June 2005
Volume 43 Number 3

Ideas at Work

Assessing Stakeholder Needs: Delphi Meets the Internet

Chyrel A. Mayfield
Research Associate
Department of Forest Science
c-mayfield@tamu.edu

Gary J. Wingenbach
Associate Professor
Department of Agricultural Education
g-wingenbach@tamu.edu

David R. Chalmers
Extension Turfgrass Specialist and Associate Professor
Texas Cooperative Extension
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences
dchalmers@tamu.edu

Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas

Introduction

Cooperative Extension has a rich history of developing outreach programs that have a direct and relevant impact on stakeholders' lives. In order to develop relevant programming, clientele are asked for input during the development stages for many programs. Often, requesting and incorporating timely and relevant input to program curricula can be a time-consuming, expensive process. Decreasing state and federal resources are forcing Extension personnel to seek alternative methods to continue their rich tradition of stakeholder input in the program curricula development processes.

Conceptual Framework

Alternative methods for collecting stakeholder input to Extension program curricula provide Extension personnel with timely, relevant feedback during the curricula development process. One inexpensive alternative to holding several face-to-face or traditional postal mail surveys is achieved through the Delphi technique, using a Web-based medium.

The Delphi technique was developed by the Rand Corporation in the late 1950's as a forecasting methodology. Unlike the nominal group process, the Delphi does not require face-to face participation. It is a "systematic solicitation and collation of judgments on a particular topic through a set of carefully designed sequential questionnaires interspersed with summarized information and feedback of opinions derived from earlier responses" (Debecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975, p. 10). The Delphi technique affords researchers an opportunity to collect large amounts of input over a wide geographic area. Delphi techniques incorporate expert panel members' opinions, value judgments, and agreement in the consensus-building process (Somers, Baker, & Isbell, 1984).

Decisions about which participants to invite to a Delphi should be considered carefully. Ludwig (1997) recommended:

Randomly selecting participants is NOT acceptable. Instead, characteristics and qualifications of desirable respondents should be identified and a nomination process used to select participants. Because the group number will be small (12-15), the researcher needs to locate and target individuals who are "expert," have knowledge and experience to base their futuring activities upon, and are self-motivated. Delphi should not be used with groups that have difficulty in reading or expressing themselves in written communication. (p. 2)

Ladner, Wingenbach, and Raven (2002) found Web-based and traditional paper-based survey methodologies were equally valid and reliable for social science research. A significant difference occurred in the response rates between two equal groups of agricultural educators; however, no differences were found between the groups' opinions on computer usage in an educational setting. The Web-based group's response rate exceeded the traditional group, 72 to 7, in the first week of data collection. These results provided strong evidence for using Web-based data collection methods in social science research when time and/or financial constraints pose barriers to relevant, timely, effective program development processes.

Before developing new programs, it is important to be mindful of gathering and using Extension stakeholder input in developing the program materials. One of the first steps in designing adult education curricula is to conduct a needs assessment (Sork & Caffarella, 1989). Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998) provided two assumptions about adult learning that are critical in the needs assessment phase. These assumptions are the need to know and the learner's self-concept. Essentially, adults need to know why they need to learn something new. Also, adults will resist and resent (learner's self-concept) situations in which they feel others are imposing their will on them (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson). Such assumptions about adult learning provide important reasons for using stakeholder input during curriculum development.

Decreasing state funds for Extension programming have forced many states to seek alternative methods to continue providing quality educational programs for their clientele at the county level. Extension clientele input for developing instructional modules in the Turf for Texans Master Gardener Program was sought using innovative, cost-effective data collection methods.

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the study described here was to gather stakeholder input for the most Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) in turfgrass management curricula for the Turf for Texans Master Gardener Program. The following objectives guided this study.

1. Identify FAQs for nine turfgrass instructional modules in the Turf for Texans Master Gardener Program.

2. Rank the importance of the identified FAQs.

3. Rank participants' agreement levels of the identified FAQs for inclusion in the turfgrass instructional modules.

Methods and Procedures

Descriptive survey methodology, with a Delphi technique, was used in this study. Web-based survey data collection methods (Ladner, Wingenbach, & Raven, 2002) were used after obtaining approval to conduct the study through the Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board (#2002-0276).

The target population (N = 339) consisted of all Texas County Extension Agents, program coordinators, and volunteers who participated in a Texas Master Gardener Program during 2003. A proportional stratified sample from 11 Texas Cooperative Extension Service districts was obtained by contacting two agents from each district, who in turn, chose one coordinator and one volunteer with at least 1 year of experience from their respective Master Gardener Programs. All participants were sent formal letters requesting their participation in the study. The sample consisted of 22 agents, 22 program coordinators, and 22 volunteers (n = 66).

