Table 5.
Complexity | Relevance | Valence | Involvement | Novelty | |
Group 1 | 9.15 | 9.35 | 9.15 | 8.85 | 7.85 |
Group 2 | 8.52 | 9.06 | 8.63 | 8.56 | 7.09 |
Difference | t(30)=0.99 | t(30)=0.58 | t(30)=0.90 | t(30)=0.55 | t(30)=1.63 |
Interview quotes | |
Quote 1 | ID7: What has been the best, and most beneficial, for me was to be very concrete. Often when participating in various kinds of education programs, you get a theoretical top-up in some way, and then there is usually another step where you as a participant need to think about how to work with this in your practice alone. It is pretty easy to get stuck in this process and fail to follow through… // |
Quote 2 | ID 9: …when I got to see this training, I felt that I was pretty good at implementation, simply out of experience. I have learned through experience. But what I haven’t done is a structured implementation action plan, previously I had gone through the steps only in my head. This structured process plan, I feel…will give me an enormous strength in the future. |
Quote 3 | ID2: Yes, I really appreciated those exercises, both when we were to give a talk [about our implementation case] and catch the others’ interest, and then this exercise where there was a challenge…where there was a group that had been told to have different opinions [about the implementation case] and then a manager tried to handle that. // I think that was very valuable. Role plays and when you get to practice with each other, that helped me a lot. |
Independent t-test did not reveal significant differences between the two groups.