Training Evaluation: Innovative Approaches to Therapy for Young People Who Sexually Abuse (OT214-A)


(OT214-A) Evaluation – Innovative Approaches to Therapy for Young People Who Sexually Abuse

Training Name: Innovative Approaches to Therapy for Young People Who Sexually Abuse

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Explain core skills in building relationships and self-regulation.
2) Create a treatment plan that moves beyond the “session” and into everyday life.
3) Create interventions centered on client strengths.
4) Design dynamic and individualized treatment.
5) Explain barriers to effective treatment engagement.

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 (Anette Birgersson) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2. Rate the second instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Christin Santiago, CTRS) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1. Rate the first instructor’s teaching ability (Anette Birgersson) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2. Rate the second instructor’s teaching ability (Christin Santiago, CTRS) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Explain core skills in building relationships and self-regulation.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Create a treatment plan that moves beyond the “session” and into everyday life.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Create interventions centered on client strengths.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Design dynamic and individualized treatment.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met?
Learning Objective #5: “Explain barriers to effective treatment engagement.” 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 (Anette Birgersson) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
13.2. Rate the second instructor’s (Christin Santiago, CTRS) 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