身心障礙者職業輔導評量服務成果與應用~以新北市三重區身心障礙者職業重建服務中心為例
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2020
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本研究目的有三：(一)分析新北市三重區職業重建服務中心職業輔導評量服務成果。(二)探討該中心職業輔導評量之應用情形。(三)探討相關人員對職業輔導評量執行與應用的看法。研究者基於建構主義現象學觀點，採用內容分析研究法之文件分析，及調查研究法的問卷調查與訪談法。研究參與者為2018年三重區職重中心的職評服務使用者或其重要他人、轉介之職重個管員、後續服務之就業服務員，職業輔導評量之職評人員。
文件分析方面，分析2018年個案服務資料70份，另考量障礙類別、職評員等因素，選取21份職評報告書進行深入分析。研究結果如下：
職評服務成果方面，個案接受職評之目的以「生涯的規劃」、「了解身心障礙狀況」為多。職重個管員轉介職評之目的包括「有庇護性就業需求而轉介」、「透過評量結果向案主或家屬澄清就業能力或問題」、「澄清合適的就業安置方向」、「建議合適的工作類型與職場輔導策略」、「特定功能或職業能力的評估」、「多次就業失敗或是推介困難個案，澄清失敗或困難原因」等。
個案接受評量內容項目以「身心障礙者狀況與功能表現」、「工作技能」最多。接受職評之方式以晤談、標準化測驗、現場試作為主。很少使用情境評量，主要是受限於實際職場環境較難配合情境條件控制。職評總時數平均為38.03小時。評量方式時數以標準化測驗較多（平均6.61小時），其次為現場試作（平均5.42小時）。
服務使用者、職重個管員在職評結案時與問卷調查時，各題項滿意比例大多在九成以上；以滿分5分計算平均數，服務使用者之各題項滿意度平均為4.33~4.73分、職重個管員為4.77~4.84分。顯示多數受訪者滿意該中心的職評服務。
完成職評追蹤服務時，職評安置符合建議者佔78.6%；間隔一段時間後，服務使用者現況符合職評建議者68.4%。
服務使用者、職重個管員、就業服務員大多表示職評報告有所幫助，覺得輔導建議合宜適當且可以執行。有77.2%的服務使用者表示職重人員有依照職評建議來提供服務；職重個管員應用安置建議比例為82.6%、應用職評報告內容比例為95.7%；就業服務員應用職評報告內容比例為87.2%。
對於可促進就業與應用職評結果之意見包括：
（一）個案本人或其重要他人觀點：(1)服務使用者有所想望、具工作動機。(2)服務使用者累積個人經驗、更認識自己。(3)評量結果符合期待，職評結果說明會議取得共識。(4)後續就業期程的個別情形不同，等候職缺時間有快有慢。
（二）職重個管員觀點：(1)職重個管員對於職評服務有深入認識。(2)原單位工作人員支持服務使用者轉銜職業重建服務。(3)職評結果提供職重個管員有關服務使用者的重要資訊。(4)職評結果說明會議上，服務使用者及相關人員對於後續就業方向取得共識並積極行動。
（三）就業服務員觀點：就業服務員與督導共同討論個案優勢能力、適性職場與注意事項，為重要促進原因之一。
（四）職評人員觀點：庇護性職場釋出職缺情形，會直接影響服務使用者就業等候期程，為重要原因之一。
根據研究結果提出以下建議，包括：
（一）職評個案服務方面：(1)提供具生涯觀點的職業輔導評量服務，支持服務使用者探索個人的職涯目標。(2)掌握服務使用者、案家執行策略可能問題，並依其執行能量提供具體且可執行之策略建議。
（二）促進職評應用方面：(1)增進職評人員對於社區就業市場狀況與職缺的認識。(2)以職業重建團隊合作模式，積極提供服務。
（三）實務運作與制度面：(1)評估資源持續更新與擴充。(2)持續提升職評人員之專業與行政技能。(3)加強職評服務案量管理與其他服務品質。
Purpose: The objects of this study were to: (1) analyze the outcome of the vocational evaluation(VE) services provided by the Vocational Rehabilitation Service Center-Sanchong, New Taipei City; (2) explore the applications for the VE services in this center; (3) discuss the opinions among professionals on the implantation and application of practicing VE. Method: Based on the perspective of constructivist phenomenology, document analysis of the content analysis method and questionnaire and interview techniques of survey research are employed for this study. Participants included consumers of VE services provided by the Vocational Rehabilitation Service Center-Sanchong, New Taipei City or their families, rehabilitation counselors, job coaches, and vocational evaluators. Documentaries from 70 cases received VE services in 2018 are analyzed. Among those, 21 VE reports were selected to review in depth considering factors on types of disabilities, different vocational evaluators, etc.. Results: In terms of VE services outcome, identifying career development and the impairment and disabilities to employment of an individual are the major purposes to consumers. Assessment needs for sheltered employment, clarifying employment strength and weakness to consumers and families, job placement decision making, recommendation to types of employment and support strategies, evaluating specific function and vocational capacity and exporing issues and difficulties of those failure to require and maintain jobs are the purpose of referral. Evaluating consumer’s impairment and disabilities to employment and job skills were implanted mostly in VE process. Interview, standardized testing, and community-based assessment were the main approaches used. Situational assessment was rarely used due to limitations in designing certain condition in the real work environment. The average of total service hour was 38.03 hours in which standardized testing was the highest (6.61 hours in average) followed by community-based assessment (5.42 hours in average). In the satisfaction survey, more than 90% of consumers and rehabilitation counselors were satisfied in VE services after case closed. In a 5-point scale, the average point was 4.33 to 4.73 among the consumers whereas 4.77 to 4.84 was rated by rehabilitation counselors. 78.6% of the consumers’ job placement outcomes agreed with VE outcome by the time after 6 months of case closed. 68.4% still met after a period of time. Most consumers, vocational counselors, job coaches stated that the results of VE were helpful, appropriate and practicable. 77.2 % of the consumers stated that vocational rehabilitation service providers offered services in accordance with the evaluation results. Suggestions to job placement were applied by 82.6% of the rehabilitation counselor. The contents of reports were utilized by 95.7% of rehabilitation counselors and 87.2% of job coaches. Suggestions for facilitating employment and applying VE results from different perspectives include: 1.Consumers or families: a) consumers could develop hopes and motivation toward work. b) consumers could have job experience and increase self-awareness. c) the evaluation results met expectations and the VE meeting could facilitate agreement for the placement process. d) the job placement and time consuming for job vacancy was individualized. 2.Rehabilitation counselors: a) vocational counselors could have deep understanding of VE. b) the referral staff supported consumers transit to vocational rehabilitation services. c) The VE results provided important information about consumers for rehabilitation counselors. d) consumers and service providers could develop agreement and implement on job placement through VE meeting. 3.Job coaches: Discussion between job coaches and supervisors regarding consumer’s employment strength, appropriate placement and support strategies were factors to facilitate employment outcome. 4.Vocational evaluators: job vacancy in sheltered employment impacted time consuming on waiting for employment. Conclusions: Implications from this study including: 1.VE services: a) provide VE services with career perspective and supporting consumers to explore individualized career goals. b) evaluate the capacity of consumers and their families on implying VE results. Concrete and practicable suggestions should be provided. 2.Boosting application of VE: a) improve vocational evaluator’s awareness of competitive job market and job vacancies. b) vocational rehabilitation professionals are suggested working as a team and providing services proactively. 3.Practice and policy: a) update and expand evaluation resources regularly. b) continuously improve vocational evaluators’ professional and administrative competency. c) strengthen case management and quality of VE service.
