University of Wisconsin–Madison

LEND Outcomes Study

LEND OUTCOMES STUDY GOALS

Although evidence from completion of the NIRS Graduate Survey shows that professionals and advocates who have completed LEND training are engaged in interdisciplinary leadership activities aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of individuals with developmental disabilities, the network currently has limited evidence to demonstrate whether LEND graduates are more engaged or successful than peers with the same professional training. We began the LEND Outcomes Study in 2014 to test the feasibility of collecting follow-up data from LEND trainees and a comparison group using a case control design. Over the past four years, we demonstrated that it is feasible to recruit, retain, and collect data from three separate annual cohorts of LEND trainees and comparison peers across three program sites. This presentation represents the pioneering efforts of three LEND programs (Nisonger Center LEND, Wisconsin LEND, LEND of Pittsburgh) to establish a robust measure (LEND Outcomes Follow-Up Survey) that will demonstrate the power of LEND training.

LEND Outcomes Study Timeline

LEND Outcomes Study flow chart. Contact Lauren Bishop for details.

Preliminary Follow-Up Survey Results

OVERVIEW

We Recruited 93.7% of eligible participants.

Survey took, on average, 24:45 to complete

Trainees (T) and Comparison Peers (C) were 88.4% and 96.7% female, respectively

Many trainees and comparison peers either had a family member with a disability (T: 55.8%; C: 43.3%) or themselves had a disability (T: 34.9%; C: 26.7%).

The “Active Ingredients” of LEND Training
The “Active Ingredients” of LEND Training
Compared to controls, LEND trainees
Compared to controls, LEND trainees were significantly more likely to endorse experience with engaging in professional activities related to advocacy, research, or systems-level activities. Specific activities are detailed in the plot.
group differences
We identified group differences in questions that tapped activities rather than perspectives. LEND Trainees were more likely than comparison peers to Be oriented to the systems level, engage in advocacy, and conduct research
Chart of outcomes
Both trainees and comparison peers believe that they utilize MCH and LEND skills and competencies professionally. LEND Trainees were more likely than comparison peers to work with people with disabilities and underserved populations

HIGHLIGHTED FINDINGS & IMPLICATIONS

It is highly feasible to collect prospective, longitudinal data on LEND Trainees and comparison peers.

We identified group differences in questions that tapped activities rather than perspectives.

Both trainees and comparison peers believe that they utilize MCH and LEND skills and competencies professionally.

LEND Trainees were more likely than comparison peers to:

Work with people with disabilities

Work with underserved populations

Participate in leadership activities that demonstrated an intersectional orientation and interdisciplinary approach

Be oriented to the systems level

Engage in advocacy

Conduct research

No significant differences in:

Workplace characteristics

Perception of own leadership in the workplace

Agreement with MCH and LEND skills and competencies

Job satisfaction