A study about standardization of evaluation in mental health welfare training education

• Project/Area Number: 15530389
• Research Category: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• Allocation Type: Single-year Grants
• Section: 一般
• Research Field: Social welfare and social work studies
• Research Institution: Kawasaki University of Medical Welfare (2005); Fukuyama Heisei University (2003-2004)
• Principal Investigator: NAGASAKI Kazunori Kawasaki University of Medical Welfare, Department of Medical Welfare, Assistant Professor, 医療福祉学部, 助教授 (90309641)
• Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha): OUNAKA Akira Hukuyama Heisei University, Department of Welfare Health, Lecturer, 福祉健康学部, 講師 (80330695)
• Project Period (FY): 2003 – 2005
• Project Status: Completed (Fiscal Year 2005)
• Budget Amount: ¥3,600,000 (Direct Cost: ¥3,600,000); Fiscal Year 2005: ¥900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000); Fiscal Year 2004: ¥800,000 (Direct Cost: ¥800,000); Fiscal Year 2003: ¥1,900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,900,000)
• Keywords: Mental health welfare training education / Training evaluation / Evaluation item / Evaluation standard / Evaluation method / Modified-Graundead Theory Approach(M-GTA) / グラウンデッド・セオリー・アプローチ / グラウンデッド・セオリー

Research Abstract

In 2003, we reviewed a precedent study about evaluation in mental health welfare training education and collected the basics data that it was necessary for investigation of quality in parallel with it. The data which I collected are 40 of them by a cassette tape (2003). The following thing discovered us after starting analysis based on revision Graun dead theory approach (M-GTA) by the end of 2003.
(1)In the training item, item itself is vague, and a training leader does not keep the item under control enough.
(2)An evaluation standard is not clear, and therefore the standard is not recognized by a student.
(3)As well as an evaluation item and an evaluation standard, We have to clarify a method or a procedure to convey about evaluation.
(4)An evaluation item, an evaluation standard, an evaluation method are related, and it is necessary for a training leader to understand perspective enough.
(5)Training evaluation is collaboration with a person estimated as a person evaluating it, and that I share the above is demanded
In 2004, we continued the analysis that we used M-GTA for by the basics data which we collected. As a result of analysis, we extracted 24 training evaluation items. These items belong to three categories greatly. These category are, (1)about a communication with user, (2)about relations with a supervisor, (3)about social work.
In 2005, we clarified the common understanding that a teacher, a training leader, three persons of a student should have had about evaluation about evaluation provided by conventional data analysis. And we showed the procedure that a training evaluation process was necessary for to share it and aimed at being standardized. We showed teacher and that a training leader had to perform communication with a training student adequately and made a tool to be able to help the work that shared that I related to an evaluation item, an evaluation standard, an evaluation method in appropriate communication and showed the usage. By this, a teacher and a training leader show an evaluation process being aware of these definitely and can confirm it.
We did schematization of perspective of a general idea generated by these work and made a story line. And I clarified a practical use process of a tool to make training evaluation a thing with effect more.