Training Evaluation: Exploring Responsivity: Trauma, Risk, Motivation, and the Working Alliance

(OT313-A) Training Evaluation – Exploring Responsivity: Trauma, Risk, Motivation, and the Working Alliance

Training Name: Exploring Responsivity: Trauma, Risk, Motivation, and the Working Alliance

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Explain how adverse childhood experiences impact behavior and responsivity to treatment
2) Describe the relationship between trauma sequelae and dynamic risk
3) Use practical skills for understanding and improving treatment engagement
4)Describe how the responsivity principle applies at the institutional and program levels

I certify that I am the above-named person completing this form and that the information I submit here is accurate.
1. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? 5 = Very much, 1 = Very little
2. Rate the quality of the program content 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
3. Rate how current/relevant the program content is 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
4. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development? 5 = Extremely Useful, 1 = Not Useful at all
5.1. Rate the first instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2. Rate the second instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Nikole Nassen, PhD) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1. Rate the first instructor’s teaching ability (David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2. Rate the second instructor’s teaching ability (Nikole Nassen, PhD) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Explain how adverse childhood experiences impact behavior and responsivity to treatment” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Describe the relationship between trauma sequelae and dynamic risk” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Use practical skills for understanding and improving treatment engagement” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Describe how the responsivity principle applies at the institutional and program levels ” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
8. Rate how well the program met your expectations (according to the promotional materials) 5 = Very well, 1 = Not well at all
9. Rate the quality of the provided course materials 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
10. Rate the quality of the facilities (in-person) or technology (online). 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
11. Rate how well disability accommodations were met, if requested. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
12. Rate the ease of the registration process 5 = Very Easy, 1 = Very Difficult
13.1. Rate the first instructor’s (David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
13.2. Rate the second instructor’s (Nikole Nassen, PhD) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
14. Rate the program staff’s responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all