The first instrument, posted on a secure Internet site, consisted of nine open-ended questions designed to obtain a wide range of responses. Using their own Master Gardener experiences, respondents were asked to identify the top five FAQs for turfgrass management in each of nine Turf for Texans instructional modules. The identified FAQs were used to develop content for the modules. Electronic mail reminders were sent to non-respondents to complete round one; all data were collected in 3 weeks. A total of 20 agents, 4 coordinators, and 12 volunteers (n = 36) from 33 counties in the 11 districts responded to round one, resulting in a 55% response rate. Findings from this study should not be generalized beyond the limited number of respondents.

A team of Extension turfgrass specialists, graduate students, and agricultural education faculty members condensed and combined initial responses into statements without altering their original meanings. A panel of experts from the Departments of Soil and Crop Science and Agricultural Education reviewed the instrument for face validity. The statements were posted on a secure Internet site for use in round two.

In the second round of data collection, respondents were instructed to read each FAQ for each module and rate the level of importance (Likert-type scale: 1 = Not ImportantÉ4 = Very Important) for including the FAQ in its respective turfgrass instructional module. Electronic mail notices requesting participation in round two were sent to all 66 participants. All 66 participants were asked to complete all three rounds because of their vested interest in the consensus-building process. A total of 16 agents, 7 coordinators, and 12 volunteers (n = 35) responded, resulting in a 53% response rate. All data were collected in 2 weeks.

Upon conclusion of data collection in the second round, all statements were ranked according to their grand mean scores, sorted by level of importance, and posted in a third instrument on a secure Internet site. The third instrument allowed respondents to rate their agreement levels (Likert-type scale: 1 = Strongly DisagreeÉ4 = Strongly Agree) with the importance levels for each FAQ in each turfgrass instructional module. Electronic mail notices requesting participation in round three were sent to all 66 participants. A total of 15 agents, 5 coordinators, and 10 volunteers (n = 30) responded, resulting in a 46% response rate. All data were collected in 10 days.

Descriptive statistics were derived for each instructional module. ANOVA tests were used to determine significant differences among subgroups in this consensus-building process. Instrument reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficients in rounds two and three. Results are presented in Table 1.

Findings

Due to space limitations, only grand means from the third (final) round of the Delphi are presented. For more detailed information from the first and second rounds of this study, readers should contact the authors at c-mayfield@tamu.edu or g-wingenbach@tamu.edu; information also is available regarding responses by agents, volunteers, and coordinators.

Thirty-six respondents with Texas Master Gardener Program experiences ranging from less than 1 to over 20 years (M = 4.73), identified the top five FAQs for turfgrass management in their Texas Master Gardener Programs. Overall, a total of 115 FAQs were identified, ranked, and prioritized by stakeholders. The top three FAQs for each module are depicted in Table 2. Results are sorted by descending grand means.

The consensus-building process of this Delphi technique was useful in helping respondents prioritize the most important FAQs for each of the nine modules. No significant differences were found among respondents' agreement levels of the FAQs in eight of the nine modules. Only in Module 5 (Mowing) was there a significant difference between rankings. Program coordinators agreed with the FAQ "how often should mower blades be sharpened," more than did agents in round three.

Conclusions/Recommendations

From the findings, it can be concluded that lawn health, differences between warm and cool season grasses, turfgrass selection factors, soil tests, effects of improper mowing, grass clippings, when to fertilize, frequency of irrigation, and lawn diseases were deemed the most important FAQs for inclusion in the turfgrass curricula.

Although the identified and ranked FAQs for the instructional modules proved useful in developing curricula for the Turf for Texans Master Gardener Program, the authors believe the most important finding was derived from the methodology used to gather stakeholder input. The Delphi technique, administered through online data collection techniques, provided effective means to determine stakeholders' needs in designing turfgrass management curricula. Participants were able to incorporate their opinions (round one), value judgments (round two), and agreement levels (round three) in a consensus-building process for the FAQs used in the turfgrass management instructional modules.

A practitioner's checklist for using this data collection process includes:

1. Asking respondents to provide information relevant to the programming objective. (Round I)

2. Condensing responses into statements, being careful not to change the original meanings of the responses.

3. Gathering respondents' importance level ratings for each identified statement (importance of its inclusion in the programming objective). (Round II)

4. Rank-ordering statements according to their indicated levels of importance.

5. Collecting respondents' agreement levels on the rank-ordered importance of each statement for its inclusion in the programming objective. (Round III)

Additionally, stakeholder input was gathered in an economical, shortened frame (6.5 weeks), confirming the Web-based surveying methods proposed by Ladner, Wingenbach, and Raven (2002). The Delphi technique used in the study provided consistency in the data collection procedures, as proposed by Somers, Baker, and Isbell (1984).

By including stakeholders' input to build consensus on relevant topics for Extension programs, Extension personnel address the need to know and learner's self-concept assumptions raised by Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998). This could allow for more rapid adoption of Extension programs. It can also allow Extension personnel to focus greater attention on developing relevant educational materials for their clientele.

