Training Evaluation: Understanding and Intervening in Sibling Sexual Behaviors and Abuse

(OT260-A) Evaluation – Understanding and Intervening in Sibling Sexual Behaviors and Abuse

Training Name: Understanding and Intervening in Sibling Sexual Behaviors and Abuse

Learning Objectives

As a result of this training, participants will be able to:
1) Analyze current theory and practice in relation to sibling sexual behavior.
2) Apply a mapping tool to design and deliver effective and culturally appropriate services to children, youths, and families where sibling sexual abuse has occurred.
3) Evaluate the role of family systems in understanding, responding to, and preventing sibling sexual behaviors and abuse.
4) Describe the lived experiences and perspectives of adult survivors of sibling sexual abuse.
5) Analyze the existing research literature on sibling sexual behaviors and abuse.

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 (Sophie King-Hill) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2. Rate the second instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Kieran McCartan) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.3. Rate the third instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (David Russell) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1. Rate the first instructor’s teaching ability (Sophie King-Hill) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2. Rate the second instructor’s teaching ability (Kieran McCartan) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.3. Rate the third instructor’s teaching ability (David Russell) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Analyze current theory and practice in relation to sibling sexual behavior.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Apply a mapping tool to design and deliver effective and culturally appropriate services to children, youths, and families where sibling sexual abuse has occurred.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Evaluate the role of family systems in understanding, responding to, and preventing sibling sexual behaviors and abuse.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Describe the lived experiences and perspectives of adult survivors of sibling sexual abuse.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met?
Learning Objective #5: “Analyze the existing research literature on sibling sexual behaviors and abuse.” 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 (Sophie King-Hill) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
13.2. Rate the second instructor’s (Kieran McCartan) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very Responsive, 1 = Not responsive*
13.3. Rate the third instructor’s (David Russell) 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