O&M PA Working Goal Team 2:
Michelle J. Antinarelli, Gene Bourquin,
Lori Graham, Elga Joffee, Dona Sauerburger
The O&M PA Working Group, which has more than 50 members, was originally created to establish a Professional Association (PA) for Orientation and Mobility as an autonomous affiliate of AER (the Association for Education and Rehabilitation of the Blind and Visually Impaired) or as a separate organization.
This survey was conducted July through September 31, 2013 to gather information that would be helpful to guide the O&M PA Working Group in making decisions which would enhance the likelihood of success for the O&M Professional Association. Questions that can inform the decisions and which were addressed in the survey include:
The O&M PA Working Group has six Information-Gathering Teams which are currently investigating the structure, financial administration, professional activities, membership benefits and external relations of successful Professional Associations as well as exploring options within AER. The goal of these teams is to gather information that can be used to guide decisions for establishing a successful PA for the O&M profession.
The survey results below are intended to provide some of the information that these teams may need. If any of the Information-Gathering Teams need more information to make sound recommendations, this O&M PA Working Goal Team is prepared to work with them to develop follow-up surveys or focus groups to address those issues of concern.
WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE SURVEY?
The survey was intended to gather information from O&M specialists and Guide Dog Mobility Instructors (GDMIs) as well as student/apprentice O&M specialists and GDMIs. Two people who took the survey were none of these - for the purpose of this analysis, their responses were eliminated from the survey data.
One respondent asked to have his or her responses removed because the survey did not provide an option to indicate a preference for the existing structure within AER and every question seemed directed to the goal of a new O&M PA. The responses of this person were removed as requested.
Of the remaining 236 responses that were received, 5 were from O&M students, the rest were from O&M specialists including one from Australia, one from New Zealand, 5 from Canada and 224 from the United States. Three of the O&M specialists said they are also Guide Dog Mobility Instructors. One hundred eighty two participants (77%) said they are AER members and 54 (23%) said they are not AER members.
Survey respondents were recruited through announcements which explained that an O&M PA was being established and invited them to use the survey to provide their input as to how it would be set up. These announcements were sent to:
Because they were recruited from among those who belong to listservs, attend workshops, read O&M Division newsletters, and/or network with colleagues, respondents may comprise a biased sample of engaged professionals. For the purposes of this survey it is appropriate to reach out to and sample engaged professionals. Engaged professionals can be considered representative of those who would participate and lead in a professional association.
Two of the sources for recruiting respondents (AER's listservs and the O&M Division newsletter) consisted only of AER members, so the respondents may comprise a biased sample of members of AER.
IS AN AUTONOMOUS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION NEEDED FOR O&M?
Questions asked in the survey were:
1. Do you believe that your profession needs a Professional Association to promote and support it?
(Respondents were asked to use a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 being "A professional Association would not be helpful" and 5 being "Having a Professional Association is essential")
Results:
2. Do you believe that to be effective, your Professional Association (PA) needs to have autonomy in making decisions about its functions and activities?
(Respondents were asked to use a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 being "PAs definitely do not need to be autonomous" and 5 being "PAs definitely need to be autonomous")
The overwhelming majority of those who responded to the survey believe that O&M needs a Professional Association to promote and support it.
Of those who believe that a PA is needed for O&M, an overwhelming majority believed it should be autonomous and more than half believed it "definitely needs to be autonomous." These results are true for AER members as well as non-members.
In the details outlined below, the statements that respondents "think O&M needs a PA to promote and support it" or "think the PA needs to be autonomous" indicate how many responded to the question with a "4" or "5" in a scale of 0-5.
Need a Professional Association?
Among all 236 O&M specialists and students who responded to the survey:
Need autonomy?
Among the 208 respondents who think that O&M needs a PA:
AER members' opinions?
Need a PA? Among the 182 AER members who responded to the survey:
Non-AER members' opinions?
Need autonomy? Of those 158 AER members who think that O&M needs a PA:
Need a PA? Among the 54 respondents who are not AER members:
Need autonomy?
Of those 50 non-AER members who think that O&M needs a PA:
WILL O&M PROFESSIONALS JOIN AN O&M PA,
AND HOW IS THIS AFFECTED BY ITS VENUE (AER affiliate vs. separate) AND LIABILITY INSURANCE OPTIONS?
The question of whether O&M professionals will join the O&M PA is complicated by factors such as whether the PA is set up as an affiliate of AER or separately, and the issue of professional liability insurance options as a membership benefit.
The survey results indicate that when deciding whether to join the PA, having professional liability insurance options would be an important factor for about half of O&M professionals.
