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. 1994-04-08

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

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 FORUNEMPLOYEDPHYSICALLY DISABLED WORKERSbyHENRY G. HARDERB. Ed., University ofBritishColumbia, 1979M.A., University ofBritish Columbia, 1986A DISSERTATION SUBMITTEDIN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREEOFDOCTOR OF EDUCATIONinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATESTUDIES(Department of Counselling Psychology)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardApril, 1994©Henry George Harder, 1994oJIn presenting this thesis inpartial fulfilment of therequirements for an advanceddegree at the University ofBritish Columbia, 1 agree thatthe Library shall makeitfreely available for reference and study.I further agree that permissionfor extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarlypurposes may be grantedby the head of mydepartment or by his or herrepresentatives. It isunderstood that copyingorpublication of this thesis forfinancial gain shall not beallowed without mywrittenpermission.(Signature)Department of____________________The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateADE-6 (2/88)UAR STRACTThis study investigated the effect of participationin a 14-day career redirectionprogram on the reemployment, explanations for unemployment,and levels ofdepression and self-esteem of 44 unemployed adultswho had recently becomephysically disabled. The career redirection programwas delivered using an extendedSolomon four-group design. The subjects’ explanations fortheir unemployment, andtheir levels of depression and self-esteem weremeasured 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 thesubjects who completed theprogram after eight weeks to determine their employmentstatus and to request thecompletion of the final questionnaire battery. A randomsample of the subjects whofinished the program were also interviewed in-depthto 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 reportedby the subjects that related to theiremotional reactions to these three experiences were identified fromtranscripts of theinterviews. Incidents describing similar reactions tocomponents of these experienceswere grouped into categories. Six stages were discerned from theanalysis of thecategories of emotional reactions. Taken together,these six stages described a careerredirection process. The results of the study demonstrated theeffectiveness of thetreatment program in assisting the subjects through the career redirectionprocess.Eight weeks after finishing the program, 60.5% of thesubjects were involved inreemployment activities (11.6% working; 28% independent injob search; 20.9% takingtraining). Contrary to the researcher’s expectations, thesubjects did not exhibit theeffects of long-term unemployment documented inthe literature, possibly because theyivTABLE OF CONTENTSPageAbstractiiTable of ContentsivList of TablesixList of FiguresxiAcknowledgments xiiCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONNature of the Problem1Purpose of the Study7Treatment8Outcome Goals 9Limitations 13Definitions14CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEWIntroduction16Unemployment17Unemployment of the Physically Disabled18Psychosocial Impact of Unemployment20The Impact of Unemployment on Health21Unemployment and Causal Attribution 23Unemployment and Self-Esteem25Career Decisions27Unplanned Job Loss30VPageGroup Interventions32Treatment Modalities34Summary36CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGYIntroduction38Design of the Study38Subjects 40Instruments41Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Beck, 1972)41Self-esteem Scale (Waif & Jackson, 1983)43The Attribution About Unemployment Scale (Gurney, 1981) 45Causal Dimension Scale (Russell, 1982)46Questionnaire Battery48Implementation Checklist48Demographic Questionnaire 49Follow-up Telephone Interview49Interview Questions49Instructors50Treatment50Procedures 57Pilot Study 60Data Analysis60Hypotheses62Pretest Hypothesis 62Hypothesis 162Hypotheses 262Hypothesis 363viPageCHAPTER 4: RESULTSIntroduction64Subject Characteristics 64Experimental Mortality65Reliability of the Instruments66Analysis of Gender Effects67Analysis of Instructor Effects67Analyses of Treatment Effects68Pretest Hypothesis73Hypothesis 174Hypothesis 279Hypothesis 381Summary of the Analysis of the Hypotheses84Analysis of Feedback Questionnaires85Feedback 185Analysis of Open-ended Questions86Feedback 288Analysis of Open-ended Questions89Feedback 3 90Analysis of Open-ended Questions91Feedback 492Analysis of Open-ended Questions93Final Analysis Summary94Eight Week Follow-up94Analysis of the Effect ofDisability and Group CareerPlanning Instructionon Career Redirection95Before Disability96After Disability101Before Instruction105After Instruction109Category Analysis Summary120Content Analysis of Interviews120Attachment to Pre-disability Job122viiPageReactions to Injury122Acceptance ofDisability123Commitment to Change123Effect of Compensation on Career Redirection124The Career Redirection Experience125CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION OF RESULTSIntroduction126Summary126Discussion of Findings128Findings Related to Employment128Findings Related to Depression129Findings Related to Self-esteem129Findings Related to Attribution130Findings Related to Participants’ Feedback131Findings Related to the Category Analysis132Implications for Career Intervention Theory133Implications for Career Redirection Programs136Limitations and Generalizations of theStudy 140Suggestions for Future Research141REFERENCES143AppendicesAppendix A. Invitation Letter157Appendix B. Consent Form159Appendix C. Demographic Information161Appendix D. Feedback 1163Appendix E. Feedback 2167Appendix F. Feedback 3171Appendix G. Feedback 4175Appendix H. Implementation Checklist177Appendix I, Follow-up Telephone Interview209Appendix J. Eight Week Follow-up Letter211Appendix K. Interview Questions213Appendix L. Example of an InterviewTranscript 216viiiixLIST OF TABLESTablePage1. Reliabilities for the Test Measures (Cronbach’s Alpha)662. T-test Results for Gender Effects673. Means and Standard Deviations forDependent Measures(N=44) 684. Results of All Measures, Pretest and Posttest735a. Results of All Measures, Pretest and Posttest 755b. Analysis of Combined Group Means, Pretest and Posttest 775c. Adjusted Beck Depression Inventory Results786. Analysis of Treatment Effects Between Treatment and ControlGroups807. T-test Results for Posttest/Post-posttest818. T-test Results, Combined Means, Posttest fPost-posttest839, 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 DisabilityCategories10317. Details ofPositive Before Instruction Category10618. Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative BeforeInstructionCategories 10719. Rank Ordered Summary of Positive After InstructionCategories 10920. Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative After InstructionCategories 116LIST OF FIGURESFigurePage1. Design of the Study 392. Career Redirection Process 121xxliAcknowledgmentsI wish to express my heartfelt appreciationto the members of my dissertationcommittee, Dr. Norm Amundson and Dr. Doug Willms fortheir time, patience, andsuggestions throughout the preparation of this research project.My deepest gratitudegoes to my chairman, Dr. Bill Borgen, for his constantsupport, 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 withoutthe unfailing, support of myfamily. Michael, Kari and Christine thank you for yourpatience, tolerance and forhelping me to keep perspective on what is really importantin life. Rita, without yourtireless encouragement and endless forbearance I wouldnot 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 havea 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 ina 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) andFraser(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 witha 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 andbehavioralactivities in the experimental group. The experimental group hada 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 notadequatelyspecifSrthe 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 criteriaasfeasible 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 supportas 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 inactivetreatment. Thesubjects were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment programs.The subjectswere 210 clients with special needs who ranged in age from 20to 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 withjob searchprograms. He concluded that all three job search programs canbe 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) appearsto 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 fuiiyby 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 collecteddata on averageduration of past job he did not find significant interactions for thisattribute with any ofhis study’s treatment programs. Individuals who have beendisplaced 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 shouldincludeopportunities 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 climateto 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 importanceofthe 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 inpeople’s mood, with an attending decrease inthe effects of depression, would lead to increased success infinding employment.Conventional wisdom suggests that when people havea problem, the more theytake responsibility for it the sooner they will be able to resolveit. This is often not thecase with unemployment. For unemployed people, placing blame on anexternal 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 slippinginto a state of despair.Seligman’s (1975) learned helplessness model providesa combined behavioraland cognitive explanation for the experience of loss of control duringperiods ofunemployment. This model contends that the motivationto make a response to controlan outcome comes from the expectation that responding will producethat outcome.For example, if people expect that job search will producea new job then they aremotivated to look for work. However, prior experience affects theformation ofexpectations. If people learn that every contact with a prospectiveemployer does notproduce ajob offer their confidence in the success of their job search may diminishandthey may become less motivated to job search. On the other hand, they mayhave priorexperience with job search eventually resulting in employment andtherefore, theypersist in looking for work. Experience can teach people thatthey can controloutcomes in some situations but not in others. Individuals displaced fromjobs infaltering sectors of the economy may understand that they cannotstop economicchange but maintain confidence in their ability to become reemployed ina differentsector of the economy. Expectations of lack of control may generalize frommoretraumatic 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 whichoccurred inspite of their effort, commitment, and skill. People’s expectation of being successfulin12finding a new job may be threatened and they may losemotivation to search for work.However, reminding individuals of past situations in whichthey were in control andwere successful and helping them to accept objectiveand factual explanations for theirunemployment may encourage them to search for workagain.In summary, this evaluation of the Career Redirection andJob Search SkillsProgram investigated the impact of:1. the treatment on the participants’ eventual returnto work (thetreatment’s design and implementation was expectedto 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 onpeople’s job-seekingbehaviour).3. the treatment on the participants’ level of depression(an elevation inmood was expected to have a positive effect on people’sjob-seekingbehaviour).4. attribution on the eventual outcome goalof employment (a balancedview of neither taking nor placing blame was expectedto be associatedwith successful reemployment).Findings about these treatment and attribution interactionswere supplemented bydata from: (a) feedback questionnaires completed by the participantsduring theprogram, (b) telephone interviews with the participants eightweeks after theycompleted the program, and (c) in-depth interviews conductedwith a random sampleof subjects about their experiences of being disabled,unemployed and taking part in theprogram.13LimitationsThis study was designed to evaluate the effectivenessof the Career Redirectionand Job Search Skills Program in helping physically disabled adults returntoemployment. The researcher expected to increase the likelihood ofreemployment forphysically disabled adults by bolstering their self-esteem, alleviating theirdepression,and assisting them in explaining their unemployment in moreobjective, neutral terms.These changes in self-esteem, depression levels and attribution wereforecast to occurin the course of the subjects’ participation in the treatment program.The results of this research were expected to be applicableto other physicallydisabled adult populations. The fact that the experimental group was composedofWCB 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 theefficacy 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 forjobs. 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 theWorkers’Compensation Act to administer the provisions of the Act.Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant (VRC)An officer of the WCB directly responsible for the vocational assessment andjobplacement 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 individualsfor 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 injuryto 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 theirseven-year longitudinal (1980-1987) study on the psychological impactof unemployment and unsatisfactoryemployment in young Australian men and women. Theresearchers concluded thattheir findings were difficult to reconcile with thebelief that unsatisfactory employmentis preferable to unemployment. However,they recommended that their findings of theopposite impact of unsatisfactory employment againstunemployment for young menand young women be investigated further.Winefield, Tiggemann and Winefield’s (1991) analysis of theirresearch findings inlight of Jahoda’s (1979, 1980) theoretical perspective isconsistent with her challenge tosocial science researchers to work towards improvingour understanding of the impactof unemployment.UnemploymentThe decade spanning the mid 1970’s to the mid 1980’ssaw an upsurge in researchon the impact of unemployment (Borgen& Amundson 1987; Hill, 1977; Jahoda, 1982;Warr, Jackson & Banks, 1982). The research followedcase study research arising outof the Great Depression such as Jahoda, Lazarsfeld and Zeisel(1971), and quantitativeanalyses of psychosocial (Ferman & Gardner, 1979) and healtheffects (Durkheim,1951; Marshall & Hodge, 1981; Pierce, 1967).Interest in this field waned with the resurgence of theeconomy and thesubsequent decrease in unemployment. Recently, interest inunemployment hasincreased due to the effects of another recession, but perhapsmore importantly, due tothe effects of a restructuring economy. As the western world movesfrom 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 thesejobs. Thisfact, along with a commonly held belief that unemployment is causing anincrease inhealth care costs has led to a new interest in examining the impact and treatment ofunemployment. Recent studies have demonstrated the impact unemploymenthas 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 risein 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 workisan 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 anddiscipline toliving. Maslow (1968) and Toffler (1980) consider theseto be basic needs foreveryone.While the needs of the physically disabled are similarto the general population,the physically disabled face special challenges in becomingemployed (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 misconceptionsabout 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’spreconceived negativeimpressions). Thus the disabled have the same needs foremployment as the generalpopulation, but face barriers to employment that may alter their experienceof 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 researchersinterviewed 35people whose disabilities ranged from brain injury to arthritis. Their findingssuggestedthat individuals with similar disabilities do not necessarily react to unemployment inthesame 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 ontheidea 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 whentheycould not find a job. Ifthey blamed themselves theirself-esteem suffered and they haddifficulty continuing aj oh search. However, if they attributed their lack of success toexternal factors, the impact on self-esteem was minimal andthey were able to continuewith their job search. These findings indicate that the physically disabledreact tounemployment in much the same manner as the non-disabled and thatthe 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, substanceabuse and suicide (Atkins, Ferguson,& Blankenship, 1983; Dooley & Catalano, 1988; Jones, 1991; Peregoy& Schliebner,1990; Shelton, 1985). Finding ways to mitigate thereactions to this psychologicaldistress is necessary in a society that is going to continue to have high levelsofunemployment.The unemployment literature reveals several important factors regardingtheimportance of work. Western, industrialized and increasingly high-technologysocietiesplace 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 theirlives. 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 placeto meet theirneeds for primary social interaction, and as a surrogate family system.Sullivan (1972) linked Maslow’s hierarchy of needs with employmentand foundthat most people use work as a way of satisfying personal needs ranging fromsurvivalto self-actualization. Erikson (1980) suggested that productivity in the workplace is amajor contributor to healthy ego identity. If this productivity isreduced or eliminatedthrough unemployment, for example, ego identity is strained and beginsto disintegrate.This weakened ego identity can leadto feelings of inadequacy, loss, and doubting ofone’s self-worth and belonging. Erikson (1980) suggested that if this occurstheindividual 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 remainso 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 thosewho havebeen unemployed at least once in their lives die younger than those who havenot 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 overa 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 behavioursix 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 shortterm 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 tendsto focus oncertain categories of workers and some of these categories may be more vulnerabletothe negative impact of unemployment. For people employed in an unhealthyindustry,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 ontheir 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 caseswhere 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 createdaily hardshipsand personal disappointments (Spruit, 1983; Spruit, 1985). Olafssonand Svensson(1986), studying the impact of unemployment on the lifestyle changes andhealth ofadolescents, concluded that unemployment concentrates risk factorssuch 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 havehad difficultydemonstrating a causal relationship and that it may be more appropriateto say that:“Depressed persons who are inactive and pessimistic in their outlook willbeunemployed much longer or will become unemployed more readily”(p.173). Theyfurther suggested that unemployment should not be viewed as one majorlife 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, inflexiblebehaviour, 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 affectedby how they explain thesource of their job loss. People with an external locus of control are morepassive,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 interactionbetweenself and experiences (Lefcourt, 1982). Individuals with an externallocus of controltend to perceive experiences as the result of causes outside of their behaviorsandthoughts. Conversely, people with an internal locus of control make senseofexperiences in terms of their own actions and thoughts. If people do notunderstandexperiences as a result of their actions, then the experiences, eitherpositive or negative,are not effective in altering their locus of control and therefore have noimpact on theiractions.Gurney (1981) suggested that the kind of causal ascription made aboutunemployment by those who want to work can have important implicationson theirwell-being. He further stated that “their attributionabout 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 “whenwe have adisagreeable experience, or a pleasant one, we may locate its originin another person,in ourselves, or in fate”(p.358). Later Heider (1958) limited attribution to twofactors, internal or external. In interpreting how people choose amongpossible causes,attribution theorists have identified two general categories. The first category positsthe perceiver as a systematic analyst looking for covariation betweena given effect anddifferent possible causes (Kelley, 1967, 1971, 1973). The second categorizes the25perceiver as tending to seek a single, salient, explanation fora behavior (Jones & Davis,1965).Applying these two categories to predict the kind ofcausal attributionsunemployed workers would make about their unemploymentis useful. The conclusioncan be drawn that people in the second category would look fora single external cause,like the economy, and be unlikely to change their causal attributionsunless theeconomy changed. The first category suggests thatindividuals would see many causes,apply the principles of consistency anddistinctiveness (Kelley, 1973) and come up withinternal reasons for their unemployment. Aninternal focus would make it easier for anindividual to deal with unemployment and eventually becomereemployed. However,Gurney (1981) stated that this may not be the case. Hesuggested that causalattribution and locus of control are largely independent of eachother. For example,unemployed people may believe themselves to bepowerless to change theircircumstances thus exhibiting an external locus of control. However,the fact that theyare unemployed when others are not may eventually leadthem to see themselves asresponsible for their unemployment, an internal focus, andblame themselves for theirsituation. Gurney (1981) concluded that this particular combinationof an internalattribution with an external locus of control may be thecause 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). Morespecifically,unemployment is directly related to poorer self-esteem (Gurney, 1980;Shamir, 1986;Winefield & Tiggeman, 1985). Most research into the effect ofunemployment 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). WaifandJackson (1983) developed the Self-esteem Scale using