There has been a huge debate in this field about the best Model of Response to use - but less literature on evidence based research in terms of which response is proven the most effective in general or even with specific populations or different cultural areas. Has anyone found or heard of a solid measurement tool to measure the effectiveness of a Critical Incident Response of any type?
Dear Patricia,
I fear your question has no answer, if you formulate it in terms of "effectiveness" of the CIR. The CIR measures derived from Flanagan belong to qualitative methods, with the specific advantages and disadvantages attached to them. So by definition - we could say intrinsically - those measures are always effective as far as you keep in mind the following guidelines :
1. Set accurately the type of question/problem you want to understand (e.g. consequences of introducing new technologies in a specific job setting, or perceived effects of emotionally demanding experiences in emergency care professions - this last example is taken from my own research).
2. As for any qualitative method, the sample has to be clearly defined, and the interviews/data collecting method have to be open enough, in order not to miss rare or specific events or perceptions from the respondents' perspective.
3. The responses' content analysis has to be thoroughly conduced.
4. Keep conscious of the possible memory bias in events/situations reporting : the most recent experiences are often better recalled; emotional aspects of experiences can impair the quality of reporting, etc.
Sorry I cannot tell more as far as I don't know your specific research context, but I hope my answer will help !
Depends on what you're trying to undwrsrand with the variables you want to study. the effective Cir can be decrease stress pre and post Cir but you really want to look at something longer term 2 to 6 months out in the responders who went through CIR
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Counseling Psychology