↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Efficacy of Online and In-Person Versions of a Training on U.S. Federal Wage and Hour, Child Labor Laws, and Hazardous Occupations Orders for Secondary School Professionals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing Efficacy of Online and In-Person Versions of a Training on U.S. Federal Wage and Hour, Child Labor Laws, and Hazardous Occupations Orders for Secondary School Professionals
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00075
Pubmed ID
Authors

Derek G. Shendell, Alexsandra A. Apostolico, Lindsey J. Milich, Alexa A. Patti, Sarah W. Kelly

Abstract

The New Jersey Safe Schools Program (NJSS) offers courses required for secondary school vocational-career-technical education teachers to become school-sponsored structured learning experience supervisors. The "Federal Wage and Hour and Child Labor Laws, Regulations and Hazardous Order Course" (FWH) was originally conducted in-person by U.S. Department of Labor-Wage and Hour Division from 2005 to Summer 2013, and then NJSS began conducting this course in-person (October 2013-April 2015). Staring in March 2015, this course was conducted online; beta-/pilot tests were conducted in Winter 2014-2015. Starting in May 2015, this course was offered exclusively online. This paper analyzes data from the in-person and online versions of the FWH, including overall course evaluation data comparing two versions with similar questions/constructs. The New Jersey Safe Schools Program modifications to FWH included adding information regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act's Section 14(c) and supplemental case studies. The online version included information/resources provided during the in-person training plus assessments to supplement each module; the online version was split into modules to allow participants scheduling flexibility. Participants were given multiple possible attempts to achieve a minimum passing grade of 70%, excluding two ungraded activities (crossword puzzles simply completed). Descriptive statistics evaluated user satisfaction online compared to the in-person version of FWH and performance on aforementioned online assessments replacing in-person discussions/interactions. Between October 2013 and April 2015, 160 participants completed the training in person; 156 had complete data. Between April and November 2015, 78 participants completed the training online; 74 participants had complete data. Other enrolled participants were in progress (not done as of 12/23/2015). Overall satisfaction was similarly high for in-person and online versions of FWH; over 95% of responding participants recommended this course to colleagues. Course evaluations for in-person participants indicated 83% felt the course objectives were completely met, whereas 95% of the responding online cohort felt course objectives were completely met. Further analyses examined performance of online assessments regarding number of attempts and scores achieved and performance on highlighted questions in certain module lessons. Data suggested the online format as a viable alternative to an in-person version of this training and provided NJSS and agency partners with ideas on how modifications/improvements can be made.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 7 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 4 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 7 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,453,763
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#5,744
of 9,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,571
of 298,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#58
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.