items fromBachman andO’Malley’s (1977) measure, O’Malley and Bachman’s (1979) index, and the RSE(Rosenberg, 1965). The Self-esteem Scale contains a positive anda negative subscale.Warr and Jackson (1983) used their scale in a study of self-esteem andunemploymentin 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 yieldedadifferent pattern of relationships with employment status. Waif and Jackson (1983)concluded that their findings suggested that unemployment affects only someaspects ofself-perception and recommended further conceptual and empirical examinationof 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 refersto thetendency of individuals to judge themselves against their ideals, and therebydeterminesuccess and failure. Self-affection is not tied to performance and notions aboutsuccessand failure. It is concerned with personal feelings of worthiness or value. WellsandMarwell (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. Withthelong-term unemployed however, feelings of worthlessness and rejection eventuallysetin, 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 greatdeal ofacademic and public attention on the concept of personal goal (Forster, 1985).Sinceestablishing a personal goal is essential in career planning andjob 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 createdbyindividuals to organize the realities of their world. Individuals create constructs by28deciding what theme is common in two or more events. This commontheme isdetermined through a process of comparing and contrastingevents until a similarity isfound between at least two of these events. Personal constructs aredeveloped overtime, as a result of personal experience, and are formed into systems.Constructsprovide a window or lens through which people perceive andunderstand events andalso supply a mechanism for anticipating events andexperiences. For example,suppose that a woman notices that her supervisor is more irritableat the end of thework week than at the beginning of the week. She hasa construct that enables her torecognize irritability. She may also use related constructssuch 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 forinvestigating 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 ofstudy for investigating the applicationof the concept of personal construct because Kelly (1955), thecreator of personalconstruct theory, felt that vocational development “is one of the principalmeans bywhich one’s life role is given clarity and meaning”(p. 751). Construct systemsdeveloped by individuals in the course of their work experienceare called vocationalconstruct systems. Vocational construct systems might contain constructslike outdoorwork, desk jobs, high wages and low salary. Individuals woulduse these constructs toorganize and systematize their work experience and to anticipate futureemploymentexperiences. Gimenes (1990) assigned the label of vocationaldevelopment construct tothe interaction of: (a) the factors which motivate people to formvocational constructsystems, (b) the elements which prevent people from forming vocationalconstructsystems, and (c) the factors which trigger specific employmentdecisions. Since29vocational development is based on work experience and allprevious vocationaldecisions, Gimenes concluded that the construct clearlyindicated that selecting anoccupational goal is a complex process that takes time.Efforts to organize findings of the research on therelationship between aspects ofthe vocational construct system and a wide variety of careervariables led to theformulation of the structural model of vocational development (Kortas,Neimeyer &Prichard, 1992). The structural model emphasizes boththe individual variation incareer decision making and its developmentalprogression (Kortas et al., 1992). Themodel is based on the premise that individuals move throughstages of structuraldevelopment that are characterized by progressively higherlevels of integration anddifferentiation. Differentiation refersto the different dimensions ofjudgment used by aperson and integration relates to the interrelationshipamong dimensions in a system.The structural model holds that vocational maturationshould be marked by increasinglydiverse perceptions of the world of work. These diverseperceptions are organized byan overall integration that gives the system coherence anddirects evolution (Kortas eta!., 1992).In a quasi-experimental study, Kortas, Neimeyerand Prichard (1992) measuredthe relationship between the level of development ofa vocational construct system andstyles of vocational decision-making in a group of598 community college students whoranged in age from 16 to 75 years (85.5% 16 - 30 years). The majorityof 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 thelevel of integration invocational construct systems was a better predictor of decision-makingstyle than levelof differentiation. Higher levels of integration werelinked to a rational style ofdecision-making and lower levels of integration wereassociated with more dependentand intuitive styles. Lower levels of integration werealso found to be connected to30higher levels of career indecision. The investigators cautioned thattheir findingsindicated a correlation only because of the lack of rigor in their experimentaldesign.Evidence of some relationship between levelof integration in vocationalconstruct systems and career decision-making has implicationsfor the design of atreatment program that includes the identification ofskills based on previous workexperience and the selection of new job goals. Successful careerredirection mayrequire higher levels of integration in vocational construct systems.All unemployedpeople, but particularly individuals faced with thereality of having to make anoccupational change in order to be reemployed, mustreorganize their vocationalconstruct systems to incorporate both the experience of becomingunemployed and thevocational constructs that will guide their decision-makingthroughout their vocationalplanning and job search.Unplanned Job LossThe process of becoming unemployed varies accordingto the experience of eachindividual. Generally, there are two categories for classifying employmentterminationscenarios: voluntary unemployment and involuntaryunemployment. Voluntaryunemployment is understood to include activities like switchingto a new employer inthe same industry or type of business, retiring from the labour force,changing to selfemployment, and making a career change. The commonthemes in voluntaryunemployment are the worker’s selection of the timing of the terminationand theworker having a pre-determined goal for the future.Voluntary unemployment, although planned, is not withoutrisk. One of theriskier types of voluntary unemployment is career change,especially when the changerequires some form of preparation such as training. Doering andRhodes (1989) found31that the phenomenon of career change has received limited research attention. Theseresearchers undertook a qualitative study with 20 public school teachersto 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 isnotpart 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 indicatedthatcareer 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 understoodto 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 isa 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 managementstaff requiredcontribute to the displacement of workers. Displaced workers are oftennotcompetitive because of the limited transferability of their job-specific or firm-specificskills. They are at risk for negative physical and health outcomes and mayexhibitunemployment-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 ratherthan mentalhealth services.Researchers investigating the problems of displaced workers haveignored theplight of workers that are disabled through injury or disease in the course of their workcareers. Workers with employment-related disabilities and individualswith non work-related injuries can be displaced from their jobs if their work restrictionsprevent themfrom continuing to work in their pre-injury occupations. They canbe left with areduced repertory ofjob specific skills that are not transferableto occupations that arecompatible with their limitations in physical activity and therefore, endup 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 changesin theeconomy and those with disabilities who are physically unable to continueworking intheir pre-injury jobs, are cut off from the essential activity of work. Theirfinancialsecurity is threatened and their interactions with people outside of their family unit areoften greatly reduced. Financial hardship resulting from prolonged unemploymentcanlead to health problems. The obvious solution to the financial, social,and healthproblems associated with job loss is reemployment. However, researchhas shown thatunemployment can lead to poor self-evaluation in the short term and poorself-affectionin the long term. Loss of self-esteem and the associated feelings of worthlessness andrejection can make vocational decision making and job search verydifficult forunemployed people. Gordus (1986) stated that unemployed people needsupport 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 ofconsequences, 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 reportedas a positive experience byunemployed individuals (Amundson & Borgen, 1987; Borgen& Amundson, 1987).This positive reaction is not surprising whenviewed from a broad counsellingperspective because a group approach helpsjob seekers to: (a) understand otherpeople’s point of view, (b) develop social interactionskills, (c) learn to share concernsand ideas with others who face similarproblems, (d) obtain several reactions toproblems expressed, (e) receive support andencouragement from others, and (f) obtainrelevant information (Amundson& Borgen, 1980, 1987; Bailey, 1993).Desmond and Seligman (1977) also reportedthe merits of a group approach tovocational counselling with rehabilitation clientsbecause “the clients can benefit fromthe input, interaction and experiences providedby their peers” (p. 273). These authorssuggested that vocational groups usually involve participantsexploring their personalself-concept and the world of work. In the course ofthis exploration participantsassess their needs, interests, skills, abilities, and limitations. Theyalso must evaluatethe benefits ofjobs and the requirements of specificoccupations in order to makedecisions on job goals. Information and feedbackfrom other group members can behelpful in vocational decision making.The group setting can provide a realistic and supportiveenvironment for practiceofjob search tasks like completing applications and job interviews.Other groupparticipants can support job seekers in coping with theups and downs ofjob search(Desmond & Seligman, 1977; Rife & Beicher, 1993).Shulman (1984) described the group as a “mutual aidsystem” (p. 163).However, he cautioned that simply bringing people togetherto 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 efficientsystemfor a counsellor to deliver services to clients. The mutual aid process thatoccurs ingroups includes sharing of information, debate of ideas, discussion ofdifficult topics,empathy, expectations for participation, and opportunity to try out new ideasor skills.Unemployed individuals can benefit from participating in a group ledby a skilledand knowledgeable counsellor. They can gain support from knowing that theyare notalone in their struggle to become reemployed. They can learn to accept the realityoftheir job loss and gain confidence in their ability to achieve new job goals.Participationin an employment group provides people with an opportunityto 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 theuse ofgroup techniques for helping the unemployed was not accompanied by researchinto thefactors responsible for the success ofjob finding groups. To address this researchgap,Amundson and Borgen undertook a study with 77 participants (41 men; 36women;average age 34.6 years; variable educational background) who had been unemployedanaverage of eight and a half months before entering a job search group. Theresearchinterviews 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 withan openended question to elicit information about each participant’s experience of35unemployment and the subsequent questions focused onthe positive and negativeaspects of each participant’s experience with the job search group. Theresearchersfound that most participants were extremely satisfied with thegroup experience andhad difficulty thinking of anything that was negativeabout the job search group.Amundson and Borgen (1988) further organizedthe positive and negative factorsreported by the participants into the two categories oftask-orientation factors andfactors that promote support and self-esteem. The task orientationfactors related tojob search techniques, information, and practice. The support andself-esteem factorsfocused on interpersonal relations and self-concept development.The list of supportand self-esteem factors included belonging, mutualsupport and encouragement,absorbing others’ enthusiasm and success, social comparison,contribution, ventilating,positive outlook, and leadership. The authors drewa parallel between the support andself-esteem factors in this list and the developmentalfactors (support from family andfriends and participating in job search groups) identifiedin their earlier research(Amundson & Borgen, 1987; Borgen & Amundson,1987).Amundson and Borgen (1988) concluded thatthe power of the group in haltingthe downward emotional slide of unemployed people was quitestriking. They werealso impressed by the perseverance of the positive stance of thejob search groupparticipants even when they were not yet employed.The researchers reported that theunemployed participants stated that they were ableto maintain a more effective jobsearch and positive self image based on their participationin the job search group.These findings on the importance of providingsocial and self-esteem support tounemployed individuals challenges the effectivenessof treatment programs focused onjob search strategies and labour market information (Azrin& Besalel, 1980; Azrin,Flores & Kaplan, 1975; Gordus, 1986). From theresearch highlighted in this review itcan be seen that group-based counselling interventionsare an effective strategy in36assisting unemployed people back to work. A case has been made thatunemploymentaffects disabled individuals in much the same way as non-disabled people.However,the unemployment of people with disabilities is complicatedby special challengesassociated with their disabilities. Therefore, special programs are neededto helpindividuals with disabilities to become reemployed (Roessler, 1988).SummaryThis study was designed to address three specificgaps in the literature and to addto the general understanding of the treatment of unemployment. First, theliteraturereview revealed that existing treatment programs are based extensivelyon the work ofAzrin and colleagues (Azrin, Flores & Kaplan, 1975; Azrin& Besalel, 1980) whichfocused on the development and maintenance ofjob searchbehaviours. The review ofpersonal construct literature suggests that this is not sufficient. Programsdesigned toassist the unemployed return to work must also include time andmechanisms for themto rebuild their vocational construct systems. Second, the literature review identifiedalack of experimental evaluation of treatment programs andsuggested a need toexamine the assistance provided to the unemployed using trueexperimental designs andreliable, standardized instruments. Third, the literature review showedthat studies ofthe unemployed, and programs designed to help them, were focused on onlycertainpopulations. Also, the literature suggests that the evaluation oftreatment programswould be enhanced by gaining a more thorough understandingof the subjectsexperience of the treatment program through the use of qualitativemethodologies suchas phenomenology and critical incident analysis.This study was designed to evaluate a new treatmentprogram 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 theirjob search skills.2. If people experienced changes in these three areas their attitude towardsjobsearch and eventual reemployment would change, resulting ina more focused approachand positive attitude.3. This focus and attitude change would result in a successful returnto 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 neverhad a strongattachment to the workforce. This study’s population were adults who hadstrong tiesto the workforce, had become unemployed due to a traumatic injury or industrialdisease and were having difficulty returning to workbecause of the resulting disability,and who were also receiving WCB benefits while unemployed.The qualitative component of this study followed a model outlinedby Borgenand Amundson (1984) which combined critical incident analysis withphenomenology.The use of this method added richness and depth to the evaluation byencouraging 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 unemploymentandthe 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 hypothesesunderinvestigation.Design of the StudyThis study employed a Solomon four-group design. The validity ofa repeatedmeasures design is threatened by the fact that a pretest may predisposesubjects to reactin a particular way to the treatment. The Solomon design wasused 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 requiresmore effortthan some simpler designs but it is a powerful experimental design which providesatest of whether or not the pretest affects the treatment.Sixty unemployed, physically disabled workers who had been referredby 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 (0i).Group 1 thenproceeded to treatment while Group 3 waited. Group 2 received treatmentat the39same time as Group 1 but did not receive a pretest. After Groups 1 and2 hadcompleted their treatment, all four groups were tested(02).A traditional Solomonfour-group design normally stops at this point; however, since theresearcher 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 weretreated andtested again (03). This extension ftirther strengthened the designbecause it providedtwo additional tests of the effect of treatment and waiting.Figure 1Design of the StudyGroup1 ROiT02042 R T02043 RUi02T 03 044 R02T 03 04Note. R = Random Assignment; 0 = Observation; T = TreatmentEight weeks after treatment (04) all groups were contactedby telephone. Theywere asked a series of questions, and notified that the test batteryhad been mailed tothem. They were asked to complete the instruments and mail themback to theresearcher. A number of participants, previously selected, were alsoasked toparticipate in an in-depth interview and appointments werearranged with participantswho agreed to be interviewed. These interviews were analyzed usinga combination ofcritical incident and phenomenological techniques based ona refinement of Flanagan’s(1954) and Fischer’s (1979) work for research on unemployment (BorgenandAmundson, 1984). The purpose of these interviews was to gain in-depthknowledge of40the subjects’ experience of the program. Swinburne (1981)stated that “learning aboutthe consequences of unemployment entails understanding sensitivethoughts andfeelings which do not lend themselves to survey techniques, hence the need forsmallsample, in-depth studies” (p.47). Phenomenology allows people to tell theirown story,emphasizing their own values and beliefs. It allows a comprehensiverecounting of theexperience as it was lived and a further analysis of that experience and othersfor theircommon structure (Fischer, 1979).A research methodology that combines a subject’s viewpoint witha directiveinterviewing style, the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), has provento 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). Thisstudy 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 forjobsearch training by VRCs at the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) of BritishColumbia. VRCs ensured that the clients werejob ready before referral. Theresearcher screened the clients on the waitlist to ensure that they were disabledand hadno outstanding compensation issues. Subjects with unresolved compensationissues orno disability were excluded. The subjects were informedabout the research study prior41to their commencement of the Program. While the subjects could decline participationin the research component of the Career Redirection andJob Search Program, noncompletion of the actual Program was not an option since the WCB requiredthesubjects to attend the program in order to continue receiving benefits.InstrumentsBeck Depression Inventory (Beck & Beck. 1972)The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was created in1961 as a structuredinterview, but evolved into a questionnaire which was revised in 1971 (Sundberg,1992). Sundberg has described the BDI as “probably the most widelyused 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 itemsor sets of statements asfollows: (a) mood, (b) pessimism, (c) sense of failure, (d) lackof 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 Beckused a cognitivetherapy approach (Sundberg, 1992), the items were notbased on a specific theory ofdepression (Beck, Steer & Garbin, 1988). Items and item weights weredetermined 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 thecognitive-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 givesnoinformation 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 oftheinstrument without loss of reliability and validity of the inventory. These researchersrescored the inventories of 598 patients used to test the original BDI, scoring onlythe13 items from the shortened form. The short form correlated 0.96 with the longformtotal score. The short form correlated 0.61 with independent clinician ratings ofdepthof depression. This correlation was higher than the long form correlation withclinicianrating 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 formof 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 andO’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 validityforthe self-esteem instrument they used in their study of self-esteem in youngmen. Theresearchers collected their data in 1966 and 1974. Bachman and O’Malley’s10-itemindex included six items from the RSE and four items, similar in content, developedbyCobb, Brooks, Kasl and Connelly (1966). The scale contained six positive itemsandfour negative items. The self-esteem index was an unweighted mean of the 10items,with up to two missing values permitted. The index wastested 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 littleroom forimprovement on the psychological measures used in thestudy. Nevertheless, thefindings indicated that subjects were less dependent and perceivedthemselves as beingmore in control of their lives following participation inthe career redirection program.The program was effective in reducing depressionbut 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. Theresearcher concluded thatindividuals who are faced with the needto redirect their careers must develop newguidelines for making vocational decisions. Broadeningtheir knowledge ofoccupations may enhance people’s abilityto identify their transferable skills and selectnew job goals. Helping individuals to understandand accept these new guidelines mayencourage them to make rational career decisions.Future research on careerredirection programs should assess the effects of buildingconfidence, reducing stress,and acquiring the knowledge necessary for applyingrational 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 couldbeaccepted as confirmation of the construct validity of their instrument.O’Malley and Bachman (1979) looked at self-esteem data for two groups ofhighschool students. For a group of male students, the researchers used an eight-itemindexsimilar to the RSE (Rosenberg, 1965). Measures were takenfor this first group in1969. For the second group of male and female students, the researchersemployed a10-item index which contained seven items from the index usedby Bachman andO’Malley (1977). Seven items were common to both indexes. The coefficientalpha formales in the first group (0.79) was the same as the value for males in the secondgroup.