unemployed subjects, theresearcher assumed that the subjects would be depressed, have low self-esteem, andblame their unemployment on external causes. However, at pretest, the subjects werefound to have mild depression, self-esteem scores that gave no indication of a threat to142their feelings of self-worth, and explanations for their unemployment that related to aninternal cause, their disabilities. The subjects completed the treatment program. Atposttest, they had no depression, their self-esteem scores remained stable and theyretained their internal explanations for their unemployment. These findings led theresearcher to consider the efficacy of using measures associated with long-termunemployed subjects to describe the attributes of recently unemployed subjects.Suggestions for alternate measures that may be applied in future research werederived from the interview data and analysis of emotional shift incidents. It becameapparent that measures of attitudes about life in general, disability, job satisfaction orthe subjects’ relationships with their pre-disability employers may correlate with theirexpectations for a successful return to employment. A stress measure may be moreuseful than depression and self-esteem measures since the respondents in this studyreported apprehension about the future based on the limitations caused by theirdisability or their lack of knowledge about jobs available in the current labour marketrather than their loss of self-esteem. Attributions about the reasons for their disabilitymay be related to their readiness to plan for reemployment. The Causal DimensionScale could be adapted to assess attributions about disability, rather than other internalcauses, by instructing respondents to use their disability as the reference point forresponding to the items on the scale. The Attributions about Unemployment Scalecould be modified to reflect disability rather than unemployment.In conclusion, future researchers need to move away from thinking about theattributes of clients who need to change their jobs as fixed or predetermined factors.The essential tasks of career redirection are the formation of new vocational constructsand the integration of these constructs into a vocational self-definition that generatesnew job options. When designing programs researchers should focus on assistingclients to develop and integrate new themes for vocational decision-making.143REFERENCESActon, N. (1981). Employment of disabled persons: Where are we going?International Labour Review, !2Q, 1-14.Amundson, N. E. (1987). A visual means of organizing career information. Journalof Employment Counseling, 4, 2-7.Amundson, N. E. (1989). A model for individual career counseling. Journal ofEmployment Counseling, , 132-138.Amundson, N. E. (1993). Mattering: A foundation for employment counseling andtraining. Journal ofEmployment Counseling, Q, 147-152.Amundson, N. E., & Borgen, W. A. (1980). Group employment counselling:Theory and techniques. Ottawa: Canadian Employment and ImmigrationCommission.Amundson, N. E., & Borgen, W. A. (1987). Coping with unemployment: Whathelps and what hinders. Journal of Employment Counseling, 4, 97-106.Amundson, N. E., & Borgen, W. A. (1988). Factors that help and hinder in groupemployment counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 25, 104-114.Amundson, N., Borgen, W., & Westwood, M. (1990). Journal of EmploymentCounseling, 27, 181-190.Amundson, N. E., Borgen, W. A., Westwood, M. J., & Swain, D. A. (1987). jpjsearchlsupport groups. Ottawa: Canada Employment and ImmigrationCommission (101 pages).Amundson, N. E., & Poehnell, G. R. (1993). Setting New Career Pathways.Adapted from N. E. Amundson, W. A. Borgen, M. Westwood, B. Bailey, S.Kovacs, & G. Poehnell (Authors), Accessing the labour market. Unpublishedmanuscript.Andersson, B.-E., & Nilsson, S.-G. (1964). Studies in the reliability and validity ofthe critical incident technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(6), 398-403.Atkinson, B., Fergusen, N., & Blankenship, M. L. (1983). Unemployment is roughon families. Vocational Leadership, 58, 29-3 0.Azrin, N. H., & Besalel, V. A. (1980). Job Club counselor’s manual: A behavioralapproach to vocational counseling. Baltimore: University Park Press.144Azrin, N. H., Flores, T., & Kaplan, S. J. (1975). Job Finding Club: A group-assisted program for obtaining employment. Behavior Research & Therapy, j,17-27.Azrin, N. H., & Philip, R. A. (1979). The job club method for the jobhandicapped: A comparative outcome study. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,23, 144-155.Azrin, N. H., Philip, R. A., Thienes-Hontos, P., & Besalel, V. A. (1980).Comparative evaluation of the job club program with welfare recipients. Journalof Vocational Behavior, 16, 133-145.Azrin, N. H., Philip, R. A., Thienes-Hontos, P., & Besalel, V. A. (1981). Follow-upon welfare benefits received by job club clients. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 18, 253-254.Bachman, J. G., & OMalley, P. M. (1977). Self-esteem in young men: Alongitudinal analysis of the impact of educational and occupational attainment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 365-3 80.Bachman, J. G., OMalley, P. M., & Johnston, J. (1978). Adolescence to adulthood.Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.Bailey, B.K. (1993). Group employment counseling training in Canada. Journal ofEmployment Counseling,.Q, 185-192.Beck, A. T., & Beck, R. W. (1972). Screening depressed patients in family practice:A rapid technic. Postgraduate Medicine, , 8 1-85.Beck, A., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of theBeck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. ClinicalPsychology Review, L 77-100.Bean, B. R., & Beard, J. H. (1975). Placement for persons with psychiatricdisability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 18, 253-258.Borg, W. R., & Gall, N. D. (1983). Education research: An introduction (4th ed.).New York: Longman Inc.Borgen, W. A., & Amundson, N. E. (1984). The experience of unemployment.Toronto: Nelson.Borgen, W. A., & Amundson, N. E. (1987). The dynamics of unemployment.Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 180-184.145Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Biela, P. M. (1987). The experience ofunemployment for persons who are physically disabled. Journal of AppliedRehabilitation Counseling, j, 25-32.Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N.E., & Harder, H.G. (1988). The experience ofunderemployment. Journal of Employment Counseling, 2, 149-159.Brenner, S.-O., & Levi, L. (1987). Long-term unemployment among women inSweden. Social Science Medicine, 25, 153-16 1.Cobb, S., Brooks, G. W., Kasl, S. V., & Connelly, W. E. (1966). The health ofpeople changing jobs : A description of a longitudinal study. American Journal ofPublic Health, 56, 1476-148 1.Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational andPsychological Measurement, Q, 137-146.Cohen, J. 5. (1962). Employer attitudes toward hiring mentally retarded individuals.American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 67, 705-7 13.Conoley, C. W. (1992). Review of the Beck Depression Inventory (revised edition).In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The eleventh mental measurementsyearbook (pp. 78-79). Lincoln NB: The Buros Institute of MentalMeasurements/The University ofNebraska-Lincoln.Cook, D. G. (1985). A critical view of the unemployment and health debate.Statistician, 34, 73-82.Cote, J. C. (1984). Creative Job Search Techniques manual (draft edition). Ottawa:Employment and Immigration Canada.Cote, J. C. (1985) How to find ajob in today’s market. Ottawa: Minister of Supplyand Services Canada.Dean, A., & Lin, N., (1977). The stress-buffering role of social support. The JournalofNervous and Mental Disease, 165, 403-417.Desmond, R. E., & Seligman, M. (1977). Groups with occupational/vocationalgoals. In M. Seligman (Ed.), Group counseling and group psychtherapy withrehabilitation clients (pp. 273-299). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Doering, M. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1989). Changing careers: A qualitative study.The Career Development Quarterly, , 316-333.146Dohrenwend, B. S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1974). Overview and prospects forresearch on stressful life events. In B. S. Dohrenwend & B. P. Dohrenwend(Eds.), Stressful life events: Their nature and effects (pp. 313-331). New York:John Wiley & Sons.Donovan, A., & Oddy, M. (1982). Psychological aspects of unemployment: Aninvestigation into the emotional and social adjustment of school leavers. Journal ofAdolescence, 5, 15-30.Dooley, D., & Catalano, R. (1988). Recent research on the psychological effects ofunemployment. Journal of Social Issues, 44, 1-12.Dunn, D. J. (1981). Current placement trends. In E. L. Pan, T. E. Backer, & C. L.Vash (Eds.), Annual review of rehabilitation: Vol. 2. (pp. 113-146). New York:Springer Publishing Company.Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. (I. Spaulding, & G. Simpson,Trans.) New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1897).Eggers, E. T. (1960). Employment of the physically handicapped: A survey ofindustrial plants in Atlanta, Georgia. Industrial Medicine and Surgery, , 427-433.Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. New York: InternationalUniversity Press.Feather, N. T. (1982). Unemployment and its psychological correlates: A study ofdepressive symptoms, self-esteem, protestant ethic values, attributional style andapathy. Australian Journal of Psychology. 4, 309-323.Feather, N. T., & Barber, J. G. (1983). Depressive reactions and unemployment.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, , 185-195.Feather, N. T., & Bond, M. J. (1983). Time structure and purposeful activity amongemployed and unemployed university graduates. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, , 24 1-254.Feather, N. T., & Davenport, P. R. (1981). Unemployment and depressive affect: Amotivational and attributional analysis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 41, 422-43 6.Feather, N. T., & OBrien, G. E. (1986). A longitudinal study of the effects ofemployment and unemployment on school-leavers. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 59, 121-144.147Ferman, L. A., & Gardner, J. (1979). Economic deprivation, social mobility andmental health. In L. A. Ferman & J. P. Gordus (Eds.), Mental Health and theçconomy (pp. 193-224). Kalamazo, IV11: Upjohn institute for EmploymentReasearch.Fischer, C. T. (1979). Individualized assessment and phenomenological psychology.Journal of Personality Assessment, 4.(2), 115-122.Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin,51(4), 327-358.Flanagan, J. C. (1978). A research approach to improving quality of life. AmericanPsychologist, , 138-147.Florian, V. (1978). Employers’ opinions of the disabled person as a worker.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,.2, 38-43.Flynn, R. J. (1991). Matching job-search training interventions with clientcharacteristics: Employment outcomes. Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 4,133-143.Forster, J. R. (1985). Investigating personal goals using personal construct theoryand grid methods. In F. Epting & A. W. Landfield, (Eds.), Anticipating PersonalConstruct Psychology (pp.261-271). Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press.Forster, J. R. (1992). Eliciting personal constructs and articulating goals. Journal ofCareer Development, j, 75-185.Fraser, R. T. (1978). Rehabilitation job placement research. RehabilitationLiterature, 39, 25 8-264.Frese, M., & Mohr, G., (1987). Prolonged unemployment and depression in olderworkers: A longitudinal study of intervening variables. Social Science Medicine,, 173-178.Fretz, B. R. (1981). Evaluating the effectiveness of career interventions[Monograph]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2$., 77-90.Gimenes, M. G. (1990). Theoretical perspectives. In C. Schiro-Geist (Ed.),Vocational Counseling for Special Populations (pp. 19-43). Springfield,1L:Charles C. Thomas.Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1984). Statistical methods in education andpsychology (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.148Gordus, J. P., (1986). Coping with involuntary job loss and building a new career:Workers’ problems and career professionals’ challenges. Journal of CareerDevelopment, i, 316-326.Gower, D. (1988). Labour market activity of disabled persons in Canada: Resultsfrom the Canadian Health and Disability Survey. 1983-1984. (Labour AnalyticReport No. 1) Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.Grayson, J.P. (1985). The closure of a factory and its impact on health.International Journal of Health Services, !., 69-93.Greenblatt, M., Becerra, R. M., & Serafetinides, E. A. (1982). Social networks andmental health: An overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, i, 973-984.Gurney, R. M. (1980). The effects of unemployment on the psychosocialdevelopment of school-leavers. Journal of Occupational Psychology, , 205-213.Gurney, R. M. (1981). Leaving school, facing unemployment and makingattributions about the causes of unemployment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,18, 79-91.Hayes, J., & Nutman, P. (1981). Understanding the unemployed: The psychologicaleffects of unemployment. London: Tavistock Publications.Heider, F. (1944). Social perception and phenomenal causality. PsychologicalReview, 358-374.Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Herzberg, R., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nded.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.Hill, J. M. M. (1977). The social and psychological impact of unemployment.London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.Iversen, L., Andersen, 0., Andersen, P. K., Cristoffersen, K., & Keiding, N.(1987). Unemployment and mortality in Denmark, 1970-80. British MedicalJournal, 295, 879-884.Jahoda, M. (1979). The impact of unemployment in the thirties and seventies.Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, , 309-314.Jahoda, M. (1981). Work, employment and unemployment: Values, theories andapproaches in social research. American Psychologist, 36, 184-191.149Jahoda, M. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis.London: Cambridge University Press.Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. E., & Zeisel, H. (1972). Marienthal: The sociography ofan unemployed community. (J, Reginall & T. Elsaesser, Trans. ) Chicago, IL:Aldine - Atherton, Inc. (Original work published 1933).Joelson, L., & Wahlquist, L. The psychological meaning ofjob insecurity and jobloss: Results of a longitudinal study. Social Science Medicine, , 179-182.Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 2. New York:Academic Press.Jones, L. (1991). Specifying the temporal relationship between job loss andconsequences: Implications for service delivery. Journal of Applied SocialSciences,.i., 37-61.Jones, L. P. (1991). Unemployment: The effect on social networks, depression, andreemployment opportunities. Journal of Social Science Research, 15, 1-22.Kasl, S. V., Gore, S., Cobb, S. (1975). The experience of losing ajob: Reportingchanges in health, symptoms and illness behavior. Psychosomatic Medicine, 7,106-122.Kaufman, H. G. (1982). Professionals in search of work: Coping with the stress ofjcjoss and underemployment. New York: Wiley.Keith, R. D., Engelkes, J. R., & Winborn, B. B. (1977). Employment-seekingpreparation and activity: An experimental job-placement training model forrehabilitation clients. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 159-165.Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attributional theory in social psychology. In D. Levine(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on motivation (pp.l92-Z38). Lincoln: University ofNebraska Press.Kelley, H. H. (1971). Causal schemata and the attribution process. New York:General Learning Press.Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist,28, 107-128.Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs,Vol. 1 & 2. New York:W. W. Norton & Company.150Kelvin, P. (1981). Work as a source of identity: The implications of unemployment.British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 9, 2-11.Kessler, R. C., Turner, J. B., & House, J. S. (1987). Intervening processes in therelationship between unemployment and health. Psychological Medicine,.17,949-961.Kessler, R. C., Turner, J. B., & House, J. S. (1988). Effects of unemployment onhealth in a community survey: main, modifying and mediating effects. Journal ofSocial Issues. 44, 69-85.Kortas, L., Neimeyer, G. J., & Prichard, S. (1992). Structure and style in careerdecision making. Journal of Career Development, j, 199-2 13.Lahelma, E., & Kangas, R. (1989). Unemployment, re-employment and psychic wellbeing in Finland. In B. Starrin, P. G. Svensson, & H. Winterberger (Eds.),Unemployment, poverty, and quality of working life: Some European experiences(pp. 135-164). Berlin: Sigma.Lawrence, B. 5. (1980). The myth of midlife crisis. Sloan Management Review, 71,3 5-49.Leana, C., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Involuntary job loss: Institutionalinterventions and a research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 12, 301-312.Leeflang, R. L. I., Klein-Hesselink, D. I., & Spruit, I. P. (1992a). Health effects ofunemployment - I: Long-term unemployed men in a rural and an urban setting.Social Science Medicine, 34, 341-3 50.Leeflang, R. L. I., Klein-Hesselink, D. J., & Spruit, I. P. (1992b). Health effects ofunemployment - II: Men and women. Social Science Medicine, 4, 351-363,Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends in theory and research(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Leigh, J. P. (1987). The effects of unemployment on the probability of suffering adisability. Work and Occupations, 14, 347-367.Liang, J., Dvorkin, L., Kahana, E., & Mazian, F. (1980). Social integration andmorale: A re-examination. Journal of Gerontology, 35, 746-757.Liem, R., & Raymen, P. (1982). Health and social costs of unemployment: Researchand policy considerations. American Psychologist, ,7., 1116-1123.151Liem, R. G., & Liem, J. H. (1978). Social support and stress: Some general issuesand their application to the problem of unemployment. In L. A. Ferman & J.Gordus (Eds.), Mental health and the economy (pp.347-377). Kalamazoo MI:Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.Linn, M. W., Sandifer, R., & Stein, S. (1985). Effects of unemployment onmental and physical health. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 502-506.Margolis, L. H., & Farran, D. C, (1981). Unemployment: The health consequencesfor children. Carolina Medical Journal, 4, 849.Margolis, L. H., & Farran, D. C. (1984). Unemployment and children. InternationalJournal of Mental Health, 13, 107-124.Marshall, J. R., & Hodge, R. W. (1981). Durkheim and Pierce on suicide andeconomic change. Social Science Research, jQ, 101-114.Maslow, A. E. (1968). Toward a psychology of being (2nd ed.). Toronto: D.Van Nostrand.Mills, A. (1983). Counsellor’s manual for the Job Finding Club: A group assistedprogramme for obtaining employment. Ottawa: Canadian Employment andImmigration Commission.Moser, K. A., Goldblatt, P. 0., Fox, A. J., & Jones, D. R. (1987).Unemployment and mortality: comparison of the 1971 and 1981 longitudinalstudy census samples. British Medical Journal, 94, 86-90.Neimeyer, G. J. (1992). Personal constructs in career counseling and development.Journal of Career Development, 163-173.Olafsson, 0. & Svensson, P. G. (1986). Unemployment related lifestyle changesand health disturbances in adolescents and children in western countries. SocialScience Medicine, , 1105-1113.Oliver, L. W., & Spokane, A. R. (1988). Career-intervention outcome: Whatcontributes to client gain? Journal of Counseling Psychology, , 447-462.O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1979). Self-esteem and education: Sex andcohort comparisons among high school seniors. Journal ofPersonality and SocialPsychology, 37, 1153-1159.Orwell, G. (1972). The road to Wigan Pier. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Janovich.152Pearlin, L., & Lieberman, M. (1979). The social sources of emotional in Community Mental Health,!, 2 17-242.Peregoy, J. J., & Schliebner, C. T. (1990). Long-term unemployment: Effects andcounseling interventions. International Journal for the Advancement ofCounselling, II, 193-204.Perlman, L, G., & Strudler, L. A. (1976). The epileptic citizen: An employmentperspective. Journal of Rehabilitation, 42, 36-40.Pierce, A. (1967). The economic cycle and the social suicide rate. AmericanSociological Review, 32, 457-462.Polner, W. (1958). Hiring limitations on cardiacs in Chicago area firms. IndustrialMedicine and Surgery, 27, 316-320.Prociuk, T. J., Breen, L. J., & Lussier, R. J. (1976). Hopelessness, internal-external locus of control and depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 299-300.Reichardt, C. 5. (1979). The statistical analysis of data from nonequivalent groupdesigns. In T. D. Cook & D. T. Campbell (Eds.), quasi-experimentation:Design & analysis issues for field settings (pp. 147-204). Boston: HoughtonMuffin Company.Rickard, T. E., Triandis, H. C., & Patterson, C. H. (1963). Indices of employerprejudice toward disabled applicants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 52-5 5.Rife, J. C., & Belcher, J. R. (1993) Social support and job search intensity amongolder unemployed workers: Implications for employment counselors. Journal ofEmployment Counseling, 30, 99-107.Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press.Roessler, R. T. (1988). A conceptual basis for return to work interventions.abilitation Counseling Bulletin, 32, 98-107.Rump, E. E. (1983). A comment on Dowling and O’Brien1s‘employed andunemployed’ groups. Australian Journal of Psychology, , 89-90.Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: A measure of how individualsperceive causes. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 47, 1137-1145.153Sabroe, S., & Iversen, L. (1989). Unemployment, social support, psychologicalwell-being and psychomatic symptoms. In B. Starrin, P. G. Svenson, & H.Wintersberger (Eds), Unemployment, poverty and quality of working life: SomeEuropean experiences (pp.63-78). Berlin: Sigma.Schaufeli, W. B, (1988). Perceiving the causes of unemployment: An evaluation ofthe causal dimension scale in a real-life situation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 4, 347-3 56.Schwefel, D. (1986). Unemployment, health and health services in German-speaking countries. Social Science Medicine, 7, 409-430.Sears, J. H. (1975). The able disabled. Journal of Rehabilitation, 41(2), 19-22.Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death.San Fransciso: Freeman.Shamir, B. (1986). Protestant work ethic, work involvement and the psychologicalimpact of unemployment. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7, 25-38.Shaw, D. (1976, March). Unemployment hurts more than than just the pocketbook.Today’s Health, pp.23-26.Sheeran, P., & McCarthy, E. (1990). The impact of unemployment upon self-conception: Evaluation, affection, consistency and involvement dimensions.Social Behavio, 5,351-359.Sheeran, P., & McCarthy, E. (1992). Social structure, self-conception and wellbeing: An examination of four models with unemployed people. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 77, 117-133.Shelton, B. K. (1985). The social and psychological impact of unemployment.Journal of Employment Counseling, 22, 18-22.Shulman, L. (1984). The skills of helping individuals and groups (2nd ed.). Itasca,IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.Spruit, I. P. (1983). Unemployment, the unemployed and health: An analysis of theDutch situation. In J. John, D. Schwefel & H. Zoliner (Eds.), Influences ofeconomic instability on health: Lecture notes in medical informatics (pp. 387-426).Berlin: Spritiger-Verlag.Spruit, I. P. (1985). Employment, unemployment and health in families inLeiden. In G. Westcott, P. -G. Svensson, & H. Zoliner (EDs.), Health policyimplications of unemployment (pp. 231-259). Copenhagen: World Health154Organization.Stone, C. I., & Sawatzki, B. (1980). Hiring bias and the disabled interviewee:Effects of manipulating work history and disability information of the disabled jobapplicant. Journal of Vocational Behavior, i, 96-104.Studnicka, M. J., & Scheiber, V. (1988). Arbeitslosigkeit und Inanspruchnahmedes Geindheitssystems [Unemployment and self-esteem]. Off Gesundheitswes, Q,688-693.Studnicka, M., Studnicka-Benke, A., Wogerbauer, G., Rastetter, D., Wenda, R.,Gathmann, P., & Ringel, E. (1991). Psychological health, self-reportedphysical health and health service use: Risk differential observed after one year ofunemployment. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, , 86-91.Sullivan, D. R. (1972). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in relation to employment.Journal of Employment Counseling, 9, 94-95.Sundberg, N. D. (1992). Review of the Beck Depression Inventory (revisededition). In J. J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds. ), The eleventh mentalmeasuresments yearbook (pp. 79-8 1). Lincoln, NB: The Buros Institute of MentalMeasurements/The University ofNebraska-Lincoln.Swinburne, P. (1981). The psychological impact of unemployment on managers andprofessional staff Journal of Occupational Psychology, 4, 47-64.Tagalakis, V., Amsel, R., & Fichten, C. S. (1988). Job interview strategies forpeople with a visible disability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 520-532.Thoben, P. J. (1975). Civil rights and employment of the severely handicapped.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 18, 240-244.Tiggemann, M., & Winefield, A. H. (1984). The effects of unemployment on themood, self-esteem, locus of control and depressive affect of school leavers.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 7, 33-42.Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Bantam Books.Turner, R. J., & Noh, S. (1988). Physical disability and depression: A longitudinalanalysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 29, 23-37.Uris, A., & Tarrant, J. (1983). Career stages. New York: Seaview/Putman.155Vandergoot, D. (1986). Review of placement research literature: Implications forresearch and practice. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, (June), 243-272.Verkleij, H. (1989). Vulnerabilities of very long term unemployed in theNetherlands: Results of a longitudinal study. In B. Starrin, P. G. Svensson, &H. Wintersberger (Eds.), Unemployment, poverty and quality of working life:Some European experiences (pp. 79-100). Berlin: Sigma.Warr, P. (1983). Work, jobs and unemployment. Bulletin of the BritishPsychological Society, , 305-311.Warr, P. (1984). Reported behavior changes after job loss. British Journal ofSocial Psychology, , 27 1-275.Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment and mental health. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Warr, P. B., & Jackson, P. (1983). Self-esteem and unemployment among youngworkers. Le Travail Humain, 46, 3 55-366.Warr, P. B., & Jackson, P. R. (1984). Men without jobs: Some correlates of ageand length of unemployment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 77-85.Warr, P., Jackson, P., & Banks, M. (1982). Duration of unemployment andpsychological well being in young men and women. Current PsychologicalResearch, 2, 207-214.Weiner, B. A. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences.Journal of Educational Psychology, 7], 3-25.Wells, L. E., & Marwell, G. (1976). Self-esteem: Its conceptualisation andmeasurement. London: Sage.Westin, S., Schlesselman, J. J., & Karper, M. (1989). Long term effects of afactory closure: unemployment and disability during 10 years. Journal of ClinicalEpidemiology, 4, 435-441.Williams, C. A. (1972) Is hiring the handicapped good business? Journal ofRehabilitation, 38, 30-34.Winefield, A. H., & Tiggemann, M. (1985). Psychological correlates ofemployment and unemployment: Effects, predisposing factors and sex differences.Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 229-242.156Winefield, A. H., Tiggemann, M., & Smith, S. (1987). Unemployment,attributional style and psychological well-being. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 8, 659-665.Winefield, A. H., Tiggemann, M., & Winefield, H. R. (1991). The psychologicalimpact of unemployment and unsatisfactory employment in young men andwomen: Longitudinal and cross-sectional data. British Journal ofPsychology, ,473-486.Winegardner, D., Simonetti, J. L., & Nykodym, N. (1984). Unemployment: Theliving death? Journal ofEmployment Counseling,.i, 149-155.Zadny, J. J., & James, L. F. (1977). A review of research on job placement.