Training Evaluation: SAPROF-SO Version 1 Training (OT254-A) Evaluation – SAPROF-SO Version 1 Training Training Name: SAPROF-SO Version 1 Training Learning Objectives As a result of this training, participants will be able to: 1) Identify at least one theoretical source and one empirical source that substantiate the utilization of SAPROF-SO. 2) Identify two primary strengths of using the SAPROF-SO in risk assessments. 3) Identify specific situations/contexts in which the SAPROF-SO is appropriate to use. 4) Explain in what circumstances protection from the Professional Risk Management subscale might be indicated. 5) Demonstrate proficiency in scoring the SAPROF-SO by rating one practice case with sufficient accuracy. 6) Describe at least two ways to use the SAPROF-SO to help inform release/discharge planning. You have the option to remain anonymous. Please select your preference below: * Include name and email addressRemain anonymous Email * Last Name (as you’d like printed on your certificate) * First Name (as you’d like printed on your certificate) * License Number, if applicable (for identity verification purposes) Issuing state/province, if applicable Which of the following best describes you? * Select OnePsychologistSocial WorkerCounselorStudentNone of the above I certify that I am the above-named person completing this form and that the information I submit here is accurate. * I agree 1. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? 5 = Very much, 1 = Very little * 5 4 3 2 1 2. Rate the quality of the program content 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 3. Rate how current/relevant the program content is 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 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 4 3 2 1 5.1. Rate the first instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Gwenda M. Willis, PhD, PGDipClinPsyc) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 5.2. Rate the second instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (David Thornton, PhD) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 5.3. Rate the third instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Sharon Kelley, PsyD) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 6.1. Rate the first instructor’s teaching ability (Gwenda M. Willis, PhD, PGDipClinPsyc) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 6.2. Rate the second instructor’s teaching ability (David Thornton, PhD) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 6.3. Rate the third instructor’s teaching ability (Sharon Kelley, PsyD) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met? Learning Objective #1: “Identify at least one theoretical source and one empirical source that substantiate the utilization of SAPROF-SO.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree * 5 4 3 2 1 7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met? Learning Objective #2: “Identify two primary strengths of using the SAPROF-SO in risk assessments.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree * 5 4 3 2 1 7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met? Learning Objective #3: “Identify specific situations/contexts in which the SAPROF-SO is appropriate to use.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree * 5 4 3 2 1 7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met? Learning Objective #4: “Explain in what circumstances protection from the Professional Risk Management subscale might be indicated.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree * 5 4 3 2 1 7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met? Learning Objective #5: “Demonstrate proficiency in scoring the SAPROF-SO by rating one practice case with sufficient accuracy. ” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree * 5 4 3 2 1 7.6. Would you agree that learning objective #6 was met? Learning Objective #5: “Describe at least two ways to use the SAPROF-SO to help inform release/discharge planning.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree * 5 4 3 2 1 8. Rate how well the program met your expectations (according to the promotional materials) 5 = Very well, 1 = Not well at all * 5 4 3 2 1 9. Rate the quality of the provided course materials 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 10. Rate the quality of the facilities (in-person) or technology (online). 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 11. Rate how well disability accommodations were met, if requested. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low * 5 4 3 2 1 N/A 12. Rate the ease of the registration process 5 = Very Easy, 1 = Very Difficult * 5 4 3 2 1 13.1. Rate the first instructor’s (Gwenda M. Willis, PhD, PGDipClinPsyc) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive* * 5 4 3 2 1 N/A 13.2. Rate the second instructor’s (David Thornton, PhD) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive* * 5 4 3 2 1 N/A 13.3. Rate the third instructor’s (Sharon Kelley, PsyD) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive* * 5 4 3 2 1 N/A 14. Rate the program staff’s responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all * 5 4 3 2 1 15. How will the information from this program be useful to you in the future? * 16. What did the program (or presenter/s) do particularly well that helped you understand the material? * 17. What, if anything, could the program (or presenter/s) have done differently to help you understand the material better? * 18. About how long did it take you to complete this course (including completing this form)? * 19. OPTIONAL: How did you learn about this training? 20. OPTIONAL: Do you have any additional thoughts or comments you’d like to share with us? Submit If you are human, leave this field blank. Δ