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 scaleto measure how jobless peopleexplain the causes of their unemployment. He used four propositions anddevelopedtwo items for each proposition. To ensure that the items wereappropriate for bothemployed and unemployed respondents the items were general andreferred to bothgetting work and not getting work. Gurney expectedthat the respondents wouldproject their beliefs about themselves into their answers.The following four propositions were the basis for items developedfor the scale:1. The ability to get work is mainly a function of factors internalto jobseekers.2. The ability to get work is mainly a function of factors externalto jobseekers.3. The inability to get work is mainly a function of factorsinternal to jobseekers.4. The inability to get work is mainly a function of factorsexternal to jobseekers.Gurney created a pool of items based on these four propositionsthat includedstatements like: (a) it is mainly a matter of luck whethera school leaver gets a job ornot, and (b) unemployed kids haven’t tried hard enough and don’tknow how to sellthemselves. Two items were selected for each proposition, randomlyordered andpresented in a format with a five-point Likert scale. Possible scores foreach itemranged from 1 to 5 with lower scores representing a more external attribution.Gurney (1981) tested the questionnaire ina 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 contributedto this modest reliability.46Gurney revised the questionnaire by adding items and eliminating ambiguitiesdiscovered during the cross-sectional study. The extended version containedthreeitems for each of the four causal propositions. The revised questionnairewas 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 -.24to .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 measurehow peopleperceive their explanations for the causes of events. He developeda questionnaire thatconsisted of descriptions of eight different achievement situations, which includedeither a successful or an unsuccessful outcome. Each description was followedby 12semantic differential scales that posed questions about locus of causality,stability ofeffort, and controllability factors. Locus of causality was defined asreferring towhether the cause was something about the person making the attribution(internal) orsomething outside of the attributer (external). Stability was defined asreferring 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 affectedbysomeone, either the actor or other people and an uncontrollable cause wasone thatcould not be changed or affected by anyone. Therefore, both internaland 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 stabilityitems. He concluded thatthe three items for each of these two factors couldbe considered subscales, and thatthese two subscales were reliable. Russell tested the validity of theindividual semanticdifferential scales by completing an analysis of variance on eachitem. He found thatthe locus of causality main effect accounted for 46-59% of the variance inthe internaland external cause items, and that the locus of causality itemsadequately differentiatedbetween internal and external causes. Russell also determined thatthe 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 ofcausality dimension so herevised the controllability items.Russell (1982) tested the revised nine-item Causal DimensionScale on a secondgroup of 99 undergraduates (33 females; 61 males) usinga design identical to his firststudy. He obtained an alpha coefficient of 0.867 for the locus of causalitysubscale and0.83 7 for the stability subscale in his second study. For the controllabilitydimensionRussell obtained an alpha coefficient of 0.730. He foundthat all three subscales wereinternally consistent.Russell (1982) reported preliminary evidence for the constructvalidity of theCausal Dimension Scale by relating initial findings ofstrong relationships betweenscores on the locus of causality subscale and affective reactionsto success and failure.This relationship was consistent with predictions based on Weiner’s(1979) model ofattribution categories. Russell reported that he had established thevalidity of theCausal Dimension Scale for assessing perceptions ofcauses in particular or isolatedsituations but the validity of the instrument for evaluating causaldimensions in realworld settings where situational factors come intoplay remained untested.48Questionnaire BatteryThese four instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory (shortform), the S elf-esteem Scale, the Attributions about Unemployment Scale, and theCausal DimensionScale were used recently in a national, longitudinalstudy on the effects ofunemployment, employment and post secondary education on psychological well-being.The study was funded by the Social Sciences andHumanities 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 thisstudy theresearcher created an opportunity for strengthening the research findingsabout thevalidity of these instruments for the assessment of causality in unemployed populations(Feather & Barber, 1983).Implementation ChecklistThe implementation checklist (Appendix H) consisted of categories whicharedescriptive of the interventions implemented by the instructors. Theinterventions wererated by this instrument to determine whether the treatment programwas deliveredconsistently to all subjects. An intervention was definedas a statement of direction andobjectives of each of the program modules. The observing instructor completedthisform independently at the end of each module segment. An independentrater 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 onthefollowing: (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). Thesedata were used to accuratelydescribe the sample. This questionnaire was administeredbefore 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. Theprogramparticipants were asked if they were employed, newly employedor had otheremployment status (e.g., school). This interview wasconducted eight weeks after thetreatment.Interview QuestionsThe interview questions (Appendix K) were presented to a randomsample ofsubjects who completed the treatment program. The questions weredesigned to givethe subjects an opportunity to recount their experiences of being disabled, needingtochange jobs as a result of their disability, and participating in the treatmentprogram.All but one interview were in-person interviews; the remaining interviewwasconducted 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 employedatthe WCB who had extensive experience in teaching job search programsand in careercounselling. One instructor (primary instructor) directed the program activities and thesecond instructor (observing instructor) ensured that the program waspresented asintended by helping the primary instructor stay focused, by clarifyingobjectives, 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 individualswillbenefit 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 hadsuccessfullydemonstrated job finding skills at some level. Consequently, they neededto focus ontheir existing skills and on learning to apply them in looking for a newjob. Therefore,the emphasis of the treatment program was career redirection not justjob search skills.This focus required a client-centered approach to teaching that concentratedon 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 afternoon, andhomework assignments. The first part of the treatment program, calledSetting 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 treatmentprogram,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 updatedto reflectthe general employment histories and geographical orientation ofthe participants.The Setting New Career Pathways (Pathways) section was divided intotwo, five-day segments. The objectives for the Pathways section were that participantswouldacquire the knowledge and skills for: (a) self-assessment, (b) developing strategiesforeffective decision making, and (c) developing an action planto 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 deliveredover fiveconsecutive days in either the morning or the afternoon. Day 1 started with anorientation to the program and an introductory activitydesigned to provide forpersonal introductions among the participants and discussion of theirexpectations. Themain focus for Day 1 was the handout The Wheel: Self-Assessment for theLabourMarket (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 settingcareergoals 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 individualmustconsider before setting a career goal. Participants were given the handout My UniqueWheel (Unique Wheel) which contained an inner circle with space to write careergoals52and an outer circle divided into eight sections withspace 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 UniqueWheelwould be accomplished as the participants completed theself-assessment activitiesduring Days 2-5. Participants were asked to complete the work experienceandeducational background sections of their Unique Wheel as their homeworktask.During Day 2 the participants discussed their feelings about beingunemployedand were introduced to the portfolio of marketable assets that wereidentified in thesections of the Unique Wheel. Participants completed the skills andcompetenciessection of the Unique Wheel. The instructor defined theconcept of skill and explainedthe concept of transferable skill. Participants were askedto identify and analyze atleast two personal successes stories in order to create a list of their transferableskills astheir homework assignment. The instructor also discussed the personal stylesection ofthe Unique Wheel and distributed the Individual Style Survey (Amundson,1989)booklets with instructions for completion. Participants wererequested 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 askedto write aparagraph describing their personal characteristics and transferable skills.Theinstructor referred to the Wheel and introduced the next marketableasset 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 explainedthe role thatvalues play in career decision-making. Participants completed thehandouts WorkValues Checklist and Prioritizing Work Values. Participants recorded their most53important work values on their Unique Wheel. The instructor led theparticipants in areview of the self appraisal and three appraisals completedby others in the IndividualStyle Survey and helped the participants to identify their own personal style.Theinstructor distributed the handout Using Your Individual Style in CareerDecisionMaking and Job Search.During Day 5 the participants began to identify potential career options inlight oftheir marketable assets which they had recorded on theirUnique Wheels during theprevious four days. The instructor distributed the handout Main ConsiderationsforCareer Choice. The participants were requested to complete the rankordering of theirmain considerations for career choice as their homeworkassignment.Day 6 was the start of Week 2 which focused on career exploration.Week 2 wasdelivered in five, three-hour sessions which were presentedover five consecutive daysin either the morning or the afternoon. Week 2 was thesecond section of Setting NewCareer Pathways.Day 6 began with a discussion of the current labour market trendsin BritishColumbia and Canada. The instructor distributed theCurrent Labour Market Trendshandout. The instructor outlined a strategy for the participants touse in accessing thelabour market: (a) action planning, (b) researching, and (c) decisionmaking andexplained that techniques relating to this strategy wouldbe discussed in followingprogram sessions. The instructor led the participants in brainstormingideas onresources that were available to them for researching thelabour market and outlinedguidelines for the participants to follow in their labour market research.The instructordistributed the Occupational Assessment and Company Assessmenthandouts. Theparticipants were asked to complete a library research assignment for homework.Day 7 began with a review of the participants’ experiences incompleting theresearch assignment. The instructor presented information on thebarriers to decision54making and described three typical styles of decision making. The participantswereasked 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 onestep at a timeand changes with experience. The participants were requestedto 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 formaneuvering inthe labour market. The participants took part in a role-play of an informationalinterview in order to gain experience in giving and receiving feedback. Forhomeworkthe participants were asked to complete their selection of career options andmainconsiderations for career decision making.Day 9 began with a presentation from the instructor on a systematic approachtoproblem 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 individualaction plans to thegroup and to identify the barriers that they may encounter in followingtheir actionplans. The instructor distributed the Contract handout and asked the participantstowrite down a contract for initiating activity on their action plans. Participants werealso requested to list strengths or insights that would assistthem in completing theircontracts. The session ended with the participants completing an evaluationof theprogram.The second part of the treatment program was calledJob 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 usethegroup 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 developinga 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 groupbased ontheir needs for information and skill development related to the strategies inthese 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 employercontacts. 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 theparticipant&experience in using the techniques for developingjob leads that were presented on Day11. Then, the instructor moved on to a presentation on thetypes of resumes anddistributed handouts to illustrate different kinds of resumes.The participants worked inpairs to write their resumes using guidelines in handoutsdistributed by the instructor.The instructor reviewed the resumes as they were completed.For participants who haddifficulty writing a resume the instructor scheduled appointmentsto provide individualassistance. The instructor explained the importanceof covering letters in job searchand distributed samples of covering letters. Theparticipants divided into groups anddrafted covering letters for sample job advertisementsprovided by the instructor. Theinstructor gave the participants guidelines for completingan application form and theparticipants discussed strategies for completing difficult questionson application forms.The instructor gave the participants application forms whichwere to be completed as ahomework assignment. Participants were also askedto complete their resumes.Day 13 focused on preparing for and practicing forthe job interview.Participants watched and discussed a videotaped modelinterview featuring theinstructor and another staff member. The instructordistributed The InterviewPlanningForm and Sample of a Completed Interview PlanningForm to the participants as aguide for the discussion. The instructor showed theparticipants two additionalvideotaped model interviews illustrating actors in an informal anda formal interview.The participants critiqued the interviews commenting on thepositive behaviors andattitudes demonstrated by the job seekers and the differences inthe structure of the two57interviews. The instructor distributed handouts relatingto participating in a jobinterview, responses to typical interviewquestions and analyzing a videotapedinterview. The participants worked in pairsto create interview scenarios for eachmember of the pair. The instructor attemptedto pair participants with similar jobobjectives. The participants were requestedto complete and practice their interviewscenarios for homework so they would be preparedto 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 interviewerand one of theparticipants, who was not being interviewed at that time, operatedthe video camera.The interviewer used the participant’s resume and completedapplication form togenerate interview questions. Immediately after the mockinterviews the participantsevaluated their own performance and the other membersof the group gave feedback tothe participant who has just been interviewed. The instructor ensuredthat positivefeedback was given initially to make the participantsmore receptive to feedback. Theinstructor explained the importance of the job seeker maintainingcontact with theemployer after the interview and initiated a discussion onfollow-up techniques. Theinstructor distributed handouts giving examples of follow-upletters. The day endedwith a debriefing with the participants about their experienceof taking part in the jobsearch group.ProceduresPrior to the beginning of the study, VRCs wereasked 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. Groups2 and 4 were not pretested.Groups 1 and 2 then proceededto treatment while Groups 3 and 4 waited. Thesubjects were not inconvenienced by this delay since they weremaintained on WCBbenefits during the wait and experienced no undue financialhardship. The researcherset the goal of 15 clients for each group but the final numbers for theindividual 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. Thegroups were slightly unbalancedbecause two subjects declined to participate in the program andeight subjectswithdrew while the program was in progressfor a variety of reasons. Clients wereinformed of their selection and the requirements ofparticipation 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 followingtreatment. Groups 3and 4 were tested at the same time, just prior to theirtreatment. This procedureallowed the researcher to assess the effects of the preteston treatment. Groups 3 and 4then proceeded to treatment and were tested again uponcompletion of treatment. Thisstrategy allowed the researcher to assess the effects ofthe waiting period on theoutcomes.At the end of each section of the treatment program thesubjects were asked tocomplete a short questionnaire to convey their experienceof participating in each partof the program. The questionnaires for the first three sectionsof the programcontained the following items (Appendices D, E, and F):1. Please read the following items and circlea number on the five point scale.2. Please write down your overall impression of thelast five days of theprogram.3. Please write down any suggestions you have forchanging this part of the59program.4. If there is anything that I have not asked you about that you thinkIshould know about please write it down below.The subjects were requested to complete a fourth questionnaireto report theirexperience of participating in the entire program. The final questionnairecontainedthe following items (Appendix G):1. Now that you have completed the program please take a momentto rate theentire program. Before you begin, please think backover 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 anypart 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 anecdotaldata to the quantitativefindings.Eight weeks after completion of the program each participant was contactedbytelephone. Three things occurred during this contact. First, thesubjects were asked toanswer up to five questions from the following list (AppendixI):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 negativelyto questions 1,2, and 3. Second, the subjects were notified that the instrumentshad been mailed tothem. They were asked to complete the instruments and mail them backto theresearcher. Third, a number of subjects, previously randomly selected, wereasked 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 inthestudy.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 askedtocomplete the feedback questionnaires (Appendices D, E, F, and G) and theobservinginstructor 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 investigatorrefined theprogram content based on the results of the pilot. Adjustments were madeto the HowIt Feels to be Unemployed and Getting Off the Roller Coaster modules andthe order ofthe modules in the first two days of the Job Search section of the program wasalteredto 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 andinstructor61effects; (b) an analysis of treatment effects, (c) an analysis of theeight week follow-updata, and (d) an analysis of descriptive data. The SPSS program wasused to computereliabilities and to calculate inferential statistics.The data from the interviews were analyzed following the modeldeveloped 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 ona ratingsheet developed by Borgen and Amundson (1984).(b) Complete a reliability check of the rating sheet categories and thenumber of incidents recorded. This was computedby having a vocationalrehabilitation professional, not involved with the research, placea selection of the dataon the rating sheets and compare it to that done by theresearcher. A 90% agreementrate was considered acceptable.3. (a) Sort emotional shift incidents by themes therebyestablishing categories ofthese incidents.