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, II, 150-158.Zuger, R. (1971). To place the unpiaceable. Journal ofRehabilitation, 37(6), 22-23.157Appendix AInvitation Letter158Dear Mr./Ms. XXXXXXXXYou have been referred to the Job Search Program at the Workers’ Compensation Board(WCB) by your Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant. The program is 14 days in lengthand takes place in the Leslie R. Peterson Rehabilitation Centre at the WCB complex at6951 Westminster Highway in Richmond.This program has been designed to assist you in your efforts in finding a job. While theprogram is sponsored by the WCB the instructors will not be able to answer questionsregarding your claim. Please continue to address these questions either to yourVocational Rehabilitation Consultant or Claims Adjudicator.I would like to make you aware that in an effort to improve the Job Search Program aresearch project is being undertaken that will help with this. This project is beingundertaken jointly with the University of British Columbia and is part of my work as agraduate student of the university. You will be asked to fill out some forms before andafter the program. We will also be contacting you 8 weeks after you complete theprogram to see how you are doing.You are under no obligation to participate in this research. You may participate in thegroup without participating in the research. If you do participate in the research, you canwithdraw at any time. However, I would like to assure you that the questionnaires arecompletely anonymous and will not be linked to any participant in the program.You will be contacted shortly by telephone to ensure that you have received this letter andto give you a chance to ask any questions you may have.Sincerely,Henry Harder159Appendix BConsent Form160I understand that I am taking part in a newly designed Job Search Program (JSP) forPhysically Disabled Workers. The program is designed to help injured workers overcomethe additional challenges they face in becoming employed due to their injury and resultingdisability. The design and evaluation of this JSP is part of the requirements of a doctoralprogram for_____________________.The supervision for this research is being providedby Dr._Department Head for the Counselling PsychologyDepartment at the University ofBritish Columbia.As part of the evaluation of the effectiveness of this program I will be asked to fill outsome forms before and after the program. I will also be contacted 8 weeks after I havecompleted the program to see if I have been able to find ajob and to see how I am doing.All information I present will be anonymous. The forms I fill out will be identified bynumber and the number will not be linked to me. Filling out these forms will takeapproximately 30 minutes of time at the beginning and end of the program.I am free to not participate in this research and if I do participate I may withdraw at anytime. I acknowledge the receipt of a copy of this consent for my records.Date:_____________Signed:____________Witnessed:______________Ifyou have any questions regarding the above procedures please contactat________161Appendix CDemographic Information162Demographic InformationAge________Phone number(FOR FOLLOW-UP)Gender: Male FemaleType of injury:____________________Percentage of disability (if known):Highest level of education achieved:How long have you been out of the workforce:What was your previous job:____ _______How long were you employed in your previous job:163Appendix DFeedback 1164FEEDBACK IPlease think back over the last 5 days. Concentrate on what you found helpful and whatyou found difficult.Please read the following items and circle a number on the 5 point scale. Please note thatI IS THE POOREST RATING you can give and 51s TIlE BEST RATING you can give.I. I found the Introductory Exercisesnot helpful helpful very helpful2 3 4 52. 1 found the sect ion on Norms am! E.vpectationsnot helpful helpful very helpful1 2 3 4 53. I found The Ulmeelnot helpful helpful very helptiil1 2 3 4 54. 1 found the section on the Job Loss ‘clenot helpful helpful very helpful2 3 4 55. 1 found the section on Marketable Assets‘lot helpful helpful very helpful1 2 3 4 5•••••—a L4.It.)..•.00ct:.•16612 1 found the section onDzscovenng Career Optionsnot helpful helpful very helpful3...4... 5.i3::1fuüiid thection.on thefr.oJI..,ttiigitff.Thgethernot helpful helpful very helpful....... ..................2.................. .. ................ .3............. ..................4............... . .................5.ti/tfive dtijsof.thePl ..:::. .::not helpful helpful very helpful1 2 3 4 515 Please write down your overall impression of the last five days of the program16 Please write down any suggestions you have for changing this part of the program17 If there is anything that I have not asked you about that you think I should knowabout please write it down below167Appendix EFeedback 2Cl)CD.-,+ CD0 cl<C)Cl)CD-,-CD.uI.OCDCD<CD0CD0(DroCD CD (‘I (.1 0 C) CD -t CD 0 0 CD‘1 m rn w C.) 1%)II001696•: rfoind :nCoñiiiftation•.: . *::.:::not helpful helpfiul very helpful. . ........................3. . .... . ........ ............................4.. ...................... ........... . 5.. .7 I found the section on lnformatioiz Interviewsnot helpful helpful very helpful1 2 3 4 58 I found the section on Overcoming Barriersnot helpful helpful very helpful2 ......... ........:: .3... .... ... 4...... .......... ............ . .5....thtith on1ctii:P(ain:ij1g: .:::: :::... .: . ;.not helpful helpful very helpful1 2 3 4 5not helpful helpful very helpful1 2 3 4 511 Please write down your overall impression of the last five days ofthe program1701 •have.ibr.changihg t:.of the13 If there is anything that I have not asked you about that you think I should knowabout please write it down below171Appendix FFeedback 3...................:.:.:::...:..................................................................CD C)•.•.•.•:•..-..r•.•..•.•.•.•.•.•..•:.•.••.•.•..........CDCD<•.:........................................<LI III— CDcnt)FdHI;o-cz-CD—r)=.*oo 7Q_.CD —CD0 l2csE.—.-t<C)CD,0Q-J)c CDCDo0j (jCDcM.00..—-z0)o0_.CD)_CDc’•CDCD.0 - - ) --n m rn ciw C,:4:.I I I•:•.Q.. I C0.3_.:::::::::.:..:•..:.•:::::::::::.‘117412 Please write down any suggestions you have for changing this part of the program13 If there is anything that I have not asked you about that you think I should knowabout please write it down below175Appendix GFeedback 4176FEEDBACK 4On the other feedback sheets you have been asked to rate separate parts of the program.Now that you have completed the program please take a moment to rate the entireprogram. Before you begin, please think back over the entire length of the program.I. Overall, I found the entire finirteen dciv progruninot helpful helpful very helpful2 3 4 52. Please write down your overall impression of the entire program.3 Please write down any suggestions you have for changing any part of the program4. if there is anything that I have not asked you about that you think I should knowabout please write it down below.177Appendix HImplementation Checklist178Implementation ChecklistWEEK 1- DAY 1 Yes No1. Orientationa. Instructor introduces program staffb. Participants introduce each other to group2. Norms and Expectationsa. Instructor prepares list of group’s expectationsb. Instructor explains expectations that will be met,expectations that may be met, and expectationsthat are not likely to be metc. Small groups identify 5 guidelines for large groupto follow and 5 behaviours for group to avoidd. Instructor leads the large group in preparing afinal list of group norms3. Factors Underlying Occupational Goalsa. Instructor distributes The Wheel handout and describesfactors included in the handoutb. Small groups discuss the importance of the eight factorsin the inner circle of the ‘Wheel for career planningc. Instructor distributes the handout My Unique Wheeland explains that the participants will fill in the UniqueWheel over Days 2 to 54. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities ofDay 1b. Instructor asks participants to complete Work/LeisureExperience and Education/Training History sections oftheir Unique Wheel for homeworkc. Instructor requests that participants bring their resumesto the program if they have resumes179180Implementation ChecklistWEEK 1- DAY 2 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites the group toraise any insights they have on the content of Day 1 and to askany questions they have about the homework assignmentb. Instructor leads the group in reviewing the names of all theparticipantsc. Instructor briefly introduces the activities for Day 22. How It Feels To Be Unemployeda. Instructor introduces the topic with a short statement aboutthe different emotions people might experience withunemploymentb. Pairs of participants are asked to discuss their feelings aboutbeing unemployed using questions prepared by the instructorc. Participants reform into groups of four to prepare a list ofthe emotions experienced by membersd. Instructor reconvenes the large group and asks each smallgroup to report their list of emotionse. Instructor summarizes the range of emotions reported andleads the group in a discussion of facts that they learned3. Marketable Assetsa. Instructor explains that participants need to view themselvesas people with many skills and assets and to marketthemselvesb. Instructor explains that participants will learn about theirmarketable assets through self-assessment exercises and181discussions during Week 1.c. Instructor asks the participants to record their marketableassets on their Unique Wheels as each area is explored in theprogram.4. Discovering Skills by Exploring Successesa. Instructor explains that the first two marketable assets to beexplored will be skills and personal characteristicsb. Instructor defines the term skill and explains the concept oftransferable skill.c. Instructor distinguishes between transferable skills and duties.d. Instructor explains that skills can be developed to differentlevels of competence and that different jobs can requirevarying levels of competency.e. Instructor explains that knowledge of transferable skills canhelp to generate job alternatives that require these skillsf Instructor presents recalling of successes as a method foridentif,’ing transferable skills and characteristicsg. Instructor asks the participants to write at least twoparagraphs describing successes from different areas oftheir lives.h. Instructor distributes the handouts Transferable Skills List andPersonal Characteristics and offers to help people wantingassistance.5. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities of Day 2b. Instructor asks the participants to complete the writing andanalysis of their success stories for homework.c Instructor introduces the Individual Style Survey as amarketable asset and explains that the Survey will helpparticipants to identify their unique personal style.d. Instructor distributes the Survey, reviews the instructions andasks participants to complete the Self Appraisal and to have up tothree people who know them in different areas of their livesto fill out the Other’s Appraisal.e. Instructor distributes the handout Significant OthersOuestionnaire, connects the Questionnaire with theappropriate section on the Unique Wheel and asks participantsto have the Questionnaire completed for Day 4.f Instructor invites the participants to share their impressions ofDay 2182183Implementation ChecklistWEEK 1- DAY 3 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites the groupto raise any insights they have on the content of Day 2 and to askany questions they have about the homework assignment.b. Instructor briefly introduces the activities for Day 3.2. Discovering Skillsa. Instructor reminds the group that the objective for writingsuccess stories is to identify transferable skills and personalcharacteristics which contributed to their past successes.b. Participants form pairs to describe their success stories,clarify the skills and characteristics chosen and suggestadditional or related skills that have been overlooked.c. Instructor directs the participants to prioritize theirtransferable skills and characteristics on an individualbasis.d. Instructor directs the participants to record the topskills and characteristics that they want to prioritize ontheir Unique Wheels.d. While referring to their skills and characteristics list,instructor asks the participants to each write a paragraphdescribing themselves to an employer.e. Instructor directs the participants to use ‘I’ statements intheir paragraphs.£ Instructor gives the participants time to write theirparagraphs.g. Instructor reconvenes the group and asks the participantsto state their transferable skills and characteristics as if184they are speaking to an employer.h. Instructor acknowledges the participants’ effort and remarkson the way that the success stories and the discussion of thestories promotes positive feelings in the group.3. Discovering Interestsa. Instructor displays the Wheel and introduces the nextmarketable asset of interests.b. Instructor distributes the SDSAssessment Bookletand Occupations Finder and asks the participants to completethe Assessment Booklet including the self-scoring section.c. Instructor assists any participants who require help.d. Instructor asks participants to record their interests ontheir Unique Wheels.e. Instructor invites the participants to describe their threestrongest interests and to consider how their interestsmay affect their career exploration.4. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities ofDay 3.b. Instructor assigns the completion of the IndividualStyle Survey and the Significant OthersQuestionnaire for homework.c. Instructor invites the participants to share theirimpressions of Day 3 and responds to theircomments.185Implementation ChecklistWEEK 1- DAY 4 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the group back and invites theparticipants to raise any insights they have on thecontent ofDay 3 and to ask any questions they haveabout the homework assignment.b. Instructor responds to insights, comments or questionsraised by the participants.c. Instructor briefly introduces the activities for Day 4.2. Discovering Valuesa. Instructor demonstrates the location of the marketable assetof Values on the Wheel.b. Instructor asks the participants to give one-sentence definitionsof values and illustrate with examples.c. Instructor explains that values are important in decision makingbecause values represent standards of conduct and strong,prized beliefs.d. Instructor suggests that job satisfaction and success are morelikely to occur if participants’ work values match their jobduties or choice of occupation.e. Instructor explains that values influence the selection ofjobalternatives and therefore, are important in career planning.£ Instructor points out that values may change through thestages of life.g. Instructor distributes the handout Work Values Checklistand reviews the instructions for completion, checking forany questions.186h. Instructor directs the participants to complete the form onan individual basis.i. Instructor distributes the handout Prioritizing Work Valuesand goes over the instructions for completion, checking forquestions.j. Instructor asks the participants to start completion of the formon an individual basis and to finish the form for home workif necessary.3. Discovering Significant Othersa. Instructor displays the Wheel and reminds the participantsabout the importance of making assessments from multipleperspectives.b. Instructor ensures that all participants have their completedquestionnaires with them.c. Instructor asks the participants to relate their experience ofcompleting the questionnaire.d. Instructor thanks the participants for their courage in takingpart in the assessment and for their honesty in making theirresponses.e. Instructor encourages the participants to continue to dialoguewith their significant others.4. Discovering Personal Stylea. Instructor explains that personal style is another factor on theWheel.b. Instructor verifies that all participants have completed the“Individual Style Survey”.c. Instructor explains the concepts underlying the Survey.d. Participants are divided into small groups based on theirdominant style determined by the Survey.187e. Instructor cautions participants to not define their personalstyles solely in terms of their dominant style.f The small groups are asked to discuss how the style used bythe members is effective or ineffective in various job functions.g. Spokesperson for each small group reports on the groupdiscussion to all the participants. Groups report in the order ofDominant, Cautious, Harmonious and Influencing.h. Instructor concludes the activity by asking participants toconsider the interaction between their goals and their personalstyle.i. Instructor asks the participants to record their personal styleon their Unique Wheel.j. Instructor distributes the handout Using Your Individual Stylein Career Decision Making and Job Search and encouragesthe participants to read the handout.5. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities ofDay 4.b. Instructor asks the participants to complete the self-assessment activities on skills, personal characteristics,values, the Individual Style Survey and the SignificantOthers Ouestionnaire for homework.c. Instructor asks the participants to complete any sectionson their Unique Wheels which still remain blank.d. Instructor invites the participants to share their impression ofDay 4 and responds to their comments.188Implementation ChecklistWEEK 1- DAY 5 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites thegroup to raise any insights about Day 4 and to ask anyquestions they have about the homework assignment.b. Instructor responds to the participants comments andquestions.c. Instructor briefly introduces the activities for Day 5.2. Discovering Career Options.a. Instructor displays the centre of the Wheel and explainsto the participants that career options are an importantasset in making career decisions.b. Instructor distributes the handout Career Options Worksheetand explains that the list of options is not a comprehensive listbut the list is representative of potential occupations.c. Instructor asks the participants to read the list and check offthe occupations on the list that they would consider as careeroptions.d. Instructor encourages the participants to add occupations tolist. Instructor distributes the handout Career Option Expansion.Participants form four small groups, discuss their job optionsand select one option for each member and brainstorm morealternatives related to the option.e. Instructor leads the large group in discussing the optionsidentified.f Instructor asks the participants to continue their personalidentification of career options outside of program time.1893. The Art of Putting It All Togethera. Instructor reminds the participants of the importance ofcreating a new view of themselves based on the total oftheir marketable assets.b. Instructor directs the participants to look for a pattern in theinformation they have recorded on their Unique Wheel and todecide the ranking of each asset in terms of importance to them.c. Instructor asks the participants to review the lists of possiblecareer options and to record on the list their reasons forconsidering or not considering the occupations.d. Instructor asks the participants to look over the listof options and reasons they have created to identifypatterns.e. Instructor asks the participants to record the patternsor main considerations they have identified onthe handout Main Considerations for Career Choiceis distributed.£ Participants are asked to rank order their mainconsiderations and to complete the rank orderingoutside of program time if required. The participantsare requested to complete the ranking for Day 6.5. Closinga Instructor reviews the activities ofDay 5.b. Instructor reminds the participants to complete theirmain consideration for decision making for homework.c. Instructor asks the participants to review their UniqueWheel while thinking about who they are and all thatthey have to offer to the labour market.d. Instructor invites the participants to share their impressions ofDay 5 and responds to their comments.190Implementation ChecklistWEEK 2- DAY 6 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and asks thegroup to raise any insights that they have on the content of Day 5and to ask any questions they have about the homework.b. Instructor responds to their comments and questions.c. Instructor briefly outlines the activities for Day 6.2. The Changing Labour Marketa. Instructor explains to the participants that using a new self-definition and taking part in career exploration can make jobsearch more effective.b. Instructor reminds the participants that the objective for Week 1was to help the participants to see themselves in light of theirmarketable assets.d. Instructor explains that the focus for Week 2 will be to helpparticipants understand the current labour market and thecareer exploration process. Instructor points out that muchof this information is also usefhl in job search.e. Instructor explains that the labour market has changed since1982 and that participants must evaluate their marketableassets in a changed labour market.