Orientation and Mobility Competency Agreements From 1983 to 2019: A Comparative Analysis of Professional Standards

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 REHABILITATION
William M. Penrod, Ximena D. Burgin, W. Wiener, Eileen Siffermann, B. Blasch
{"title":"Orientation and Mobility Competency Agreements From 1983 to 2019: A Comparative Analysis of Professional Standards","authors":"William M. Penrod, Ximena D. Burgin, W. Wiener, Eileen Siffermann, B. Blasch","doi":"10.1177/0145482X231188698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: In 1983, Mark Uslan, Everett (Butch) Hill and Alec Peck conducted research to identify the competencies essential to the practice of the orientation and mobility (O&M) profession. This study compares the levels of agreement to those standards by O&M professionals in 2019. Methods: In a 1983 study, Uslan et al. interviewed practitioners to determine the goal areas and competencies that underlie the profession. In 2019, an institutional review board approved this study to compare current practice competencies related to O&M with the competencies documented in the 1983 study. The survey methodology utilized the survey used by Uslan et al. to determine if current practitioners have similar levels of agreement with the competencies and if there have been shifts in the ranking of their importance. Results: Survey data are surprisingly similar between the 1983 and 2019 evaluation of competencies, with some changes in the relative importance of some categories. The results indicated the current relevance of the competencies for the O&M profession in the twenty-first century. Discussion: The evidence indicates that the professional standards reported in 1983 remain extant and viable in the twenty-first century. As the profession develops, it is important these standards be revisited periodically to ensure they reflect the core standards of the O&M profession. Implications for Practitioners: It is evident that professionals support all original competencies and those competencies remain viable. Universities should be certain that all competencies are being taught to meet the requirements for quality services.","PeriodicalId":47438,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness","volume":"117 1","pages":"270 - 277"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X231188698","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: In 1983, Mark Uslan, Everett (Butch) Hill and Alec Peck conducted research to identify the competencies essential to the practice of the orientation and mobility (O&M) profession. This study compares the levels of agreement to those standards by O&M professionals in 2019. Methods: In a 1983 study, Uslan et al. interviewed practitioners to determine the goal areas and competencies that underlie the profession. In 2019, an institutional review board approved this study to compare current practice competencies related to O&M with the competencies documented in the 1983 study. The survey methodology utilized the survey used by Uslan et al. to determine if current practitioners have similar levels of agreement with the competencies and if there have been shifts in the ranking of their importance. Results: Survey data are surprisingly similar between the 1983 and 2019 evaluation of competencies, with some changes in the relative importance of some categories. The results indicated the current relevance of the competencies for the O&M profession in the twenty-first century. Discussion: The evidence indicates that the professional standards reported in 1983 remain extant and viable in the twenty-first century. As the profession develops, it is important these standards be revisited periodically to ensure they reflect the core standards of the O&M profession. Implications for Practitioners: It is evident that professionals support all original competencies and those competencies remain viable. Universities should be certain that all competencies are being taught to meet the requirements for quality services.
从1983年到2019年的取向和流动能力协议:专业标准的比较分析
简介:1983年,Mark Uslan、Everett(Butch)Hill和Alec Peck进行了一项研究,以确定定向和流动(O&M)职业实践所必需的能力。这项研究将2019年运维专业人员的协议水平与这些标准进行了比较。方法:在1983年的一项研究中,Uslan等人采访了从业者,以确定职业的目标领域和能力。2019年,一个机构审查委员会批准了这项研究,将当前与运维相关的实践能力与1983年研究中记录的能力进行比较。调查方法利用Uslan等人使用的调查来确定当前从业者是否对能力有类似的认同程度,以及他们的重要性排名是否发生了变化。结果:1983年和2019年的能力评估的调查数据惊人地相似,一些类别的相对重要性发生了一些变化。研究结果表明了21世纪运维专业能力的当前相关性。讨论:证据表明,1983年报告的专业标准在21世纪仍然存在和可行。随着行业的发展,定期重新审查这些标准以确保它们反映运维行业的核心标准是很重要的。对从业者的影响:很明显,专业人员支持所有原始能力,这些能力仍然可行。大学应该确信,所有的能力都是为了满足优质服务的要求而教授的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness is the essential professional resource for information about visual impairment (that is, blindness or low vision). The international peer-reviewed journal of record in the field, it delivers current research and best practice information, commentary from authoritative experts on critical topics, News From the Field, and a calendar of important events. Practitioners and researchers, policymakers and administrators, counselors and advocates rely on JVIB for its delivery of cutting-edge research and the most up-to-date practices in the field of visual impairment and blindness. Available in print and online 24/7, JVIB offers immediate access to information from the leading researchers, teachers of students with visual impairments (often referred to as TVIs), orientation and mobility (O&M) practitioners, vision rehabilitation therapists (often referred to as VRTs), early interventionists, and low vision therapists (often referred to as LVTs) in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信