We recommend these methodologies (Delphi technique and Web-based data collection methods) be used by Extension personnel when seeking stakeholder input for instructional materials development. Using these methodologies, Extension personnel can gather stakeholder input in a shortened time frame with minimal cost and inconvenience resulting in a high quality Extension program.

References

Debecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Knowles, M., Holton, E., & Swanson, R. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.

Ladner, D., Wingenbach, G., & Raven, M. (2002). Internet and paper-based data collection methods in agricultural education research. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research, 52(1), 40-51.

Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology? Journal of Extension [On-line], 35(5). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1997october/tt2.html

Somers, K., Baker, G., & Isbell, C. (1984). How to use the Delphi technique to forecast training needs. Performance and Instruction Journal, 23(4), 26-28.

Sork, T. J., & Caffarella, R. (1989). Planning programs for adults. In S. Merriam, and P. Cunningham, (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 233-245). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Development of the Remarriage Belief Inventory for Researchers and Educators

Brian J. Higginbotham
Graduate Research Assistant
higgibr@auburn.edu

Francesca Adler-Baeder
Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist
adlerfr@auburn.edu

Auburn University/Alabama Cooperative Extension
Auburn, Alabama

Introduction

Recent figures show that approximately half of marriages annually are remarriages for one or both partners, and the majority (approximately 65%) of those adults have children from a previous relationship, thus forming stepfamilies (e.g., Chadwick & Heaton, 1999). Overall, estimates are that half of Americans today are or will be in a step relationship in their lifetime (Larson, 1992). Thus, there is a great need for educators to offer programs and resources for stepfamilies, and this need will only increase.

There is also a need to expand the empirical knowledge base on processes in stepfamilies, because these families are comparatively understudied in family science (Coleman, Ganong, & Fine, 2000). The Remarriage Belief Inventory (RMBI) was designed for use (a) in research of couple functioning in stepfamilies in order to further elicit knowledge about the increased divorce risk for remarriages and (b) in program work with couples preparing for or living in stepfamilies.

Background

It is estimated that between 55 and 60% of all remarriages will dissolve (Glick, 1989) compared to approximately 50% for first marriages (e.g., Waite & Gallagher, 2000). In the research on first marriages there is evidence to suggest that cognitions (e.g., expectations, beliefs, and attitudes) may contribute to marital dissolution. For example, the endorsement of particular expectations, which if/when they are not met, lead to frustration, difficulties in adjusting, and have a negative impact on marital satisfaction and stability (e.g., Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Moller & Van Zyl, 1991).

There are a number of specific issues, beliefs, and expectations that are unique to and particularly salient in remarriages (Adler-Baeder & Higginbotham, 2004). These expectations appear to be influenced by the societal "norm" of first family functioning, which may be unrealistic in stepfamilies. Papernow (1987) offers a few examples, including:

The hope that the members of the new family will love each other in the way that members of biological families do; the conviction that this new spouse will be a better mother or father to these children than the ex-spouse; the wish that the new family will heal the hurts of the previous divorce or death; the fantasy that the couple's caring for each other will be experienced between stepparents and their stepchildren (p. 632).

Just as instruments that identify dysfunctional beliefs in first marriages have aided the researchers and practitioners who work with couples, a reliable and valid instrument that assesses remarriage beliefs can aid practitioners who provide remarriage and family life education. Specifically, educators can utilize the Remarriage Belief Inventory (RMBI) in programs to assist family members in identifying and discussing their individual expectations/beliefs about remarriage and stepfamilies. The study described here is an initial test of the RMBI's discriminant validity.

Method

Item Selection and Refinement

To generate the items on the RMBI, a review of the empirical and clinical literature on stepfamily "myths" and "beliefs" was conducted, and a list was compiled. Five themes were identified, and several questions were developed that were expected to tap into each theme (n = 43): (a) History is unimportant, (b) Children are the priority, (c) Stepfamilies are second-class, (d) New partner is better than previous partner, and (e) Adjustment comes quickly.

Sample

Data for this study came from a sample of undergraduates attending a public university in the South. It was determined that young adults were an acceptable sample for discriminant validity testing because it is assumed that all adults have some belief or notion about how stepfamilies function based on their experiences within our society. Five hundred forty-six questionnaires were returned. The sample was predominately white (91%) and female (85%). The mean age was 20.5.

Results

Five factors were confirmed using a principle component factor analysis with promax rotation. Eliminating items that cross-loaded or loaded less than .45 resulted in 24 items (see Appendix for RMBI items). The alpha reliability coefficient was .78. Each factor (a) satisfied Kaiser's (1958) criterion of eigen values greater than 1.00, (b) accounted for an appreciable percentage of total score variance, and (c) had items that principally loaded on one factor. Factor loadings are displayed in Table 1.

