Increasing Restroom Checks

1. Increasing Restroom Checks Name: Beckie Telck Class: BSAP/460 Semester: Fall 2006 TA Name: Allison

2. Setting and Participant Description • The project took place at Applebee's Neighborhood Bar and Grill on West Main • The participants were the hosting staff • About 10 employees • The manager involved was the General Manger

3. Reason to Intervene • Restrooms need to be checked every ½ hour • Hosts were only completing bathroom checks at about 1% during baseline data • We wanted to improve this to as close to 100% as possible

4. Analyze the Natural Contingencies • The ineffective natural contingency acting for the hosts in this situation was escape. • By checking the restrooms they lowered the probability of losing their job. • Since the probability of losing their jobs due to not checking the rest room was too low it did not effectively control behavior.

5. Have a low probability of losing job Analyze the Natural Contingencies Checks restroom Have an infinitesimally lower probability of losing job Ineffective Natural Contingency

6. Has a given amount of time to greet guests at door Analyze the Natural Contingencies Checks restroom Has less amount of time to greet guests at door Natural Competing Contingency

7. Baseline Graph

8. Baseline Graph Description • There were 3 weeks of baseline data • Restroom checks were being completed approximately 1% of the time • This needed great improvement to help achieve better customer service

9. Specify the Performance Objectives The goal of the intervention was to increase the frequency of restroom checks as close to 100% as possible to help increase customer service and cleanliness of the restaurant.

10. Input-Process-Output Model [100% Completed Restroom Checks (output) Production:Using checklist to monitor hosts(process) [Less than 100% Completed Restroom Checks] (input)

11. Goal Specification Form

12. Design the Intervention • The hosts would be required to initial a checklist for every restroom check • They would be provided graphic feedback each week • Managers would provide verbal feedback • Each time they initialed they would be entered in a weekly drawing

13. Ineffective Natural Contingency Have a low probability of losing job Checks restroom Has a slightly lower probability of losing job Indirect-acting Performance Management Contingency Design the Intervention Will lose opportunity for positive feedback Checks restroom Won’t lose opportunity for positive feedback 3 Contingency Performance Management Theoretical Contingency Fear of losing opportunity for positive feedback Checks restroom No fear of losing opportunity for positive feedback

14. Implement the Intervention • The intervention was implemented on February 23, 2007 • We first introduced the checklist, which the hosts had to initial for each bathroom check • We introduced graphic feedback the following week • Mangers provided verbal feedback throughout the intervention

15. Evaluate the Intervention

16. Evaluate the Intervention • The intervention was not 100% successful, but there was improvement! • They went from 1% all the way to 43% in the first week. A great improvement!

17. Social Validity • Hosts were given a social validity questionnaire to evaluate their experience with the intervention

18. Social Validity (cont.) • When asked if the restroom checklist improved cleaning all hosts agreed and rated it 5

19. IOA • Interobserver agreement was taken at the beginning and the end of the intervention • Another employee that was not involved with the intervention assisted • We each took data during one hour • We both agreed that the all behavior occurred in each restroom check was correct making IOA = 100%

20. Treatment Integrity • Treatment Integrity: is the degree to which an intervention is reliably implemented as reported during the BSAP project. • An outline was designed to implement all the components of the intervention • I was monitored by my systems manager and general manager of Applebee’s • Social validity was used to determine the satisfaction and completion of each component

21. Personal Experience • I thought this project provided me with great experience. • I learned hands on how to implement an intervention by using the 6 steps of behavior analysis. • I was happy with the results of my intervention and thought it made a significant difference.

22. Manager and Employees’ Experience • Feedback from the managers and employees was positive • I was able to help them improve on an behavior that was not occurring often enough • Even though the hosts may have not like doing the checklist, they appreciated it and knew that it was beneficial

23. Questions or Comments???