Analysis shows that, given equal availability of liability insurance options for each venue, about 64% of respondents would join the PA in one venue or another, and 41% would join the PA regardless of whether it is an affiliate of AER or separate.
Statistics are consistent with the trend in data indicating a strong preference for establishing an O&M PA without a strong preference for venue. This is particularly true in the survey responses for AER members taking the survey, but not for those who are not members of AER. Survey responses of those who are not AER members indicate they are almost 4 times as likely to join a PA that is separate than they are to join a PA affiliate of AER. If the proportion of AER members in our sample is higher than it is among O&M professionals, the survey results may be skewed toward being more likely to join an O&M PA affiliate of AER than is actually the case.
Details of this summary are below.
HOW MUCH DO LIABILITY INSURANCE OPTIONS AFFECT THE DECISION TO JOIN THE PA?
AER offers its members an option to purchase professional liability insurance at a reasonable rate. The O&M PA paper which linked respondents to the survey explained that if the PA is established separate from AER, it is not likely that the PA could offer similar professional liability insurance options.
The following question was answered by 227 O&M professionals:
How important would the option of professional liability insurance be in your decision to join a Professional Association (PA)?
Results:
(Respondents were asked to use a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being "liability insurance isn't a factor in your decision to join a PA" and 4 being "you would join a PA ONLY IF it offers professional liability insurance options.")
22% (49) rated it 4 (they would join PA ONLY IF it offers liability insurance options);
30% (69) rated it 3 (liability insurance is an important factor);
20% (46) rated it 2 (liability insurance is somewhat a factor);
28% (63) rated it 1 (liability insurance is not a factor in their decision to join a PA).
However, 8 of those who responded with a "4" and 18 of those who responded "3" (20% of those who responded with a 3 or 4) were not AER members, which means they are not currently getting any professional liability insurance through AER.
The proportions of people responding with ratings of 1 to 4 to the insurance issue were about the same regardless of whether they were employed by an agency or school, or in private practice, or both. The only group that differed was the group of 14 O&M professionals who said they were not currently providing O&M -- half of them responded that liability is not a factor in their decision to join a PA" (rated "1").
HOW DOES BEING AN AER AFFILIATE VS. SEPARATE AFFECT THE LIKELIHOOD TO JOIN THE PA?
Questions asked in the survey were:
1. PREFERENCE:
2. LIKELIHOOD TO JOIN IF PA IS SEPARATE:
Would you prefer your Professional Association (PA) to be part of AER, or separate (assuming that the issue of professional liability insurance has been addressed)?
Respondents were asked to use a scale of 1 to 5, as follows:
In the report below, statements are made based on the following ratings:
How likely are you to join a Professional Association which is separate?
For the sake of this survey, please assume this Professional Association is not part of any umbrella organization; your membership dues would be $85/year; and issues of professional liability insurance have been addressed.
(Respondents were asked to use a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 being "I probably would never join such an association" and 5 being "I would definitely join such an association.")
3. LIKELIHOOD TO JOIN IF PA IS AER AFFILIATE:
How likely are you to join a Professional Association which would exist within AER?
For the sake of this survey, please assume that the Professional Association is part of AER but completely autonomous, and you can join it by paying $50/year dues in addition to $167/year for your AER membership dues.
(Respondents were asked to use a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 being "I probably would never join such an association" and 5 being "I would definitely join such an association.")
COMPARING LIKELIHOOD TO JOIN:
As noted above, each respondent was asked to indicate the likelihood that s/he would join the PA if it was separate, and the likelihood s/he would join if it was an AER affiliate. If the difference in their likelihood to join each was no more than 1 point, they were coded as being equally likely to join the PA in either venue; if the difference in their likelihood to join each was more than 1 point, they were coded as being more likely to join the PA in one venue than the other.
Results:
When we asked respondents to indicate how likely they would join the PA in each venue, we had asked them to assume that the issue of professional liability insurance has been addressed. It seems that they complied with our request to disregard this issue, because those who indicated they would join the separate PA had the same range of importance for the liability insurance options in their decision to join as those who indicated they would not join a separate PA.
Thus it is important to note that
LIKELIHOOD TO JOIN:
In the results below, the term "likely to join" indicates those who responded to the questions about their likelihood of joining with a "4" or a "5" in a scale of 0-5;
The term "NOT likely to join the PA, regardless of its venue" indicates those who responded with "0-3" out of 5 for BOTH the separate PA and the PA affiliate of AER.
Out of 236 O&M professionals who participated in the survey:
Please note that the percentages and numbers add up to more than 100% of the population because some respondents would be likely to join the PA regardless of its venue, so they are included among those who would be likely to join a separate PA AS WELL AS those who would be likely to join an affiliate of AER.