Conclusion

Despite the prevalence of remarriages and stepfamilies, relatively few empirically validated resources are available to Extension educators who provide remarriage and family life education. In research on marriages and families, the role of beliefs/expectations in promoting relationship quality and healthy family functioning is established (e.g., Fincham, Harold, & Gano-Phillips, 2000; Moller & Van Zyl, 1991). However, no measure exists to assess beliefs and expectations about remarriages and stepfamilies.

The study of the Remarriage Belief Inventory described here has resulted in an empirically validated questionnaire that can be used to assess an individuals' level of endorsement of five beliefs about remarriages and stepfamilies. Further work is planned to empirically assess the factorial structure of the RMBI with a remarried sample as well as the predictive nature of each set of beliefs on remarriage quality.

For educators, the questionnaire is offered for application in prevention and intervention programs to raise awareness of beliefs among members of stepfamilies. Educational applications include using the RMBI as a starter activity in family-life education classes on remarriages, as a self-assessment, or as a couple activity to promote communication and consensus on expectations regarding stepfamily functioning. In both program and research contexts, the RMBI can be utilized in efforts to strengthening remarriages and stepfamilies and to meet the needs of this ever-increasing population.

References

Adler-Baeder, F., & Higginbotham, B. (2004). Implications of remarriage and stepfamily formation for marriage education. Family Relations, 53, 448-458.

Chadwick, B. A., & Heaton, T. B. (1999). Statistical handbook on the American family (2nd ed.). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.

Coleman, M., Ganong, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Reinvestigating remarriage: Another decade of progress. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1288-1307.

Eidelson, R. J., & Epstein N. (1982). Cognition and relationship maladjustment: Development of a measure of dysfunctional relationship beliefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 715-720.

Fincham, F. D., Harold, G. T., & Gano-Phillips, S. (2000). The longitudinal association between attributions and marital satisfaction: Direction of effects and role of efficacy expectations. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(2), 267-285.

Glick, P. (1989). Remarried families, stepfamilies, and stepchildren: A brief demographic analysis. Family Relations, 38, 24-27.

Kaiser, H. F. (1958). The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 24, 187-200.

Larson, J. (1992). Understanding stepfamilies. American Demographics, 14, 36-39.

Moller, A. T., & Van Zyl, P.D. (1991). Relationship beliefs, interpersonal perception, and marital adjustment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 28-33.

Papernow, P. L. (1987). Thickening the "middle ground" : Dilemmas and vulnerabilities of remarried couples. Psychotherapy, 24, 630-639.

Waite, L., & Gallagher, M. (2000). The case for marriage. New York: Doubleday.

Appendix*

Items on the 24-item version of the RMBI

RMBI  Please indicate the extent to which you believe that each of the following statements is true or false.

*For copy of the complete RMBI, contact the first author by email.

Serving the Public: The Academic Library and Cooperative Extension

Kornelia Tancheva
Instruction Coordinator
kt18@cornell.edu

Michael Cook
Public Computing Coordinator
mnc2@cornell.edu

Howard Raskin
Assistant Head of Public Services
hbr1@cornell.edu

Albert R. Mann Library
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York

Introduction

Albert R. Mann Library is the largest science library in the Cornell University Library system. It serves the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, the College of Human Ecology, and the Division of Nutritional Sciences. Serving statutory colleges in a land-grant university involves providing information literacy training courses and other services not only to Cornell students and faculty, but also to Extension staff both in Ithaca and throughout the state.

Extension staff are an audience with very distinct needs. They need to be informed consumers of the information stored and disseminated by research libraries but also serve as mediators between the research information and the ultimate consumers of that information, e.g., the farmers in the field. One of the major challenges that an academic library faces as a preserver and disseminator of information is the facilitation of this mediating role of Extension staff in the process of information consumption (Rozum, 1997).

Novel instructional technologies, document delivery, and electronic reference help can be a solution in this process. Below we discuss the outreach program of Mann Library for Extension, focusing specifically on information literacy courses, online services, and document delivery.

Information Literacy for Cooperative Extension: In-Person Training and On-Site Visits

Our instructional program for Cooperative Extension started officially in 1999, when a Public Services Librarian at Mann Library was named Cooperative Extension Liaison. The initial stage was primarily promotional, with public services librarians attending and presenting at Extension events. Gradually, the Administrative Office of Cooperative Extension included library orientation sessions in their regularly scheduled new staff introduction workshops held twice a year on the Ithaca campus. Today, additional sessions can be requested directly from Mann Library by contacting the Instruction Coordinator. Until the role of Extension Liaison became part of the formal job description of the newly created position of Outreach Librarian in 2003, the Instruction Coordinator also served as Extension Liaison.

