Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Oxford House 2012 DPU Recent Research

  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Oxford House 2012 DPU Recent Research

  1. 1. Christopher R. Beasley Leonard A. Jason Steven A. Miller 2012 OHWorld Convention
  2. 2.  (Mis)Fit  Alienation 1  Anxiety 2  Depression 2  Diminished well-being 2  Fit  Satisfaction 3,4,5,6,7,  Commitment 3,6,8  Identification with a setting 3  Citizenship behaviors 3  Social integration 9  Intent to stay in a setting 6  Attendance of meetings 10,11  Group involvement 12 Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results DiscussionIntroduction
  3. 3. Introduction GEFS Methods Results Discussion Value Congruence  Value Congruence 13  When an individual’s values are similar to those of the setting  Example  Individual value for 12-step recovery and setting emphasis on 12-step recovery Conceptualization
  4. 4. Interpersonal Similarity Value Congruence  Supplementary 14  When individuals are similar to other members of an environment  Example  Military veterans living with other veterans Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
  5. 5. Needs Supplies Interpersonal Similarity Value Congruence  Needs-Supplies 15  When a setting supplies what an individual needs psychologically and physically  Example  An individual with a high need for structure in a highly structured environment Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
  6. 6. Needs Supplies Individual Contributions Interpersonal Similarity Value Congruence  Complementary 14  When individuals complement environments  Example  Individuals with leadership skills in a house that otherwise lacks leadership Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization
  7. 7. Needs Supplies Interpersonal Similarity Demands Abilities Value Congruence  Demands-Abilities 15  When individuals have the ability to meet the demands of their environment  Example  When a person has the life skills and mental abilities needed to live in a self-sufficient setting Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization Individual Contributions
  8. 8. Needs Supplies Interpersonal Similarity Demands Abilities Value Congruence Direct Subjective  Direct vs. Indirect 16  Direct assesses P & E simultaneously  Indirect assesses P & E separately  Subjective vs. Objective  Subjective is a person’s perception of fit  Objective is a third-party assessment of fit Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization Individual Contributions
  9. 9. Needs Supplies Interpersonal Similarity Demands Abilities Value Congruence  Oxford House Fit  Directly, Subjectively  Value Congruence  Interpersonal Similarity  Needs-Supplies Fit  Individual Contributions  Demands-Abilities Fit Direct Subjective Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualization Individual Contributions Person- Environment Fit
  10. 10. Introduction Conceptualization  Value Congruence  My personal values are similar to those of my Oxford House.  My values prevent me from fitting in with my Oxford House.*  The values of my Oxford House do not reflect my own values.* * Indicates a reverse-scored item Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  11. 11.  Interpersonal Similarity  The other residents of my Oxford House are similar to me.  The other residents of my Oxford House are different from me.*  I am different than the other residents of my Oxford House.* * Indicates a reverse-scored item Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  12. 12.  IndividualContributions  My unique differences add to the success of my Oxford House.  Nothing unique about me adds to the success of my Oxford House.*  I make unique contributions to my Oxford House. * Indicates a reverse-scored item Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  13. 13.  Needs-Supplies Fit  The Oxford House that I currently live in gives me just about everything I could ever need from a recovery home  There is a poor fit between what my Oxford House offers me and what I need in a recovery home.*  The Oxford House that I live in does not have the attributes that I need in a recovery home.* * Indicates a reverse-scored item Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  14. 14.  Demands-Abilities Fit  I have the ability to meet the demands of my Oxford House.  The match is very good between the demands of my Oxford House and my personal skills.  I am not able to meet the demands of my Oxford House.* * Indicates a reverse-scored item Introduction Conceptualization Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
  15. 15.  246 attendees of the 2010 Oxford House World Convention  Survey demographics  71%White, 19% Black, 11% Multiple or Other  52% Male, 48% Female  Recovery time = 2 years Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods
  16. 16.  Fit Measure  Oxford House Satisfaction  Future Stay  How much longer do you expect to live in your Oxford House?Years? Months? Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Results DiscussionMethods
  17. 17.  Needs-Supplies fit  Explained 25% of satisfaction  Interpersonal Similarity  Explained 2% of satisfaction  These two aspects of fit explained 33% resident satisfaction Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results
  18. 18.  Interpersonal Similarity  Explained 4% of future length of stay Introduction Conceptualization GEFS DiscussionMethods Results
  19. 19. Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results  Interpersonal similarity seems to be somewhat important for Oxford House satisfaction  Need fulfillment may be more important in recovery settings than the workplace  Unique contributions may need to be reconsidered Discussion
  20. 20.  Relationship of fit to commitment and citizenship behavior  Multiple setting fit Introduction Conceptualization GEFS Methods Results Discussion
  21. 21. 1. Thomson, W.C. & Wendt, J.C. (1995). Contribution of hardiness and school climate to alienation experienced by student teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 269-274. 2. Caplan, R.D., Tripathi, R.C., & Naidu, R.K. (1985). Subjective past, present, and future fit: Effects on anxiety, depression, and other indicators of well- being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 180-197. 3. Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884. 4. DeRue, D.S & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Stability and change in person–team and person–role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242-1253. 5. Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and person-environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 434-453. 6. Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489. 7. Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L., & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219. 8. Greguras, G.J. & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465-477. 9. Segal, S.P., Silverman, C., & Baumohl, J. (1989). Seeking person-environment fit in community care placement. Journal of Social Issues, 45(3), 49-64. 10.Humphreys, K. & Woods, M.D. (1993). Researching mutual help group participation in a segregated society. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 181-201. 11.Luke, D.A., Roberts, L., & Rappaport, J. (1993). Individual, group context, and individual-fit predictors of self-help group attendance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 216-238. 12.Mankowski, E.S., Humphreys, K., & Moos, R.H. (2001). Individual and contextual predictors of involvement in twelve-step self-help groups after substance use treatment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(4), 537-563. 13.Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333- 349. 14.Muchinsky, P.M. & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277. 15.Caplan, R.D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267. 16.Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49. N E T D H E ?

×