(b) Complete a reliability check of the established categories.Another vocational rehabilitation professional was askedto 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 bya 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 wouldbe no difference in the mean scoresbetween the pretest and non pretest groups on the followingmeasures: (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 wouldnot 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 thatthishypothesis would not be supported. It was expected that the participantswould showan improvement on all of the scales.Hypothesis 2It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in themean scores of the:(a) Beck Depression Inventory, (b) Self-Esteem Scale, (c) Gurney’s (1981) AttributionScale, and (d) Causal Dimension Scale between the treatment andcontrol groups atTime 2. It was anticipated that the participants in the treatmentgroup would show63significantly more improvement on these measures than the participants in the controlgroup.Hypothesis 3It was hypothesized that gains made during treatment would notbe maintainedby the eight week follow-up. The literature is relatively silent regarding themaintenance of gains made during treatment. It was expected that thishypothesiswould not be supported and that any gains made during treatment wouldbe maintainedeight weeks post-treatment.64CHAPTER 4RESULTSIntroductionThis chapter opens with a description of the sample anda report on the researchprocedures. The results of the analyses of the tests of the hypothesesare thenpresented, followed by the analysis of the participants’ evaluationof the treatmentprogram, the analysis of the eight-week telephone interviews andthe analysis of the in-depth interviews. The chapter concludes witha summary of the results.Subject CharacteristicsOf the 44 subjects who completed the pretest and posttestmeasures, 35(79.5%) were male and 9 (20.5%) were female. This ratiois similar to the gender ratiofor the total number of compensation claims acceptedby 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 consistedof 11 males and two females;Group 2, six males and two females; Group 3, nine males andtwo females; Group 4,nine males and three females. The subjects ranged inage from 26 to 58 years with anaverage age of 40.9 years. Group 1 had an averageage of 42.2 years; Group 2, 41.4years; Group 3, 40.5 years; and Group 4, 39.5 years. Theeducation level of thesubjects ranged from 6 to 14 years with an average of 10.8 years. Group1 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 following11categories: 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%). Threelevelsof 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 employedin 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 beenin these jobsfor an average of 9.3 years, ranging froma 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 beinginvited to attend each of the fourgroups, for a projectedNof 60. Due to the nature of the location of the treatmentprogram, the subjects were given the choice of participating in theresearch by takingpart in the treatment program and completing the instruments, or justtaking part in thetreatment program. Fifty-three subjects elected to consider participatingin 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 inthe program.The remaining eight completed the instruments. Since the instrumentswere completedconfidentially the researcher did not have an opportunityto inquire about the subjects’66reasons for not participating in the research. Group 3 began with 12subjects, one ofwhom dropped out. The remaining 11 completed theinstruments. Group 4 began with15 subjects, of which 12 completed the instruments. Therefore, ofthe 53 subjects whoconsidered participating in the research, 44 completed the instruments.Reliability of the InstrumentsReliability coefficients were calculated for the four measuresused for thepretest and posttest analyses. Internal consistency reliabilities of pretest scoresfor thethree subscales of the Causal Dimension Scale and the totalscores of the Attributionabout Unemployment Scale, the Self-Esteem Scale and the BeckDepression Inventoryare given in Table 1. The combined pretest scores for Groups 1 and 3 wereused.Table 1Reliabilities for the Test Measures alpha)Instrument CDS/I CDS\S CDS\C ATTRTB SELF-ESTBDICronbach’salpha .85 .77 .64 .97 .98.89No. of items 3 3 3 12 913Note. 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 femaleswastested. Independent t-tests were conducted at posttest comparing the pooled resultsofmales with the pooled results of females. The analyses showed no significantdifferences between males and females in the mean scores on all of theinstruments.Table 2T-test Results for Gender EffectsCD S/I CD S/S CD S/C ATTRIB SELF-ESTBDIt-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 consistentlyto all groups.An implementation check was conducted to determine if the treatment wasimplemented according to the program guidelines. Interventions were rated usingtheimplementation checklist (Appendix H). A second observing instructor waspresentduring the entire program and rated the presentation program on the checklist.A third,trained, independent rater was present during two, randomly selected days ofeachweek of the program and rated the implementation of the program on the same68checklist. A total of 424 interventions were evaluatedby this rater. These ratings werecompared with the observing instructo?s ratings for the sameperiod.Of the 848 (424 X 2) interventions, 13 (1.5%) were codedto reflectdisagreement between the raters. The two raters agreed on 835of the interventionsrated (98.5% agreement). Interrater reliability was then calculatedat .93 using Cohen’s(1960) kappa statistic. This statistic is designedto measure the amount of agreementbetween two raters and corrects for the proportion of agreementexpected by chancealone. These results indicate that the programwas implemented with a high degree ofconformity.Analyses of Treatment EffectsIn this section, the means and standard deviations for all measures arepresentedfirst (Table 3). Results of tests of the hypotheses are then described, followedby theanalysis of the subjects’ evaluation of the treatment, and analysis of theeight weekfollow-up interviews. The section concludes with the results of theanalysis 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 1M6.15 4.62 5.50SD 4.56 4.54 5.01n 13 13 669Group 2M5.38 6.717.01 4.7913 8 7Group 3M7.64 8.09 8.00 9.75SD 5.46 6.60 10.187.3211 11 118Group 4M5.50 4.17 2.714.28 4.47 1.3815 12 12 7Self-Esteem ScaleTime 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5Group 1M24.62 25.69 26.174.09 3.30 1.7213 13 6Group 2M23.25 24.43SD 2.61 2.3013 8 7Group 3M25.36 27.18 25.27 27.75SD 4.15 3.57 1.904.27n 11 11 11 870Group 4M25.83 28.33 24.295.32 4.19 3.25n 15 12 127Attribution about Unemployment ScaleTime 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5Group 1M30.54 31.31 34.50SD 4.46 6.05 7.9913 13 6Group2M32.25 31.723.90 2.6913 8 7Group 3M33.27 32.09 31.91 32.004.45 2.91 4.72 3.02n 11 11 11 6Group4M33.17 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 1M13.23 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 Time5Group 1M10.62 13.23 11.004.52 5.90 6.5413 13 6Group 2M12.25 9.57SD 3.81 5.0913 8 7Group 3M10.55 8.91 10.1810.005.05 3.56 4.02 5.9811 11 11 818.864.71715.826.571113.835.491216.635.15816.145.40773Group 4M9.83 10.33 15.71SD 6.19 5.766.2115 12 12 7Pretest HypothesisIt was hypothesized that there would be no difference in the mean scores onallof 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 Group4(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 sigEffectGroup4(=l2) betweensizemeansBeck 2.59 1.13 21 .272.48Self-esteem 1.35 .71 21 .488.30Attribution -1.08 -.5721 .574 -.25CDS/I -.67 -.3521 .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 andnon-pretest groups. Thehypothesis that pretesting did not predispose subjectsto react differently to thetreatment was therefore accepted.Hypothesis 1It was hypothesized that the mean scores of all four groups would notdifferbetween 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 and4 comparing pretest andposttest means. Effect size was calculated by taking the difference of the pooledmeans75of 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 EffectsizebetweenmeansGroup 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 sigEffect 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-tailSig Effect SizebetweenmeansGroup 1 2.62 1.64 12.128 .50Group 3 1.27 1.5310 .157 .34Group 4 .50 .19 11.854 .08Note. Positive effect sizes indicate more control.As can be seen from the above results, significant findingswere 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 themean results for all of the groupsfor each of the scales and conduct t-tests comparingpretest 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-tailsig 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) revealedthreesubjects with extreme changes in their scores. Further investigation revealedthat allthree of these subjects had serious personal crises during thetreatment program. Whenthese scores were removed, further t-tests indicated that the differencebetween themeans on this measure was significant (Table 5c).Table ScAdjusted Beck Depression Inventory ResultsDifference t-value df 2-tail Sig EffectSizebetweenmeansBeck -1.82 -2.58 32.015 -.46Note: Negative effect size indicates a lowering of depression aftertreatment.Hypothesis 1, which stated that the mean scores of all four groupswould 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 overallimpact on this scale.79Hypothesis 1 was not rejected for all groups on the Self-esteemScale, theAttribution about Unemployment Scale and all subscales of theCausal DimensionScale.Given the liberal alpha resulting from comparing six measures itwas necessaryto guard against the possibility of making a Type 1 error. Consequently, theresearcherdivided that alpha (.05) by six (the number of measures)to establish a new alpha of.008. As P equaled .015 on thet-test, Hypothesis 1 was not rejected on the BDI for allgroups. However, if one had used a one-tailedtest, 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 sixinstruments (theexceptions were Attribution and the CDS/S) were in a favourabledirection (e.g.,decreased depression and increased self-esteem). However, the effect sizes forthesefour measures were small, averaging about .20. Toadequately guard against making aType 2 error requires increasing the power of the experiment. With anobserved effectsize of approximately .20, an N of 50 per group (an overallNof 200) would berequired to begin showing statistical significance on these measures (Glass& Hopkins,1984). An N of this size would be difficult to establish giventhe problems in accessinga recently unemployed physically disabled population.Hypothesis 2It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in the meanscores of allof the instruments between the Treatment and Control groupsat Time 2.80Independent t-tests were conducted between the TreatmentGroup (Groups 1 &2) and the Control Group (Groups 3 & 4) at Time 2. Theresults 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-tailsig 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 InternalandStability subscales of the Causal Dimension Scale.Hypothesis 2 was rejected for the Controllability subscaleof the CausalDimension Scale. The Treatment Group perceived thatthey had more control of theirlives following treatment than did the Control Group.81Hypothesis 3It was hypothesized that gains made during treatmentwould not be maintainedat the eight week follow-up.Dependent t-tests were conducted on all dependentmeasures at T2 and T4 forGroups 1 and 2, and at T3 and T5 for Groups 3 and 4. Theresults of this analysis arepresented in Table 7.Table 7T-test Results for Posttest/Post-posttest MeasuresGroup 1 Difference t-value df2-Tail Sig Effect SizebetweenmeansBeck .00 .00 5 1.000Self-esteem .00 .00 5 1.000Attribution -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 .0881.07Self-esteem 1.71 2.30 6 .061.75Attribution .00 .00 6 1.000.0CDS/I -6.29 -1.73 6 .135-1.19CDS/S 7.14 2.00 6 .0931.2982CDS/C -1.71 -.61 6 .565-.43Group 3 Difference t-value df2-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 71.00 .00Group 4 Difference t-value df 2-TailSig 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 .2621.0As can be seen from the above results the lack of significantt-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 Scaleindicated that this group’s scoresincreased significantly on these measures. These resultsshowed 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 groupson eachmeasure at posttest and post-posttest. The results of this analysisare 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 thatgains made duringtreatment would not be maintained at eight week follow-up,was accepted for the BeckDepression Inventory, the Self-esteem Scale, the AttributionsAbout UnemploymentScale and the Controllability subscale of the CausalDimension 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 therewould be no differences in the meanscores on all of the above instruments betweenpretest and non-pretest groups. Thishypothesis was accepted as no significant differences werefound. This confirms thatthe pretest had no effect on the eventualtreatment outcome.Hypothesis 1 was rejected on one measure. This hypothesispredicted thatthere would be no differences in the mean scores of all fourgroups 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, therewere no significant differencesin self-esteem, attribution or causation.Hypothesis 2 was also rejected on one measure. Thishypothesis predicted thatthere would be no difference in the mean scores of theTreatment and Control Groupson all four measures. Treatment was foundto be effective in increasing the subjects’sense of control over their lives.Hypothesis 3 predicted that the gains made during treatmentwould not bemaintained at the eight week follow-up. Hypothesis3 was rejected on the InternalCausation and Stability subscales of the Causal Dimension Scale.Significant changeswere noted in the scores for the internal causes and stabilitysubscales, but there was nochange in the scores for the scale relating to havinga sense of control over one’sunemployment. The subjects tended to revert to acceptingstable, internal reasons fortheir unemployment. Gains made during treatment onthe depression measure weremaintained at follow-up. There were no significant changes inthe scores on themeasures of self-esteem and attributions about unemployment.85Analysis ofFeedback QuestionnairesEvery participant in the four research groups was asked to completea feedbackquestionnaire at the conclusion of each section of the Program. As well, alltheparticipants were requested to fill out a questionnaire to rate the overall programat theend of Week 3. The respondents completed the questionnairesanonymously. Thequestionnaires were designated Feedback 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively(Appendices D, E,F, & G). The ratings for the program modules and the responsesto the open-endeditems contained within each questionnaire have been summarizedfor all four researchgroups.Feedback 1This questionnaire requested ratings on the self-assessment modulesthat made upthe first five days of the treatment program. Full completion of thequestionnairerequired rating a total of 13 program modules, giving an overall rating of the firstfivedays 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 andthe 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 ratedas veryhelpful by more than 25% of the respondents. These four modules were:(a)marketable assets, (b) discovering significant others, (c) discoveringpersonal 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 inDays 1 to 5% of Respondents Who Chose RatingModule N 1 23 4 5 3 +4+5Introductory exercises 45 6.7 64.413.3 15.6 93.3Norms and expectations 45 15.6 60.015.6 8.9 84.5The wheel 45 2.2 17.8 42.222.3 15.6 80.1Joblosscycle 44 2.3 13.6 45.522.7 15.9 84.1Marketable assets 45 11.1 28.933.3 26.7 88.9Discovering skills 44 11.415.9 50.0 22.7 88.6Individual style survey 45 13.3 33.333.3 20.0 86.6Self-directed search 44 2.3 9.1 38.6 29.520.5 88.6Discovering values 44 6.827.3 43.2 22.7 93.2Discovering significant others 439.3 27.9 37.2 25.9 91.0Discovering personal style 456.7 28.9 35.6 28.9 93.4Discovering career options 45 2.2 8.9 28.928.9 31.1 88.9Art of putting it all together 45 4.5 46.728.9 20.0 95.6Days 1 - 5 45 2.2 2.2 42.235.5 17.7 95.4Analysis of Open-ended QuestionsOverall impression question.A total of 37 respondents answered the questionnaire item relatingto 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 programtopics, (b) motivation and confidence,(c) general overall benefit, and (d) program delivery.Mixed impressions were reportedby five respondents and only three respondentsgave negative impressions. In general,the respondents had a positive impressionof the self-assessment section of theprogram. They cited increased understandingof their personal experiences and fhtureoptions and improved motivation andconfidence as the reasons for their positivefeelings.Changes question.Thirty of the 45 potential respondentsto this question made no suggestions forchange in the self-assessment section of the program.Although 14 respondents dididentify items for change, there was no patternto their suggestions and somesuggestions were contradictory. For example, one respondentrecommended that moretime be given to introductions and getting acquaintedon the first day but two otherrespondents suggested that time be devotedto outlining vocational rehabilitationguidelines and personal concerns about the compensation systemon the first day. Thisfact led the researcher to conclude that the changessuggested were indicative ofindividual ideas that were not shared by the respondentsas a group.Other information question.The final item in this questionnaire gavethe respondents the opportunity toreport any other information that they wanted to giveto the researcher. A total of fourrespondents answered this item but again there was nopattern to their replies. Forinstance, one respondent answered that the instructor’seffectiveness in meetingparticipants’ needs would be improved by having detailedinformation about theirhistories but another respondent simply replied “everything’scool”.88Feedback 2This questionnaire asked for ratings on the ninecareer exploration modules thatconstituted Days 6 to 10 of the program. In additionto rating the program modules,respondents were requested to give an overall ratingto the second five days of theprogram and to answer three questions relating to overall impression,suggestions forchange, and any other relevant information. The ratingscale for Feedback 2 wasidentical to the scale on Feedback 1. Table 10 givesa summary of the respondent&ratings for the nine modules and the second fivedays of the program.Eight of the nine program modules were ratedas helpful to very helpful by atleast 77% of the respondents. The field trip/library module was ratedas helpful to veryhelpful by 69.8% of the respondents. Three moduleswere rated as very helpful by20% of the respondents: (a) decision making, (b) overcoming barriers,and (c) actionplanning. Overall, 90.9% of the respondents rated thecareer exploration section of theprogram as helpful to very helpful.Table 10Summary ofRespondents’ Ratings for Program Modulesin Days 6 to 10% ofRespondents Who Chose RatingModule N 1 2 3 45 3+4+5The changing labour market 45 4.415.6 53.3 15.6 11.1 80.0Accessing the labour market 45 4.4 11.1 46.724.4 13.3 84.4Research 45 13.3 42.226.6 17.8 86.6Field trip/library 43 9.3 20.9 41.9 16.311.6 69.889Decision making 45 22.2 37.820.0 20.0 77.8Communication skills 45 2.28.9 55.6 15.6 17.8 89.0Information interviews 45 2.213.3 37.7 28.9 17.8 84.4Overcoming barriers 44 2.320.5 43.2 13.7 20.5 77.4Actionpianning 44 13.3 54.511.4 20.5 86.4Days 6 - 10 44 2.3 6.8 40.920.5 29.5 90.9Analysis of Open-ended OuestionsOverall impression question.A total of 19 respondents answered the questionnaire item pertainingto eachparticipant’s overall impression ofDays 6 to 10 of the program. Positiveimpressionswere reported by 12 (63.2%) of the respondents to thisquestion. The positiveimpressions referred to (a) benefit from specific topics, and(b) general, overall benefit.Mixed impressions were reported by five respondentsand two respondents reportednegative impressions. Generally, the respondents hada positive impression of thecareer exploration section of the program. They reportedimprovement in theirdecision making and research skills as the reasons fortheir positive impressions.Changes question.Thirty-seven of the potential 45 respondents to this questionmade nosuggestions for change in the career exploration sectionof the program. In fact, tworespondents specified that no changes be made in Days6 to 10. The recommendationsfor change given by eight respondents were random, personal commentsthat did not fitinto any cohesive pattern.90Other information question.A total of four respondents answered the final item on this questionnairewhichgave participants the chance to report any other information thatthey wanted to give tothe researcher. These responses repeated earlier suggestions forchange in the programschedule and location. None of these comments referredto 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 forthe third segment of theprogram and to respond to three questions relating toa general impression of the jobsearch section of the program, suggestions for change, and any other informationthatthe respondent wanted to give to the researcher. This questionnaire containedthe samefive point rating scale.The nine modules in Days 11 to 14 were rated helpful to very helpfulby a strongmajority (84% or higher) of the respondents to this questionnaire. Fivemodules weregiven very helpful ratings by 30% or better of the respondents: (a) writingthe 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 theinterview(31.8%). Overall, the job search section of the program was rated as helpfulto veryhelpful by 93.2% of the respondents to this questionnaire. Table 11 givesa summaryof the ratings for the modules in Days 11 to 14.91Table 11Summary ofRespondents’ Ratings for Program Modules in Days 11to 14% of respondents Who Chose RatingModule N 1 23 4 5 3 +4+5Settingthestage 45 2.2 6.6 60.015.6 15.6 91.2Getting job leads 46 2.213.1 37.0 26.1 21.8 84.9Writing the resume 462.2 2.2 28.3 28.3 39.2 95.8Preparing the covering letter 46 2.22.2 39.2 23.9 32.6 95.7Completing the application form 46 4.3 8.6 43.523.9 19.6 93.5Preparing forthe interview 46 2.26.5 26.1 26.1 39.1 91.3Practising for the interview 42 2.4 7.1 26.226.2 38.1 90.5Feedbackontheinterview 44 2.36.8 36.4 22.7 31.8 90.9Final debriefing 44 2.3 9.1 22.7 40.925.0 88.6Days 11 - 14 44 4.5 2.322.7 27.3 43.2 93.2Analysis of Open-ended QuestionsOverall impression question.Eighteen respondents answered this question for Feedback3. Positiveimpressions were reported by 15 (83.3%) respondents.The positive impressionsreferred to: (a) general overall benefit, (b) benefit fromspecific topics, and (c)motivation. Three respondents reported mixed impressions. Therespondents had apositive impression of the job search section of the program. Theydescribed the jobsearch section as helpful, educational and beneficial.92Change question.Thirty-five of the 46 potential respondents to this questionon Feedback 3 madeno suggestions for change to the job searchsection of the program. Again, tworespondents stated that no changes were necessaryin Days 11 to 14. The suggestionsfor changes made by the remaining nine respondents relatedto adjustments in programdelivery, not content.Other information ciuestion.A total of seven respondents answered the last item inFeedback 3 which gavethe respondents an opportunity to report any additionalinformation to the researcherbut their responses had very little in common and did notadd any new information.Feedback 4The participants were asked to complete Feedback 4immediately after theyanswered Feedback 3. On Feedback 4 the respondentswere requested to give anoverall rating for the complete 14 days of the programand to respond to threequestions relating to their overall impression of theentire program, suggestions forchange to any part of the program, and any other informationthat they wanted to giveto the researcher. The same five point rating scale was included in thisquestionnaire.The full 14 day program was rated as helpful to very helpfulby 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 23 4 5 3+4+5Days 1 - 14 46 2.2 4.3 32.626.1 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 fhll14 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 participantsgave newideas for adjustment. One respondent recommendeda reshuffling of the order ofpresentation for the modules. Another respondent suggested that reviewingcoursecontent both at the end of the day and the beginning of the next day wasunnecessary.