Likelihood to join:
Out of 182 AER members:
41% (96) would be likely to join the PA regardless of its venue.
Comparing likelihood to join:
64% (151) would be likely to join the PA if it is separate.
64% (151) would be likely to join the PA if it is an affiliate of AER.
13% (31) would NOT be likely to join the PA, regardless of its venue.
22% (53) would be more likely to join a PA in AER than a separate PA.
25% (59) would be more likely to join a separate PA than a PA in AER.
52% (124) would be just as likely (or unlikely!) to join a PA in AER as separate.
Likelihood to join:
PREFERENCES:
47% (86) would be likely to join the PA regardless of its venue.
Comparing likelihood to join:
59% (108) would be likely to join the PA if it is separate.
77% (140) would be likely to join the PA if it is an affiliate of AER.
10% (18) would NOT be likely to join the PA, regardless of its venue.
29% (52) would be more likely to join the PA in AER than a separate PA.
Out of 54 who were not AER members:
13% (24) would be more likely to join a separate PA than a PA in AER.
58% (106) would be just as likely (or unlikely!) to join the PA in AER as separate.
Likelihood to join:
19% (10) would be likely to join the PA regardless of its venue.
Comparing likelihood to join:
74% (40) would be likely to join the PA if it is separate.
20% (11) would be likely to join the PA if it is an affiliate of AER.
24% (13) would NOT be likely to join the PA, regardless of its venue.
2% (1) would be more likely to join the PA in AER than a separate PA.
65% (35) would be more likely to join a separate PA than a PA in AER.
33% (18) would be just as likely (or unlikely!) to join the PA in AER as separate.
34% (81) prefer that the PA be part of AER.
Of these, 56% (44) were equally likely to join PA whether separate / AER.
44% (105) prefer that the PA be separate.
Of these, 27% (28) were equally likely to join PA whether separate / AER.
21% (50) has no preference as to whether PA is part of AER or separate.
Of these, 14% (7) were more likely to join the PA if part of AER,
AER Members:
4% (2) were more likely to join the PA if separate.
43% (78) prefer that the PA be part of AER.
Non-AER Members:
Of these, 43% (33) were equally likely to join PA whether separate / AER.
36% (65) prefer that the PA be separate.
Of these, 65% (42) were equally likely to join PA whether separate / AER.
21% (39) has no preference as to whether PA is part of AER or separate.
Of these, 3% (1) was more likely to join the PA if it is part of AER.
18% (7) was more likely to join the PA if it is separate.
6% (3) prefer that the PA be part of AER.
DISCUSSION:
Of these, 67% (2) were equally likely to join PA whether separate / AER.
74% (40) prefer that the PA be separate.
Of these, 15% (6) were equally likely to join PA whether separate / AER.
20% (11) has no preference as to whether PA is part of AER or separate.
Of these, 9% (1) was more likely to join the PA if separate.
The results indicate that if the liability issue is addressed, about 64% of surveyed O&M professionals would join an O&M PA in one venue or another, and 41% would be likely to join it regardless of whether it is established as an affiliate of AER or separately. This strong likelihood for joining the O&M PA without a strong preference for its venue if the liability issue is addressed is especially true for the AER members who responded to the survey - 47% of them would be likely to join the PA regardless of how it's set up.
However the survey responses of those who are not AER members indicated they were almost 4 times as likely to join the PA if it is separate (74%) than they would if it is an affiliate of AER (20%). Since the survey results may be skewed toward AER members, the responses may indicate a higher likelihood to join an O&M PA affiliate of AER than is actually the case among O&M professionals.
WHAT FEATURES SHOULD THE PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OFFER?
The survey included a question "Please mark any items that you think would be essential or important for your Professional Association to provide."
Respondents were asked to mark "E" for items that they consider "essential;" "I" for "important;" "M" if the item "maybe helpful" and leave the item blank if it could be of no importance.