Purpose: The objects of this study were to: (1) analyze the outcome of the vocational evaluation(VE) services provided by the Vocational Rehabilitation Service Center-Sanchong, New Taipei City; (2) explore the applications for the VE services in this center; (3) discuss the opinions among professionals on the implantation and application of practicing VE. Method: Based on the perspective of constructivist phenomenology, document analysis of the content analysis method and questionnaire and interview techniques of survey research are employed for this study. Participants included consumers of VE services provided by the Vocational Rehabilitation Service Center-Sanchong, New Taipei City or their families, rehabilitation counselors, job coaches, and vocational evaluators. Documentaries from 70 cases received VE services in 2018 are analyzed. Among those, 21 VE reports were selected to review in depth considering factors on types of disabilities, different vocational evaluators, etc.. Results: In terms of VE services outcome, identifying career development and the impairment and disabilities to employment of an individual are the major purposes to consumers. Assessment needs for sheltered employment, clarifying employment strength and weakness to consumers and families, job placement decision making, recommendation to types of employment and support strategies, evaluating specific function and vocational capacity and exporing issues and difficulties of those failure to require and maintain jobs are the purpose of referral. Evaluating consumer’s impairment and disabilities to employment and job skills were implanted mostly in VE process. Interview, standardized testing, and community-based assessment were the main approaches used. Situational assessment was rarely used due to limitations in designing certain condition in the real work environment. The average of total service hour was 38.03 hours in which standardized testing was the highest (6.61 hours in average) followed by community-based assessment (5.42 hours in average). In the satisfaction survey, more than 90% of consumers and rehabilitation counselors were satisfied in VE services after case closed. In a 5-point scale, the average point was 4.33 to 4.73 among the consumers whereas 4.77 to 4.84 was rated by rehabilitation counselors. 78.6% of the consumers’ job placement outcomes agreed with VE outcome by the time after 6 months of case closed. 68.4% still met after a period of time. Most consumers, vocational counselors, job coaches stated that the results of VE were helpful, appropriate and practicable. 77.2 % of the consumers stated that vocational rehabilitation service providers offered services in accordance with the evaluation results. Suggestions to job placement were applied by 82.6% of the rehabilitation counselor. The contents of reports were utilized by 95.7% of rehabilitation counselors and 87.2% of job coaches. Suggestions for facilitating employment and applying VE results from different perspectives include: 1.Consumers or families: a) consumers could develop hopes and motivation toward work. b) consumers could have job experience and increase self-awareness. c) the evaluation results met expectations and the VE meeting could facilitate agreement for the placement process. d) the job placement and time consuming for job vacancy was individualized. 2.Rehabilitation counselors: a) vocational counselors could have deep understanding of VE. b) the referral staff supported consumers transit to vocational rehabilitation services. c) The VE results provided important information about consumers for rehabilitation counselors. d) consumers and service providers could develop agreement and implement on job placement through VE meeting. 3.Job coaches: Discussion between job coaches and supervisors regarding consumer’s employment strength, appropriate placement and support strategies were factors to facilitate employment outcome. 4.Vocational evaluators: job vacancy in sheltered employment impacted time consuming on waiting for employment. Conclusions: Implications from this study including: 1.VE services: a) provide VE services with career perspective and supporting consumers to explore individualized career goals. b) evaluate the capacity of consumers and their families on implying VE results. Concrete and practicable suggestions should be provided. 2.Boosting application of VE: a) improve vocational evaluator’s awareness of competitive job market and job vacancies. b) vocational rehabilitation professionals are suggested working as a team and providing services proactively. 3.Practice and policy: a) update and expand evaluation resources regularly. b) continuously improve vocational evaluators’ professional and administrative competency. c) strengthen case management and quality of VE service.
Description
Keywords
職業輔導評量, 新北市三重區職重建服務中心, 職業重建, 現象學, Vocational Evaluation, Vocational Rehabilitation Service Center in New Taipei City (Sanchong District), Vocational Rehabilitation, Phenomenology