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 andJob Search SkillsProgram helpful, interesting, and informative. Thirty of the 31 specific topicmodulesin the Program were rated as helpful to very helpfulby 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 theseareas: (a)program location, (b) scheduling of classes, (c) amount of individualconsultationbetween the instructor and participants, (d) adding an explanation of WCBvocationalrehabilitation guidelines early in the program, (e) increasing coachingon interviews,and (f) repetition of topics covered both at the end ofeach class and at the beginning ofthe subsequent class. The respondents commented on thebenefit of effectiveinstruction for their experience of participating in the program.Eight Week Follow-upAt eight weeks following the conclusion of the treatment program allparticipantswere contacted by telephone. The purpose of this contact was to askeightemployment status and general feedback questions (Appendix I) andto arrange for anin-depth follow-up interview. Of the 46 potential candidates for thesequestions theresearcher were able to contact 42.95Analysis of these questions showed that five (10.9%) wereemployed; 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 engagedin any return to work activity.There were 4 (8.7%) no comments.Analysis of the unemployment attribution questionrevealed that 12 (46%) of thesubjects attributed their continued unemploymentto the poor economy; 10 (3 8%) totheir disability; 2 (8%) to further medical treatmentand; 2 (8%) to non WCB issues.Responses to the comments question were generallyshort, often one word. Intotal 52 responses were received; 31(59.6%) responsesstated that the program washelpful or good and 11(21.2%) stated that theyhad learned new skills or increasedtheir level of self-confidence. The value of groupsupport was mentioned twice (3.8%).There were four (7.7%) negative responses focusingon 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 negativeand 4 (7.5%) participants hadno comment.Analysis of theEffect of Disabilityand GroupCareer PlanningInstruction onCareerRedirectionThe interviewdata were analyzedaccording tothe modeldeveloped by Borgenand Amundson(1984). Fromtranscripts of thetaped interviews,the researcheridentified 350emotional shiftincidents andrecorded theseincidents, withrelatedsituational factors,on rating sheetsdesigned by Borgenand Amundson(1984). Theresearcher sortedthe emotionalshift incidents into34 categories.96The reliabilityof the researcher’sidentificationof the emotionalshift incidentswas checked.An independentvocational rehabilitationprofessional,not involvedinthe research,reviewed a randomsample of eightinterview transcripts,identified theemotional shiftincidentsin the transcriptsand recordedthe incidents onthe same ratingsheets used bythe researcher.The independentvocational rehabilitationprofessional’srating sheetswere comparedwith the researcher’srating sheetsfor the samesample ofinterviewtranscripts. Comparisonof the ratingsheets yieldeda 99.0% rateofagreement.A second independentvocational rehabilitationprofessional wasasked toreplicate the sortof the emotionalshift incidentsinto the categoriescreated by theresearcher. Theresearcher wrotethe emotionalshift incidentson file cards andprepared titlecards for the34 categories. Theindependentvocational rehabilitationprofessionalwas instructedto place theemotional shiftincident cardsunder thecategory titlethat she decidedwas appropriate.The vocationalrehabilitationprofessional’sresorting of allthe emotionalshift incidentcards in eachcategoryachieved a98.5% agreementrate with theresearcher’soriginal sortof the cards.To facilitate descriptionand discussionof the categoryanalysis the researchergrouped the34 categoriesinto four timeperiods: (a)before disability,(b) afterdisability, (c)before instruction,and (d) after instruction.Within each timeperiod, theresearcher separatedthe categoriesinto positive andnegative lists.Before DisabilitySix positive categoriesand one negativecategory wereidentified in thebeforedisability timeperiod. Thelargest positivecategory relatedto the importanceof 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 managinga busyschedule, (c) the anticipation of heading off to work each day, and (d) the benefitsofemployment, both concrete (money) and attitudinal (pride, respect, autonomy).A totalof 18 (75%) people interviewed mentioned this category. This category containedatotal of 33 emotional shift incidents. The following quotation is representative oftheincidents that were included in this category: “Working was something I lookedforward to. I got out into nature and met some new people, even whether Iwaslogging or tree planting. It was something I really looked forward to and I madegoodmoney.”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 Iwas99working you’re always in touch with people and what’s goingon 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 moneyas themain benefit of employment. One respondent talkedabout 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 goodpaying job,lots of benefits. My family was very well taken care of’ both while Iwas 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 thiscategorystated: “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 focusof theirlives. Again each respondent mentioned one incident each. One respondentexpressedthe sentiment of this category clearly: “My job was the focus of my wholelife andeverything else centered around it.”100Negative Before Disability CategoryTable 14 lists the one negative emotional shift incident category identified inthebefore disability time period. Three respondents statedthat they planned to make a jobchange sometime in the future even before they were disabled. Theaccompanyingcategory description describes the range of incidents included in the categoryand 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 ofRespondents!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 mentionedby three (16.7%)respondents. Each respondent talked about one incident each. One of therespondentsoutlined his thoughts for his employment future: “I was starting to thinkabout 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 negativecategories wereestablished. The largest positive category focused on participants learningto cope withtheir disabilities. The biggest negative category dealt withrespondents experiencing asense of loss of control over their physical health and lifeactivities.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 followingthetable give information about the type of incidents placed in the category withanexample, the number of emotional shift incidents in the category and the numberofrespondents that reported the incidents.Table 15Rank Ordered Summary of Positive AfterDisability CategoriesRank Category Number Number ofRespondents!of ESIs ESI Category1 Learned to cope with disability and pain 25142 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 onemployment andlife style were placed in this category. Respondents expresseda range of emotions102including: (a) frustration, (b) disappointment, (c) alarm, and (d) hurt. Theyspokeabout 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 wastheacceptance 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 bea littledisappointed with the fact that you do have a bit of a disability but you learnto 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 improvedas 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 lotbetterspirits 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 intheafter disability time period. The category descriptions give informationabout the rangeof emotional shift incidents, including an example, andabout 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 754 WCB issues before instruction 64Experienced a sense of loss of control over physical health or life.Emotional shift incidents that described: (a) fear relatedto 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 herproblemwas 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 respondentexplained: “You know yougot this job there, everything was doing fine up to that point and thenyou are cut ofljust as if the rug has been pulled out from under you - it’ssomething very unexpected.”Denied impacts of disability.The common theme in the emotional shift incidentscollected together in thiscategory was the reluctance to accept the need forajob change because of alteredphysical activity tolerances. Respondents stated that they didnot want to admit tothemselves that their physical activity limitations werepermanent. They held on to thehope that they would eventually return to normal again andsimply 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 categorywas expressed clearly by onerespondent: “I still believe if you are able to work you cango back to your job andthat’s where I am up to today.”Concerned about physical symptoms.In this category, the emotional shift incidents relatedto 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 scaredwhen she lostall sensation in her hand and wrist. Another respondent talkedabout feeling badly thatit was too late to correct the improper healing ofa fracture in his ankle. A thirdrespondent complained about inadequate care from her family doctor andspecialistbecause she wanted more information about treatment regimes that werehelping otherdermatitis suffers and her physicians did not give her thisinformation. In all, five(20.8%) individuals discussed a total of seven incidents which were placed inthis105category. One respondent described her symptoms: “I started losingfeeling in myhand and my wrist and it was scary because I didn’t know whatwas going on and then Istarted dropping things on people.”WCB issues prior to instruction.Some respondents talked about the problems that they had incommunicatingwith WCB officers and in trusting the information givento them by WCB officers. Onerespondent related that he accepted that he had to makea change in his job in order tobecome reemployed and developed a plan on his own for makinga job change.However, when he presented his plan to his Vocational RehabilitationConsultant theplan was rejected. A second respondent said that he had no trust in WCB officersatfirst because of comments he had heard other claimants make abouttheir problemsinteracting with WCB officers. A third respondent stated that she agreedto attend theCareer Redirection and Job Search Skills Program in spite of her feelingthat she didnot need job search training because attendance at the Program wasa 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 writtendown. Well, hesays,.. .1 need a separate report”.Before InstructionOne positive category and two negative categories were identified inthe beforeinstruction time period. The positive category relatedto the participants’ eagerness toattend the Career Redirection and Job Search Skills Program. The larger negative106category contained emotional shift incidents relatingto respondents’ concerns aboutattending the Program.Positive Before Instruction CategoryTable 17 gives information about the positive beforeinstruction category according tothe parameters of range and number of emotional shiftincidents and number ofrespondents.Table 17Details ofPositive Before Instruction CategoryRank Category Number ofNumber of Respondents!ESIs ESI Category1 Eager to attend program 9 6Eager to attend program.The emotional shift incidents placed in this categorydescribed the positivereactions of respondents who wanted to attend the CareerRedirection and Job SearchSkills Program. They used words like: (a) eager, (b) excited,(c) happy, and (d)hopeful to convey their reactions. Two respondentsstated that they wanted to attendthe Program because they needed jobs. Another two respondents lookedforward toattending the Program because participating in a career planning andjob search skillsprogram would be a novel experience for them. One respondent said that he wantedtoattend the Program in order to get an opportunityto 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 incidentsreported by six (25%)individuals. One respondent’s comment was very representativeof this category:“When I was phoned regarding the Program I was happyto go because I thoughtmaybe with all the other people and the teacher, something wouldcome up for me outof it.”Negative Before Instruction CategoriesTable 18 presents a rank ordered summary of the twonegative categories in thebefore instruction time period. The categorydescriptions following the table outlinethe range and number of emotional shift incidents andthe number of respondents foreach category.Table 18Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative Before Instruction CategoriesRank Category NumberNumber ofRespondents!of ESIs ESI Category1 Negative responses to referral to Program 1062 Concerned about the fhture beforestarting Program4 4Negative responses to referral to program.The emotional shift incidents grouped together in thiscategory 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 theProgram would be a waste oftheir time. One respondent said that his feeling wasbased on the fact that he alreadyhad a career redirection plan. The second respondentwas hoping that a further medicalinvestigative procedure ordered by his doctor would show that he wouldrecoversufficiently to return to his former job and therefore, he would notrequire assistancewith career redirection. Another respondent said thatshe was disdainful of theProgram initially because she felt that almost everybody knew howto find a job. Onerespondent who was a shipyard worker with 20 years experience talkedabout hisskepticism about what the Program could do for him. A fifth respondentrelated thatshe did not understand how important participating in the Programwould be for herwhen she was invited to attend the Program. This category includeda total of 10incidents reported by six (25%) people. As one respondent stated: “Wellit wassomething that I didn’t expect. It was nothing I knew anything about. Ihadn’t beeninvolved in any programs with the WCB before that so I didn’t know whatto expect.”Concerned about the future before starting the program.The common element in three of the four emotional shift incidentsincluded inthis category was uncertainty about a future direction. One respondentwas unsureabout sorting out some job options for himself when the jobs that he thought wouldbeavailable 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 respondentwasuncertain about the future because his initial plan was not endorsed by hisVRC. Thefourth respondent stated that he lacked confidence before starting the Program. Thesefour incidents were reported by four (16.6%) individuals. The theme ofthis 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 thebenefits of participating in theCareer Redirection and Job Search Skills Program, were identifiedin the afterinstruction time period. Seven negative categories were establishedfor this timeperiod. The largest negative category contained emotional shift incidentsrelating toparticipants’ issues with the WCB.Positive After Instruction CategoriesTable 19 lists the eleven positive after instruction categories in orderof rank.The category descriptions following the table contain facts about the range andnumberof emotional shift incidents in each category and the number of respondents foreachcategory.Table 19Rank Ordered Summary ofPositive After Instruction_CategoriesRank Category NumberNumber of Respondents!ofESIs ESI Category1 Benefited from participating in program 26 162 Optimistic about the future 25 203 Gained confidence from participating inprogram 20114 Supported by group during the program 15 105 Helped by instruction on interviews 11 81106 Helped by instruction on resumes 877 Helped by instruction on transferableskills 658 Helped by instruction on self-assessment 559 Supported by instructors3 210 Helped by instruction on job leads2 211 Settling into a retraining plan 22Benefited from participating in the program.All 26 emotional shift incidents placed in this category referredto the benefits ofattending and participating in the Career Redirection and Job Search SkillsProgram. Atotal of 16 respondents (66.6% of the participants interviewed) statedthat they foundparticipating in the Program helpful.The emotional shift incidents placed in this category logicallyfall into twosubcategories: (a) task-related benefits and (b) self-esteem/relationshipbenefits. Thetask-related benefits reported by respondents referred to the acquisition ofcareerplanning and job search skills. Three respondents reported that they learnednewinformation and skills during the Program. Two respondents explained thattheProgram gave them direction and energy for job search. Another tworespondentsstated that they established goals and identified job options.The self-esteem/relationship benefits reported by the respondents referredto thedevelopment of self-awareness and emotional support from the otherparticipants. 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 respondentsstated that they111found having the opportunity to share their experienceswith other individuals in asimilar situation helpful. One respondent reportedthat he liked participating in thedevelopment of the norms that guided the groupinteraction during the Program.A respondent summed up his experience of participatingin the Program: “It got megoing in the right direction and it also gave mea 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 interviewedstated that they wereoptimistic about the future after completing theCareer Redirection and Job SearchSkills Program. Six respondents based their optimismon the fact that they had startedfollowing through on a career redirection plan thatthey were confident would helpthem become reemployed. Another group of sixrespondents expected to be successfulin their search for a new job. A third group of six respondents weredeveloping careerredirection plans that they were sure they wouldbe able to complete. Two respondentsstated that they were optimistic about the future because they alwayshave a positiveapproach to life. One respondent based his optimism on the fact thathe liked his newjob. In total, 25 emotional shift incidents reported by 20 (83.3%) peoplewere placedin this category. One respondent expressed his overalloptimism in the words: “I amgenerally optimistic about the future. Definitely optimisticand I definitely think thereare lots ofjobs out there. It’s just a matter of findingsomething that’s going to besuitable for me.”Gained confidence from participating in the program.Eleven respondents reported that the Programgave them confidence. Therewere three factors cited as the source of confidence.Some respondents took112confidence from the fact that they had learned that they didhave options forreemployment. Other respondents were encouragedby the realization that they hadtransferable skills that could be used in new jobs. Fourrespondents explained that theirconfidence had grown out of the support they got from theother participants duringthe Program. One respondent talked about derivingconfidence from the message givenduring the Program that individuals must take controlof planning for their employmentfuture. A respondent commented that she had continuedto feel confident after theProgram had finished. in all, 11(45.8%) respondentsreported 20 emotional shiftincidents that were grouped in this category. One respondentexpressed confidence inthe following statement: “It helped me in setting my goalson a new career and a newdirection”.Supported by group during the program.All the emotional shift incidents placed in this categoryrelated to theestablishment of bonds of friendship and emotional supportamong the groups ofparticipants. Several respondents talked about howcomforting it was to meet and getto know people who were trying to cope with the same kinds of changesthat they wereattempting to handle. One respondent expressed a wish fora newsletter to help himkeep in touch with the people he had met during the Programand to assist him incontinuing to access their help and support. Two respondentssaid that they enjoyedhaving the opportunity to meet new people and get theirperspectives on commonissues and concerns. Two respondents used the term friendship to describetherelationship that they felt they had established with otherparticipants in their group.The total number of emotional shift incidents in thiscategory was 15 and theseincidents were reported by 10 (4 1.6%) people. The followingstatement isrepresentative of the incidents included in this category:“Well, one of the highest113points was when I met everybody in the Program.... The second highest pointwastalking about your problems with everybody else and everybody else listeningandunderstanding”.Helped by instruction on interviews.The emotional shift incidents included in this category all refer to the benefitsthatthe respondents felt resulted from the instruction on informational interviewsand jobinterviews during the Program. Some respondents appreciated havingthe 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 benefitof instruction on jobinterviews: “When we did the job interviews.. .1 found that tobe really helpful sothat when I do go now to look for ajob I’m more aware of what I need tosayand do”.Helped by instruction on resumes.All the emotional shift incidents grouped in thiscategory deal with therespondents’ reports on the usefulness of the instruction and assistance on resumesprovided during the Program. There was a range of knowledge about resumesamongthe respondents which went from one respondent who had never writtena resume toanother respondent who appreciated the opportunityto refine his