206 Chapter 7 characteristics and employment and social security history were available from Statistics Netherlands. Intervention and control group of employees with a work disability Register data was used to match the ‘Mentorwijs’ group to a similar group of employees. Therefore, we selected employees in similar regions for Foodvalley (Stedendriehoek & Noord-West Veluwe), Rivierenland (Noord-Oost Brabant) and Helmond-De Peel (Noord-Limburg) and collected personal and current job characteristics as well as information on individual employment and social security history. In the regions were ‘Mentorwijs’ was provided to supervisors we did not have an overview of which employees have a supervisor who did or did not follow the training. Therefore, employees in the control group were selected from other, comparable, regions as the ones in the intervention group, to make sure that employees were not guided by a supervisor who followed ‘Mentorwijs’. We matched on the following characteristics: sex, age, region, educational level, ethnical background, work history in 12 months before intervention, number of years in current job, unemployment or social assistance benefit as main income during at least 1 month in 12 months before intervention, sickness or disability benefits as main income during at least 1 month in 12 months before intervention, temporary contract, sector of economic activity, total number of employees of the employer, indicator semi-sheltered sector (i.e. sheltered workplace) and wage level. We used propensity score matching (nearest neighbor) with common support, because exact matching would have leaded to an additional loss of 20 ‘Mentorwijs’ employees that could not be matched. Questionnaire data-collection among supervisors Self-reported questionnaires were used to obtain data on the effect and process of ‘Mentorwijs’ among supervisors who followed the training (i.e. aim 3 and 4). Questionnaires provided information on the personal and work characteristics of supervisors and outcome and process measures. Questionnaires were completed before the training (T0), directly after the training (T1) and 3 and 6 months after the end of the training (T2 & T3). Outcome measures for the effect evaluation were 1) determinants for behavior - i.e. knowledge regarding employees with a work disability and the supervision of this group and self-efficacy regarding the supervision of employees with a work disability, 2) intention to adopt behaviors regarding the supervision of employees with a work disability, and 3) the extent to which behaviors regarding the guidance of employees with a work disability were applied. Self-efficacy, intention to adopt and applied behaviors were, in accordance with the training, divided into attitudes and skills. For example, an item to measure attitude was that we asked supervisors whether they have self-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw