The interpretation session convened on Friday morning to interpret
the results of the concept mapping analysis. This session followed
a structured process described in detail in Trochim (1989a). The
facilitator began the session by giving the participants the listing
of clustered statements and reminding them of the brainstorming,
sorting and rating tasks performed the previous evening. The participants
were asked to read through the set of statements in each cluster
and generate a short phrase or word to describe or label the set
of statements as a cluster. The facilitator led the group in a
discussion where they worked cluster-by-cluster to achieve group
consensus on an acceptable label for each cluster. In most cases,
when persons suggested labels for a specific cluster, the group
readily came to a consensus. Where the group had difficulty achieving
a consensus, the facilitator suggested they use a hybrid name,
combining key terms or phrases from several individuals' labels.
Once the clusters were labeled, the group was given the point map and told that the analysis placed the statements on the map so that statements frequently piled together are generally closer to each other on the map than statements infrequently piled together. To reinforce the notion that the analysis placed the statements sensibly, participants were given a few minutes to identify statements close together on the map and examine the contents of those statements. After becoming familiar with the numbered point map, they were told that the analysis also organized the points (i.e., statements) into groups as shown on the list of clustered statements they had already labeled.
Participants then examined the labeled cluster map to see whether
it made sense to them. The facilitator reminded participants that
in general, clusters closer together on the map should be conceptually
more similar than clusters farther apart and asked them to assess
whether this seemed to be true or not. Participants were asked
to think of a geographic map, and "take a trip" across
the map reading each cluster in turn to see whether or not the
visual structure seemed sensible. They were then asked to identify
any interpretable groups of clusters or "regions." These
were discussed and partitions drawn on the map to indicate the
different regions. Just as in labeling the clusters, the group
then arrived at a consensus label for each of the identified regions.
Five regions were identified and are shown in capital letters. No boundaries were drawn to distinguish these five
regions.
The facilitator noted that all of the material presented to this
point used only the sorting data. The results of the rating task
were then presented through the point rating (Figure 3) and cluster
rating (Figure 5) maps. It was explained that the height of a
point or cluster represented the average importance rating for
that statement or cluster of statements. Again, participants were
encouraged to examine these maps to determine whether they made
intuitive sense and to discuss what the maps might imply about
the ideas that underlie their conceptualization.
Table 3 shows the complete cluster listing with the cluster labels
the participants assigned and the average importance rating for
each statement and cluster.
The pattern of ratings on the map suggested that participants
attached more importance to the clusters that had "value"
statements than to those made up of skills. This can perhaps be
seen most clearly in Table 4 which shows the ninety-six competency
statements sorted from highest to lowest average importance rating.
It is clear from the table that the statements near the top of
the table tend to be more general in nature and more related to
values while the statements near the bottom of the table tend
to be more specific, operationalized, skill or knowledge-based
ones. Some of the participants felt that the value statements
can't be considered competencies per se because they are not sufficiently
operationalized. Others felt that the value statements have actually
been holding IAPSRS back in their development of competencies
because they place too much importance on these generic values
and not on a more specific skill base. Still others felt that
the value statements are at the heart of what PSR represents and
that they can and should be operationalized as competencies. The
facilitator characterized the discussion as a choice between two
alternatives:
A) Pull the value statements out of the competencies, perhaps
putting them in a section up front describing the kinds of values
and characteristics expected of psychosocial rehabilitation workers.
B) Operationalize the value statements so they can be included
as formal competencies.
The consensus of the group was that option B was preferable. As
a result, the group decided that a major portion of the afternoon
utilization session would involve taking the value-oriented clusters
(Clusters 1-5) and attempting to draft operationalized competency
statements for the statements in these clusters.
The group also discussed what concepts seemed to be missing (primarily
at the cluster level) from the map. The following potentially
missing labels were generated:
1 Advocacy
2 Systems Change
3 Vocational-Employment
4 Spiritual
5 Housing
6 Education
7 Health
8 Social/Recreational
9 Outcome Evaluation
10 Client Budgeting/Finances
11 Program Management
12 Health and Safety
The group then discussed whether the eventual competencies should
have subject-specific categories (such as housing, education,
employment) or whether competencies related to such areas should
be spread across the types of headings already on the map (for
instance, consumer outcomes related to employment). The consensus
of the group was that the competencies should not be grouped by
subject.
Back to Contents