resume. Sevenrespondents (29.2%) reported a total of eight incidents in this category. Thegeneralopinion of the respondents in this category was expressed wellby 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 hada 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 learningabout the transferability of theirskills to alternate occupations. They reported that knowledgeof their transferableskills opened up job options for the future and made themfeel more hopeful aboutsearching for a job. Five (20.8%) respondents reporteda total of six incidents thatwere included in this category. As one respondentput 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 referredto therespondents’ feelings about the benefits of the self-assessment activities inthe Program.The respondents liked receiving confirmation of their knowledge of their personalattributes. The incidents placed in this category were reportedby five (20.8%)respondents. One respondent gave the following example: “The wheel thatwe madeup has been very helpful in sort ofjust determining what my expectations are”.Supported by instructors.In this category, two (8.3%) respondents relateda total of three emotional shiftincidents which described the support that the respondents got from the Programinstructors. The respondents talked about receiving confirmation of plans forthefuture 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 comein 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 leadsas a high point of theProgram. In total, two respondents (8.3%) recountedtwo 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 bothrelated to arespondent’s participation in a training course. Onerespondent explained that she wasadjusting to being a student and a second respondent stated that he wasenjoying takingupgrading classes. Two respondents (8.3%) related thetwo incidents included in thiscategory. The following statement is typical of the incidents placed in thiscategory:“Right now I’m doing this course on computers and then probablybookkeeping 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 emotionalshiftincidents range and number and number of respondents is given for each category.116Table 20Rank Ordered Summary ofNegative After Instruction CategoriesRank CategoryNumber Number of Respondents!ofESIs ESI Category1 WCB issues after instruction27 132 Unsure about the future11 93 Pessimistic about the future 744 Disliked participants’ complaints andnegative attitudes 665 Disliked self-assessment activities4 36 Disliked program content4 37 Unsupported by the instructors 32WCB issues after instruction.The emotional shift incidents placed in this category were differentfrom theWCB issues described in the earlier after disability category. These incidents identifiedissues that arose after the respondents had completed the Career Redirectionand JobSearch Skills Program. Several of the incidents in thiscategory had common themes.Five respondents were disgruntled about the location of the Career Redirectionand JobSearch Skills Program because they had to commute long distanceson a daily basis toattend the Program, or they had to be away from their families for theduration of theProgram, or they were exposed to the complaints and grumblings ofclaimantsparticipating in other programs in the same location. Several respondentscomplainedthat they received no help with reemployment planning from their VRCsafter the117Program. Another respondent said that he experienced a great deal ofstress fromtrying to meet the requirements for receiving compensation benefits whenhe felt thathe should be in school taking upgrading courses. Threeother respondents related thatthey were overwhelmed by the task of searching fora suitable new job. Onerespondent was concerned about how to integrate his need for a highsalary and hisspouse’s career with his struggle to find suitable job vacancies for himself.Onerespondent reported that he wanted an official mechanism for keeping intouch 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 whereto 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 wereput 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 hehad 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 forreturning towork. Two respondents were uncertain about the future because theywere stillresisting the fact that they would have to make a job change in orderto be reemployed.Another respondent insisted that it is impossible to predict the futureso heconcentrates on trying to cope with the present. A total of 11 incidentswere identified118words: “I’m definitely unsure about the future. I wouldn’tsay I’m pessimistic but I’mvery unsure. I still don’t know what I wantto do which for me is bad.”Pessimistic About the Future.The common theme in the seven emotional shift incidents whichwere placed inthis category was the lack of a goal or directionfor the future which gave therespondents a pessimistic outlook. All four (16.6%) respondentswho recountedincidents that were grouped in this categorydid not have a clearly articulated goal forthe future. One of the four respondents stated: “I don’treally 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 negativeattitudes and grumblingsof some of the participants were placed in this category. The magnitude oftherespondents’ reactions to other participants’ complaints and negativityranged frombeing annoyed about complaints interrupting the Program agendato feelings of notwanting to attend the Program some days because of the negativeatmosphere createdby the complainers. A total of six (25%) respondents recounted the six incidentsthatwere placed in this category. One respondent described this issuein 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 firstpart of theProgram. Two emotional shift incidents related to complaints aboutthe amount ofpaperwork required in the self assessment activities. One respondentstated that he did119paperwork required in the self assessment activities.One respondent stated that he didnot appreciate the value of the self assessment exercisesuntil later in the Program andone respondent said that he did not understand the pointof the self assessmentactivities. Three (12.5%) respondents cited a totalof four incidents that were placed inthis category. One respondent explained: “Wellsometimes when we were filling outsome of the graphs and stuff like that, I found itkind of tedious and sort of likeschool.”Disliked program content.Four emotional shift incidents were recounted by respondentsthat specified partsof the Program content that the respondents foundeither surprising orincomprehensible. Two respondents stated that theyexpected the Program to focusmore on the participants’ disabilities than on their needsfor career planning. Onerespondent stated that he did not understand the conceptof transferable skills fhlly.Another respondent felt pressured by the expectation of searching fora 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 therespondents said:“I thought it [Program] should have dealt more with the person being injuredand 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 whichdescribedthe disappointment that two (8.3%) respondents felt withrespect to the Programinstructors. One respondent expressed his belief thatthe instructors could not fullyunderstand the problems that the participants were facing in tryingto return to workbecause the instructors had not suffered an injury. The second respondentstated that120he would have appreciated more personalized help and counselling fromtheinstructors. One respondent explained his perspective in this statement: “I thinkthelow point was not having,.. .the instructors understand what the people inthe classroomwere going through. I think until you actually go through it yourselfyou 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 timeperiod (6positive, 1 negative) and the after instruction time period (11 positive, 7 negative).Thecategory analysis demonstrated that the respondents benefited from participatingin 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-disabilityjob, (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,ResistancetoChangeFighttomaintainbenefitsAcceptanceFighttomaintainbenefits122Attachment to Pre-disability JobAt the beginning of the interview the respondents wereasked to explain the rolethat working played in their lives. Of thepeople interviewed, 75% reported that theyliked working in their pre-disability jobs. They alsospoke about their enjoyment of thesocial aspects of their jobs and the benefits (medicalplans, vacation, etc.) andpromotional opportunities associated with their pre-disabilityjobs. Within the group ofrespondents, 62.5% stated that they expectedto retire from their pre-disability jobs and25% reported that they hoped to recover sufficientlyto return to work in their predisability jobs. These responses supported the conclusionthat the respondents hadstrong, positive attachments to their pre-disability jobs.The respondent’s vision of thecontinuation of their employment status quo correspondedto the straight line arrowlabeled as working at the beginning of the career redirectionprocess.Reactions to InjuryWhen they were asked to tell the story of their injuryand disability, 75% of therespondents answered by describing feelings of loss and limitation.They talked aboutthe loss of self-sufficiency, their inability to participate in favouriteactivities, and theirinability to plan for the future. The most significant lossfor the majority of respondentswas the loss of their valued pre-disability job. These reactions were representedin thefirst descending mandala of Figure 2.123Acceptance ofDisabilityThe third interview question asked the respondentsto identifj when they realizedthat they would not be returning to their pre-disabilityjobs. The respondents statedthat they did not accept the permanency of their disability quickly oreasily. Manyrespondents had lifestyles that were dependent on aspects of their pre-disabilityjobslike shift schedules that resulted in blocks of time off or personaluse of a companyvehicle. Accepting the permanency of a disability and the resultant need fora jobchange was very difficult for these respondentsbecause acceptance of the need for ajob change also meant significant lifestyle adjustments. The respondents talked aboutnot accepting their disabilities until many months of treatment hadpassed with minimalimprovement or their doctors told them that they would haveto 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 pointedout 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 reasontoinvestigate job options because they were satisfied with their pre-disabilityjobs. 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 andemotional support. Combiningtheir knowledge about their transferable skills withinformation about job opportunitiesavailable in the current labour market helped respondentsto identify potential job goals.Instruction in writing resumes, information on gettingjob leads, and practice withinterview techniques made the respondents feelmore prepared for job search. By theend of the program respondents were progressing alongthe forward pointing arrowsdesignated as commitment to change, develop a returnto work plan and implement theplan shown in Figure 2.Effect of Compensation on Career RedirectionSeveral of the respondents expressed an ambivalence about their relationshipwithWCB. Some respondents talked about their distrust of WCB officers and theirproblems in establishing rapport with their Vocational RehabilitationConsultants, butthey also expressed a willingness to comply with WCBdemands in order to maintainreceipt of their compensation benefits. For example, onerespondent agreed to attendthe Career Redirection and Job Search Skills Program inorder to continue to receivecompensation benefits even though he felt unable to compete in the currentlabourmarket with his present skills. This respondent confessedthat he made many of hiscontacts with prospective employers by telephonebut stated that he felt guilty aboutnot making the contacts in person.Some respondents related feeling pressured to developa return to work plan thatwould be endorsed by WCB. Maintaining the payment ofcompensation benefits waspart of this pressure.The researcher noted that the availability of income throughcompensationbenefits based on the need for medical treatment may have represented anavenue of125escape for program participants who did not feel ready or able tomake a commitmentto change.The Career Redirection ExperienceAll the themes described in the content analysisare encompassed in a commentmade by one respondent: “It’s hard enough to be out ofajob andto find ajob but,being injured as well, I find that very hard to take”. The challengeof disability, coupledwith unemployment, was a big obstacle for the respondentsto overcome.126CHAPTER 5DISCUSSION OF RESULTSIntroductionThis chapter begins with a summary of the resultsfollowed by a discussion of thefindings for each of the measures, the participant’s feedbackand the findings from theinterviews. Implications for career intervention theory,and implications for the designof career redirection programs for both physically disabledand general populations arediscussed. The chapter closes with recommendations for future research.SummaryThe researcher undertook this study to investigatethe type ofjob search programthat would meet the needs of workers involuntarily displaced from theirjobs as a resultof an employment-related injury or disease. Thesubjects in this study represented agroup of participants that have not been included inprevious investigations of theimpact of unemployment or research on the effectsofjob search programs. However,this study is linked with previous studies on the impactof unemployment on disabledindividuals because the subjects shared three of the fourcharacteristics identified byGower (1988) that are associated with the lowerlabour force participation rates ofdisabled people: (a) physical activity limitations, (b) low education level,and (c)frustration with trying to overcome employment barriers. All of thesubjects in thisstudy had permanent physical activity limitations. The average educationallevel for thesubjects in this study was 10.8 years. The analysis of the follow-upinterviewsdocumented the frustration with havingto change jobs that many of this study’s127participants expressed. The subjects in this study differed from Gower’ssubjects 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 scoresatposttest 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 onthe transcripts of the follow-up interviews demonstrated that the respondents gained confidence,developed goals,enhanced their job search skills, and derived support from the otherparticipants duringthe treatment program. A career redirection processwas identified from the responsesthat participants made to the interview questions. Thesix stages in the careerredirection process are: (a) strong attachment to pre-disabilityjob, (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) implementationof the plan. WCB clientswho refused to accept the need for ajob change orwho developed return to workplans not endorsed by the WCB may get sidetracked fromthe career redirectionprocess and become involved in fightingto maintain their compensation benefits.Discussion of FindingsFindings Related to EmploymentSubjects in this study were disabled and, asa result of this disability, were unableto return to their former jobs. They entered the treatment programas unemployed, butjob ready, which was defined as ready to plan for employment. Itwas observed thatsubjects who concluded that they were not readyto plan for employment did notcomplete the program.The results of the eight week follow-up showedthat 60.5% of the subjects wereworking, self-sufficient in job search or engaged intraining that would lead toemployment. The other 3 9.5% of the sample were either unableto engage in return to129work activities due to a need for further medical treatment orassessment (34.8%) orwere not engaged in any form of returnto work activity (4.7%).These results clearly showed that the treatment program washelpful in assistingparticipants through the career redirection process. The results alsoidentified the needfor careful screening of referrals to the programto 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 DepressionInventory showed that thesubjects were not severely depressed but generally fell into the mildly depressedcategory. Nevertheless, the treatment program did havea positive impact on thesubjects’ level of depression. As outlined in Chapter 4 the adjustedpooled mean scoredropped from 5.7 to 3.8, a significant difference, movingthe mean score from the milddepression range into the no depression range.The lack of high scores on this measure may be a function of thefact that allsubjects were receiving Workers’ Compensation benefits for the durationof 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 theirincomes 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 onself-esteem. It isimportant to note that the subjects began the program with fairly highself-esteem and130had not yet experienced the effects of long-term unemployment.As Wells and Marwell(1976) stated, RSE derived scales measure only self-affection andself-affection is onlyimpacted by long-term unemployment (Sheeran & McCarthy, 1990). Therefore, itisnot surprising that the subjects in this study did not demonstratea significant change inself-esteem since they had not experienced financial hardship ora change of status intheir families or communities.Findings Relating to AttributionTwo measures of attribution were used in this study: The AttributionaboutUnemployment 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 focusup 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 theinternalcausation 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 itwas in their control to dosomething about it, and that they were unstable enoughto consider action. Thesubjects understood that it was possible to make a career change.The stability subscale increased significantly, and the internal causationsubscaledecreased significantly on follow-up indicating that the clients werebecoming morestable and less willing to make changes. This may well be attributableto the fact that131they had worked out vocational plans duringthe program, were now busyimplementing them and were not willing to consider changingthem at follow-up. Thiscould be interpreted as an indicator that the subjects were morefocused or goaldirected than at posttest.Findings Related to Participants’ FeedbackThe analysis of these questionnaires indicated that the program wasvery wellreceived since 93.6% of the subjects rated the overallprogram or above. Thirtyof the 31 specific topic modules in the program were ratedas helpful to very helpful byat least 77.0% of the respondents. No component of the programwas rated as notbeing helpful.The majority of responses to the overall impressionquestion on all fourquestionnaires related positive impressions. Thesepositive impressions were sortedinto four subcategories: (a) general benefit, (b) benefit from specifictopics, (c)motivation and confidence, and (d) program delivery. Not all subcategorieswererequired for the responses on each questionnaire. Mostresponses were of the oneword variety such as good and were placed in the generalbenefit subcategory. Thebenefit from specific topics subcategory contained items likejob options, decision-making skills, and other specific components of the program.The motivation andconfidence subcategory consisted of items such as confidencebuilding, support fromassociating with other people in similar circumstances,and fostering of a positiveattitude. The program delivery subcategory containedcomments on the instruction andinstructors as well as course scheduling.Responses to the question about changes focused on structuralconcerns such asclass schedules, more time for interview practice, moreindividual attention, more focus132on disability and it’s impact, more time to discuss Workers’ CompensationBoard issues,and suggestions to change the venue of the program. There was noagreementamongst the respondents as to scheduling or location except that theprogram 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 notadd to theinformation already gathered.Findings Related to the CategoryAnalysisThe analysis of the data on emotional shift incidents demonstrated that therespondents benefited from participating in the Career Redirection andJob SearchSkills Program in terms of confidence building, group support, skill developmentandgoal setting. The career redirection process was evident inthe categories of emotionalshift incidents. Specific categories of emotional shifts incidentsmatched individualphases in the career redirection process.The respondents had a background of strong attachmentto their pre-disabilityjobs with no plans to change their occupations. Four categories pointed to thisfinding:(a) liked working in pre-disability job, (b) expected to remain in pre-disabilityjob forrest of career, (c) enjoyed social aspects ofpre-disabilityjob, and(d) enjoyed benefitsof pre-disability job. These four categories corresponded with the workingphase 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. Threecategoriessupported this finding: (a) experienced a sense of loss of control over physicalhealth orlife activities, (b) denied impacts of disability, and(c) concerned about physical133symptoms. These categories paralleled the treatment and disability phases of thecareerredirection process. The acceptance of disability was documented in thelearned tocope with disability and pain category.The commitment to change and development of a plan phases of thecareerredirection process were evidenced in four categories:(a) benefited from participatingin the program, (b) optimistic about the future, (c) gained confidencefromparticipating in the program, and (d) supported by thegroup during the program. Allthe categories that related to specific program topics, suchas helped by instruction oninterviews and helped by instruction on resumes, also correspondedwith thecommitment to change and development of a plan phases.The career redirection process did not proceed from start to finishfor all therespondents. Two categories of emotional shift incidents demonstratedthat 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 effectivenessofcareer interventions has progressed slowly in the last twodecades (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 developedby 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 providingself-help trainingmaterials to unemployed job-seekers and found that the materials increasedbothcognitive and behavioral activities in the experimental group. Borgen and Amundson134(1984) recommended support groups asa means of helping job seekers evaluate theiroptions, improve their job search strategies, andcope with job rejections. Vandergoot(1987) concluded that job-seeking skills trainingis valuable and can be enhanced bygroup and peer support methods.After reviewing career