Results:
In descending order of being "essential" (out of 236 responses)
(1) 80% (188) Advocate / lobby regarding policies which affect O&M/GDMI
In descending order of being "important" or "essential"
(2) 77% (181) Promote the profession and its services
(3) 75% (177) Provide continuing education opportunities
(4) 75% (176) Develop practice based on research/evidence
(5) 75% (176) Increase public awareness / understanding about the profession
(6) 70% (166) Provide resources and information for practitioners
(7) 64% (152) Pursue third-party reimbursement for services
(Medicare/insurance)
(8) 64% (150) University O&M program support and liaison
(9) 60% (142) Have regularly scheduled O&M conferences
(10) 60% (141) Support research and its application in O&M/GDMI
(11) 60% (141) Pursue licensure
(12) 56% (132) Write position papers and professional statements
(13) 50% (118) Develop networks with medical and engineering professions
(14) 47% (110) Provide options for professional liability insurance
(15) 44% (105) Establish mentoring programs
(16) 44% (103) Newsletters, bulletins, and news updates
(17) 42% (99) Validate competency in subspecialties
(18) 41% (96) Job banks and employment networks
(19) 38% (89) Professional O&M journal
(number in parenthesis at the end of the line is the item's ranking order as being "essential")
(1) 97% (228) Provide continuing education opportunities (3)
(2) 96% (226) Develop practice based on research/evidence (4)
(3) 94% (223) Advocate / lobby regarding policies which affect O&M/GDMI (1)
(4) 94% (222) Provide resources and information for practitioners (6)
(5) 94% (222) Increase public awareness / understanding about the profession (5)
(6) 93% (220) Promote the profession and its services (2)
(7) 92% (217) Have regularly scheduled O&M conferences (9)
(8) 91% (214) Write position papers and professional statements (12)
(9) 89% (211) University O&M program support and liaison (8)
(10) 89% (209) Support research and its application in O&M/GDMI (10)
(11) 88% (208) Newsletters, bulletins, and news updates (16)
(12) 87% (205) Pursue third-party reimbursement for services (Medicare/insurance) (7)
(13) 84% (199) Job banks and employment networks (18)
(14) 84% (198) Provide options for professional liability insurance (14)
(15) 83% (197) Professional O&M journal (19)
(16) 83% (197) Pursue licensure (11)
(17) 83% (195) Establish mentoring programs (15)
(18) 81% (192) Develop networks with medical and engineering professions (13)
(19) 82% (193) Validate competency in subspecialties (17)
HOW MANY O&M PROFESSIONALS ARE CERTIFIED?
The O&M PA Working Group is considering whether to restrict membership to the O&M Professional Association regarding qualifications / certification as an O&M professional. It may be helpful, therefore, to learn about the certification qualifications of those who took the survey.
The respondents were not specifically asked about their certification, but
there was a question from which we might infer whether or not they were certified as COMS or NOMC.
The question was "What profession are you?" and respondents were asked to check all that apply from the following:
__ O&M specialist
__ COMS
__ NOMC
__ Student O&M
__ Guide Dog Mobility Instructor (GDMI)
__ Apprentice GDMI
__ I am not an O&M specialist or a GDMI
Results:
5 respondents were student O&M specialists (all from the United States; 2 reported that they were COMS)
2 were O&M specialists from New Zealand and Australia (neither was COMS or NOMC).
5 respondents were O&M specialists from Canada: 40% (2) were certified by ACVREP.
229 respondents were O&M specialists from the U.S. and Canada combined:
79% (181) were certified by ACVREP (COMS)
CERTIFICATION / AER MEMBERSHIP:
1% (3) were certified by NBPCB (NOMC -- one of these was also COMS)
21% (48) were not certified by ACVREP
20% (46) were not certified by ACVREP or NBPCB
1% (3) were Guide Dog Mobility Instructors (all of these were COMS)
Of the 181 O&M professionals the U.S. and Canada who were certified by ACVREP:
80% (144) were AER members.
Of the 48 O&M professionals the U.S. and Canada who were NOT certified by ACVREP:
20% (37) were not AER members.
67% (32) were AER members.
Of the 5 student O&M professionals:
33% (16) were not AER members.100% (5) were AER members.
Of 176 AER members in the U.S. and Canada (not including students):
82% (144) were ACVREP-certified;
Of 53 non-AER members in the U.S. and Canada (not including students):
VERIFICATION:
18% (32) were not ACVREP-certified.
Because we did not specifically ask the respondents to indicate whether they were certified, it is possible that some people who were certified did not check the appropriate box.
Therefore it may be helpful to check the ACVREP directory to see if the proportion of respondents registered as "COMS" is close to the proportion of respondents who checked the box for "COMS," which is:
78% (183) out of all 236 respondents (including the students and overseas respondents) indicated they are "COMS."
Although the names of those who responded had been deleted from the survey, their names were kept in a file separate from their answers.
There were 222 respondents who gave names that could be identified -- the remaining 14 respondents gave only first names or initials.
Of those 222 respondents,
80% (178) were listed in the ACVREP directory as "COMS"
20% (44) were not listed as "COMS"
The proportion of ALL respondents who are listed as "COMS" in the ACVREP directory would depend on how many of the 14 respondents who couldn't be identified are "COMS."
The range of proportion possibilities for all 236 respondents is:
75-81% (178-192) could be "COMS"
This coincides with the results we got from the survey that 78% checked the box saying they were "COMS."
19-25% (44-58) could be not "COMS"