These sessions are hands-on and are held in a computer lab at Mann Library. They are designed to introduce new Extension staff to the Library's services, as well as the print and electronic resources at Cornell. The goal is to encourage active learning (Allen) and future self-sufficiency in information access, retrieval, and management. Since the fall of 2000, we have taught 22 sessions for Extension staff in Mann Library.

Three general tendencies have emerged from those sessions:

• Marked variation in the participants' level of technological expertise and comfort.

• Lack of opportunity for sustained library usage training.

• Variable levels of technical support throughout Extension offices.

While some Extension staff are comfortable and familiar with using the Web, others find it harder to grasp the idea of Web-based information delivery and access. Because library instruction is typically a one-shot event, even if the participants' level of comfort with the technology increases considerably by the end of the session, the lack of continued exposure often results in underutilization of the skills acquired. Finally, the level of technology and technological support throughout Extension offices can preclude efficient access of online systems for information retrieval.

All of these considerations led us to the conclusion that customized on-site instruction may be a valuable supplement to in-library sessions for all new Extension staff. Thus, our second initiative, site visits to Extension offices, was born. They are customized to meet the immediate need of the respective office and include time for hands-on practice, informal discussion, and information on remote access. Since 2000, librarians from Mann have made 17 site visits to county offices and presented on topics as varied as marketing plans design, nutrition, and agricultural Web resources. While those are at the point of need and address the specific needs of Extension staff, they are also very time consuming and potentially not cost-effective for the library.

On-site instruction sessions also pose some of the familiar challenges:

• Participants have varying levels of computer competencies and experience with the library's remote electronic resources.

• A number of Extension offices do not have high speed networking available in group meeting rooms, which precludes the possibility of online demonstrations and/or hands-on exercises.

There are several strategies for overcoming these problems:

• A thorough preliminary discussion of the instruction session's objectives.

• Bringing technological solutions to the office.

• Flexibility in content and instructional approach.

Preliminary discussions focus on the attendees' computer skills and particular resource needs. If a high-speed Internet connection is not available, we use the library's traveling laptop and projector and PowerPoint. During the session, flexibility is key. Questions and comments dictate the teaching strategy. We may extend the length of the hands-on part, include more basic information in the overview, talk more about search strategies, or focus on electronic journals. Establishing a dialogue with Extension staff before the instruction session to discuss expectations and needs, and remaining open to change during the session, are the keys to success.

Electronic/Online Services: Web-Based Instruction, Reference, and Document Delivery

Both site visits and in-person sessions have established the need for a more permanent connection between Extension staff and the library. One way of meeting this need is by employing technologies that utilize the remote capabilities of the WWW.

Our first attempt was an extensive section on our Web site on resources, services, and access for Extension. As with all static pages, however, there is no possibility for active learning for the user, and the instructions tend to be lengthy and time-consuming. Further, the resources on the resource list are limited in number and, even though selected by a librarian, cannot be as comprehensive and customized as we would like. As a result, we are currently working on an interactive tutorial for instructing patrons how to use the Library Catalog, the Library Gateway, and electronic journals.

Online instruction either through a Web page or an interactive tutorial is only one of the ways in which the online environment has changed our outreach program. As part of a sustained outreach effort for Extension, we also provide online reference help via e-mail and a chat service. At this point it is not possible to evaluate the popularity of the service with Extension staff because both our e-mail form and the Live Chat interface do not track patron status to this detailed level, but in the future we plan to include Extension as a separate option under Patron Status, in order to facilitate the evaluation of the service.

Discussions with Extension staff about how they access information identified the need for remote access to Mann Library's print journal and book collections. In January 2001 we implemented document delivery for Extension staff using the ILLiad interlibrary loan system.

Once registered, Extension staff can request articles and books from Mann Library, other libraries at Cornell, or from other libraries via interlibrary loan. Articles are delivered electronically in PDF format. This service has been extremely popular. We are processing approximately 30 articles per week. This number will increase as we continue to market this relatively new service. Extension staff have been impressed by the speed--24-hour turnaround time--and the quality of the images they receive on their desktops. Occasionally, books are requested, which document delivery staff deliver via UPS. However, the majority of our document delivery requests are for articles from the Mann Library collection.

Conclusions

Mann Library's outreach program for Extension has helped to identify areas for mutual collaboration between the library and Extension staff. Our instruction sessions and site visits provide an opportunity to talk to Extension staff about their information needs as well the needs of end users who contact Extension offices for information and documents. We are in the process of working with Extension staff in several offices to determine the information needs of farmers and small agricultural businesses. There is the potential for collaborating with Extension staff on conducting user studies with these audiences, and ultimately, reaching those end users directly and meeting their practical information needs.