£ Instructor distributes the handout Current Labour MarketTrends and explains the current trends.g. Instructor divides the participants into small groups and asksthe groups to select the trends that will affect their careerexploration and job search.h. Small groups report on the results of their discussion.191i. Instructor concludes the activity by reminding theparticipants that labour market changes are continuousand therefore, they must keep informed on the changesand remain flexible.j. Instructor encourages the participants to keep written notesfrom all Week 2 activities because the information will bean important resource.3. Accessing the Labour Marketa. Instructor defines the term ‘manoeuvring in the market place’,describes the conditions that enhance the effectiveness of careerexploration and outlines the strategies and techniques formaneuvering in the labour market.b. Instructor explains that manoeuvring in the labour market is acyclical process and outlines the steps in the process.c. Instructor explains that career exploration and job searchoverlap.d. Instructor gives an example of manoeuvring in the marketplace.e. Instructor concludes the activity by asking the members toexplain the information that they have learned during theactivity.4. Researching the Labour Marketa. Instructor explains that research is a key part of effectivecareer planning because it is used for identif,ring andevaluating job options and also target employers.b. Instructor points out that job seekers often shiftbetween researching jobs and researching companies.c. Instructor explains that job seekers must have informationabout jobs and companies in order to decide if the job orcompany fits their employment situation.192d. Instructor leads the group in brainstorming ideas aboutresearch resources that are available to them.e. Instructor points out that the same resources are usefll forresearching companies and helps the group to identifyadditional resources for researching companies.£ Instructor distributes the handout Public Library Checklistand explains all the resources available at the local library.g. Instructor discusses the use of the yellow pages as aresource for career exploration.h. Instructor explains that people must often limit time spenton research and gives the participants guidelines forfocusing research.i. Instructor distributes the handouts Occupational Assessmentand Company Assessment.j. Instructor concludes the discussion by permittingthe participants to express concerns and questionsabout research and, then answering their questions.5. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities ofDay 6.b. Instructor divides the participants into small groupsand directs them to go the library to complete theresearch homework assignment which the instructorwill review.c. Instructor invites the participants to share their impressions ofDay 6 and responds to their comments.193Implementation ChecklistWEEK 2- DAY 7 Yes No1. Preview and Reviewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites thegroup to raise any insights they have on the content ofDay 6and to ask any questions about the homework assignment.b. Instructor responds to the participants’ comments andQuestions.c. Instructor briefly introduces the activities of Day 7.2. Decision Makinga. Instructor explains the importance of decision making in thecareer search process and identifies barriers to effectivedecision making.b. Instructor presents three models of decision making.c. Instructor explains that there are five career paths that areopen to them and outlines the barriers to pursuing the rightpath for them.d. Instructor directs the participants to chose a decision makingstyle that is appropriate for their situation and to practiceapplying the strategy on the personal information they haveidentified to date.e. Instructor reconvenes the group after 20 minutes and asksthe participants to discuss their experience in decision making.£ Instructor reminds the group that decision making is a processthat occurs over time and requires flexibility.3. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities ofDay 7.b. Instructor distributes the handout InformationalInterviewing and asks the participants to read itfor homework.c. Instructor asks the participants to complete thedecision making activity for homework if it is not Instructor invites the participants to share their impressionsDay 7 and responds to their comments.194195Implementation ChecklistWEEK 2- DAY 8 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites the groupto raise any insights they have on the content ofDay 7 and toask any questions they have on the homework assignment.b. Instructor responds to any questions and/or comments.c. Instructor briefly outlines the activities for Day 8.2. Feedback and Communication Skillsa. Instructor explains that communication skills are importantfor career exploration and job search because people spenda great deal of time talking to people during these activities.b. Instructor distributes the handouts Facilitating Feedback,A Model For Communication, and Communication Skills.c. Instructor explains that the feedback guidelines will be followedduring the next activities.d. Instructor explains the communication model to theparticipants and defines the communication skills.e. Instructor reminds the participants about the importanceof using ‘P statements during the coming activities.3. Informational Interviewinga. Instructor explains the use of the technique of informationalinterviews in manoeuvring in the market place.b. Instructor explains the purposes of informational interviews,distributes the handout Informational Interviews and leads adiscussion of the content of the handout.c. Instructor explains the role-play activity on informational196interviews.d. Instructor demonstrates a role-play of an informationalinterview.e. Instructor supervises groups of three participants in role-playing an informational interview.£ Instructor supports and encourages the participants duringthe role-play.g. Instructor reconvenes the group and debriefs the group on therole-play activity.4. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities of Day 8.b. Instructor asks the participants to try to arrange aninformational interview related to one of their joboptions.c. Instructor encourages the participants to continue their workon their decision making on job options.d. Instructor invites the participants to share their impressionsofDay 8 and responds to their comments.197Implementation ChecklistWEEK 2- DAY 9 Yes No1, Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites thegroup to raise any insights they have on the content ofDay 8and to ask any questions they have about the homeworkassignment.b. Instructor responds to their concerns and questions.c. Instructor briefly introduces the activities of Day 92. Overcoming Barriers Through Problem Solvinga. Instructor points out the inevitability of participantsencountering barriers in career planning and states thatmany people react ineffectively when confronted bybarriers, giving examples.b. Instructor explains that people need to be flexible inlooking at problems and responding to problems.c. Instructor describes a systematic approach to problemsolving and outlines an example of the problem solvingapproach.d. Instructor asks the participants to share their comments onproblem solving and responds to their concerns.3 Practice in Overcoming Barriersa. Instructor distributes the handout Barriers to OccupationalOptions and asks the participants to write three of their topjob options on the form, list at least six barriers to each optionand summarize the barriers into one list.b. Instructor divides the participants into groups of three, and askeach member to describe a barrier to the small group and toseek options for overcoming the barrier.c. Instructor reconvenes the group to debrief the activity, emphasizingthe fact that barriers can be overcome using an effective problemsolving strategy.4. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities ofDay 9.b. Instructor asks the participants to review the activities of Weeks1 and 2 and to consider their next steps after Day 10.c. Instructor invites the participants to share their impressionsofDay 9 and responds to their comments.198199Implementation ChecklistWEEK 2- DAY 10 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invitesthe group to raise any insights they have on Day 9 andto ask any questions they have about the homeworkassignment.b. Instructor responds to their comments and questions.c. Instructor briefly introduces the activities for Day 10.2. The NextStepa. Instructor explains the importance of goal settingand action planning and distributes the handoutCommitment to Action.b. Participants are asked to review the informationthey have collected in the program and to answerthe questions on the handout.c. Instructor reconvenes the large group and asks theparticipants to describe their action plan and possiblebarriers.d. Instructor distributes the handout Contract and asks theparticipants to write contracts for their action plans, listingthree strengths or insights on the back that will help themfollow through on their contract.e. Instructor asks the participants to comment on the experienceof completing a contract.3. TerminationlClosing Activitya. Instructor asks the participants to complete the sentence‘the most important thing I have learned or gained fromthis group is “in writing.200b. Participants take turns in reading their sentence completionsto the group.c. Instructor responds to each participant’s sentence andreinforces the accomplishments they have made in the courseof the group.d. Instructor commends the participants for the helpthey have provided to each other in the group.e. Instructor thanks the group for their participation andwishes the participants success in their career exploration.f Instructor reminds participants that the first 10 days of theprogram were designed to help them evaluate their marketableassets and identify personal job options.g. Instructor explains that the next step is to job search, and tellsparticipants that during Days 11-14 they will update their resumeslearn how to find job leads and practice job interviews.h. Instructor points out that the communication and decision makingskills, already discussed in the