1 / 19

2005 SSO:USA Member Surveys

2005 SSO:USA Member Surveys. Malcolm Cutchin, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Introduction. Collaborative effort of Research Ctte, Communications Ctte and Board Goal was to obtain and assess cross-sectional data from members to shape activities and direction of SSO:USA

griselda-robert
Download Presentation

2005 SSO:USA Member Surveys

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2005 SSO:USA Member Surveys Malcolm Cutchin, PhD University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

  2. Introduction • Collaborative effort of Research Ctte, Communications Ctte and Board • Goal was to obtain and assess cross-sectional data from members to shape activities and direction of SSO:USA • This is a brief synopsis of what we did and what we learned 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  3. Background • SSO:USA strategic plan includes survey • Learning about issues beyond annual conference evaluation was goal • Information deemed important for board decision-making and responsiveness to membership 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  4. Methods • Areas investigated • Conference, Research, Communications, Vision, Direction, Member Benefits • Research committee drafted survey with input from board • Board provided feedback; revisions made • Survey split into two parts • Communications committee chair (Bilics) piloted and implemented via the web 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  5. Methods • Domains covered in each survey: • Survey 1: Conference, Research, Communications • Survey 2: Vision, Direction, Member Benefits • Quantitative and qualitative data collected in each • 103 past and current members invited to take survey (93% of respondents are current) • Response rates = 56% and 53% 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  6. Survey 1: Conference, Research, Communications 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  7. Survey on Conference, Research, and Communication Issues Items Rated Most Important (1=unimportant, 5=very important)N = 58 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  8. Survey on Conference, Research, and Communication Issues Items Rated Most Important (1=unimportant, 5=very important) N = 58 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  9. Survey on Conference, Research, and Communication Issues Items Rated Most Important (1=unimportant, 5=very important)N = 58 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  10. What conferences other than this one and AOTA are attended by our members? • Qualitative responses • 27 of the 42 valid responses include a meeting/conference other than any OT/OS • Many of the other meetings/conferences were interdisciplinary in nature • A relatively large subset of occupational scientists engage with members of other disciplines at other meetings 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  11. What journals outside of OT and OS do SSO:USA members read? • Qualitative responses • Many members (39) reported reading more than 1 journal outside of OT/OS • Many of those (28) read multiple journals from different disciplines • A large subset of members draw information from many fields (medicine, social sciences…) 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  12. Survey 2: Vision, Direction, Member Benefits 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  13. Top direction issues(scores = sum of products, reverse rank*frequency) 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  14. Top member benefits issues (scores = sum of products, reverse rank*frequency) 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  15. Focusing SSO:USA development toward more non-OT disciplines and what effects that might have for the organization and OS (open-ended item) • Strong support, and of 42 responses, only 3 stated this was not important to them • Advantages suggested in terms of cross-fertilization, enrichment, etc. • Although not always stated, the word choices of many responses indicated a perception that this was not happening now • Some wrote of “becoming more open,” or “welcoming in,” or “reaching out to” 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  16. Focusing SSO:USA development toward more OT-oriented efforts and what effects at might have for the organization and OS (open-ended item) • 20 of 42 responses saw this as undesirable although responses were nuanced • An often mentioned concern is that OT needs OS, and to strengthen SSO:USA ties to OT benefits OT practice • For those opposed to focusing on OT-oriented efforts, there was concern that it would insulate occupational science from what is going on in other fields 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  17. Qualitative Summary • Putting these 2 groups of responses together… • There seems to be a strong sense that occupational therapy needs the research that SSO: USA promotes • But the survival of SSO: USA might be threatened if the society does not attend to developing its non-OT base. 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  18. Conclusions • Limitations to survey data (response rate) • Members want information about research via SSO:USA (web site) • Members want surplus funds to be used for long-term organization goals • Some ambivalence about SSO:USA vis-à-vis OT and other academic disciplines • Evidence tends toward the non-OT orientation as more important goal 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

  19. Conclusions • Surveys not comprehensive, but provide some evidence of members’ views • Future SSO:USA boards and committees should use this information • Periodic re-survey needed using some of same items • Covering new ground in future surveys also worthy 2005 SSO:USA Research Conference

More Related