In the span of 4 years Mann Library has created a robust outreach program for Extension that continues to evolve with the changes in technology. It is our belief that creating a partnership between the library and Extension can ultimately benefit both sides. Extension staff's informed access to the rich resources of the Cornell library system and the expertise of the library professionals can facilitate their mission of serving their audiences more effectively. In turn, a sustained partnership with Extension will help Mann Library fulfill its mission as a land-grant library, which supports not only academic research but also responds to the practical needs of the citizens of NY State.

References

Allen, E. E. (1995). Active learning and teaching: Improving postsecondary library instruction. Reference Librarian 51/52, 89-103.

Mann Library Resources and Services for Cooperative Extension. Available at: http://www.mannlib.cornell.edu/reference/instruction/CCEindex.html

Rozum, B. (1997). Identifying, developing, and marketing library services to Cooperative Extension personnel. Reference & User Services Quarterly 37(2), 161-9.

Caregiving in the Heartland: Outreach Through Adaptation and Collaboration

Paul Jones
Manager, Breaking New Ground Resource Center
jonesp@purdue.edu

William Field
Professor and Extension Safety Specialist
field@purdue.edu

Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Introduction

Since 1979, the mission of Purdue University's Breaking New Ground (BNG) Resource Center has been to assist farmers and ranchers with physical disabilities. The program's services often take the form of technical information on such topics as equipment modification and farmstead accessibility. Additionally, since 1998, BNG has provided leadership for the planning and conducting of a series of workshops for caregivers of people with disabilities. The 14 sessions have drawn nearly 900 attendees, many from rural communities.

At first glance, it may seem incongruous for a program located in an agricultural engineering department to address caregiving issues, because these matters are normally the domain of those involved in social work, family life education, or nursing. However, BNG's outreach to caregivers has been a logical expansion of its core services to agricultural workers with disabilities.

Adapting to Meet Needs

Though focused primarily on assistive technology issues during the early years of the program, the BNG staff realized that it is not only the person with the disability who struggles to adjust to lifestyle changes--there is usually a caregiver, frequently a family member, who also needs assistance. For example, following a disabling injury or illness, spouses are key players in the rehabilitation process, but are often thrust into caregiving responsibilities with no forewarning or training.

Therefore, to assist caregivers in transitioning to their new roles, BNG in 1997 developed To Everything There is a Season, a resource kit for rural caregivers consisting of a video and workbook for caregivers, plus a leader's guide for professionals interested in conducting workshops for caregivers. In developing the resources, BNG staff members referred to existing caregiving materials and consulted directly with caregivers and experts in Purdue's Department of Child Development and Family Studies. The materials focused on such topics as the impact of disability, caring for caregiver, commitment to marriage, and healthy communication. This effort was targeted toward farm and ranch women because severe farm-related injuries predominantly affect male workers.

Workshop Development

In addition to distributing the To Everything There Is a Season materials to professionals in more than 18 states through the USDA/CSREES AgrAbility Program, BNG secured funding from the Indiana State Department of Health (ISDH) in 1998 to conduct a workshop for caregivers based on the resource kit. In 1999, funding was again acquired from ISDH to plan a series of caregiver workshops to be held at various sites around Indiana. These Caregiving in the Heartland workshops grew from two in 2000, to three in 2001, to four each in 2002 and 2003.

Each workshop lasted for approximately 6 hours and was comprised of plenary and concurrent sessions. Some of the topics commonly addressed included financial planning, stress management, navigating the social service system, transportation issues, and caregiving for special populations, such as those with Alzheimer's disease and arthritis. Humor was also an essential component of the sessions, because planners recognized the importance of making the workshops a day of respite for the attendees.

The thrust of Caregiving in the Heartland shifted somewhat in 2004. Instead of multiple regional workshops, a single train-the-trainer workshop was conducted for professionals and volunteers working with caregivers. Sessions focused on equipping professionals to serve as resource specialists for caregivers and conduct caregiver workshops in their own communities.

As part of the 2004 caregiving outreach effort, BNG also developed http://www.ruralcare.info, a Web site for rural caregivers. The site includes a variety of resources, including electronic versions of BNG's To Everything There is a Season materials for caregivers, and numerous links to other organizations that can benefit caregivers.

The Importance of Collaboration

In facilitating the planning process, BNG staff members strived to partner with as many interested organizations as possible. Some of the main players over the years have included the state's centers for independent living, the Arthritis Foundation, Attain (the state's assistive technology project), and regional Area Agencies on Aging. In addition, representatives from 10 of the state's county Extension offices participated in the planning process through the years.

While BNG staff members led the overall organizational effort, each workshop also had a local planning committee responsible for tasks such as making on-site arrangements and securing local speakers. The BNG staff recognized the need to allow freedom to local planners, thereby enabling them to feel that they were essential stakeholders in the effort.