intervention evaluation in thefields of career psychology,educational instruction, and psychotherapy Fretz (1981)found a limited number ofstudies that dealt inadequately with client attribute andtreatment interactions,specification of treatment parameters, and definition ofappropriate outcome measuresfor people attached to the labour force. Following Fretz’s (1981)research designstrategies, Flynn (1991) evaluated the effectivenessof three self-directed job searchmethods. The results supported the use of group-basedjob search strategies.Fretz (1981) recommended that describing career interventions interms of thethree treatment parameters of: (a) content domain (self-knowledge,decision skills, andoccupational information), (b) interpersonal context (one-to-onecounselling, groupcounselling, or self or computer-assisted programs), and(c) degree of structure (highlystructured, semi-structured, or unstructured) would increase thespecificity ofknowledge that would be obtained from career intervention evaluations,Fretz alsorecommended that evaluators use measures with established reliabilityand validity,block subjects according to attributes, and utilize several outcomecriteria includingpost-treatment and follow-up criteria.This study’s treatment program included the threeelements of content domainspecified by Fretz (1981). The self-assessment activities were designedto increase thesubjects’ self-knowledge. Instruction in decision-makingwas provided during theprogram and the subjects were encouraged to set jobgoals. During the program, thesubjects were given labour market information and taught researchmethods likeinformational interviews for obtaining occupational information. Bothgroup135counselling and self-directed career planning were incorporated into thetreatmentprogram. The subjects were blocked on gender, level of disability andlength of timeout of work. The four outcome measures of employment, attribution,depression andself-esteem were used. The attribution, depression, and self-esteemscales had provenreliability and validity. Both post-treatment and follow-up measureswere taken.This study’s findings suggested that effective career interventionprograms shouldcontain all the content elements relevant to the identification ofa feasible occupationalgoal, provide for both self-analysis and group interaction, andbe led by a careerintervention specialist. In addition, successfhl career intervention programsshould beconceptualized in terms of the three separate, but time-dependentphases of goalsetting, action planning, and employment search. The action planningphase iscontingent on the goal setting phase because the person’splanning needs (skill training,coaching on interview techniques, etc.) result directlyfrom the job goal that theindividual chooses. Job search training should be delayeduntil the individual hasidentified a job goal and has acquired the qualificationsnecessary to seek employmentin the chosen occupation. Therefore, each phase hasa natural outcome measure: (a)job goal for the goal setting phase, (b) a plan for the action planningphase, and (c) ajob for the employment phase.The apparent overlap between the content domain elementof self-knowledge andthe interpersonal context element of self-directed activitiesin this study suggests thatthe further development of career intervention theorywould be better served by a focuson the identification of the conditions necessary to producethe outcomes ofjob goal,action plan, and employment rather than trying to determinethe match between anarray of personal characteristics and all possible instruction methods andlearningenvironments.136For individuals who did not expect to be unemployed, one of the conditionsthatmay be necessary for the formation of a new job goal is the opportunityto grieve theloss of the former job. In their investigation of the dynamics ofunemployment,Borgen and Amundson (1984) described the experience of unemploymentas anemotional roller coaster and developed patternsto describe the reactions exhibited bysix groups within their experimental population. The career redirectionprocessidentified in this study resembled the pattern for Group A in Borgen andAmundson’sstudy. Group A responded to the loss of their jobs with initial shock andangerfollowed by worry and anxiety. Eventually Group Aaccepted 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 participatingin the treatmentprogram, the majority of the subjects in this study accepted the need forajob 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 anindividual’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 thedata on the participants’emotional shift incidents indicated that some participants had not adjustedto thechange in their employment status. The treatment program didnot allow much time forthe participants to talk about their feelings about being disabled or the experienceof137losing their jobs because of their disabilities. Sincetheir disability was the reason fortheir unemployment and their needto make ajob change, the participants required theopportunity to explore their concerns about their disability inorder to incorporate thereality of their physical activity limitations into theirvocational construct systems andto use this reality in planning for their employment future.The subjects developed their vocationalconstruct systems (Neimeyer, 1992;Kortas, Neimeyer & Prichard, 1992) in the contextof long and successful work careersin physically demanding, lowereducation jobs that they planned to stay in for theremainder of their careers. Their vocational constructsystems were not highlydifferentiated. Their perceptions of the world of workwere limited to their careerexperience. While they understood their fields ofwork well at their own level ofparticipation, they knew little about other occupations orindustries. They wereaccustomed to using these construct systemsto organize and understand their workexperience, anticipate their future employment experiencesand to set job goals. Theystarted the treatment program with vocational construct systemsthat did not match thereality of their employment situations and wereconfronted with the task ofreorganizing their construct systems to incorporatedisability, the experience of beingunemployed, and the need for a job change. Asa result of their restricted knowledgeof occupations and sectors outside their own, theparticipants were reluctant to trust inthe transferability of their skills to other jobs andindustries. It appears that improvingthe level of differentiation in an individual’s vocationalconstruct system may enhancetheir ability to identify job options based on their transferableskills.Successful career redirection may also require improvementin levels ofintegration in vocational construct systems, especiallyfor individuals with recentlyacquired physical activity limitations. The treatmentprogram was designed to assistparticipants to develop new vocational constructsabout physical activity tolerances,138transferable skills, interests, and values, and to combine these newconstructs 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 whilelower levels ofintegration were related to intuitive decision-making styles. Careerredirectionprograms must be structured to give participants all the time they needto integratetheir new constructs fully and also provide them with the support and direction thatthey require to integrate their new vocational constructs intoa meaningful pattern.Otherwise, participants will either revert to using their former, inappropriateconstructsfor identifying job goals or make intuitive career decisions based oninadequateinformation. Regardless of which strategy they use, participants who do notformsufficiently integrated and differentiated vocational construct systemsto make rationalcareer decisions during the treatment program will be unsure or pessimisticabout thefuture at the end of the program and may get sidetracked into a battleto maintainbenefits on the basis of further medical treatment.This study demonstrated that the environment in which participantsarechallenged to restructure their vocational constructsystems is critical. Desmond andSeligman (1977) reported that group-based vocational counselling iseffective forrehabilitation clients and, more recently, the job-search group modelwas 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 highlyvaluedsupportive messages to the older worker. Amundson (1993) suggestedthatunemployed clients need the opportunity to express their ideas and needsand to betaken seriously by others. These opportunities arise in group basedjob 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 supportofpeers. Although the subjects in this study did not have the opportunityto maintainmembership in their treatment program group while job searching, it is reasonabletoexpect that job seekers would continue to feel supportedby a group of their peerswhile they test the accuracy of their vocational decisionsby approaching prospectiveemployers for jobs.Shulman (1984) stated that a group needs a leader to help the membersform amutual aid system to provide reciprocal help and support. Findings fromthis study’sanalysis of emotional shift incidents provided confirmationof the benefit of a groupleader. Also, since many of the benefits of participatingin the program reported by theparticipants referred to gaining new information and skills, it is reasonableto concludethat an effective career redirection program requires an expert who canlead theparticipants through a career planning process and teachjob search skills.The participants held poorly differentiated vocational construct systemsat thestart of the treatment program. During the program they were encouragedto formnew vocational constructs to fit their marketable assets andalternate occupations thatwould be available to them in the current labour market.The integration of these newconstructs required reorganization which took time. Not all the participantswere 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 effectivelyby separating the career planning and jobsearch components of the program into two independent programs. Clientswho areready to plan for reemployment would be able to take the time they requireto discussthe impact that their disabilities are having on all spheres of their lives andto identifyjob options based on a good understanding of their physical activity tolerances,140transferable skills, and labour market opportunities. Clients would notattend the jobsearch component of the program until they had identifieda feasible job goal, hadcompleted all necessary assessment or training, and were readyto 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 theirjob 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 thesubjects inthis study were Worker& Compensation Board clients was not consideredto be alimiting factor by the researcher because the majority of physically disabledadults 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 ofunemploymentis no different for disabled or non-disabled adults (Borgen, Amundson,& Biela, 1987).After analyzing the quantitative and qualitative data from thisstudy, theresearcher concluded that this studys subjects representeda different population fromthe groups studied in earlier research on unemployment and job-search programdesign.Although they had been out of the workforce for an average of 1.7 years, thesubjectsin this study did not fit the definition of long-term unemployed. They wereexperiencedworkers who recently had become unemployed dueto the ongoing effects of theirdisability and they were receiving financial assistance throughcompensation 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, analysisof thefindings of the study demonstrated that there was insufficient power and thata 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 measuresbetweenthe 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 futureresearch onmatching job search program design to client attributes.Previous research in this areahas used subjects who had been unemployed long enoughto become depressed and tobegin to attribute their unemployment to factors outside of themselves. Sincethesubjects 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 unemployedsubjects, 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 ofa threat to142their feelings of self-worth, and explanations for their unemployment that relatedto 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 unemployedsubjects.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 maybe 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 UnemploymentScalecould 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 arewe going?International Labour Review,!2Q,1-14.Amundson, N. E. (1987). A visual means of organizingcareer 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 employmentcounseling andtraining. Journal ofEmployment Counseling,Q,147-152.Amundson, N. E., & Borgen, W. A. (1980). Group employmentcounselling:Theory and techniques. Ottawa: Canadian Employment and ImmigrationCommission.Amundson, N. E., & Borgen, W. A. (1987). Coping withunemployment: Whathelps and what hinders. Journal of Employment Counseling,4,97-106.Amundson, N. E., & Borgen, W. A. (1988). Factors that help and hinderin groupemployment counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling,25, 104-114.Amundson, N., Borgen, W., & Westwood, M. (1990). Journalof 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). SettingNew 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 thereliability 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 Clubcounselor’s manual: A behavioralapproach to vocational counseling. Baltimore: UniversityPark 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,L77-100.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 (4thed.).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). Theexperience 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 amongwomen 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 (revisededition).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 healthdebate.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 socialsupport. The JournalofNervous and Mental Disease, 165, 403-417.Desmond, R. E., & Seligman, M. (1977). Groups withoccupational/vocationalgoals. In M. Seligman (Ed.), Group counseling and group psychtherapywithrehabilitation clients(pp.273-299). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Doering, M. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1989). Changing careers: A qualitativestudy.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 psychologicaleffects 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: Asurvey 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, socialmobility 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 phenomenologicalpsychology.Journal of Personality Assessment, 4.(2), 115-122.Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. PsychologicalBulletin,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 personas 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 personalconstruct theoryand grid methods. In F. Epting & A. W. Landfield, (Eds.), AnticipatingPersonalConstruct Psychology (pp.261-271). Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraskaPress.Forster, J. R. (1992). Eliciting personal constructs and articulatinggoals. 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 depressionin olderworkers: A longitudinal study of intervening variables. SocialScience 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 methodsin 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-psychologicalanalysis.London: Cambridge University Press.Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. E., & Zeisel, H. (1972). Marienthal: Thesociography 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 insecurityand jobloss: Results of a longitudinal study. Social Science Medicine,, 179-182.Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions. InL. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 2. New York:Academic Press.Jones, L. (1991). Specifying the temporal relationship betweenjob loss andconsequences: Implications for service delivery. Journal of AppliedSocialSciences,.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 losingajob: Reportingchanges in health, symptoms and illness behavior. Psychosomatic Medicine,7,106-122.Kaufman, H. G. (1982). Professionals in search of work: Coping withthe 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 trainingmodel forrehabilitation clients. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 159-165.Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attributional theory in socialpsychology. In D. Levine(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on motivation (pp.l92-Z38). Lincoln: UniversityofNebraska 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. AmericanPsychologist,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). Effectsof 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 effectsofunemployment - 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 effectsofunemployment - II: Men and women. Social Science Medicine,4,351-363,Lefcourt, H. M. (1976). Locus of control: Current trends intheory and research(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Leigh, J. P. (1987). The effects of unemployment on the probability of sufferingadisability. 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 counselingand development.Journal of Career Development, 163-173.Olafsson, 0. & Svensson, P. G. (1986). Unemployment related lifestylechangesand health disturbances in adolescents and children inwestern countries. SocialScience Medicine, , 1105-1113.Oliver, L. W., & Spokane, A. R. (1988). Career-interventionoutcome: 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: HarcourtBrace Janovich.152Pearlin, L., & Lieberman, M. (1979). The social sources of emotional in Community MentalHealth,!, 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. JournalofEmployment 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: Anevaluation ofthe causal dimension scale in a real-life situation. Journalof Personality and SocialPsychology,4,347-3 56.Schwefel, D. (1986). Unemployment, health and health services inGerman-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 andthe psychologicalimpact of unemployment. Journal of Occupational Behavior,7,25-38.Shaw, D. (1976, March). Unemployment hurts more than thanjust the pocketbook.Today’s Health, pp.23-26.Sheeran, P., & McCarthy, E. (1990). The impact ofunemployment upon self-conception: Evaluation, affection, consistency and involvementdimensions.Social Behavio, 5,351-359.Sheeran, P., & McCarthy, E. (1992). Social structure, self-conceptionand wellbeing: An examination of four models with unemployedpeople. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology,77,117-133.Shelton, B. K. (1985). The social and psychologicalimpact of unemployment.Journal of Employment Counseling, 22, 18-22.Shulman, L. (1984). The skills of helping individualsand 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 medicalinformatics(pp.387-426).Berlin: Spritiger-Verlag.Spruit, I. P. (1985). Employment, unemployment andhealth 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 disabledinterviewee:Effects of manipulating work history and disability information ofthe 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 differentialobserved after one year ofunemployment. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,, 86-91.Sullivan, D. R. (1972). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in relationto 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 onmanagers andprofessional staff Journal of Occupational Psychology,4,47-64.Tagalakis, V., Amsel, R., & Fichten, C. S. (1988). Job interviewstrategies forpeople with a visible disability. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,18, 520-532.Thoben, P. J. (1975). Civil rights and employment ofthe severely handicapped.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 18, 240-244.Tiggemann, M., & Winefield, A. H. (1984). The effects ofunemployment on themood, self-esteem, locus of control and depressive affect ofschool leavers.Journal of Occupational Psychology,7,33-42.Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: BantamBooks.Turner, R. J., & Noh, S. (1988). Physical disability anddepression: 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 ofafactory 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 andIndividualDifferences, 8, 659-665.Winefield, A. H., Tiggemann, M., & Winefield, H. R. (1991). Thepsychologicalimpact of unemployment and unsatisfactory employment inyoung men andwomen: Longitudinal and cross-sectional data. British JournalofPsychology,,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 ofresearch on job placement.Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,II,150-158.Zuger, R. (1971). To place the unpiaceable. JournalofRehabilitation, 37(6), 22-23.157Appendix AInvitation Letter158Dear Mr./Ms. XXXXXXXXYou have been referred to the Job Search Programat the Workers’ Compensation Board(WCB) by your Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant.The program is 14 days in lengthand takes place in the Leslie R. Peterson RehabilitationCentre at the WCB complex at6951 Westminster Highway in Richmond.This program has been designed to assistyou in your efforts in finding a job. While theprogram is sponsored by the WCB the instructors willnot be able to answer questionsregarding your claim. Please continue to address thesequestions either to yourVocational Rehabilitation Consultant or Claims Adjudicator.I would like to make you aware that in an effortto improve the Job Search Program aresearch project is being undertaken that will help withthis. This project is beingundertaken jointly with the University of British Columbiaand is part of my work as agraduate student of the university. You willbe asked to fill out some forms before andafter the program. We will also be contacting you 8weeks 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 youdo participate in the research, you canwithdraw at any time. However, I would like to assureyou that the questionnaires arecompletely anonymous and will not be linkedto any participant in the program.You will be contacted shortly by telephoneto 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 ina newly designed Job Search Program (JSP) forPhysically Disabled Workers. The program is designedto help injured workers overcomethe additional challenges they face in becomingemployed due to their injury and resultingdisability. The design and evaluation of this JSP is partof 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 effectivenessof this program I will be asked to fill outsome forms before and after the program. I will alsobe contacted 8 weeks after I havecompleted the program to see if I have been able to findajob and to see how I am doing.All information I present will be anonymous. The forms Ifill out will be identified bynumber and the number will not be linkedto me. Filling out these forms will takeapproximately 30 minutes of time at the beginning and end of theprogram.I am free to not participate in this research and if I do participate I maywithdraw at anytime. I acknowledge the receipt of a copy of this consentfor 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 whatyou found helpful and whatyou found difficult.Please read the following items and circle anumber on the 5 point scale. Please note thatI IS THE POOREST RATING you can give and 51sTIlE BEST RATING you can give.I. I found the Introductory Exercisesnot helpful helpfulvery helpful2 3 4 52. 