Core Technology, Professional Engagement, and Employee Assistance Practice

Abstract

Little is known about employee assistance (EA) practice and its relationship to knowledge and utilization of EA core technology. Survey data measuring levels of knowledge and utilization of five specific technologies finds primary practitioners report higher levels of knowledge and utilization of core technologies; assessment and referral are used most frequently; constructive confrontation, consultation to work organizations, and training are used less commonly; a significant relationship exists between time in the field and knowledge of core technology; and a moderate relationship exists between levels of knowledge and utilization of core technology. An index of professional engagement based on levels of knowledge and utilization of core technology was developed. Implications for EA education, professional credibility, and future areas of research are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• core technology
• employee assistance
• knowledge
• professional engagement
• utilization

Notes

Note. EAP = Employee Assistance Program.

^a Occupational role: 0 = secondary provider, 1 = EAP practitioner.

^b Level of knowledge: 0 = nothing/little, 1 = quite a bit/a lot.

^c Two cell had counts fewer than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.68.

Note. EAP = Employee Assistance Program.

^a Occupational role: 0 = secondary provider, 1 = EAP practitioner.

^b Frequency of use: 0 = rarely use, 1 = frequently use.

^c Two cell had counts fewer than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.14.

^d One cell had counts fewer than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.76.

^e Two cell had counts fewer than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.23.

*Significant at the p = .000 level, **significant at the p < .05 level.

Primary practitioners are members of the chapter who were employed by Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs). Secondary practitioners are chapter members who worked for drug and alcohol treatment programs, are retained by companies that provide HR consultation and/or employee training and development, or are in private practice and accepted referrals from EAPs on an affiliate basis.

See Alcoholics Anonymous (1976).

Of the 197 members on the original sampling list, 30 were removed by reason of no longer being at the telephone number given, the telephone number being disconnected, or their packet being returned as undeliverable with no forwarding contact information. The final sampling frame consisted of 167 chapter members.

Three research assistants were charged with preparing the questionnaires for mailing and conducting the telephone interviews, as well as coding, entering, and cleaning input data. Training and monitoring of the data collection process was overseen by the project coordinator. Assistants were trained in interviewing and data management. Each instrument was double coded for reliability and quality assurance purposes. Discrepancies in coding and perplexing survey responses were resolved by use of decision-making rules as outlined in a coding manual.

Advanced solicitation was intended to increase participation since mail surveys are notorious for low response rates.

Two of the 84 cases were eliminated from the analysis due to large amounts of missing data. The final number for the present investigation is 82 cases.

See U.S. Census (2000). Data retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/3651000.html

Definitions used in the assessment were adapted from Employee Assistance Association (2003).

As measured by the interaction between level of knowledge and frequency of use of core technology.

When a composite variable was created that summed scores across respondents, more than 15% of the cases were eliminated from the initial analysis on account of missing values for one or more of the original set of variables. To protect the integrity of the investigation, new variables were created for level of knowledge and frequency of use that replaced missing data with the mean of all available cases for the respective variables. A separate set of bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Inasmuch as the results were equivalent, reporting either set of analysis is acceptable (Warner, 2008). The original set of statistics is reported here.

These include the Employee Assistance Society of North America (EASNA) and the Employee Assistance Professionals Association (EAPA). The Employee Assistance Certification Commission has developed and sponsors the Certified Employee Assistance Professional (CEAP) credential.