Changes for page RCI by OU

Last modified by Davide Bonicelli on 2014/08/21 15:56
From version Icon 5.3 Icon
edited by karimpirani
on 2014/07/14 15:44
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version Icon 6.2 Icon
edited by karimpirani
on 2014/07/14 16:58
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Icon Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -96,33 +96,41 @@
96 96  
97 97  [[image:rci report - by ou.PNG]]
98 98  
99 -Note initially that this is only the first page of the report. Because we selected Melbourne as an OU we wanted to consider when entering our parameters (and because it is first alphabetically), it was elaborated upon in this page.
99 +Note initially that this is only the first page of the report. Because we selected Melbourne as an OU we wanted to consider when entering our parameters (and because it is first alphabetically), it was elaborated on in this page. Each individual OU will occupy a unique page in your report.
100 100  
101 101  Note also that the instrument of our choice was CANS, but this report can apply to other instruments as well.
102 102  
103 103  
104 +Let's begin dissecting the report and the data it provides. Remember, again, that the RCI by OU Report enables you to track and understand the progress of your clients with regards to their scores on assessment domains and items in particular OUs across two assessment reasons (essentially over time).
104 104  
105 -Let's begin dissecting the report and the data it provides. Remember, again, that the Outcome Snapshot report aims to provide you with critical assessment information and results about a specific domain item over any period of time you choose (and across any OU you desire).
106 106  
107 107  __Top__
108 108  
109 109  * the title of the report is featured prominently at the center of the first page
110 -* many of the parameters you entered are also included for your ease of remembrance (this includes the period of time you indicated was of interest, the OUs you selected, the domain you are investigating (and the question items associated with that domain), and the status of clients you chose.
110 +* many of the parameters you entered are also included for your ease of remembrance (this includes the period of time you indicated was of interest and the OUs you selected).
111 +* also vital here is the two assessment reasons listed, as this is what provides the basis for any comparison.
111 111  
112 112  __Bottom__
113 113  
114 -* your report includes a time stamp of the exact date and time the report was ordered.
115 +* your report includes a time stamp of the exact date and time the report was ordered (not pictured above).
115 115  
116 116  __Middle (DATA)__
117 117  
118 -* Because we checked off the "aggregate OU" box for this example, all OUs are represented in the data.
119 -* Because there were 68 people who met all the criteria we set out in our parameters, 68 appears as the total for all rows.
120 -* Because we selected 0,1,2, and 3 as acceptable scores, this report generates a column for each of those options and shows us the number and percentage of individuals who fell into those buckets.
121 -* Because we chose "Child Strengths" as our domain, the results for it (and its items) are shown.
119 +* Because we selected Melbourne as an OU of interest, its data is provided for us
120 +* We can see that, in Melbourne, there were 12 people who met all the criteria we set out in our parameters. This is because each row below the graph (representing a single domain or item) adds up to 12, implying 12 clients.
121 +* There will always be three columns on the bottom: one for decline, one for no change, and one for improvement
122 +* The domains and items you choose will be the ones that will be considered (e.g. Child Strengths and Culture) in relation to progress
123 +* The graph above and numerical data below show the same data, except for the fact that the numerical information provides absolute quantities (i.e. exact number of clients) instead of just percentages
124 +* However, the bar graph is often easier to understand and serves as a visual guide to your results. In fact, it has been color-coded to make the process easier:
125 +** RED: the red bar represents the percentage of clients whose performance declined between the two assessments, meaning their scores went up (e.g. someone could have gotten a 1 on their initial assessment and then a 3 on their scheduled update).
126 +** YELLOW: the yellow bar represents the percentage of clients whose performance stayed the same over the two assessments, meaning their scores remain unchanged
127 +** GREEN: the green bar represents the percentage of clients whose performance improved between the two assessments, meaning their scores went down (e.g. someone could have gotten a 3 on their initial assessment and then a 1 on their scheduled update).
128 +* Clearly, such data proves extremely useful when looking at a specific OU and its ability to meet the needs of its clients. Looking at the data, someone in a supervisory capacity may look to see if, in a given OU:
129 +** are most clients improving, or at least staying the same?
130 +** if one OU has a 90% green bar for Culture (i.e. lots of improvement is happening) and another one has 70% red, what differences exist between these two environments? Also, what can we do at the second OU to better emulate the practices and thus success of the first OU?
131 +** what about certain OUs might make them better adept at improving one domain and another OU better at improving a different one?
122 122  
123 -The rows thus represent the assessment items.
124 -
125 -The columns represent the scores for those items.
126 -
127 -The intersection of the two offers a data point, such as the number of individuals who responded with a score of 2 for the "Educational" item.
133 +(((
134 +The ability for the RCI by OU to allow for such questioning and analysis (and its ability to compare and screen data across OUs) makes it an obviously powerful tool.
128 128  )))
136 +)))