1 found the sect ion on Norms am! E.vpectationsnot helpful helpfulvery helpful1 2 3 453. I found The Ulmeelnot helpful helpfulvery helptiil1 2 3 454. 1 found the section on the Job Loss ‘clenot helpful helpfulvery helpful2 3 4 55. 1 found the section on Marketable Assets‘lot helpful helpful very helpful1 2 3 45•••••—aL4.It.)..•.00ct:.•16612 1 found the section onDzscovenng Career Optionsnot helpful helpful very helpful3...4... 5.i3::1fuüiid thection.onthefr.oJI..,ttiigitff.Thgethernot helpful helpfulvery helpful.. ..... ..................2.................. .. ................ .3...... ....... ..................4............... . .................5.ti/tfive dtijsof.thePl..:::..::not helpful helpful veryhelpful1 2 3 4515 Please write down your overall impression of the last five days oftheprogram16 Please write down any suggestions you have for changing this part ofthe 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.OCD CD <CD0CD 0(D roCD CD (‘I (.1 0 C) CD -t CD 00 CD‘1 m rn w C.) 1%)II001696•: rfoind :nCoñiiiftation•.: .*::.:::not helpful helpfiulvery helpful. . ........................3. . .... . ........ ............................4... ................................. . 5.. .7 I found the section on lnformatioiz Interviewsnot helpful helpfulvery helpful1 2 3 458 I found the section on Overcoming Barriersnot helpful helpfulvery helpful2 ......... ........::.3... .... ... 4...... .......... ............ . .5....thtithon1ctii:P(ain:ij1g:.:::::::... .: . ;.not helpful helpfulvery helpful1 2 3 4 5not helpful helpful very helpful1 2 3 4511 Please write down your overall impression of the last five days ofthe program1701 •have.ibr.changihgt:.ofthe13 If there is anything that I havenot asked you about that you think I should knowabout please write it down below171Appendix FFeedback 3...................:.:.:::...:......... .........................................................CD C)•.•.•.•:•..-..r•.•..•.•.•.•.•.•..•:.•.••.•.•..........CDCD<•.:........................................<LIIII— CDcnt)FdHI;o-cz- CD—r) =.*oo 7Q _.CD —CD0 l2csE.—.-t <C) CD ,0Q- J)cCDCDo0j(jCD cM .00.. —- z0)o 0_ .CD)_ CDc’•CD CD .0 - - ) --n m rn ci w C,:4:.II I•:•.Q.. IC0.3_.:::::::::.:..:•..:.•:::::::::::.‘117412 Please write down any suggestions you have for changingthis part of the program13 If there is anything that I have not asked you about that you thinkI should knowabout please write it down below175Appendix GFeedback 4176FEEDBACK 4On the other feedback sheets you have been asked to rate separate partsof 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 ofthe program.I. Overall, I found the entire finirteendciv progruninot helpful helpfulvery 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 partof the program4. if there is anything that I have not asked you about that you thinkI should knowabout please write it down below.177Appendix HImplementation Checklist178Implementation ChecklistWEEK 1- DAY 1Yes 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 2Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites the group toraise any insights they have on the content of Day 1 andto 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 ListandPersonal 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 instructionsandasks participants to complete the Self Appraisal andto 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 ofDay2182183Implementation ChecklistWEEK 1- DAY 3Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites the groupto raise any insights they have on the content of Day 2 andto askany questions they have about the homeworkassignment.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 andpersonalcharacteristics which contributed to their pastsuccesses.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’ effortand remarkson the way that the success stories and the discussionof thestories promotes positive feelings in the group.3. Discovering Interestsa. Instructor displays the Wheel and introduces thenextmarketable asset of interests.b. Instructor distributes the SDSAssessment Bookletand Occupations Finder and asks the participantsto completethe Assessment Booklet including the self-scoringsection.c. Instructor assists any participants who require help.d. Instructor asks participants to record their interestsontheir Unique Wheels.e. Instructor invites the participants to describetheir 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 4Yes 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 participantsto complete the form onan individual basis.i. Instructor distributes the handout Prioritizing WorkValuesand 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 theirpersonalstyles solely in terms of their dominant style.f The small groups are asked to discuss how the style usedbythe members is effective or ineffective invarious 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 byasking participants toconsider the interaction between their goalsand their personalstyle.i. Instructor asks the participants to record their personalstyleon their Unique Wheel.j. Instructor distributes the handout Using Your Individual Stylein Career Decision Making andJob 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 5Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites thegroup to raise any insights about Day 4 andto 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 nota 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 importanceofcreating a new view of themselves based on the total oftheir marketable assets.b. Instructor directs the participants to look fora pattern in theinformation they have recorded on theirUnique Wheel and todecide the ranking of each asset in terms of importanceto them.c. Instructor asks the participants to review the lists ofpossiblecareer options and to record on the list their reasonsforconsidering or not considering theoccupations.d. Instructor asks the participants to lookover the listof options and reasons they have createdto 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 6Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back andasks thegroup to raise any insights that they have on the contentof Day 5and to ask any questions they haveabout 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 usinga new self-definition and taking part in careerexploration can make jobsearch more effective.b. Instructor reminds the participants that the objective forWeek 1was to help the participants to see themselves in lightof theirmarketable assets.d. Instructor explains that the focus for Week 2 willbe to helpparticipants understand the current labour marketand thecareer exploration process. Instructor pointsout 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 LabourMarketTrends 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 informationwill bean important resource.3. Accessing the Labour Marketa. Instructor defines the term ‘manoeuvring in the marketplace’,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 ideasaboutresearch resources that are available to them.e. Instructor points out that the same resourcesare usefll forresearching companies and helps the groupto identifyadditional resources for researching companies.£ Instructor distributes the handout PublicLibrary Checklistand explains all the resources availableat the local library.g. Instructor discusses the use of the yellow pages as aresource for career exploration.h. Instructor explains that peoplemust often limit time spenton research and gives the participants guidelinesforfocusing research.i. Instructor distributes the handouts OccupationalAssessmentand 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 completetheresearch 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 7Yes No1. Preview and Reviewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invitesthegroup to raise any insights they have on thecontent ofDay 6and to ask any questions about the homeworkassignment.b. Instructor responds to the participants’ commentsandQuestions.c. Instructor briefly introduces the activitiesof 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 barriersto 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 isa 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 participantsto share their impressionsDay 7 and responds to their comments.194195Implementation ChecklistWEEK 2- DAY 8Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites the groupto raise any insights they have on the content ofDay 7 andtoask any questions they have on the homework assignment.b. Instructor responds to any questions and/orcomments.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 leadsadiscussion 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 participantsto 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 9Yes No1, Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites thegroup to raise any insights they have on the content ofDay8and 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 confrontedbybarriers, 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 theirtopjob 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 andtoseek options for overcoming the barrier.c. Instructor reconvenes the groupto debrief the activity, emphasizingthe fact that barriers can be overcome usingan effective problemsolving strategy.4. Closinga. Instructor reviews the activities ofDay 9.b. Instructor asks the participantsto review the activities of Weeks1 and 2 and to consider their next stepsafter Day 10.c. Instructor invites the participantsto share their impressionsofDay 9 and responds to their comments.198199Implementation ChecklistWEEK 2- DAY 10Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invitesthe group to raise any insights they have on Day 9andto 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 inthe courseof the group.d. Instructor commends the participants for the helpthey have provided to each other in thegroup.e. Instructor thanks the group for their participation andwishes the participants success in theircareer exploration.f Instructor reminds participants that the first 10days 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 theirresumeslearn how to find job leads and practice jobinterviews.h. Instructor points out that the communication anddecision makingskills, already discussed in the program, aregood 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 StageYes Noa. Instructor welcomes the participants back andinvites 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 listofjob searchstrategies and writes down the strategiesas they are identified.d. Instructor organizes the strategies underheadings of ‘developingjob leads, ‘applying for jobs’, and ‘interviews’.e. Using the lists of strategies the instructor leads thegroup in adiscussion about the goals for the group.f Instructor debriefs the activity by asking the group memberstoidentify new information, insights,etc.2. Writing the Resumea. Instructor discusses the importance of havinga good resume,referring to the handout Resumes.b. Instructor reviews the two styles of resumes usingthe handoutsSample Chronological Resume and Sample Functional Resume.c. Instructor reviews the participants’ resumes individually, andassistsin 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 participantsinwriting covering letters.b. Instructor forms the participants into small groups, askseachgroup to select an ad, preferably relatedto 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 fromthe 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 theparticipants 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 impressionsofDay 11 and responds to their comments.203Implementation ChecklistWEEK 3- DAY 12Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back and invites thegroup to raise any insights they have aboutthe home workassignment.b. Instructor responds to the concerns andquestions.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 intoa ‘networking’ anda ‘direct contacts’ group and distributes handouts, appropriateto each group’s topic, to the groups.c. Each group discusses their experience with theirtopic using thehandouts as resources.d. Instructor facilitates each group’s presentation on theirtopic andthe discussion following their presentation.e. Instructor ends the discussion with a summary of the informationpresented by the groups, suggests additionalstrategies 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 howto 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 theircomments andinsights on the content of Day 12 and respondsto theircomments.204205Implementation ChecklistWEEK 3- DAY 13Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor welcomes the participants back andinvites the groupto share their insights on the content ofDay 12 andto ask anyquestions relating to the home work assignment.b. Instructor outlines the topics for Day 13 briefly.c. Instructor asks the participants to distribute acopy 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 Impressionsand plays avideotape of a model interview.b. Instructor asks the participantsto critique the interview using theguidelines on the handout Videotape Checklist.c. Instructor leads the discussion of themodel interview.d. Instructor distributes the handout The Interview PlanningFormand 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 theactivity 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 positiveattitudes andbehaviours demonstrated in the model interviews andacomparison of the differences in structure between the206two interviews.c. Instructor directs the participants to prepare individualinterview outlines using handout material distributedbythe instructor. Participants are requestedto 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 videotapingof 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 14Yes No1. Review and Previewa. Instructor explains the procedures for participantstovideotape 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 makenotes on theirperceptions of their performance during theirinterviewsimmediately following the interview using thehandoutVideotape Checklist.d. Instructor reminds the participants that the interviewsare being taped in separate rooms and that theprogramroom is available for continued work onother programcomponents.e. Instructor plays back the videotape of all theinterviewsfor the large group and facilitates the groupin givingfeedback to individual members.f. Instructor ensures that the first feedback given ispositive information in order to make certainthegroup members remain receptive.g. Instructor debriefs the interview activity by focusing onnew or helpful feedback members have receivedduringthe activity.4. After the Interviewa. Instructor explains the importance of followingup afterthe interview and distributes the handout Follow-upLetterto 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 conclusionof thegroup.c. Instructor explains the procedures for obtaining ongoingjobsearch 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 thatyou completed in the program.Please complete them again and send them backto 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 onyourparticipation in the Career Redirection and Job Search SkillsProgram. told youthat you would receive this package of questionnairesby mail. The questionnaireswill be familiar to you since they are the same questionnairesthat you answeredduring the Program.Please read the instructions for completing thequestionnaires carefully and answerthem as soon as possible. Kindly mail the completedquestionnaires back to me inthe enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope. Asbefore, the questionnaires arecoded to ensure anonymity.The information that I obtain from these questionnaireswill help me to evaluatethe effectiveness of the Program. Thank you for your cooperationin answeringthe questionnaires.If you need help with the questionnaires pleasecontact____by telephone at________Local____or toll free at____________,Local____.If you prefer, you arewelcome to call me at_______or___________,Local____Yours 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 thatyoufirst 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 youbeginjust before you were injured and continue to describe your experience in termsof thoughts, feelings, actions, and what you’ve doneto 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 describewhat you consider to be yourhighest points in the program? For example,starting at the first high point youcan remember what happened exactly and whywas it helpful for you?7. Now turning to the low points during this experience, startat the first lowpoint you can remember, and explain why it was difficult foryou?8. What are your expectations about the future right now? Forexample, 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 Ishould know?216Appendix LExample of an Interview Transcript217Sept/30/93InterviewInterviewer:____________________Interviewee: Client 2BBefore we discuss the details of the Career Redirection andJob 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 butI 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 theladder tosupervisory capacity and that’s where I expected toend up.I: Becoming more specific now, could you please tellme 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 becomingaware that Ineeded something new, I guess it was about a year and a half agoso that’sabout a year and a half after the injury before it really settled into my mindthatno, 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 ofyour 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 justbeforeyou were injured and continue to describe your experience in termsof 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 onwith my lifein the fashion that I’d been used to. When I got injured I thought it wouldheal. Ithought it was just another injury. I done everything the medical peopletold meto do. Followed every word closely and made sure that I done what I hadto. Atthat time I just felt that it was going to be possibly a long extendedhealingperiod. After trying to go back to work and seeing the limitations I had, andreinjuring again, because of that re-injuring. I pulled muscles because I wastryingto do the protection thing, that just made me realize that this thing wasn’tgoingto go away. I kind of realized I was mortal, you know. And then abouta yearand a half ago I started to try and change my lifestyle and at firstI 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 plansthat 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 otherand weknow each other. I feel that things are working out and I thinkwe’ve got thingson track.I: Focusing more on the present now, could youtell me about your experience ofthe Career Redirection & Job Search Program? Just like you didearlier, think ofit as a story with a beginning, middle and end. Please start just before youwerecontacted to come into the program and describe your experiencein 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. AfterI got asked to come into theprogram due to the reputation of the Rehab CenterI was pretty apprehensive. Ididn’t know what the hell was going on over there. I wastold not to trustanybody in the place. Then I decided I’d go andI got there and I found anextremely bad attitude. Just kind of a defeatist attitude in thewhole place.Once I got into the course I realized that I wasn’t going to see much thatI hadn’tseen before. But it was in a different group situation. Anyother time that I’vebeen involved in that type of a course or class or whatever youcall it group, itwasn’t with people that were in the same situation as me and nowI’m in thissituation and I felt I came away learning some things and I felt thatbecause ofmy experiences I may have helped some people. I felt good about it andI feltvery good about getting it over with.I: Becoming more specific, could you describe what you considerto be yourhighest points in the program? For example, starting at the firsthigh 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 Igot 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 realizingthat wewere a group. We weren’t just a bunch of people together. The second thingIthink 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 somethingthat Ifind is useful in a lot things. That peer group rules have tobe adhered tobecause they are peer groups they aren’t something forced onyou. 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 highestpoint 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 atthe first low pointyou can remember and explain why it was difficult for you?C: Well, as I said the atmosphere of the geographic locationI guess I would haveto say. It shouldn’t be held in there. Anything that is trying tobe held in an upscale is dragged completely down in that atmosphere.A very defeatistatmosphere. I think that if the first part of the course hadbeen devoted toexplaining the Board workers position and what they could and couldn’tdo andhow decisions were arrived at, it would have changed a lot of this atmosphereand I think just knowing where somebody’s coming from, what theirparametersare is always easier to accept what is happening. Then also, givesyou 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 difficulttimes. 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 areafor us that we havebeen kind of fringing around. And it’s something that will fitin and extend myactual, how would you word it, useful working years by probablyto the age of 70- 75.I: Wow. What is your current job?C: Student. I’m taking mechanics, marine mechanics because I’mmarine 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 otherona, I don’t know, official type basis. Where, say the compensation sendsoutsomething where we could transfer back and forth and it was somethingthatpeople, I don’t want to say forced, but would do on an official basis. Thenas wehelped each other during the course, I think it would be a little bit ofa 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 difficultiesareand 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 ofgoodfriends in my group that could be friends if it wasn’t geographicallyseparated. 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 forme and for other people and also reinforceseverybody’s, confirmation of everybody’s expectations in thecourse and theycan see through the eyes of the other people things thatwe can’t see throughour own eyes. That’s about it,Thank you very much. That brings our interview toa 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