More than 50 organizations have participated in planning or sponsoring the workshops. The networking and collaborative relationships developed through the workshop planning process have been some of the most positive outcomes of the effort. These relationships have also led to increased collaboration on other projects not directly related to caregiving and significant opportunities for the exchange of resources and information.

Lessons Learned

Certain patterns emerged during the years of workshop coordination.

1. The most important task, and most difficult, was effectively promoting the workshops and getting participants to actually show up. Success in this area usually involved local committee members making personal contacts with individuals, organizations, and the news media in their communities.

2. While it is important to give the local committee autonomy, this must be balanced with direction from and communication with the workshop series facilitators (i.e., BNG). Local planning organizations may choose session topics or speakers that fit with their missions but do not dovetail well with the overall theme of the workshops, and periodic follow-up communication helps ensure that essential planning tasks are completed appropriately.

3. It is important that local committees understand that a significant amount of work on their part is required to make the workshops successful. Three workshops had to be cancelled, often related to a lack of investment on the part of local committees.

4. Some organizations, such as churches, are willing to provide meeting space free of charge, thereby keeping overhead costs low and enabling funds to be channeled to resource materials or other expenses, such as speakers' fees and scholarships.

5. Part of the workshops' success was due to the humor, relaxed atmosphere, and other factors that contributed to a sense of respite. Some caregivers may also need standard respite care in order to even attend the workshops, and local organizations, such as Area Agencies on Aging, may be able to assist with this.

6. While BNG's focus is primarily rural audiences, it was important to address issues relevant to both rural and urban caregivers, thereby increasing the number of people who could benefit from the workshops.

7. Because the workshops are held in rural communities, rural caregivers are given greater access to information and resources often restricted to urban areas.

Evaluation

The original purpose of BNG's caregiver initiative was to encourage and equip caregivers, especially those is rural areas. While it is difficult to measure impact for such a broad objective, several positive outcomes can be reported. Participants at the workshops have consistently rated the sessions at 8.5 or higher on a scale of 1-10 in regard to overall effectiveness. Hundreds of caregivers and professionals have received direct training, and thousands of print and audiovisual resources have been distributed. In addition, BNG's caregiving efforts received the 2000 State-Level Distinguished Community Service Rural Health Award from the Indiana Rural Health Association, the 2004 Purdue Cooperative Extension Specialists Association Team Award, and were part of a successful application for the 2001 National Safety Council Award for the Improvement of the Quality of Life for People with Disabilities.

Conclusion

Extension programs must be open to adapting to meet client needs while maintaining their core mission. BNG recognized the needs of rural caregivers and expanded its services to assist them. In doing so, the program found it essential to collaborate with programs that were already working in the field. This allowed for the leveraging of intellectual and financial resources that has resulted in significant information gains for Extension consumers.

Teaching Interpretation of Yield Monitor Data Analysis: Lessons Learned from Purdue's 37th Top Farmer Crop Workshop

Terry Griffin
Graduate Research Assistant
twgriffi@purdue.edu

Dayton Lambert
Former Graduate Research Assistant
daytonlambert@yahoo.com

Department of Agricultural Economics
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana

Introduction

The percentage of grain combines with yield monitors has increased at a dramatic pace. The USDA-ARMS surveys indicated that 29% of 2002 U.S. soybean acres and 37% of 2001 U.S. corn acres were harvested with a combine equipped with a yield monitor. 2004 estimates are close to 50% (Griffin et al., 2004). Now that farmers are collecting site-specific yield data, demand for spatial yield monitor data analysis and on-farm planned comparison trials has increased. Because yield monitor data is easily collected "on-the-go," on-farm planned comparisons are more readily implemented compared to weighing individual loads. On-farm planned comparisons by farmers usually test varieties, tillage alternatives, input timing, or herbicide options, but rate trials could be analyzed with similar methods.

Lessons learned from teaching yield monitor analysis interpretation of planned comparisons, which was introduced in 2004 at one of the longest running Extension programs in the United States, Purdue Extension's Top Farmer Crop Workshop, are summarized in this article. While individual Extension staff members have worked with some farmers to analyze yield monitor data, this was the first publicly announced yield monitor analysis program by any Extension system. Yield monitor analysis service and interpretation was offered to farmers wanting information about their planned comparisons. This service is an example of Extension making use of a new technology.

Because data collected with yield monitors is spatially autocorrelated, specialized statistical methods are needed to make correct inference. The complexity and time requirements of most yield monitor analyses pose challenges with respect to teaching and interpretation of on-farm planned comparison results at Extension events. Techniques and statistical methods adapted by Griffin, Lambert, and Lowenberg-DeBoer (2005) were used to analyze the data. Inferences about treatment effects are compromised when traditional statistical analyses are used in the presence of spatial dependence. Spatial statistics is a tool that produces more reliable results when data are spatially dependent.

