Training Evaluation: Practical Application of the Good Lives Model: Enhancing Rehabilitation with Strengths-Based Approaches

(OT298) Training Evaluation: Practical Application of the Good Lives Model: Enhancing Rehabilitation with Strengths-Based Approaches

Training Name: Practical Application of the Good Lives Model: Enhancing Rehabilitation with Strengths-Based Approaches
Presented by: Gwenda M. Willis, PhD, PGDipClinPsyc and David Prescott, LICSW, ATSA-F
Date: January 21, 2026

Learning Objectives
As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Describe the “Primary Human Goods” of the GLM, which are often operationalized as “Good Life Goals”
2) Differentiate between Good Life Goals that are important to the client in general, and those goals directly implicated in their offending behavior
3) Identify four types of obstacles clients may encounter when implementing their Good Life Plan
4) Explain the process of GLM-based assessment and intervention planning
5) Distinguish between the integration and implementation of GLM within treatment programs

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 current/relevant, 1 = Not current/not relevant at all
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 (Gwenda Willis) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2 Rate the second instructor’s (David Prescott) knowledge and expertise of the subject. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1 Rate the first instructor’s (Gwenda Willis) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2 Rate the second instructor’s (David Prescott) teaching ability. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Describe the “Primary Human Goods” of the GLM, which are often operationalized as “Good Life Goals”.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Differentiate between Good Life Goals that are important to the client in general, and those goals directly implicated in their offending behavior.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Identify four types of obstacles clients may encounter when implementing their Good Life Plan.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Explain the process of GLM-based assessment and intervention planning.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met?
Learning Objective #5: “Distinguish between the integration and implementation of GLM within treatment programs.” 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 well, 1 = Not well at all
12. Rate the ease of the registration process 5 = Very Easy, 1 = Very Difficult
13. Rate the instructor’s responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all
14. Rate the program staff’s responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all