program, are good backgroundinformation for the job search skills section.i.. Instructor distributes the handouts 12-1 to 12-6 and asks,the participants to read the handouts for homework.j. Instructor requests that the participants update their currentresume, or draft a new resume, using the information in thehandouts as a guideline.k. Instructor asks the participants to bring their new resumes forDay 11.201Implementation ChecklistWEEK 3 -DAY 111. Setting the Stage Yes Noa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites the groupto raise any insight on Weeks 1 and 2.b. Instructor responds to group’s comments and questions.c. Instructor leads the group in generating a list ofjob searchstrategies and writes down the strategies as they are identified.d. Instructor organizes the strategies under headings of ‘developingjob leads, ‘applying for jobs’, and ‘interviews’.e. Using the lists of strategies the instructor leads the group in adiscussion about the goals for the group.f Instructor debriefs the activity by asking the group members toidentify new information, insights, etc.2. Writing the Resumea. Instructor discusses the importance of having a good resume,referring to the handout Resumes.b. Instructor reviews the two styles of resumes using the handoutsSample Chronological Resume and Sample Functional Resume.c. Instructor reviews the participants’ resumes individually, and assistsin making changes.d. Instructor encourages participants to help each other prepare theirresumes.e. Instructor debriefs the activity by emphasizing the newself-knowledge gained by the participants through writingtheir resumes. The instructor also acknowledges the helpgiven by partners.f. Instructor arranges to have resumes typed2023. Preparing the Covering Lettera. Instructor distributes two handouts to assist participants inwriting covering letters.b. Instructor forms the participants into small groups, asks eachgroup to select an ad, preferably related to the job option ofa member, and write a covering letter for the ad,c. When the group has successfully written the first letter, theinstructor asks the group to choose a company from the YellowPages and to write a letter to the company. The instructor distributesa handout of guidelines for using the yellow pages. Instructorreconvenes the small groups to read their letters.d. Instructor ends the activity by asking the participants to give theirinsights about writing letters.4. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities of Day 11.b. Instructor asks participants to complete redrafting their resumesc. Instructor invites the participants to share their impressions ofDay 11 and responds to their comments.203Implementation ChecklistWEEK 3- DAY 12 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites thegroup to raise any insights they have about the home workassignment.b. Instructor responds to the concerns and questions.c. Instructor briefly discusses the activities for Day 12.2. Getting Job Leadsa. Instructor describes ‘networking’ and ‘direct contacts withemployers’ as two strategies for acquiring job leads.b. Instructor divides the participants into a ‘networking’ anda ‘direct contacts’ group and distributes handouts, appropriateto each group’s topic, to the groups.c. Each group discusses their experience with their topic using thehandouts as resources.d. Instructor facilitates each group’s presentation on their topic andthe discussion following their presentation.e. Instructor ends the discussion with a summary of the informationpresented by the groups, suggests additional strategies by meansof a handout and commends the members for contributingtheir own good ideas.3. Completing the Application Forma. Instructor leads a discussion on completion of applicationforms and distributes a handout illustrating how to dealwith problem questions.b. Instructor distributes a sample application form and asks theparticipants to complete the application for homework.4. Closinga. Instructor reviews the topics discussed on Day 12.b. Instructor reminds participants to complete the applicationform for homeworkc. Instructor asks the participants to give their comments andinsights on the content of Day 12 and responds to theircomments.204205Implementation ChecklistWEEK 3- DAY 13 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites the groupto share their insights on the content ofDay 12 and to ask anyquestions relating to the home work assignment.b. Instructor outlines the topics for Day 13 briefly.c. Instructor asks the participants to distribute a copy of theirresume to the other members and to review each other’sresume, giving constructive feedback.2. Preparing for the Interviewa. Instructor distributes a handout First Impressions and plays avideotape of a model interview.b. Instructor asks the participants to critique the interview using theguidelines on the handout Videotape Checklist.c. Instructor leads the discussion of the model interview.d. Instructor distributes the handout The Interview Planning Formand explains each section of the form.e. Instructor distributes the handouts Appropriate Responsesto Typical Interview Ouestions and Ouestions an ApplicantCan Ask During An Interview and concludes the activity witha summary of the information learned about preparing for aninterview.3. Practicing for the Interviewa. Instructor shows two model interviews illustrating an informaland a structured interview.b. Instructor leads a discussion of the positive attitudes andbehaviours demonstrated in the model interviews and acomparison of the differences in structure between the206two interviews.c. Instructor directs the participants to prepare individualinterview outlines using handout material distributed bythe instructor. Participants are requested to createoutlines relevant to their job goals.d. Participants are directed to work in pairs to prepare theirinterview outlines and to practice their mock interviewsafter the outlines are prepared.e. Instructor debriefs the activity by asking the participantsto share their questions and apprehensions.3. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities ofDay 13.b. Instructor asks the participants to complete theinterview outlines for Day 14 and to practice role-playingtheir interviews in preparation for the videotaping of theirmock interviews on Day 14.c. Instructor asks the participants to share any concerns theyhave about the contents ofDay 13 or the homeworkassignments.d. Instructor responds to their questions and concerns.207Implementation ChecklistWEEK 3- DAY 14 Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor explains the procedures for participants tovideotape a mock interview with the instructor actingas the interviewer.b. Instructor circulates a sign-up list for interview times andasks the participants to select times.c. Instructor directs the participants to make notes on theirperceptions of their performance during their interviewsimmediately following the interview using the handoutVideotape Checklist.d. Instructor reminds the participants that the interviewsare being taped in separate rooms and that the programroom is available for continued work on other programcomponents.e. Instructor plays back the videotape of all the interviewsfor the large group and facilitates the group in givingfeedback to individual members.f. Instructor ensures that the first feedback given ispositive information in order to make certain thegroup members remain receptive.g. Instructor debriefs the interview activity by focusing onnew or helpful feedback members have received duringthe activity.4. After the Interviewa. Instructor explains the importance of following up afterthe interview and distributes the handout Follow-up Letterto the Interview.b. Instructor leads the group in the identification of other followup techniques.208c. Instructor ends the activity with a discussion of how participantsview follow-up activities and how they will use follow-upactivities in their job search.5. Closinga. Instructor asks the participants to complete thefollowing statements in turn: “I became aware that...”,“I was surprised that...” and “I learned that...”.b. Instructor acknowledges the feeling of loss and/or apprehensionwhich the participants may be feeling at the conclusion of thegroup.c. Instructor explains the procedures for obtaining ongoing jobsearch support on an individual basis from a VocationalRehabilitation Consultant.d. Instructor suggests that the participants may wish to continue to meeton an informal basis.209Appendix IFollow-up Telephone Interview210Follow-up Telephone InterviewAre your currently employed? Y NIf yes are you newly employed? Y NIf not are currently enrolled in a training program? Y NIf none of the above then ask:Are you feeling positive about your job search? Y NTo what do you attribute your unemployment?Any comments regarding the ISP?You will be receiving a package of the questionnaires that you completed in the program.Please complete them again and send them back to us.Are you willing to particpate in an in-depth interview? Y NIf so, when would be a good time for me to call you?DateAppendix JEight-week Follow-up Letter211212Date<<NAME)><<ADDRESS))<<CITY))<PCO D E>Dear <<SAL>:_________________spokewith you recently by telephone to follow up on yourparticipation in the Career Redirection and Job Search Skills Program. told youthat you would receive this package of questionnaires by mail. The questionnaireswill be familiar to you since they are the same questionnaires that you answeredduring the Program.Please read the instructions for completing the questionnaires carefully and answerthem as soon as possible. Kindly mail the completed questionnaires back to me inthe enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope. As before, the questionnaires arecoded to ensure anonymity.The information that I obtain from these questionnaires will help me to evaluatethe effectiveness of the Program. Thank you for your cooperation in answeringthe questionnaires.If you need help with the questionnaires please contact____by telephone atLocal_or toll free at____________,Local__ .If you prefer, you arewelcome to call me at_______or___ ,LocalYours truly,Henry HarderHH/cmlEnclos.213Appendix KInterview Ouestions214Interview OuestionsBefore we discuss the details of the Career Redirection and Job Search Program,I’d like to ask you a few general questions.1. What was working like for you?2. Were you expecting to stay in the same job all of your life?3. Becoming more specific now, could you please tell me when it was that youfirst became aware that you would not be returning to your old job?4. Turning now to your injury, could you to tell me your own story of yourexperience of having an injury and not being able to return to your old job. Justlike any story there’s always a beginning, middle, and end. Could you beginjust before you were injured and continue to describe your experience in termsof thoughts, feelings, actions, and what you’ve done to deal with the situation?5. Focusing more on the present now, could you tell me about your experienceof the Career Redirection and Job Search Program. Just like you did earlier,think of it as a story with a beginning, middle and end. Please start just beforeyou were contacted to come in to the program and describe your experience interms of thoughts, feelings and actions.2156. Becoming more specific, could you describe what you consider to be yourhighest points in the program? For example, starting at the first high point youcan remember what happened exactly and why was it helpful for you?7. Now turning to the low points during this experience, start at the first lowpoint you can remember, and explain why it was difficult for you?8. What are your expectations about the future right now? For example, areyou generally optimistic or pessimistic about the future?9. What is your current job?10. Is there anything I have not asked you about that you think I should know?216Appendix LExample of an Interview Transcript217Sept/30/93InterviewInterviewer:____________________Interviewee: Client 2BBefore we discuss the details of the Career Redirection and Job SearchProgram I would like to ask you a few general questions. First question:What was working like for you?C: That’s going to be a tough one_______.I enjoyed it, I liked working hard, Itwas a good job, paid well. It was a dangerous job but I really enjoyed it.Were you expecting to stay in the same job all of your life?C: That job or an extension of that job. In construction you go up the ladder tosupervisory capacity and that’s where I expected to end up.I: Becoming more specific now, could you please tell me when it was that you firstbecame aware that you would not be returning to your old job?C: You know it’s funny. I’m still not really aware of that. I still have it in the back ofmy mind that I can do that. I know I can’t so I guess by becoming aware that Ineeded something new, I guess it was about a year and a half ago so that’sabout a year and a half after the injury before it really settled into my mind thatno, I’m not going to be able to do it any more than I am.I: Turning now to your injury, could you tell me your own story of your experienceof having an injury and not being able to return to your old job? Just like anystory there is always a beginning, middle and end. Could you begin just beforeyou were injured and continue to describe your experience in terms of yourthoughts, feelings, actions and what you have done to deal with the situation.C: Well before the injury I just assumed that I’d continue and carry on with my lifein the fashion that I’d been used to. When I got injured I thought it would heal. Ithought it was just another injury. I done everything the medical people told meto do. Followed every word closely and made sure that I done what I had to. Atthat time I just felt that it was going to be possibly a long extended healingperiod. After trying to go back to work and seeing the limitations I had, and reinjuring again, because of that re-injuring. I pulled muscles because I was tryingto do the protection thing, that just made me realize that this thing wasn’t goingto go away. I kind of realized I was mortal, you know. And then about a yearand a half ago I started to try and change my lifestyle and at first I thoughteverything was working out quite well and I was going to get what I needed.218Then because of a little road block that I felt wasn’t called for, the compensationthing, it kind of set me back a little bit because then the plans that I had reallycarefully thought out all of a sudden didn’t seem to be within reach. But nowthat things, I’m back with a very good worker, we can talk to each other and weknow each other. I feel that things are working out and I think we’ve got thingson track.I: Focusing more on the present now, could you tell me about your experience ofthe Career Redirection & Job Search Program? Just like you did earlier, think ofit as a story with a beginning, middle and end. Please start just before you werecontacted to come into the program and describe your experience in terms ofyour thoughts, feelings and actions.C: Okay, before the program I was kind of at a loss. I didn’t know what wouldhappen because of the situation that I had. After I got asked to come into theprogram due to the reputation of the Rehab Center I was pretty apprehensive. Ididn’t know what the hell was going on over there. I was told not to trustanybody in the place. Then I decided I’d go and I got there and I found anextremely bad attitude. Just kind of a defeatist attitude in the whole place.Once I got into the course I realized that I wasn’t going to see much that I hadn’tseen before. But it was in a different group situation. Any other time that I’vebeen involved in that type of a course or class or whatever you call it group, itwasn’t with people that were in the same situation as me and now I’m in thissituation and I felt I came away learning some things and I felt that because ofmy experiences I may have helped some people. I felt good about it and I feltvery good about getting it over with.I: Becoming more specific, could you describe what you consider to be yourhighest points in the program? For example, starting at the first high point youcan remember, what happened exactly and why was it helpful to you?C: Well the first, I wouldn’t say high point but good point that I got out of the courseI believe was being able to kind of download with the group on what myproblems were. Listening to what their problems were and realizing that wewere a group. We weren’t just a bunch of people together. The second thing Ithink was having a little bit of input into the actual operation of the class. Forexample, the rules that we set down for ourselves which was something that Ifind is useful in a lot things. That peer group rules have to be adhered tobecause they are peer groups they aren’t something forced on you. Actually therest of it, I didn’t find anything that new to what I had had before. Just thesituation it was being brought up in. And of course the highest point of it wasgetting the hell out of there.219You may have already answer the next question but I will ask it. Now turning tothe low points during the experience of the program, start at the first low pointyou can remember and explain why it was difficult for you?C: Well, as I said the atmosphere of the geographic location I guess I would haveto say. It shouldn’t be held in there. Anything that is trying to be held in an upscale is dragged completely down in that atmosphere. A very defeatistatmosphere. I think that if the first part of the course had been devoted toexplaining the Board workers position and what they could and couldn’t do andhow decisions were arrived at, it would have changed a lot of this atmosphereand I think just knowing where somebody’s coming from, what their parametersare is always easier to accept what is happening. Then also, gives you achance for argument that is reasonable.What are your expectations about the future right now? For example, are yougenerally optimistic or pessimistic about the future?C: Very optimistic. I know there’s going to be some difficult times. I’m getting whatI wanted. I’m getting what I’m good at. It’s something that as a person I canaccept and live with, It’s going to open up a whole new area for us that we havebeen kind of fringing around. And it’s something that will fit in and extend myactual, how would you word it, useful working years by probably to the age of 70- 75.I: Wow. What is your current job?C: Student. I’m taking mechanics, marine mechanics because I’m marine based. Itfits into our lifestyle and our future plans. It’s something that I can use whilecompleting what our plans are and help complete our plans.Is there anything I have not asked you about that you think I should know?C: Not really_______.I think that might help on this whole program is for peopleto go through the class or somehow be able to stay in touch with each other ona, I don’t know, official type basis. Where, say the compensation sends outsomething where we could transfer back and forth and it was something thatpeople, I don’t want to say forced, but would do on an official basis. Then as wehelped each other during the course, I think it would be a little bit of a boost too.I: Are you thinking about a newsletter?C: Yes, something like that. A newsletter or comment sheet or something wheresomebody can write down what their problems are or what their difficulties areand we could write down our solutions. I don’t know if that was the right wordingbut someplace where we could get in touch and I think there’s a lot of goodfriends in my group that could be friends if it wasn’t geographically separated. Idon’t know whether this is getting across what I’m trying to say.220Yes. I understand very well.C: I guess it would be helpful for me and for other people and also reinforceseverybody’s, confirmation of everybody’s expectations in the course and theycan see through the eyes of the other people things that we can’t see throughour own eyes. That’s about it,Thank you very much. That brings our interview to a close.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items