ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
Prompt D in the long-term survey read: “Gives me confidence to increase my skills in and understanding of [name of specific module topic] related to land reuse sites.” By including nearly identical knowledge assessment prompts in the long-term survey, ATSDR intended to assess the eectiveness of the training by comparing initial and long-term knowledge assessments. The initial knowledge assessments of the asynchronous EHLR Class- room Training included any participant in any of the five modules at any time. This inclusive structure resulted in a cohort of 129 partici- pants who responded to the initial knowledge assessments in one or more modules. Question Regarding the Most Useful Aspect of the Classroom Training Question 8 asked participants to specify if there was one aspect of the EHLR training that was most useful to them. The goal of this question was to gain qualitative feedback about the training over the long term. Question 9 asked participants to indicate how they took the training (i.e., through the ATSDR website or asynchronously on the NEHA web- site). Because our analysis was restricted to online asynchronous participants (i.e., via the NEHA website), Question 9 was not relevant to our analysis of the survey results. Results Out of 100 online asynchronous learners who were invited to participate in our sur- vey, 22 completed the follow-up survey (22% response rate). We compared initial knowledge assess- ments of asynchronous training participants to the knowledge assessments completed by the long-term survey respondents. The initial knowledge assessments were completed by 129 learners who participated in any training module. The cohort was larger than the first 100 learners who completed all five modules and all learners were invited to complete the follow-up survey. Regardless, we included the 129 knowledge assessment responses from all initial learners in any training module to evaluate all feedback received. Figures 1 and 2 summarize the results of responses to Questions 1 and 2 of the long- term survey. These questions pertained to the training in general. Within 12 months post- training, 17 of 22 (77%) respondents found the training to be useful ( n = 5) or very useful
FIGURE 1
Asynchronous Participant Responses to Question 1 of the Long- Term Follow-Up Survey for the Environmental Health and Land Reuse Training ( n = 22)
14
12
12
10
8
6
5
4
4
#
2
1
0
Not Useful at All
Somewhat Useful
Useful
V ery Useful
Note. Question 1 asked: “In general, how helpful has the Environmental Health and Land Reuse Training/Certificate Program been to increase your skills for integrating environmental health in land reuse and community revitalization?”
FIGURE 2
Asynchronous Participant Responses to Question 2 of the Long- Term Follow-Up Survey for the Environmental Health and Land Reuse Training ( n = 22)
10 12 14 16 18 20
18
14
12
0 2 4 6 8
6
#
1
Quick Reference
P reparation for a Meeting
B uild Skills in Environmental H ealth
Increased Capacity to Engage With Communities About Land Reuse
None of the Above
Note. Question 2 asked: “Considering the certificate training in general, are there any aspects you think were particularly useful? Select all that apply.”
34
Volume 88 • Number 2
Powered by FlippingBook