Yield Monitor Data Analysis Service

Analysis had to be adapted for each farmer because of differences in the questions asked and on-farm comparison design. Some farmers use classic on-farm comparison designs (e.g., strip trials or split planter trials), but yield monitor analysis can be used with a broader range of designs, including split field and paired field layouts. Therefore, the methodology had to be flexible enough to cater to a broad array of on-farm designs.

Requirements for participation in yield monitor analysis were 1) an on-farm planned comparison was made; 2) the farmer had a specific input management-crop production question to be addressed; and 3) combine yield monitor data was accompanied by other geographical information system (GIS) data layers (Lambert & Griffin, 2004). Data from four farmer-fields met the Top Farmer criteria and were analyzed to determine which treatments reliably provided higher yields. Results were useful for farmers wanting information about variety yields across soils and topography. In the process of analysis and interpretation, one satisfied farmer volunteered to present his interpretations to Top Farmer participants. As of January 2005, five farmers meeting these criteria have contacted Top Farmer analysts for the July workshop.

Teaching Interpretation of Yield Monitor Data Analysis

The future of Extension is not disseminating university research facts to clientele but assisting clientele in understanding and making appropriate decisions with available data. For instance, soil test analysis is conducted commercially, but Extension provides interpretation education. One-size-fits-all standardized answers to clientele questions are no longer suitable. Norland (1990) warns of Extension being more service-oriented than teaching. Extension can have a viable place if distinctive services are provided, most likely in the form of interpretive education.

Yield monitor analysis requires specialized software, skills, and human resources. In light of yield monitor adoption rates and farmer concerns of lack of complementary services such as dealer support and data analysis services, spatial analysis techniques were adapted to provide yield monitor analysis. Extension traditionally disseminates university research, but yield monitor analysis service is different. One attribute of yield monitor analysis is the focus on teaching interpretation skills needed to draw inference from on-farm planned comparison results instead of teaching analysis per se. This is consistent with Astroth and Robbins' (1987) assertion that Extension should not only disseminate information, but also "help interpret and synthesize it in practicable ways."

Future of Yield Monitor Data Analysis

Most U.S. farmers have become expert at assimilating new information, but yield monitor analysis requires new skills and tools. Currently available spatial statistical software is hard to use because it is designed with researchers in mind. Some fertilizer dealerships and crop consultants have started to offer rudimentary yield monitor analysis, mostly focusing on yield averages by soil type, variety, or other categories, with no statistical tests to indicate the reliability of comparisons. No commercial service is currently offering inferential statistical analysis of yield monitor data. Because of the time and skills required, U.S. farmers are typically reluctant to analyze the data themselves.

It will be several years before yield monitor analysis methods are developed and integrated into commercially available farm-level GIS software. In addition, current computer processor speed is a limiting factor in processing the vast amounts of data. Commercial yield monitor analysis is possible when these software and computational constraints are relaxed, but will require continued interpretation education by Extension.

Conclusions and Summary

Spatial analysis is the most difficult step in the yield monitor analysis process, but care must be taken in the interpretation step to make correct management decisions. As with any new information, interpretation is key with respect to incorporating farm management decision-making tools such as yield monitors. At the same time, the lack of interpretive training and services is the bottleneck to yield monitor analysis complementary services.

If Extension is to survive in the 21st century, Extension professionals must stay on the cutting edge of technology and applied research to continue teaching farmers skills they desire. Providing specialized services is one way to develop an audience hungry for learning new skills, such as yield monitor analysis interpretation. The land-grant laboratories used to provide soil test analyses but now mainly provide soil test interpretation education. The value of soil test analysis was quickly realized by the private sector, which offered competitive prices. It remains to be determined if yield monitor analysis will be commercially provided or continue to be an Extension service. Yield monitor analysis will be offered again at the 2005 Top Farmer Crop Workshop.

References

Astroth, K. A., & Robbins, B. S. (1987). Recess is over. Journal of Extension [On-line], 25(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1987fall/a2.html

Griffin, T. W., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Lambert, D. M., Peone, J., Payne, T., & Daberkow, S. G. (2004). Adoption, profitability, and making better use of precision farming data. Staff Paper #04-06. Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. Available at: http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=14656&ftype=.pdf

Griffin, T. W., Lambert, D. M., & Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2005). Testing for appropriate on-farm trial designs and statistical methods for precision farming: A simulation approach. In D. J. Mulla & J. A. Swenson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Precision Agriculture and Other Precision Resources Management, ASA/SSSA/CSSA, Madison, Wisconsin.

Lambert, D. M., & Griffin, T. W. (2004, September). Some suggestion for producers considering yield monitor data analysis, SSMC Newsletter. Available at: http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/ssmc/

Norland, E. V. T. (1990). Extension is not just service. Journal of Extension [On-line], 28(4). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1990winter/tp1.html

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.

If you have difficulties viewing or printing this page, please contact JOE Technical Support.