222 Chapter 7 Table 6. Process evaluation measures Process evaluation outcomes Mean (SD)/% Contextual factors on supervisor and organizational level Outcome expectation: I expect ‘Mentorwijs’ to succeed in improving the employability of employees with a work disability 4.4 (0.8) Task perception: I consider it part of my job to apply what I have learned in the training to the guidance of employees 4.6 (0.7) Satisfaction employees: Employees are in general satisfied if I use what I have learned in the training 4.2 (0.9) Self-efficacy expectation: I am able to use what I have learned in the training in the guidance of employees 4.1 (0.6) *** Sufficient staff: There is sufficient staff in our organization to apply what I have learned in the training 4.1 (1.0) Financial resources: I receive sufficient financial resources from our organization to apply what I have learned in the training 4.2 (1.0) Time: I get enough time from our organization to apply what I learned in the training 4.4 (0.8) Feedback: In my organization there is regular discussion with employers about what I have learned in the training and how it can improve the guidance of employees and how to implement this in the guidance 3.3 (1.2) Formal endorsement: Formal agreements in the organizational policies have been made by the management and/or employer about guiding employees corresponding to what supervisors have learned in the training Yes = 31% No = 28% I don’t know = 41% *Scale 1-5; 1=very unsatisfied, 5=very satisfied; **Scale 1-5; 1=totally disagree, 5=totally agree; ***Scale 1-5; 1=most definitely not, 5=most definitely yes Discussion On employee level, ‘Mentorwijs’ significantly improved outcomes on employment after 8 months. ‘Mentorwijs’ tended to have a positive effect on the sustainable employability of employees with a work disability, as can be obtained from figure
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw