One-Stop Career Centers: An Assessment of Satisfaction From Customers Using Services of A Disability Program Navigator

ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM
CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR

by
Mary R. Noble

NANCY POMEROY, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair
PAULA STECHSCHULTE, Ph.D., Committee Member
DEBRA HURD, Ph.D., Committee Member

Charles Tiffin, PhD, Dean, School of Public Service Leadership

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University
December 2010

Abstract
Created by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, the one-stop career center system was
designed to ensure that effective employment and training services were available to everyone,
thereby increasing the available workforce and employment of individuals with and without
disabilities (Jobs bill gives power to locals, Barlas, 1998). Measures, calculations of performance
levels, and assessment of customer satisfaction were required (Training and employment
guidance letter no. 7-99, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2000). In
2002, the Disability Program Navigator Initiative was developed to specifically assist individuals
with disabilities in one-stop career centers, directly and indirectly (Disability Program Navigator
Initiative, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). To gain
insight on whether the goals of the one-stop career center system were met, levels of satisfaction
of one-stop career center customers who used the services provided by a disability program
navigator were assessed. A sample of 41 ranged from 25-74 years of age with educational levels
from 9-19 years. More than 50% of respondents scored the disability program navigator service
with favorable response ratings on all eight items of the survey used in this study, the Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (The USCF client satisfaction scales, Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999).
Data analysis results indicated no significant differences in total customer satisfaction scores
between women and men or between participants who self-identified as having a disability and
those who did not. There were no significant differences in total customer satisfaction scores
between participants who found out about the disability program navigator from the one-stop
career center, from a website/online, from the Social Security office, unemployment office, or

from family/friends. Older respondents gave lower total client satisfaction scores. Higher total
client satisfaction scores were given by participants with more years of education, who met with
the disability program navigator sooner, and those who spent more time in their meetings. A low
percent of shared variance and small overlap between age, years of education, number of days
until customers meetings with the disability program navigator, or minutes in the meeting, and
total customer satisfaction scores, explained little of the variance in customer satisfaction scores.

iv

Dedication
This academic milestone is dedicated to several individuals. The most important person was my
loving, supportive, and understanding husband, Scott, who was instrumental in starting my
academic journey and vital to finishing it, and was always there for me. My caring parents,
Beatrice and Jacob, encouraged and supported my education pursuits in more ways than one.
Lastly, I hope that my sons, Kevin and Rob, accepted and understood all the time I spent on this
endeavor.

v

Acknowledgments
I acknowledge and offer my sincere gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Wendy Andberg and Dr.
Nancy Pomeroy, for their ongoing encouragement, guidance, support, and advice. I am grateful
to my dissertation committee, Dr. Paula Stechschulte and Dr. Debra Hurd, several of my former
college professors, Paige Berry, Dr. Amy Armstrong, Dr. Allen Lewis, and Dr. Christine Reid, as
well as Dr. Joann Richardson, who inspired me to continue my education. I am thankful to
several colleagues, Laurie Meadows, Richard Kriner, Dr. Joe Ashley; to the staff at the
Richmond Career Advancement Center in Virginia; as well as Dr. Beth Bader, Sarah Littlebear,
and Margaret McCall, who listened to me, and provided feedback and/or encouragement. A
special thank-you to Patty and the deceased Dr. D. Dale Kleppinger, and in particular, Pattys
never-ending commitment to me. I acknowledge, too, my familys support, Peggy, Denise, Eric,
April, my in-laws, Sue and Ray, my parents, Beatrice and Jacob, and especially my wonderfully
supportive husband, Scott. I extend a sincere thank-you to each of these individuals.

vi

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments v
List of Tables ix
List of Figures xi
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM 1
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 3
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 6
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 8
RATIONALE 10
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 12
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 13
DEFINITION OF TERMS 15
ASSUMPTIONS 18
LIMITATIONS 18
NATURE OF THE STUDY AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 20
ORGANIZATION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE STUDY 22
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 23
PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 23
FEDERAL LEGISLATION TARGETING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 27
ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS 37

vii

CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 40
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION IN THE ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER SYSTEM 43
DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR INITIATIVE 54
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 62
RESEARCHERS PHILOSOPHY 62
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 63
RESEARCH DESIGN STRATEGY 66
SAMPLING DESIGN 66
MEASURES 67
DESCRIPTION OF THE CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8) 68
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 71
DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 73
LIMITATIONS OF METHODOLOGY 75
EXPECTED FINDINGS AND ETHICAL ISSUES 76
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 80
INTRODUCTION 80
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE 80
SUMMARY OF RESULTS 85
DETAILS OF ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 86
CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 95
CONCLUSION 115

viii

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 119
INTRODUCTION 119
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS 119
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 123
LIMITATIONS 126
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 127
CONCLUSION 125
REFERENCES 133
APPENDIX A. DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR POSITION DESCRIPTION 145
APPENDIX B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION SHEET 150

ix

List of Tables
Table 1. RESPONSES TO ITEM 1. HOW WOULD YOU RATE THE
QUALITY OF SERVICE YOU RECEIVED. 97

Table 2. RESPONSES TO ITEM 2. DID YOU GET THE KIND
OF SERVICE YOU WANTED. 97

Table 3. RESPONSES TO ITEM 3. TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE
PROGRAM MET YOUR NEEDS. 98

Table 4. RESPONSES TO ITEM 4. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND
THE PROGRAM TO A FRIEND. 98

Table 5. RESPONSES TO ITEM 5. HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU
WITH THE AMOUNT OF HELP RECEIVED. 99

Table 6. RESPONSES TO ITEM 6. HAVE THE SERVICES HELPED
WITH YOUR PROBLEMS. 99

Table 7. RESPONSES TO ITEM 7. OVERALL GENERAL
SATISFACTION WITH SERVICE. 100

Table 8. RESPONSES TO ITEM 8. WOULD YOU COME BACK
TO THE PROGRAM. 101

Table 9. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 8 ITEMS ON CLIENT
SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8). 101

Table 10. PEARSONS CORRELATION RESULTS FOR AGE AND TOTAL
CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8) SCORES. 103

Table 11. PEARSONS CORRELATION RESULTS FOR YEARS OF
EDUCATION AND TOTAL CLIENT SATISFACTION
QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8) SCORES. 104

Table 12. PEARSONS CORRELATION RESULTS FOR DAYS UNTIL MEETING
WITH DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR AND TOTAL CLIENT
SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE SCORES. 105

x

Table 13. PEARSONS CORRELATION RESULTS FOR MINUTES SPENT
IN MEETING WITH DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR AND
TOTAL CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE SCORE. 105

Table 14. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEANS OF TOTAL
CLIENT SATISFACTION (CSQ-8) SCORES FOR
WOMEN AND MEN. 107

Table 15. INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEANS OF TOTAL CLIENT
SATISFACTION (CSQ-8) SCORES AND PARTICIPANTS WHO
SELF-IDENTIFIED A DISABILITY. 108

FOUND OUT ABOUT DISABILITY PROGRAM
NAVIGATOR FROM ONE-STOP CAREER CENTER. 109

NAVIGATOR FROM A WEBSITE/ONLINE. 110

NAVIGATOR FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE. 111

NAVIGATOR FROM THE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE. 112

FOUND OUT ABOUT DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR
FROM FAMILY/FRIENDS. 113

Table 21. COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINATION FOR CLIENT
SATISFACTION SCORES. 115

Table 22. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION ON 8 ITEMS ON
CLIENT SATISFACTION CSQ-8. 121

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1. AGES OF PARTICIPANTS. 83

Figure 2. YEARS OF EDUCATION OF PARTICIPANTS. 84

Figure 3. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT OF AGES OF PARTICIPANTS. 88

Figure 4. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT OF YEARS OF
EDUCATION OF PARTICIPANTS. 89

Figure 5. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT FOR NUMBER OF DAYS UNTIL
PARTICIPANTS MEETING WITH DISABILITY PROGRAM
NAVIGATOR. OUTLIER AT 14-DAY MARK. 90

Figure 6. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT FOR MINUTES IN PARTICIPANTS
MEETING WITH DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR.
OUTLIERS AT 2-MINUTE MARK AND 45-MINUTES MARK. 91

Figure 7. BOX-AND-WHISKERS PLOT FOR PARTICIPANTS TOTAL
CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE (CSQ-8) SCORES. 92

Figure 8. NUMBER OF DAYS UNTIL MEETING WITH DISABILITY
PROGRAM NAVIGATOR. 93

Figure 9. MINUTES IN MEETING WITH DISABILITY
PROGRAM NAVIGATOR. 95

Figure 10. DISTRIBUTION OF CLIENT SATISFACTION QUESTIONNAIRE
(CSQ-8) SCORES. HISTOGRAM SHOWS BIMODAL SHAPE. 96

1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem
In 1998, the one-stop career center system was created by the Workforce Investment Act
to ensure that effective employment and training services were available to all individuals,
including people with disabilities (Barlas, 1998). Measures and calculation of performance levels
regarding core and customer satisfaction in the one-stop career centers were required under the
Workforce Investment Act (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration,
2000). The levels of performance standards that were expected, however, had considerable
bearing on the ability of each states workforce system to include people with significant
disabilities (Bader, 2003). To address this problem, the Department of Labor and the Social
Security Administration established the Disability Program Navigator Initiative in 2002 (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). This initiative was specifically
designed to assist individuals with disabilities to secure the most favorable employment
outcomes in the one-stop center career center system, through a variety of ways, both directly
and indirectly.
The Disability Program Navigator Initiative provided an individual with expertise on
workforce development issues, not only to assist people with disabilities in the one-stop center
career centers and to facilitate their access to disability services, but to increase the capacity of
the one-stop career center to serve this population (Emery et al., n.d., Holcomb & Barnow,
2004). This was accomplished by working directly with customers, referring them to other
relevant programs and services, training one-stop career center staff, and conducting community

2
outreach (Emery et al., n.d.). Through funding in state grants, disability program navigators also
were utilized in the 2005 Disability Program Navigator Hurricane Initiative, which provided
temporary assignments of workforce professionals for people with disabilities in the Gulf Coast
area (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.; U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training Administration, 2005).
Although the one-stop career center system has been in existence since 1998, there is
limited information regarding the experiences and satisfaction of its customers who used the
services provided by a disability program navigator. Customers who met with a disability
program navigator included individuals, one-stop career center staff, community organizations,
employers, and local businesses (Emery et al., n.d.). More specifically, customers included
people with multiple employment challenges, and who had non-visible, undiagnosed, and non-
reported disabilities, such as psychiatric, learning or other cognitive disabilities, or traumatic
brain injuries. This also consisted of people who were not only disabled, but were youth in the
foster care and juvenile justice systems, ex-offenders, TANF recipients, disabled veterans, older
workers, customers in need of English as a Second Language services, and customers who were
illiterate and/or homeless (Federal News Service, 2009). Despite the fact that in 2009, the Office
of Workforce Investment with the Employment and Training Administration reported 450
disability program navigators across 42 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S.
Virgin Islands and Guam (Federal News Service, 2009), there is a significant deficit of data
regarding the utilization of the services of a disability program navigator by one-stop career

3
center customers. Therefore, customer satisfaction levels with the Disability Program Navigator
Initiative cannot be determined, or to what extent customers were satisfied.
Assessment of satisfaction from one-stop career center customers who used the services
of a disability program navigator would provide insight and understanding for improvement and
modifications of the Initiative, as well as future funding for it. Findings would contribute to a
greater understanding of the needs of people with disabilities, and ultimately, possibly increase
the employment of individuals with disabilities in the workforce. Obtaining information
regarding the levels and differences of customer satisfaction with the services of a disability
program navigator could also be used to determine how effectively the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative accomplished the goals of both the one-stop career center program and the
Workforce Investment Act. This would allow for modifications by decision-makers and policy-
makers, as well as continued and future funding.

Background of the Study
President Clinton signed the Workforce Investment Act as Public Law 105-220 on
August 7, 1998 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998). The
intentions of the Workforce Investment Act were to consolidate funds into the Workforce
Development System, thereby replacing a number of smaller federally supported employment
programs, and to combine, coordinate, and improve employment, training, literacy, and
vocational rehabilitation programs in organized labor (National Council on Disability, 2005).
The Workforce Investment Act is organized into five titles concerning job training; adult

4
education; amendments to both previous employment acts and vocational rehabilitation acts; and
general provisions targeting all adults ages 18 and older, dislocated workers, and youths aged 14-
21 with low incomes (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998). Title
I of the Workforce Investment Act specifically established the one-stop career center delivery
system as an access point for employment-related and training services (Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training Administration, 1998). The one-stop career center system was also
designed to integrate, collaborate, and upgrade relevant community programs and resources, and
to provide employers with a larger pool of qualified, skilled workers (Rutgers, 2002). Federally
mandated partnerships in one-stop career centers provided individuals with meaningful and
seamless access to information, services, and opportunities in the world of work.
The Workforce Investment Act expired on September 30, 2003, and the Job Training
Improvement Act, House Bill H.R. 27, was passed on March 2, 2005, reauthorizing the Act
(Lordeman, 2006). The bill also contained amendments to Title I of the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998 that affected the one-stop career center system (Lordeman, 2006). The bill affected
the one-stop career center systems by increasing the role and flexibility of the State Workforce
Investment Board, streamlining funding and bureaucracy, eliminating duplication, strengthening
resource allocation, and improving accountability.
Despite the efforts of the Workforce Investment Act and the one-stop career center
system, only about 37% of people with disabilities are reported in the national workforce (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2006). Six percent of adults aged 16 to 64 with a disability report the presence of
a condition that makes it difficult to remain employed or to find a job (U.S. Census Bureau,

5
2006). Average earnings of workers with disabilities are lower; they are under-represented in the
workforce, and experience both higher rates of poverty and limited access to employee benefits
(Timmons, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006).
The Workforce Investment Acts Standardized Record Data revealed a significant
decrease from 2001 to 2003 in percentages of people with a disability successfully exiting the
one-stop career center program (National Council on Disability, 2005). A case study of one-stop
career centers in six states also found that the number of people with disabilities who used the
one-stop career centers was lower than what was expected (Hamner & Timmons, 2005). Reasons
suggested for the underutilization were that data collection systems lacked the ability to clearly
identify people with disabilities; non-disclosure of a disability by customers; insufficient
appropriate services for people with more significant disabilities; and limitations of staff time to
assist them in accessing services (Bader, 2003; Hamner & Timmons, 2005). Other reasons that
one-stop career centers were not used by more individuals with disabilities were the customers
lack of ability and personal comfort levels in using the one-stop career centers self-directed
services (Bader, 2003; Hamner & Timmons, 2005). There was also reluctance by the one-stop
career center staff to serve people with disabilities because investment of the additional time and
support required to assist those with disabilities could possibly result in inadequate outcomes to
meet mandatory performance measures (Bader, 2003; Hamner & Timmons, 2005). It was found
that employers who were aware of one-stop career centers and used its services were more likely
to be large and medium-sized employers (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005).
Reasons given by employers for not using the one-stop career centers services were a lack of

6
information on the services offered or the breadth of services available, and/or the use of other
training/hiring resources (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2005).
In an effort to streamline services and create seamless service delivery among the one-
stop career center partners, one of the additions jointly developed by the U.S. Department of
Labor and the Social Security Administration was the Disability Program Navigator Initiative.
Established in 2002, the Initiative provided an expert in the one-stop center career centers who
had knowledge and experience on workforce development issues relative to people with
disabilities (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). Appendix A
provides a description of the disability program navigator position. In 2004, there were
approximately 227 disability program navigators who facilitated access to disability services to
secure the most favorable employment outcome for one-stop career center customers with
disabilities (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004; U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, 2005). On June 30, 2006, additional U.S. Department of Labor grant monies
were awarded to both fund disability program navigators in 13 states and to maintain the
program in 17 states (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2006). This study assessed the satisfaction of one-stop
career center customers who utilized the services of the disability program navigator in two one-
stop career centers, thereby providing insight on the programs effectiveness in meeting its goals.

Statement of the Problem
Performance accountability for customer-focused results in the one-stop career center
system was required by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which involved data collection,

7
tracking of performance, analysis of information, and modification of strategies for improvement
(DAmico, Kogan, Kreutzer, Wiegand, Baker, Carrick & McCarthy, 2001). A Training and
Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL 7-99) issued by the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration (2000) addressed core and customer satisfaction
measures in one-stop career centers required under the Workforce Investment Act. A survey
approach was mandated, using a small set of questions to form a customer satisfaction index, and
based on the American Customer Satisfaction Index (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training Administration, 2000). History of usefulness of the American Customer Satisfaction
Index in tracking change over time, indicated it assessed performance accountability for
customer-focused results required by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (U.S. Dept. of
Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2000).
The performance standards of the Workforce Investment Act, however, did not address
employment issues of any special populations, such as individuals with a disability (Bader,
2003). Furthermore, although significant studies are available on one-stop career center customer
satisfaction, limited research has been conducted addressing satisfaction of one-stop career
center customers. Initially, the disability program navigators role in the one-stop career centers
was to assist people with disabilities navigate through the challenges of the job search process
and develop comparable disability expertise in other one-stop career center staff (Virginia
Commonwealth University, 2005; Emery et al., n.d.). As the program grew, disability program
navigators responsibilities expanded to include developing links, providing assistance to
employers with recruitment needs, conducting outreach to organizations serving people with

8
disabilities, and serving as a resource on federal disability incentives and benefits; thereby
improving the coordination of one-stop career centers resources for people with disabilities
(Institute for Community Inclusion, 2004). Nevertheless, only a few studies are presently
available regarding customers levels of satisfaction with the services provided by a disability
program navigator. Since implementation in 2002, the Disability Program Navigator Initiative
continued to evolve, and information from the individuals it was designed to assist is valuable to
determine if, in fact, it has satisfactorily met the needs of its customers.

Purpose of the Study
One of the best practices found at one-stop career centers serving people with disabilities
was an individual with expertise in disability issues, termed a disability program navigator, and
previously referred to as a disability resource specialist (Bader, 2003). The Disability Program
Navigator Initiative provided funding for such an expert, who could provide on-site disability
consultation, screenings, assistance in identification, coordination, and facilitation of
communication among the one-stops, community disability providers, and disability resources
(U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005). Often opportunities,
participation, and involvement of people with disabilities are frequently denied or limited due to
agency regulations, lack of accessibility, inadequate supports, and stereotypical attitudes
(Kosciulek, 2004). Assumptions are frequently made that limit choices by people with
disabilities, and are based on the avoidance of undesirable or unavailable alternatives and/or a
lack of knowledge of capabilities and desires (Kosciulek, 2004). The Disability Program

9
Navigator Initiative sought to address the lack of informed choices for people with disabilities. In
addition to serving as a point of contact for people with disabilities, disability program
navigators assisted one-stop career center staff, management, and partner agencies with
disability-related issues (Bader, 2003).
The purpose of this quantitative study was to assess and analyze levels of customer
satisfaction at one-stop career centers that participated in the Disability Program Navigator
Initiative, in an effort to augment the limited research in this area. The survey used in this study
allowed for a determination of customer satisfaction levels and incorporated the voice of the
customer. The voice of the customer has been a frequent focus of business research to
improve customer satisfaction and develop a more competitive edge (Stank, Daugherty, &
Ellington, 1997). A tenet of management approaches, such as Demings Total Quality
Management, Quality Function Deployment, and the Kano Model of customer satisfaction, the
voice of the customer indicates that assumptions are not made regarding the customer wants
(Spencer, 2000; Stank et al., 1997). Rather, it is what the customers themselves want that drives
service development and delivery, and it is achieved through measurement of their perceptions of
services as they are, not as the organizations imagine services are, or as they believe customers
want (Fournier-Bonilla, 1998; Spencer, 2000). A basic rule of business and an age-old adage is
that if you do not measure it, you cannot manage it (Customer Focus Consulting, 2003). A
customer-driven focus enables an organization to maximize limited funding and resources to
provide what the customers want, and to determine what is not needed (Spencer, 2000).

10
Findings in this study contributed to increased insight as to what extent the Initiative has
achieved the goals of the one-stop career center system. The study could be replicated in future
studies for evaluations and research with programs that have a disability program navigator.

Rationale
The Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy (2001) indicated that
key goals of the one-stop career center approach, in its application to people with disabilities,
were to streamline services, empower individuals, and provide universal accessibility.
Streamlined services from all partners enabled activities and information to be co-located,
coordinated, and integrated as a whole (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,
2001). Financial empowerment for individuals was achieved with Individual Training Accounts
that allowed eligible adults to purchase training services, in conjunction with advice, guidance,
and support through the one-stop career center system (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability
Employment Policy, 2001). Universal accessibility to core employment-related services ensured
that any individual was able to access a variety of employment services (Dept. of Labor, Office
of Disability Employment Policy, 2001; Timmons, Fesko & Cohen, 2004). Accessibility
included physical access to a center, as well as virtual and computer-based resources, programs,
and services (Funaro & Dixon, 2002; Hoff, 2002). Universal accessibility in all aspects of the
one-stop career center enables use by diverse populations, including people with a disability,
such as physical, sensory, and learning disabilities, mental retardation, mental health issues, and
head injuries (Hoff, 2002).

11
Other goals of the one-stop career center system were to develop an accurate
performance assessment of its responsiveness to people with disabilities (Hall & Parker, 2005),
and to create meaningful and seamless service delivery between the workforce and disability
systems (Cohen, Timmons, & Fesko, 2005). Seamless service delivery consists of a streamlined
delivery of services by different agencies, and is smooth, coordinated, and efficient, reduces
paperwork, avoids duplication, and links multiple programs into one system (Cohen et al., 2005).
Therefore, a person with a disability would not need to navigate multiple services systems in
order to access a variety of necessary services, which can be overwhelming (Cohen et al., 2005).
Instead, the partner agencies of the one-stop career center negotiate with each other to
collaborate and coordinate their services, resulting in improved consumer outcomes and
simplification of the process for customers (Cohen et al., 2005).
If the one-stop career center system was successful in achieving the goal of increasing the
employment rate of people with disabilities, economic statistics would reflect this, and should
likewise, reflect an increase in their employment. Evaluation of the performance of the one-stop
career centers employment services, however, revealed that Workforce Investment Act
customers with disabilities were typically less likely to enter employment and retain employment
when compared to peers without disabilities (Hall & Parker, 2005). Holcomb & Barnow (2004)
found that, although the program enrolled a number of people with disabilities, only a small
proportion of them were actually served. Furthermore, people with disabilities who exited the
program had lower employment and earnings than other exiting customers (Holcomb & Barnow,
2004). The Center for an Accessible Society (2005) has also indicated that the percentage of

12
people with disabilities in the workforce remains at 30%, the same as when the Americans with
Disabilities Act became law.
The rationale for this study was that it is crucial to obtain an assessment as to what extent
the Disability Program Navigator Initiative has met the needs of its customers. An evaluation of
the Initiatives customer satisfaction levels allows the one-stop career centers, decision makers,
and policy makers to identify whether the program provided quality services and achieved the
one-stop career center systems goals. Obtaining information on these issues enables future
modifications to increase customer satisfaction levels and use, improve the services provided by
the disability program navigator in the one-stop career centers, and obtain future funding. In light
of the implications of three major trends for the future of work; which are shifting demographic
patterns, the pace of technological change, and the path of economic globalization; it is
imperative that there is greater labor force recruitment and participation by people with
disabilities (Rand Labor & Population, 2004). Due to advances in medical care, improvements in
the prevention and treatment of disease, and improved workplace conditions that have reduced
the physical demands of labor, disability subsequently is less of a health concern for working age
men and women (Wilson, Burton, & Howell, 2005).

Research Questions
The purpose of this quantitative study was to assess customer satisfaction and examine
the factors that influence customer satisfaction of individuals who were referred to, and used the
services of a disability program navigator in a sample of one-stop career centers. The

13
quantitative research design was descriptive and included a survey of customer demographics
and levels of satisfaction, allowing for a systemic analysis and description of the data and
characteristics of the one-stop career centers customers (Simon, 2001). There was no
manipulation of variables or attempts to establish causality (Simon, 2001). The survey in this
study was used to elicit respondents rated opinions of relevant satisfaction concepts, and since
these were ordinal measures of internal states in terms of less and more to classify and/or rank
them (Bernard, 2000), statistical data was obtained indicating differences in satisfaction levels
(Sproull, 2002).
The following research questions were addressed.
1. To what extent are customers satisfied with the services of the disability program
navigators in one-stop career centers?
2. What are the areas that customers identify as needing improvement?
3. How do the customers levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability
program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the
disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability
program navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting?

Significance of the Study
The rationale for this studys research problem was based on the national emphasis
toward assisting more people with disabilities to obtain employment, and the continuing desire
and drive to utilize the one-stop career center system more efficiently and effectively. The one-

14
stop career center system continues to experience substantial developments and changes, which
have contributed toward the lack of studies regarding the Disability Program Navigator
Initiative. Neither the levels of satisfaction by customers who received services under the
Initiative, or the success of the Initiative in achieving the goals of the one-stop career program
can be determined. This study addressed this deficiency by providing data and information for
future studies, and contributed to greater insight and understanding of the needs of people with
disabilities in the job-seeking process.
Order of Selection
A change in approximately 58.3% of the state vocational rehabilitation agencies had a
significant impact on the referrals of people with disabilities to the one-stop career centers
(Anderson, Boone, & Watson, 2002). The nationwide change was the order of selection. Under
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act, all states receive federal funds to provide vocational
rehabilitation services to people with disabilities. However, if a state determines there will be
insufficient resources to provide vocational rehabilitation services to all eligible individuals who
apply, an order of selection process can be implemented (United States Code, 29 USC, 721). In
the order of selection process, eligible individuals with the most significant disabilities are served
first, and then eligible individuals with a significant disability may be served next, on a first-
applied, first-served basis (United States Code, 29 USC, 721). The procedure established
categories of priorities based on the significance of the disability and the associated functional
limitations, thereby creating a waiting list for eligible individuals who fall into categories that
cannot be served until funding is available (Virginia Dept. of Rehabilitation Services, 2004).

15
Individuals on the Order of Selection waiting list are entitled to appropriate referrals to
other state and federal programs, including other providers within the state workforce investment
system, such as the one-stop career centers (United States Code, 29 USC, 721). If an individual
qualifies for services from a vocational rehabilitation agency, under the Workforce Investment
Act, he or she can choose not to utilize these services, since it is not mandated that an individual
must use vocational rehabilitation (Hoff, 1992-2005). Alternatively, the individual can use a
combination of both vocational rehabilitation and one-stop career center services (Hoff, 1992-
2005). Past studies have found that the one-stop career center system alone has not met the needs
of its customers with disabilities, and the Disability Program Navigator Initiative was
subsequently created to address this deficiency.
In light of the order of selection process implemented by over one-half of state vocational
rehabilitation departments, as well as the deficit in research on people with disabilities in the
one-stop career center system, it is imperative to determine whether the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative met this populations needs. Therefore, an assessment of customer
satisfaction was crucial for obtaining information that can be used to ascertain this.

Definition of Terms
Terms used in this study are defined as follows.
Customer. An individual who directly benefits from the serviced provided (Deese,
2002).

16
Customer Satisfaction. The degree to which an agency meets or exceeds the
expectations of the individual (Deese, 2002).
Individual With a Disability. An individual with any disability, as defined in section
3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 USC, 2102). The Act defines a person with
a disability as an individual with a physical or mental disability that substantially limits a major
life activity, or has a record of such a disability, or is regarded as having such a disability.
Informed Consent. A principle that was first included in the Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1992, enabling a person to make meaningful decisions and choices (Kosciulek,
2004). In the informed consent process, a person can achieve his or her goals because he or she
has been provided the information required in order to consciously consider all the available
options. During the informed consent process, information is presented in an environment that
facilitates an understanding by the person as to options available, the services needed to achieve
desired outcomes, and how the services will be provided (Kosciulek, 2004). Thus, the informed
consent allows for full and active involvement by the individual (Kosciulek, 2004).
One-Stop Career Center. The federal term given to the states' creation of
comprehensive centers for employment and training access and information (Deese, 2002). A
comprehensive one-stop career center provides a full or complete range of employment and
benefit services, which included career counseling, training and education offerings, job search,
job matching, and financial aid applications.

17
One-Stop Career Center Partner. An entity that is participating, with the approval of
the workforce local board and chief elected official, in the operation of a one-stop career center
program delivery system (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998).
Reasonable Accommodation. Modification of an environment and conditions to enable
individuals with disabilities to participate on an equal basis (Social Security Administration,
2000).
Universal Accessibility. Services, products, and environments that are designed to
enable use to the greatest extent possible by any individual, without the need for adaptation,
special design, or assistive technology (Adaptive Environments, 2006).
Vocational Rehabilitation Agency. An agency that provides employment-related
services to people with disabilities to achieve their vocational and economic goals (U.S. Dept. of
Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998).
Workforce Investment Act. The federally-funded legislation authorizing the state and
local communities to develop a new workforce delivery structure through one-stop career centers
(Deese, 2002). One-stop career centers are located in a community business that has met federal
criteria and receives funding under the Workforce Investment Act for the purpose of providing
employment-related services under one roof. The community businesses may be a state or local
government agency, a nonprofit organization, community colleges, or a for-profit firm (Holcomb
& Barnow, 2004).

18
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made for the purpose of this study.
1. Voluntary respondents were solicited by the contact person in participating research sites
following instructions provided in the researchers instructions.
2. Participants answered questions on the surveys honestly.
3. Participating one-stop career centers and their disability program navigators were able to
facilitate reasonable accommodation to allow an individual with a disability to complete
the surveys if it was requested.

Limitations
The following were the limitations of this study.
1. Limitations of the use of a self-administered questionnaire included lack of control over
how the questions were interpreted or answered, and the researchers inability to
administer it to all types of disabilities, such as those who are illiterate because of a
disability (Bernard, 2000).
2. Due to the number of one-stop career centers nationwide with a disability program
navigator, it was not possible to survey each one. Participating one-stop career centers
were chosen from a sample of nationwide one-stop career centers that serve people with
disabilities that were identified by a panel of experts (Bader, 2003). This limited the
generalizability of the studys findings.

19
3. Respondents were limited to those who actually met with the disability program
navigator at participating one-stop career centers. This allowed for a sample that
possessed characteristics important for this study (Sproull, 2002).
4. Respondents were further limited to those whom the contact person at the one-stop career
centers solicited for participation, were able and willing to participate, and voluntarily
completed and returned the surveys. Additionally, survey respondents were limited to
one-stop career center customers who met with the disability program navigator and were
capable of understanding and completing the surveys.
5. Another limitation was the time period during which data was collected, which was not a
randomly determined time period, but based on time, convenience, and availability of
both the disability program navigators and their customers. Therefore, the months during
which the surveys were collected may have had an effect on the study.
6. Under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act, a service delivery framework is created
for the fundamentals and principles of the one-stop career center system (Deese, 2002;
Morris, 2002). Each state, however, has the flexibility to develop and implement specific
strategies, activities, and interventions that meet the communitys needs (Deese, 2002;
Morris, 2002). Therefore, variations in implementation of the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative among one-stop career centers limited the ability to generalize this
studys findings to other one-stop career centers and their customers (Bader, 2003).

20
Nature of the Study and Theoretical Framework
This study was a descriptive study of customer satisfaction based on previous survey
instruments and the goals of the one-stop career center system. The primary focus was to survey
the levels of satisfaction from customers who utilized the services of a disability program
navigator. The quantitative data collection included selected demographics, such as, gender, age,
and education level, and was used to segment groups (Sproull, 2002). The survey design enabled
assessment of the relationship among the levels of satisfaction and demographic data, and
provided information for improvement of services (Sproull, 2002). The one-stop career centers
assistance with administration of the survey sent an important message to their customers
(Deese, 2002), which was that customer satisfaction is not only desirable and valuable to the
system, but that customers perspectives and input are paramount (Deese, 2002).
Theoretical Framework
This study was based on the theoretical framework of work and employment, specifically
the theory of work adjustment. The focus of the one-stop career center system is to assist its
customers to find and obtain employment, a significant vocational goal of adult career
development (Jepsen & Sheu, 2003). Considering the amount of time most individuals spend
working, the overall attitude of liking or disliking of a job, that is, job satisfaction, is a significant
marker of adult vocational adjustment, as well as a major indicator of quality of life (Jepsen &
Sheu, 2003; Witte, Philips & Kakela, 1998). Work and career theories are used to explain,
understand, and predict an individuals vocational behavior and job satisfaction (Swanson &
Fouad, 1999). Vocational behaviors include career choice, work adjustment, and life span career

21
progress, as well as the trait-and-factor theory (Swanson & Fouad, 1999). Also referred to as
person-environment fit or congruence, trait-and-factor theories focus on the match between
individual traits and work environmental factors (Swanson & Fouad, 1999).
The person-environment fit theoretical foundation assumes that when individuals are
more satisfied, their work performance is better, the employing organizations are more effective,
workers organizational commitment is higher, and employee turnover is less, thus resulting in
enhancement of vocational adjustment, individual positive experience, and environmental
compatibility (Kristof-Brown, Jansen, & Colbert, 2002; Ostroff & Rothausen, 1997). Judge and
Bretz (1992) have also reported literature and findings on person-organization fit indicating that
employees who match job or organizational values are more satisfied and less likely to leave the
company. One of the significant person-environment fit theories addressing the degree of match
between an individual and environment is the Theory of Work Adjustment (Lawson, 2002;
Lyons, 2004; Swanson & Fouad, 1999a).
Theory of Work Adjustment
Developed by Dawis, England, and Lofquist, the Theory of Work Adjustment has also
been used as a model for people with disabilities in the workforce (Dawis, England, & Lofquist,
1964; Dawis, 2005; Lyons, 2004; Strauser & Lustig, 2003). The concepts of the Theory of Work
Adjustment concern the individual, the work environment, and the unique interaction between
the two, and predict job satisfaction, success, and tenure (Swanson & Fouad, 1999). Using a dual
focus, the Theory of Work Adjustment describes the relationship between an individual and his
or her work environment, and how there is continual interaction, or correspondence, between

22
them in harmoniously meeting each others needs and requirements (Lyons, 2004; Swanson &
Fouad, 1999). The dynamic process of meeting these dual demands is called work adjustment,
and consists of both satisfactory coworker relationships and satisfactory job performance (Dawis,
England, & Lofquist, 1964). Stronger correspondence and congruence lead to increased job
retention and tenure, that is, the length of time that an employee remains in an organization
(Lyons, 2004).
According to Lofquist & Dawis Theory of Work Adjustment (1964), a match between a
worker and rewards of a job will result in job satisfaction and subsequent employment stability
(Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1990). Job satisfaction also predicts attendance, participation, morale,
and overall life satisfaction (Bolton & Brookings, 1991). The Theory of Work Adjustment was
the theoretical foundation for this study in that achievement of employment and subsequent work
adjustment and job satisfaction are goals of both the one-stop career center system and the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter 2 reviews the literature on people with disabilities, customer satisfaction, one-
stop career centers, customer satisfaction in the one-stop career center system, and the Disability
Program Navigator Initiative. Chapter 3 describes the methodology design, the sample
population, the survey instruments, data collected, anticipated findings, and ethical issues.
Chapter 4 identifies the data analysis strategy and findings of the research. Chapter 5 contains a
discussion on the findings, implications, and recommendations for further study.

23
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Significant research exists on customer satisfaction and customer satisfaction of people
with disabilities. There is a substantial gap, however, on the research of customers who used the
services of a disability program navigator in one-stop career centers, whether or not the customer
had a disability. This chapter reviews applicable literature on people with disabilities and
relevant federal policy, one-stop career centers, and customer satisfaction. Also included in this
chapter are discussions of literature on customer satisfaction and assessment in the one-stop
career centers, and the Disability Program Navigator Initiative.

People With Disabilities
Several definitions of a person with a disability currently exist in data collection,
measurement, and eligibility criteria of public, private, and governmental programs. Capturing
the concept of disability for the purpose of measurement is, and has been, an ongoing challenge,
and influences the goals of programs assisting people with disabilities (U.S. Census Bureau,
2004). Challenges have included collecting statistics to match a surveys purpose, development
and suitability of the measurement approach, and reporting of the statistics, which reflect
inadequate flexibility in the data to distinguish among mild, moderate, and severe disability
(Eustis, Clark, & Adler, 1995; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). These challenges are discussed in the
following section.

24
Models of Disability
According to Moore and Feist-Price (as cited in Bruyere, 1999), three perspectives have
been identified in defining disability; they are the medical model, the economic model, and the
sociopolitical model. The medical model considers disability as a deficiency within an
individual, emphasizes the functional limitations of disability, and influenced the structure of the
Social Security Administrations benefits programs (Burkhauser & Stapleton, 2004; Bruyere,
1999; Social Security Advisory Board, 2003). Two disability programs of the Social Security
Administration providing cash benefits to individuals are Social Security Disability Insurance
and Supplemental Security Income (Silverstein, 2002). The same definition of disability is used
for both programs, that is, the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a
medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is expected to last for a continuous
period of not less than 12 months or to result in death (Silverstein, 2002).
The economic perspective of disability focuses on the limiting effects of a disability in
the amount of work an individual can do (Bruyere, 1999). The sociopolitical model focuses on
the fact that it is an individuals societal environment that labels them as different, and not the
actual disability itself (Bruyere, 1999). A more recent model of disability views the
environmental barriers and attitudes of other people as the handicap of the disability (Bruyere,
1999).
Definitions of Disability
The Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 both used the
definition of handicap to define disability (National Council on Disability, 2004; Office of

25
Disability Employment Policy, n.d.; U.S. Dept of Labor). The two federal acts broadly define a
person with a disability as an individual who has a physical or mental disability that substantially
limit a major life activity, or who has a record of such a disability, or is regarded as having such
a disability (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). The definition,
based on the Nagi framework, recognizes the interaction of the environment and impairments in
the cause of disabilities, and views disability as a difficulty in performing socially expected
activities (Livermore & Goodman, 2009).
Two questions about disability in the Census 2000 were based on daily functional
limitations, and subsequently used to define six specific subpopulations of disability (Livermore
& Goodman, 2009). An individual was considered to have a disability if he or she answered yes
to either question. According to the Census 2000, which used a functional limitation of disability
to identify the total population with disabilities, there are 49.7 million people aged 5 and over
with a disability in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002).
Disability is defined by the Current Population Survey as a person with a disability
who has a health problem or disability which prevents him/her from working or which limits the
kind or amount of work he/she can do (U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002).
The Current Population Survey, sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, is one of the oldest, largest, and most well-recognized surveys in the
United States. It provides information on labor force statistics and extensive social, economic,
and demographic data (U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). The Current
Population Survey is a multistage stratified sample consisting of individuals 15 years of age or

26
over, who are not in the Armed Forces, or in any institution, such as prisons, long-term care
hospitals, or nursing homes (U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002).
Work limitation questions appear in the American Community Survey, National Health
Interview Survey, Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, Panel of Income Dynamics, Survey of
Income and Program Participation, and the Health and Retirement Survey (Livermore &
Goodman, 2009). Bagenstos (2004) indicated that none of these organizations measure disability
according to the definition used by the Americans With Disability Act, and this has resulted in
identification of none or only some of the same population. Houtenville and Burkhauser (2004)
also agreed that a representative sample of the population with disabilities is nonexistent due to
the lack of a data source that captures all aspects of a disability. Moreover, an individual must
report that he or she has a disability in order to be counted in data collection of people with a
disability. Parker and Hoff (2004) reported that unfamiliarity with the definitions of disability, or
the fear of stigma or discrimination, might cause individuals not to disclose that they have a
disability, further resulting in an under-counting of this population.
In an effort to provide a unified standard language and framework to describe disability,
functioning, and health, an international classification was developed by the World Health
Organization (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The classification reflects the more current
perspective of disability as a complex interaction between a person and his or her environment,
and considers not only the individuals impairment, but also barriers in the environment that
prevent full social participation (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Schur, Kruse, and Blanck (2005)
wrote that No matter what the definition, employment levels of people with disabilities remain

27
well below those of non-disabled people, and the majority of non-employed people with
disabilities would prefer to be working (p 5).
Federal Legislation Targeting People With Disabilities
The federal government has enacted many laws, programs, and incentives targeting
people with disabilities to assist them in obtaining and maintaining employment. An overview of
applicable federal legislature relevant to this study is discussed in the following sections.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 was the first federal requirement for removal of
discriminatory barriers in employment for people with disabilities, and also provided vocational
rehabilitation benefits to people with disabilities (Stefan, 2002). Section 501 of the Act required
affirmative action by federal agencies in hiring and advancement of qualified people with
disabilities (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). Section 503
required employers with federal contracts exceeding $10,000 to take affirmation action in
employing individuals with disabilities, and Section 504 prohibited discrimination by employers
and organizations receiving federal financial aid (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability
Employment Policy, n.d.).
Americans With Disabilities Act
Modeled after the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act
became law on July 26, 1990 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,
n.d.). The Americans With Disabilities Act prohibited discrimination based on disability in the
private sector and state and local governments in employment, public accommodations, services,

28
and transportation provided by public and private entities (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of
Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). Five titles comprise the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Title I specifically prohibited discrimination in all employment practices of employers with 15 or
more employees if an individual is qualified to perform the essential job functions (U.S. Dept. of
Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). Title I also mandated that an employer
must provide reasonable accommodations or modifications for a qualified individual with a
disability, provided such accommodation does not present an undue hardship on the business
operation (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.).
A qualified individual is defined as a person with the education and/or experience to
perform the essential functions of a job with or without reasonable accommodation (National
Center on Workforce and Disability, 1998). Essential job functions are fundamental job duties
that an employer considers during the selection process, and do not include marginal functions
that the employer would prefer and/or like an employee to perform (Campbell, 2002). Undue
hardship is an action that is excessive, substantial, disruptive or extensive so that it
fundamentally alters the natural operation of a business (Bruyere, 2002). The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission enforces the Americans With Disabilities Act, and in 1999,
comprehensive policy guidance and documents were released on reasonable accommodations
and undue hardship (Bruyere, 2002; Social Security Administration, 2000). The year 2010
marked the 20
th
anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and has resulted in
renewed efforts towards greater workforce participation by people with disabilities.

29
Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999
The purpose of the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 was to
provide more resources and control by beneficiaries over the resources, and to increase the
number of employment service providers, including the one-stop career center (Burkhauser &
Stapleton, 2004; Silverstein, 2002). The Act provided other services that encouraged federal
disability benefit recipients to seek employment, which included counseling to assist in
understanding the impact of earning on benefits, applying for and receiving available work
incentives, as well as the extension of medical benefits while an individual is working
(Silverstein, 2002; U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.).
Implemented in 2001, a Ticket to Work is issued by the Social Security Administration to people
with disabilities 18 through 64 years old who receive federal disability benefits and meet criteria
for voluntary participation (Silverstein, 2002). The holder of a Ticket can then assign it to any
eligible service provider, called an employment network, which includes the state vocational
rehabilitation system and one-stop career centers. Social Security Administration compensates
the employment network for employment service costs of a specified amount when the
individual is no longer entitled to federal disability cash benefits (Silverstein, 2002). A Ticket
holder can re-assign the Ticket to another employment network of his or her choice if they wish,
as long as the employment network is willing to accept the assignment (Silverstein, 2002). An
employment network must apply to participate in the Ticket to Work program and provide
documentation of monthly earnings of program individuals in a timely and efficient manner
(Silverstein, 2002). As of May 31, 2005, there were 1,320 employment networks, and out of

30
10,669,219 tickets issued nationwide, 7,493 tickets have been assigned to employment networks
(Social Security Online, 2005).
An evaluation of the first five months of implementation and statistics of the Ticket to
Work program was conducted in 2004 (Mathematica Policy Research, 2004). The survey
reported low Ticket rates and beneficiary participation, concentrated assignments among a few
employment networks and state vocational rehabilitation agencies, and general dissatisfaction
and variety in other employment networks (Mathematica Policy Research, 2004). Factors
contributing to low participation by one-stop career centers included high risk, low payments,
and long delays in payments (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).
Additional federal policy regarding individuals with disability include the Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards and ADA Accessibility Guidelines, developed pursuant to the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,
n.d.). The Standards and Guidelines required buildings built with federal funds or leased by
federal agencies to be accessible for people with disabilities. Likewise, the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 ensured that telecommunications equipment is designed to be accessible and usable
by people with disabilities (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.).
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allowed up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave a year for a
worker to care for family members with serious health conditions, to recover from serious health
conditions, or care for newborn children (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment
Policy, n.d.). The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 addressed additional assistive technology

31
needs of people with disabilities (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,
n.d.).
Presidential Task Force
The Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults With Disabilities was created to
coordinate national policy to increase the employment of people with disabilities, and consisted
of 17 federal agencies (Bruyere, Erickson & Horne, 2002). The Task Force provided support to
Cornell University to conduct research on how federal agencies responded to the employment
disability nondiscrimination requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans
With Disabilities Act. In collaboration with the Society for Human Resource Management
(SHRM), Cornwell University conducted a telephone random survey of 813 human resource
professionals who also were SHRM members (Bruyere, 2002). A 10-page questionnaire on
employer practices in response to the Americans With Disabilities Acts employment provisions
covered questions on recruitment, interviewing, job screening, testing, hiring, promotion, staff
development, accommodation practices, grievance, termination, and disability management
processes (Bruyere, 2002). Findings showed a significant amount of uncertainty concerning
interplay of the Americans With Disabilities Act and other employment legislation, and
recommendations included a follow-up study of federal agency supervisors and managers
(Bruyere, 2002; Bruyere et al., 2002).
A follow-up survey of 1001 federal agency supervisors and managers conducted in 2001-
2002 by Cornell University paralleled the previous Task Force 1999 survey. The telephone
survey described respondents experience and perceptions of the effectiveness of resources, as

32
well as their awareness of executive orders issued in 2000 concerning employment and
accommodation of individuals with disabilities in the federal workforce (Bruyere et al., 2002).
The executive orders referred to three specific orders that related to the hiring of 100,000
qualified individuals over a five-year period, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions
written procedures on reasonable accommodation, and the July 2000 Federal Initiative on
telecommuting and telework for people with significant disabilities (Bruyere et al., 2002). Even
though respondents reported significant involvement in the recruitment process, over a third of
them were not aware of any of the three executive orders, while only one in five was aware of all
three orders (Bruyere et al., 2002).
Federal Tax Incentives
Federal tax incentives are available to encourage the recruitment and hiring of individuals
with disabilities. These include the Disabled Access Credit available to small businesses
regarding eligible access expenditures and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit in hiring and
employing people with disabilities (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy,
n.d.; U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002). If a business makes its facility or public
transportation vehicle more accessible and usable by people with disabilities, it is entitled to the
Architectural and Transportation Barrier Removal Deduction, under Section 190 of the Tax
Reform Act (U.S. Dept of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, n.d.). If specific
criteria are met, the deductions can result in a reduction of overall employment costs, improved
employee morale, and enhancement of customer base.

33
In a report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (2002), it was found that tax incentive
credits encouraging the hiring, retention, and accommodation of workers with disabilities was
reported by only a very small proportion of 1999 corporate and business taxpayers. The report
concluded that actual information at the time was limited and inconclusive regarding the tax
incentives effectiveness, perhaps due to a lack of awareness.
Recent Federal Policy Prior to 2006
Further efforts of the federal government to improve employment services for people
with disabilities included the New Freedom Initiative. The New Freedom Initiative was
described as a comprehensive set of guidelines and strategy that allowed full integration of
people with disabilities into all aspects of American life (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human
Services, 2003). Announced by President Bush in 2001, the New Freedom Initiative was an
effort to eliminate barriers to equality faced by Americans with disabilities, and included the
Integrating Americans with Disabilities into the Workforce Initiative (U.S. Dept. of Health &
Human Services, 2003).
The Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration jointly established the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative in 2002 (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2005). The initiative
provided an expert on workforce development issues for people with disabilities in the one-stop
center career centers, who also facilitated access to disability services to secure the most
favorable employment outcome (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).
On May 8, 2005, the House passed H.R.1261 (New York State Workforce Investment
Board, n.d.) The legislation clarified the methodology for determining funds that one-stop career

34
center partners contributed to infrastructure costs (New York State Workforce Investment Board,
n.d.). A major job training reform plan as part of the fiscal year 2006 was proposed by President
Bush. The budget request gave governors the flexibility to combine resources into their state
grants for vocational rehabilitation that provided services to people with disabilities in the
workforce (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002). Several additional federal programs were
directed at employers in hiring, retaining, and accommodating workers with disabilities. These
programs included the Business Leadership Network, Disability and Business Technical
Assistance Centers, Employer Assistance Referral Network, Job Accommodation Network,
Project EMPLOY, Projects With Industry, Ticket to Hire, and Workforce Recruitment Program
(U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002).
Current Federal Policy as of 2006
Goals of the U.S. Department of Labors Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2006-2011
included prior years results and long-term targets, which were; A prepared workforce; a
competitive workforce; safe and secure workplaces; and strengthened economic protections
(U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2006a). One of the performance goals under a competitive workforce
recognized that the employment rate for people with disabilities has not increased significantly in
the past twenty years (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2006a). The plan implemented an approach to
increase the capacity of the workforce investment system by comprehensively addressing this
issue in developing policies and strategies affecting people with disabilities and employers (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, 2006a).

35
On Feb. 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009. This Act contained areas affecting people with disabilities, including recovery funding for
the Social Security Administration application processing system, recovery funding to the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), recovery funding for vocational
rehabilitation services to help with job training, education and placement, and monies to states to
fortify their Medicaid programs (Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, 2009).
H.R.146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, was signed on March 30,
2009 by President Barack Obama, which included the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act
focusing on improving the quality of life of Americans living with paralysis (The White House,
2009). On July 26, 2010, President Barack Obama issued a Proclamation reaffirming the
Americans With Disabilities Act. The Presidential Proclamation identified the steps that were
being implemented towards achieving the goals of the Act, and included consistent and effective
enforcement of the Act by eliminating discrimination in employment, housing, public services,
and community accommodations; expanded funding for the Individuals With Disabilities in
Education Act (IDEA); health care reforms enacted in the Affordable Care Act; and joining the
international community to sign the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With
Disabilities in 2009 (The White House, 2010). President Obamas Executive Order--Increasing
Federal Employment of Individuals With Disabilities, was also issued on July 26, 2010. In this
Order, the President established the Federal Government as a model employer of individuals
with disabilities (The White House, 2010a). In light of the fact that there are more than 20
federal agencies and approximately 200 programs that provide a variety of services and

36
assistance to people with disabilities, for a more comprehensive list of 192 of the programs,
reference is made to the Appendix II. Federal Programs Serving People With Disabilities, in a
report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2005a).
Published studies by IBM, Sears, and Dupont, which are major companies employing
people with disabilities, have reported a lower turnover employee rate and equal to, or better,
attendance rate than that of employees without disabilities (Dew, McGuire-Kuletz & Alan,
2001). The Economic Impact Study in 2002 by Chicagos Mayoral Task Force on the
Employment of Individuals With Disabilities examined the costs and benefits associated with
workers who had disabilities. The three-year study found that costs associated with workers with
disabilities were minimal, employees with disabilities were dedicated and reliable; they had
fewer scheduled absences, had nearly identical job performance ratings, the difference in amount
of supervision required ratings were relatively minor among employees with and without
disabilities, and the workforce was more diverse (DePaul University, 2007). Nonetheless, there
was a persistence of manager bias towards employees with disabilities, a lack of promotion
opportunities, and that disability employment agencies and/or disability advocates had to be used
in recruiting and hiring workers with disabilities (DePaul University, 2007).
Although the employment rate of working-age people with a disability increased from
37.9% in 2003 to 37.5% in 2004, the gap between the employment rates of working-age people
with and without disabilities increased from 39.7 percentage points in 2003 to 40.3 percentage
points in 2004 (Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, 2004). Despite federal
interventions, unemployment rates continue to be higher for individuals with disabilities and

37
their average earnings are lower (Timmons, Schuster, Hamner, & Bose, 2002). People with
disabilities represents the largest unemployed minority in the United States, which continues to
remain relatively unchanged since the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (The Center for
an Accessible Society, 2005).

One-Stop Career Centers
The one-stop career center system was specifically established in 1998 by Title I of the
Workforce Investment Act as an access point for employment-related and training services
(Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 1998). The one-stop career center
system has been described as a no-wrong door because it allows individuals with disabilities to
choose, receive, and blend a variety of employment and training services through a single door
(Dew, McGuire-Kuletz, & Alan, 2001). Productive and effective partnerships in one-stop career
centers also provide individuals with meaningful and seamless access to information, services,
and opportunities in the world of work.
To achieve the goal of a comprehensive statewide workforce investment system, at least
one local career center providing core and more intensive services, together with access to
mandated partnership agencies services, was required in areas where the population exceeded
200,000 (Barlas, 1998; Dew et al., 2001). In 2004, the total number of functioning one-stop
career centers in the United States was over 3,000 (Holcomb & Barnow, 2004).
One-stop career centers are obligated to ensure that their facility and services are
universally accessible to any individual seeking employment (Rutgers, 2002). In addition, the

38
Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity Regulations for the Workforce Investment Act stated
that people with disabilities have a right to use the one-stop system, and are entitled to
reasonable accommodations and modifications when using its services (Hoff, 2002). Section 188
of the Workforce Investment Act contained the requirements for equal opportunity and anti-
discrimination for the one-stop career centers, which included a description of discrimination on
the basis of disability (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2004). A Section 188 checklist
was available that assessed a centers nondiscrimination obligations and performance, increased
accessibility, and identified resources to ensure compliance with these requirements (National
Council on Disability, 2005). Unfortunately, many one-stop career centers were not equipped to
serve people with disabilities, and automatically referred these individuals to the public
vocational rehabilitation system (Hoff, 2002).

Goals of the One-Stop Career Center System
The Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, (2001) indicated that
in its application to people with disabilities, key goals of the one-stop career center approach
were to streamline services, empower individuals, and provide universal accessibility.
Streamlined services were to be provided by all partners to programs, while activities and
information were to be co-located, coordinated, and integrated as a whole (Dept. of Labor, Office
of Disability Employment Policy, 2001). Financial choices to empower individuals through
Individual Training Accounts allowed eligible adults to purchase training services, in
conjunction with advice, guidance, and support through the one-stop career center system, (Dept.

39
of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001). Universal accessibility to core
employment-related services ensured that any individual was able to access a variety of
employment services (Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2001; Timmons,
Fesko & Cohen, 2004). Universal accessibility to all aspects of the one-stop career center
allowed for use by diverse populations, including people with physical, sensory, and learning
disabilities, mental retardation, mental health issues, and head injuries (Hoff, 2002).
Accessibility included physical access to a center, as well as access to its virtual and computer-
based resources, programs, and services (Funaro & Dixon, 2002; Hoff, 2002).
Other goals of the one-stop career center system were to develop an accurate
performance assessment of its responsiveness to people with disabilities (Hall & Parker, 2005),
and to create seamless service delivery between the workforce and disability systems (Cohen,
Timmons & Fesko, 2005). Seamless service delivery consists of a smooth, coordinated, and
streamlined delivery of services by different agencies, is efficient, links multiple programs into
one system, and reduces paperwork and duplication (Cohen et al., 2005). Therefore, a customer
with a disability would not be required to physically seek and navigate multiple services to
access a variety of needed services (Cohen et al., 2005). Seamless services delivery simplifies
the process for the customer, since partnering agencies in the one-stop career center negotiate
each others agencies to collaborate and coordinate services, resulting in improved consumer
outcomes (Cohen et al., 2005).

40
Customer Satisfaction
The roots of customer satisfaction research were established in the healthcare and
business fields over 30 years ago (Capella & Turner, 2004). Aspects of customer satisfaction
studied have included perceived performance, customer expectations, service quality, delivery,
and the gaps and relationships between these concepts (Davis, 2003). Customer satisfaction
questionnaires are the most common way of collecting satisfaction data, and are used as an
outcome measure, a basis for reforming or improving services, and a determination of best
practice and best value (Atwal & Caldwell, 2005). Additionally, Saroki (2002) pointed out that
customers bring unique perceptions and expectations that can be used to evaluate service
quality and satisfaction (p 10).
Definitions of Customer Satisfaction
Similar to the variety of definitions of disability, differences exist not only in definitions
of customer satisfaction and measurement of its concepts and variables, but also in application to
diverse and dissimilar settings (Giese & Cote, 2000). The resulting numerous measures and
variables for customer satisfaction have resulted in no single definition that accommodates all
consumer views and circumstances (Giese & Cote, 2000).
Further evidence of the inconsistency in definitions of consumer satisfaction can be
located in research that addresses the characteristics constituting a quality service. Patterson
(1992) wrote that four characteristics comprise a quality service that meets or exceeds customer
expectations. Parasuraman (1988), however, stated that service quality is formed by five
characteristics that address both the consumers expectations and evaluation, and that there is a

41
relationship between service quality opinions and satisfaction. Anton believed that customer
satisfaction refers to several aspects of a relationship with a customer, while Karten argued that
both the product and service process are equally important (Rutgers, 2002).
Deese (2002) discussed the difference between customer service and customer
satisfaction, and indicated that customer service involves measurement of the standards
established by authorities, boards, or experts. Customer satisfaction, on the other hand, is
measured by the customers standards in meeting their expectations (Deese, 2002). Expectations
contributing to the customers experience include availability, responsiveness, timeliness,
comprehensiveness, pleasantness, and reliability of the services provided, as well as overall
satisfaction with the services (Deese, 2002).
It has been recommended that customer satisfaction data collection not only assess past
performance, but consider the ultimate purpose of the information and how it can be used in
shaping the future (McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000; Rutgers, 2002). This involves a
positivistic and objective approach, as well as classical science measurement of the isolated parts
of a phenomenon (McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000). The use of Likert scales is also
suggested when surveying customer satisfaction with service delivery (Rutgers, 2002). Likert
scales supply a numerical scale to the question of an individuals agreement, approval, and/or
opposition (Rutgers, 2002) and enable respondents to rate variables that measure attitudes,
emotions, perceptions, and expectations for various issues (Bernard, 2000).

42
Customer Satisfaction in Social Services Programs
Due to a developing interest in quality assurance and continuous quality improvement,
client satisfaction in social service programs has increased, as it not only provides insight, but
information useful for improvement of services (Harris & Poertner, 1997). In a review of client
satisfaction literature by Harris and Poertner (1997), two overall approaches were identified. One
approach considered the clients response to satisfaction with the service, and the other approach
considered the specific features of a service. Consumer satisfaction research in the human
services also indicated a need for increased consumer involvement, and to achieve this,
determination of how the client defines satisfaction is necessary (Harris & Poertner, 1997;
Richard, 2000).
Harris and Poertner (1997) defined client satisfaction as the clients perspectives on
aspects of the service transaction important to them; thus, the clients are the most important
sources of identification of the services features. In a study of perceptions of consumers with
disabilities and staff in a community-based rehabilitation program, Hagen-Foley, Rosenthal, and
Thomas (2005) found greater satisfaction and outcomes were related to consumers perceptions
of informed choice. Richard (2000) suggested that to ascertain whether consumers needs have
been met or not is to just ask them. He recommended that customer satisfaction surveys use a
multidimensional questionnaire that measures the items the customers themselves use to arrive at
their opinions of satisfaction. Such a strategy would result in measures that more accurately
reflect customers concerns (Harris & Poertner, 1997).

43
Customer Satisfaction in the One-Stop Career Center System
Performance accountability for customer-focused results required by the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 have included data collection, tracking of performance, analysis of
information, and modification of strategies for improvement (DAmico et al., 2001). A Training
and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL 7-99) issued by the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration in 2000, addressed core and customer satisfaction
measures for one-stop career centers required under the Workforce Investment Act. The TEGL
7-99 provided technical guidance and a detailed description of methodology in the
implementation of required measures and calculation of performance levels regarding customer
satisfaction for both participants and employers (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training,
2000). A survey approach was mandated, using a small set of questions to form a customer
satisfaction index, and is based on the American Customer Satisfaction Index (U.S. Dept. of
Labor, Employment & Training, 2000).
American Customer Satisfaction Index
The widely used American Customer Satisfaction Index is a statistical computerized
model that measures and predicts customer satisfaction with goods or services provided by
industries and governmental agencies (Claes Fornell International Group, 2003). The Index
produces scores for causes, consequences, relationships, and levels of customer satisfaction
(American Consumer Satisfaction Index, n.d.). Scores ranging from 1 to 100 predict customer
experiences with products, services, and key behavioral consequences of satisfaction (American
Consumer Satisfaction Index, n.d.). In turn, organizations can use the American Customer

44
Satisfaction Index to assess customer loyalty, pinpoint potential barriers, predict returns, and
identify areas in which customer expectations are not met.
The Index enables tracking of progress and continual improvement within the workforce
system and organizations, as well as industries outside of the system (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training, 2000). The model that was provided concerned respondents
experience with the one-stop career centers programs and services and contained three questions
that were required in the surveys. A Likert scale of 1 to 10 was used for each response. The first
question concerned overall satisfaction with services, or the respondent could indicate dont
know or refused to answer (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2000).
The second question concerned the extent to which services met the respondents expectations,
and the third question asked how well the respondent thought the services compared with the
ideal set of services for an individual in the same circumstance (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training Administration, 2000). The American Customer Satisfaction Index was
chosen because it enabled performance assessment both within the workforce system and
organizations, as well as industries outside of the system (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training, 2000). It also has a history of usefulness in tracking change over time, which allows for
tracking of continual improvement and progress (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training,
2000).
Scores from the three questions were combined with The American Customer
Satisfaction Index to address different dimensions of customers experiences. One score was
obtained for each participant and employers customer groups (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment

45
& Training, 2000). Details on customer satisfaction measures were given in the TEGL 7-99 for
both participants and employers on who was to be surveyed, the size of the sample, the
methodology, timing of surveys, and questions were to be asked. Telephone surveys randomly
included adults, dislocated workers, youths aged 14-21, and employers who received services
from one-stop career center (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training, 2000). The model
required in the telephone surveys consisted of three questions about a respondents experience
with the one-stop career centers programs and services. A Likert scale of 1 to 10 was used for
the three questions concerning overall satisfaction with services, the extent to which services met
the respondents expectations, and how well the respondent thought the services compared with
the ideal set of services for an individual in the same circumstance (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training, 2000). Respondents also had the option of answering dont know or
refusing to answer (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training, 2000).
The American Customer Satisfaction Index is the proprietary property of the University
of Michigan and Claes Fornell International owns the software (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training, 2000). Therefore, the U.S. Department of Labor created a license
agreement with the University of Michigan that allowed the states to use the American Customer
Satisfaction Index for a statewide sample. If a state chose to utilize it, an independent contract
was consequently required with the University (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training,
2000). States were invited to make arrangements with Claes Fornell International for additional
assistance in measuring, analyzing, and understanding of the American Customer Satisfaction
Index data.

46
Surveys have been conducted to comply with governmental requirements since the
implementation of the one-stop career center system. The federal Employment and Training
Administration did not establish specific criteria for evaluating customer satisfaction, and
allowed the states to define customer satisfaction broadly, that is, the result of how well
performance meets customer expectations (Rutgers, 2002). Therefore, initial surveys conducted
by the states and local areas often assessed other elements of the one-stop career center system as
well. Requirements and attempts to measure the responsiveness of the one-stop career center
program toward job seekers with disabilities, and programmatic and physical accessibility, are
limited in their scope (Hall & Parker, 2005).
Assessment of Customer Satisfaction in One-Stop Career Centers
An overview of research to assess customer satisfaction in one-stop career centers is
provided in the following section.
Social Policy Research Associates. The U.S. Department of Labor awarded a contract to
Social Policy Research Associates to evaluate the progress of implementation of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998, which included the one-stop career center service delivery system
(DAmico et al., 2001). Data from approximately 16 states was collected over a three-year period
and reported in a final interim report in 2001. Survey respondents described the system that was
used to measure customer satisfaction for job seekers and employers, how the data was evaluated
and disseminated locally, and how they were used to improve services and customer satisfaction
(DAmico et al., 2001). If a state did not have a customer satisfaction assessment system in
place, a description of its plan and timeframe regarding incorporation were requested (DAmico

47
et al., 2001). Findings showed that all states except one had established a system to measure
customer satisfaction (DAmico et al., 2001). A procedure for the assessment of satisfaction of
customers had not been entirely developed in several sites, although all of the states
acknowledged this information was useful in program evaluation (DAmico et al., 2001).
Surveys used in customer satisfaction assessment varied, and included annual point-of-service
surveys, mail surveys, contracted surveys, and three- or four-point question surveys based on the
Department of Labors requirements (DAmico et al., 2001). There was no mention of whether
the surveys included information on any one-stop career center customers who had a disability.
Rutgers, State University of New Jersey. It was not until a year later that a major
nationwide survey conducted by Rutgers at the State University of New Jersey assessed one-stop
career centers and included people with disabilities. The survey found that 99% of one-stop
career centers provided career counseling, 96% provided job placement, 91% provided job
coaching, 90% provided occupational training, and 95% provided post-employment services
(Rutgers, 2002). Results indicated that one-stop career center partners provided additional
services in both core and intensive services.
The majority of respondents felt accessibility issues and outreach to both employers and
people with disabilities required improvement. More specific inclusive planning and
implementation regarding streamlined performance management, accessibility, and outreach
were recommended in Rutgers (2002) report. The Workforce Investment Act required specific
performance measures from one-stop career centers to track usage by people with disabilities,
and Rutgers (2002) found that 60% of survey respondents did collect these data. Only 50% of

48
respondents actually tracked customer satisfaction, however, and the data did not include
assessment of satisfaction of customers with disabilities, but rather only disability-related access
or accommodation issues (Rutgers, 2002).
Gloucester County One-Stop Project. The Gloucester County One-Stop Project in New
Jersey assessed customer satisfaction and participation rate of people with severe disabilities in a
12-week study in 2003. Matched-pairs of subjects, that is, persons with disabilities and persons
without disabilities, completed three customer satisfaction questionnaires, which were referred to
as the One-Stop Customer Report Card (Gervey, Gao, & Rizzo, 2004). Developed by The Law,
Health Policy and Disability Center of the College of Law at the University of Iowa, the One-
Stop Customer Report Card has been used in one-stop accessibility studies (Gervey et al., 2004).
The customer satisfaction questionnaires in the Report Card included an initial customer report
card, weekly follow-up report cards, and an exit interview customer report card (Gervey et al.,
2004). Items on the questionnaires pertained to customer satisfaction on disability-related issues,
treatment by staff, condition of the facility, access to services, obtaining services, work area,
equipment, materials, communication with staff, and overall impression (Gervey et al., 2004).
Results of the Gloucester County One-Stop Project revealed that out of 2994 customer
visits, approximately 21%, or 446 customer visits, involved delivery of one-stop services to
people with a disability (Gervey et al., 2004). Respondents with a disability reported less
customer satisfaction than individuals without disabilities who also had used the one-stop career
centers services, self-service work area, equipment, and/or written materials (Gervey et al.,
2004). Initial impressions by respondents with disabilities remained consistent throughout the

49
study, and customers with disabilities believed they were treated no differently than customers
without disabilities (Gervey et al., 2004). The study also reported that people with disabilities
expressed a lack of awareness regarding services offered at the one-stop career center and the
availability of free equipment and computer job searches (Gervey et al., 2004). Furthermore,
staff at the one-stop career center believed that very few individuals with severe disabilities were
actually served by the center (Gervey et al., 2004).
It was concluded that responsibility and accountability for customer satisfaction were
shared by the one-stop career center and its partner agencies, which operated independently of
each other (Gervey et al., 2004). The differences in shared accountabilities and responsibilities
by one-stop career centers and its partners made it challenging to obtain accurate assessment of
customer satisfaction and mutual achievement of seamless service goals in the one-stop career
center system.
With the implementation of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative, it was realized
that the Iowa University Law, Health and Policy and Disability Center One-Stop Customer
Satisfaction Survey was not an adequate psychometrically sound, universal-friendly customer
satisfaction instrument suitable for larger studies (Gervey & Gao, 2009). Significant revisions to
the customer satisfaction survey were made, reducing it from 87 to 37 items, and the item scaling
was also made uniform using a 5-point Likert type scale. The revised survey, the Universal One-
Stop Career Center Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire, had four factors that measured physical
accessibility, equipment and resource room, staff services, and overall impression of services,
and was easier to use and score (Gervey & Gao, 2009). When administered to a sample of 100

50
persons with psychiatric disabilities, it appeared that customer satisfaction scores were not
affected by demographic variables and that customer satisfaction did not differ between
individuals with and without disabilities (Gervey & Gao, 2009). More satisfaction was reported
by customers who had the greatest number of visits to the one-stop career center than by
customers who attended it less (Gervey & Gao, 2009). Data was not provided as to length of
time it took for an individual to complete the customer satisfaction questionnaire, or whether a
customer met with the disability program navigator. The report indicated that having a customer
satisfaction questionnaire that was easy to use and score would assist one-stop career centers to
evaluate the impact of the disability program navigator program, but it did not include
recommendations on how this could be achieved.
Social Policy Research Associates and TATC Consulting. Social Policy Research
Associates and TATC Consulting (2004) conducted a national evaluation of the implementation
of the Workforce Investment Act, which included the one-stop career center service delivery
system. Progress by eight states was discussed on two measures of customer satisfaction for
performance accountability required by the Department of Labor. The two measures of customer
satisfaction were participant customer satisfaction and employer customer satisfaction (Social
Policy Research Assoc. & TATC, 2004). States reported a variety of sampling and data
collection methodologies, and difficulty in the collection of information about customer
satisfaction measurements for local areas and the state as a whole (Social Policy Research Assoc.
& TATC, 2004). Five states contracted customer service data collection to an institute or
university, while several local areas gathered their own customer satisfaction data (Social Policy

51
Research Assoc. & TATC, 2004). All states included the required American Customer
Satisfaction Index questions; one added questions to the American Customer Satisfaction Index;
other states were in the process of developing their own survey instruments; and some sought
assistance with its creation from a contractor (Social Policy Research Assoc. & TATC, 2004).
A reported issue of concern by the researchers was the use of appropriate sampling and
data collections for reliable customer satisfaction measurement at the state and local levels.
Despite a lack of consistency in data collection and strategies by the states and local areas, the
report recognized that serious and determined efforts had been made to follow the requirements
of the Workforce Investment Act (Social Policy Research Assoc. & TATC, 2004). As with
several previously discussed studies, however, there was no specific mention of assessment of
satisfaction from one-stop career center customers with disabilities.
The Institute for Community Inclusion. Case studies were conducted by The Institute for
Community Inclusion to examine the nature of service delivery to one-stop career center
customers with a disability, and to assess strategies utilized by three states (Timmons, Fesko, &
Cohen, 2004). Findings on innovative strategies and practical solutions to support customers
with disabilities in one-stop career centers were presented in a series of briefs (Timmons, Fesko,
& Cohen, 2003; Hamner & Timmons, 2005). The study concluded that, although useful
strategies were developed to enhance services to people with disabilities in the one-stop career
centers, the actual impact the strategies had on customers with disabilities was not clearly
understood (Timmons et al., 2004).

52
Another case study report of the same three states discussed policy conflict and policy
ambiguity influences on seamless service delivery in the one-stop career centers (Cohen,
Timmons & Fesko, 2005). It reported that the lack of common collaborative goals between the
one-stop career center partners contributed toward an exclusion of all possible opportunities
available to customers with disabilities (Cohen et al., 2005).
In another case study exploring the characteristics of services based on the individuals
experiences in state employment agencies, the one-stop career center was mentioned by several
participants (Timmons et al., 2002). Five items in the state employment agency services were
found to be central to success and high customer satisfaction. These elements were a comfortable
agency culture, consumer-directed service delivery model, accessible resources, reliable and
supportive personnel, and effective service coordination (Timmons et al., 2002). A combination
of the elements contributed to the likelihood of satisfaction and a successful outcome of a
customers experience with the state employment agency, that is, employment that the individual
found satisfactory (Timmons et al., 2002). A deficiency in any of these services resulted in
customer dissatisfaction, disappointment, and unsatisfactory experiences (Timmons et al., 2002).
Personal interviews were done only with adults with disabilities who had a successful outcome,
and the study did not state the duration or timing of the interviews.
Berkeley Policy Associates. Berkeley Policy Associates (2001) evaluation of the one-
stop career centers recommended promotion of effective use of customer satisfaction data to
ensure program responsiveness to the needs of people with disabilities. A mystery shopper
program that collects qualitative real-life data from a customers perspective was proposed to

53
evaluate the responsiveness by one-stop career centers toward people with disabilities (Boeltig,
Brugnaro, Gandolfo, & Gelb, 2004). This technique provided a more dynamic picture of the
typical customer service, identified key areas for improvement, and evaluated how a business
responds to its customers. A sample one-stop career center customer report card for such a
program was developed that specifically focused on responses from individuals with a disability
in assessing satisfaction with services, as well as building accessibility, overall environment,
computers, orientation, and workshops (Boeltig, Brugnaro, Gandolfo, & Gelb, 2004).
Subsequently, the mystery customer investigation technique, together with focus groups,
were used by Hall and Parker (2005) to obtain customer feedback concerning accessibility,
services, and disability awareness of staff at one-stop career centers. Results indicated that the
needs of the customers with disabilities in the community were not being entirely met (Hall &
Parker, 2005). Hall and Parker (2005) indicated that the issues and concerns identified in their
study were widespread, and six initial specific recommendations were provided to improve
accessibility and customer orientation. The recommendations included staff interaction with
customers with disabilities, staff knowledge about disabilities and disability etiquette, physical
and programmatic accessibility, and marketing to both employers and consumers (Hall & Parker,
2005). The report by Boeltig, Brugnaro, Gandolfo, & Gelb (2004) on the mystery shopping
program recommended that customer feedback should also be gathered through other methods,
such as customer satisfaction surveys.

54
Disability Program Navigator Initiative
In an effort to streamline services and create seamless service delivery, an addition to the
one-stop career center system was jointly developed by the U.S. Department of Labor and the
Social Security Administration. Initially established in 2002, the Disability Program Navigator
Initiative provided a professional with expertise on workforce development issues for people
with disabilities in the one-stop center career centers (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training Administration, 2005a). When this study was begun, there were approximately 260
disability program navigators nationwide who facilitated access to disability services to secure
the most favorable employment outcome for one-stop career center customers with disabilities
(Holcomb & Barnow, 2004; U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &Training Administration,
2005a). Approximately 30 states formed cooperative agreements to sponsor the Disability
Program Navigator Initiative, and in 2009, it was reported that there were over 450 Navigators in
45 states, DC, and Puerto Rico (Federal News Service, 2009).
Goals of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative were similar to those of the one-stop
career center system, that is, to provide seamless and comprehensive services to people with
disabilities, increased employment and self-sufficiency for Social Security beneficiaries and
others with disabilities, facilitation of access to programs and services, and linkages to the
employer community (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005a).
Specific and multiple outcomes for the Disability Program Navigator Initiative were to improve
access to the Workforce Investment Acts services for people with disabilities in the one-stop
career centers, to increase this populations employment and customer satisfaction, to expand

55
relationships with one-stop career program partners and employers, and to increase the use of the
Ticket to Work (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005a). Other
expectations for the disability program navigators role were to increase the one-stop career
centers linkages with employment networks; to use federal tax incentives regarding hiring people
with disabilities; to use benefits counselors; to use Medicaid by people with disabilities; and to
develop assets for customers with disabilities (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training
Administration, 2005a). Additional outcomes included facilitating access for people with
disabilities to technology and self-employment resources, blending funding support, and
improving service and funding collaboration efforts (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment &
Training Administration, 2005a). The Disability Program Navigator Initiative has also facilitated
a partnership between IRS and VETS, as well as developed and implemented effective solutions
for transportation connections to the workplace for its customers (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training Administration, 2010).
The disability program navigator was established by Project WIN in all of the workforce
regions in Colorados one-stop career centers since 2000 (Emery et al., n.d.). Project WIN was a
five-year systems change project funded through the U.S. Department of Education,
Rehabilitation Services in 1998 (University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, n.d.). An
evaluation report on its disability program navigator project included questions on accessibility
by people with disabilities, the effect of the disability program navigator on accessibility, and
whether consumers were satisfied with the one-stop career center services (Emery et al., n.d.).
Specifically, whether the consumers believed services to be useful and how satisfaction

56
compared between those who did and did not use the disability program navigators was
mentioned (Emery et al., n.d.). The job characteristics of job seekers who reported disabilities
revealed differences in demographic information, higher use by veterans, that some disability
program navigator customers did not report a disability, and customers with disabilities received
more services than those without disabilities (Emery et al., n.d.). The report, however, did not
provide further information on whether customers were satisfied or how useful they felt the
services were. It also referred to a plan for conducting longer-term evaluation of the workforce
system and developing a mechanism to systematically collect and analyze data on customers
with disabilities (Emery et al., n.d.).
Bader (2003) reported that disability program navigators (also called disability resource
specialists or consumer navigators) were frequently used by staff, management, and partner
agencies in the one-stop career centers to assist people with disabilities. A primary
recommendation in Baders (2003) study was to continue the disability program navigator
program in the one-stop career centers, as it was found to be an integral part of service delivery.
The majority of Colorados Workforce Center directors also felt that the disability program
navigators contributed positively to their centers, improved relationships and coordination with
other agencies, raised awareness of services, served as an expert and resource to staff, and
prevented clients from falling through the cracks (Emery et al., n.d.). Considering the core
competencies, extensive training, and comprehensive knowledge on disability issues required in
the disability program navigator position, it was reasonable and logical that a disability expert

57
would enhance and coordinate services, and significantly contribute to seamless delivery for
customers with disability in the one-stop career centers (Bader, 2003).
Assessment of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative
Assessments of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative were conducted using a
quarterly evaluation report instrument, a telephone survey, an in-depth study, and a comparison
of individual outcome data (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration,
2005a). Participants in the assessment included the workforce directors, senior management
staff, supervisor of the disability program navigator, one-stop career center director, employer
liaison case manager or career director, vocational rehabilitation representative, area work
incentives coordinator, Social Security Administration field office representative, BPAO
(benefits, planning, assistance, and outreach) specialist, and the disability program navigator
(U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005a). Although overall
satisfaction with the Disability Program Navigator Initiative was very high from assessment
participants and exceeded expectations, other than the one-stop career centers customer
satisfaction surveys, people with disabilities were not included in any program assessments (U.S.
Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005a).
What data that has been collected pertinent to the disability program navigators
concerned time allocation for specific activities by the disability program navigators; changes in
their time allocations; levels of activity and outcomes for program relationships; outreach and
training activities; and referrals to and from the disability program navigator (U.S. Dept. of
Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005a). Specific examples were requested in

58
each area for successful outcomes, as well as skills or knowledge areas that the disability
program navigators felt would improve their own performance (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training Administration, 2005a). Statistics were also obtained for performance
measures and program participants, similar to those of the one-stop career center system,
including the percent of program exiters with disabilities served, an entered employment rate
measure, wage gain, and an efficiency measure of earning change (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
Employment & Training Administration, 2005a). As with the one-stop career center system, this
information was necessary for establishing and achieving goals for continued support for federal
program funding (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Employment & Training Administration, 2005a).
Disability Program Navigator Project Prospects for Systems Change.
Four-State Study. National Overview Report

Between February and July 2005, the Iowa City Law, Health Policy & Disability Center
and University of Iowa College of Law conducted face-to-face interviews with 117 individuals to
obtain information on their experiences with the disability program navigators services in four
states. The four states had 27% of nationwide disability program navigators and exemplified
diverse approaches to implementation of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative (Emery &
Bryan, 2005). One of the evaluation questions was, How satisfied are persons with disabilities
with a navigator intervention strategy? The total number of actual customers with a disability in
all four states that were interviewed was 16, which was only 14% of total interviewees. Specific
information asked from these customers concerned employment information; the point at which
they encountered the navigator; introduction and navigator experience; services received; what

59
difference the navigator made; public assistance benefits and status; discrimination experiences;
and suggestions for improvement (Emery & Bryan, 2005). Customers assessments on the
quality on services received from the disability program navigator were not addressed. The
report indicated that the majority of non-customer respondents felt that Disability Program
Navigator Initiative was a successful example of the Federal government providing funds,
structure, the tools and training needed to make an important initiative workthe DPN Initiative
has proven its point (Emery & Bryan, 2005, p 19).
Use of One-Stops by SSDI Beneficiaries in Four States Implementing Disability Program
Navigator Initiatives

The U.S. Department of Labor and Training released a Training and Employment Notice
1-10 on the Employment and Training Administrations quantitative evaluation of the Disability
Program Navigator Initiative in four states during program years 2002-2007 (Livermore &
Colman, 2010). Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research and through the use of the One-Stop
Career Center system by Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance
beneficiaries, the report focused on employment outcomes of adults age 21 and over who used
the one-stop career centers during the four-year period. One of the research issues concerned
determining if utilization and outcomes differences over this time period could be attributed to
the Disability Program Navigator Initiative. The report suggested that having a disability
program navigator in the one-stop career centers could have contributed to the findings of a
significant and marked increase over time in the percentage of one-stop career center users
receiving federal benefits who disclosed their disabilities, even though this disclosure was

60
optional (Livermore & Colman, 2010). Reasons given for these findings were that disability
program navigators facilitated the disclosure of disability information, perhaps by raising staffs
awareness of disability issues, improving administrative processes, conducting outreach,
developing linkages with organizations, and creating an environment in which users were more
likely to disclose their disabilities (Livermore & Colman, 2010). Data found that individuals who
more likely disclosed their disabilities had sensory disabilities, that is, hearing, visual, or speech
impairments (Livermore & Colman, 2010).
Data collected also showed that the one-stop career centers were probably serving many
more people with disabilities than was implied by the self-reported disability information. Thus,
the findings indicated that there was an important role for the Disability Program Navigator
Initiative to continue addressing the needs of one-stop career center customers who receive
federal benefits, as well as other users with disabilities (Livermore & Colman, 2010). However,
due to data limitations and the variety of implementation by the states of the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative, a more rigorous assessment of the specific impact of the services provided
by the disability program navigator was not feasible. Nevertheless, the report stated that if the
disability program navigators were assisting the one-stop career centers to make their serrvices
more accessible to people with disabilities and impacting systems change in ways that generally
improved employment services to this population, the end result could lead to improved
employment outcomes for people with disabilities (Livermore & Colman, 2010).
Although the one-stop career center system has been in existence since 1998, there
continues to be a significant gap regarding customers actual experiences in the use of the one-

61
stop career centers and services provided by a disability program navigator. Therefore, an
increase in research to obtain the perceptions and satisfaction of one-stop career centers
customers, including those with disabilities, would allow for monitoring changes and provide
insight and understanding for improvement, modifications, and future funding. This would
further enable development of customized survey questionnaires on customer preferences, result
in greater feedback to inspire improved performances of the one-stop career centers, and an
increase in additional one-stop career center customers with disabilities (McColl-Kennedy &
Schneider, 2000). Taking into account potential future public spending cuts, research results can
be used to document customer satisfaction for continued state and federal support as well (Bryant
et al., 1998). It is hoped that higher participation and involvement of people with disabilities in
one-stop career centers would enhance and increase their employment in the workforce, and
ultimately, contribute to an improved quality of life (Kosciulek, 2004; McColl-Kennedy &
Schneider, 2000).

62
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this section is to explain how the responses and data from the participants
was collected, studied, and analyzed. The data for this study originated from a self-administered
survey of the satisfaction levels of customers who received services from a disability program
navigator in a one-stop career center. The survey was given to a purposive sample from two one-
stop career centers. A purposive sample is a sample that possesses specific characteristics
important for a study (Sproull, 2002). The following research questions were addressed.
2. What are the areas that customers identify as needing improvement?

Researchers Philosophy
Although quantitative research methods limit the ability to measure social context of
phenomena, they are valuable in contributing to the foundation of knowledge and understanding
of the reality of phenomena (Bernard, 2000; McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000). A classical
science design, the positivistic approach assumes that the whole of a phenomenon can best be
understood by dividing it into isolated parts (McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000). The

63
phenomenon in this study was customer satisfaction in one-stop career centers, and the isolated
part of the phenomenon studied was the customers with disabilities who received services from
the on-site disability program navigator. A quantitative and descriptive approach to measure
levels of customer satisfaction and a description of the sample was taken, using a customer
satisfaction rating survey and a background information sheet. A copy of the Background
Information Sheet developed for this study is shown in Appendix B.

Theoretical Framework
The Theory of Work Adjustment, developed by Dawis, England, and Lofquist (1964),
was the basis for this study. The theorys framework describes how individual and work
environmental factors interact to predict perceived job satisfaction and conceptualizes the
interaction in terms of person-environment fit and match. The person-environment theoretical
foundation assumes that when individuals are more satisfied, their performance is better, the
organizations are more effective, organizational commitment is higher, turnover is less, and there
will be greater vocational adjustment and individual positive experiences, as well as
compatibility with multiple systems (Kristof-Brown, Jansen, & Colbert, 2002; Ostroff &
Rothausen, 1997). The Theory of Work Adjustment has also been used as a model for people
with disabilities in the workforce (Lyons, 2004; Strauser & Lustig, 2003). The Federals
governments desire to increase the employment of people with disabilities was addressed in the
goals of the one-stop career center system, that is, to provide additional services that focused on
the unique needs of these individuals, and to match them with satisfying jobs. According to

64
Lofquist & Dawis Theory of Work Adjustment (1964), a match between a worker and rewards
of a job will result in job satisfaction and subsequent employment stability (Vandenberg &
Scarpello, 1990). Job satisfaction also predicts attendance, participation, morale, and overall life
satisfaction (Bolton & Brookings, 1991).
Hershenson (2001) indicated that unless a Workforce Investment Act consumer attains a
satisfactory level of work adjustment, the mandated function of the Act regarding job training
and placement could not be fulfilled. A Systems Model of Work Adjustment Development
proposed by Hershenson (2001) presented major sources of work adjustment problems and
interventions to address them that can be applied in the Workforce Investment Act setting. In this
model, the foundation for work adjustment for an individual first requires the development of
work personality, work competencies, and work goals (Hershenson, 2001). According to
Hershensons model (2001), work adjustment, that is, a persons work role behavior, task
performance, and worker satisfaction, is also affected by the behavioral expectations of an
individuals work setting, skill requirements of the job, and rewards and opportunities offered by
the work setting. The Workforce Investment Acts service delivery system can both facilitate and
impede a consumers work adjustment through a cultural, economic, and political context, which
can result in work impairments, or barriers (Hershenson, 2001). These work barriers
subsequently interact with an individuals living environments, such as family, peer
relationships, and support, thereby further affecting work adjustment. Hershenson (2001)
advocated that his model provided an integrated framework in the Workforce Investment Act

65
setting to assess, evaluate, and develop interventions to mitigate or eliminate work barriers,
thereby facilitating a positive and satisfactory work adjustment for an individual.
The Theory of Work Adjustment was an appropriate theoretical framework for this study,
in that achievement of employment and job satisfaction are goals of both the one-stop career
center system and the Disability Program Navigator Initiative. As part of the Initiative, the
disability program navigator served as an expert and resource in disability issues. People
interested in job seeking, hiring, or job maintenance use one-stop career centers as a workforce
resource. As with the predictive model of the Theory of Work Adjustment, the one-stop career
centers are used to help people identify and choose among work possibilities that will likely
bring them satisfaction (Brown & Lent, 2005, p 20). Furthermore, the Theory of Work
Adjustment can be generalized to apply to any work environment (Brown & Lent, 2005, p 20).
The disability program navigator addresses issues affecting the job satisfaction and work
adjustment by a job seeker, employee, or employer on disability-related issues. Providing
appropriate services for satisfactory work adjustment, in turn, can have a significant impact on
achieving job satisfaction. The disability program navigator listens to a customers voice by
effectively facilitating services, resources, and assistance in achieving a satisfactory work
adjustment. Therefore, it can be concluded that a customers satisfactory work adjustment leads
to subsequent job satisfaction, and would result in a satisfied customer of the one-stop career
center who used the services provided by a disability program navigator.

66
Research Design Strategy
Fitzgerald, Rumrill, and Schenker, (2004) noted that investigation of the relationships of
variables in the lives of people with disabilities is an important basic foundation of all social
science disciplines and provides a deeper understanding of connections among human
phenomena. A quantitative descriptive research design was used in this study to investigate the
phenomena of customer satisfaction through assessment of satisfaction and examination of the
factors influencing it (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). There was no manipulation of variables or
attempts to establish causality. Variables that could not be manipulated in this study included the
gender, years of education, and age.
The customer satisfaction survey in this study was used to elicit respondents rated
opinions of relevant satisfaction concepts, which were ordinal measures of internal states in
terms of less and more to classify and rank them (Bernard, 2000). Statistical data was obtained to
indicate differences in satisfaction levels (Sproull, 2002). Data collection on customer
demographics and levels of satisfaction allowed for a systemic analysis and description of the
characteristics of the one-stop career centers customers (Gall et al., 2003). Calculation of the
correlation coefficient provided both a precise way of measuring the magnitude and direction of
the relationship between two or more variables, as well as an explained variance for prediction
(Gall et al., 2003).
Sampling Design
Due to the number of one-stop career centers nationwide that have an on-site disability
program navigator, it was not possible to survey every one. Therefore, a non-probability

67
sampling design, was used, specifically, a purposive sample of one-stop career centers in the
United States that had an on-site disability program navigator. A purposive sample is a sample
that is selected because they possess characteristics that are desired by the researcher; however, it
limited the external validity in generalizing the results to other one-stop career centers (Sproull,
2002). The purposive sample consisted of two one-stop career centers serving people with
disabilities that were identified by a panel of experts in a previous study (Bader, 2003), and that
agreed to participate in the study.
The participants were selected by the contact person at the participating one-stop career
centers using the solicitation method. Fifty surveys were sent to each one-stop career center, for
a total of 100 surveys. Originally, a random sampling method had been planned using the total
number of returned customer surveys to reduce bias. Due to the length of time in obtaining
surveys and resultant usable surveys, it was not possible to further narrow down the limited
number of surveys for a random sampling.

Measures
Because the one-stop career center system has only been in existence since its creation by
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, there is limited recent research on it, as well as
appropriate customer satisfaction surveys involving people with disabilities (Barlas, 1998).
Questionnaires assessing client satisfaction with services in human services agencies are
plentiful, ranging from generic satisfaction surveys and specially developed surveys, to
standardized instruments with published data on reliability and validity. An instrument in the

68
published literature that measures global satisfaction and direct measures of an individuals
personal experiences with a specific service received by individuals is the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8; Attkisson & Zwick, 1982; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson &
Greenfield, 1999). The questionnaire has been used in quality assurance, evaluation research,
program planning, scientific work, and service research studies in a variety of settings in health
and human services with a wide range of client groups and service types (Sederer & Dickey,
1996). The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) developed by Attkisson and Greenfield
(1994) was used in this study.
A background information sheet was developed to obtain demographic information from
each respondent on age, gender, and educational level, and included questions on whether the
customer self-disclosed a disability, where the customer was referred from, length of time until
the individual met with the disability program navigator, and length of the appointment. The
Flesch-Kincaid grade level for readability statistics of the background information sheet that was
developed by the researcher for this study indicated that it was a grade 6.3 level. A copy of the
Background Information Sheet is shown in Appendix B. Survey packets were mailed to
participating one-stop career centers using the United States Postal Service, enabling objectivity
that was distant and interest-free on the part of the researcher, a criterion for classical research
(McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000).
Description of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)
The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) is a popular, structured, self-administered
questionnaire directly assessing consumer satisfaction with a health or human service (Attkisson

69
& Greenfield, 1999; Sederer & Dickey, 1996; World Health Organization, 2000). It has been
used in studies of comparison measures for alternative approaches to assess satisfaction,
evaluation studies, and clinical research in various populations in both the United States and
abroad since 1973 (Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999). Developed by
Attkisson and Larsen in 1975, the questionnaire considers the opinion and perspective of a
consumer and assesses aggregate satisfaction levels of a group of respondents (Sederer &
Dickey, 1996).
The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) was designed to be used with a wide and
diverse range of client groups and types of services, and found to have clear and consistent
meanings across contexts and settings on global satisfaction, making it a suitable instrument to
assess customer satisfaction in the one-stop career centers (Sederer & Dickey, 1996).
Furthermore, the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) is the shorter form of a 31-item
instrument, which made it even more appropriate for ease of use and administration with the
studys participants (Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999; Sederer &
Dickey, 1996). The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) has been standardized, thoroughly
investigated, validated in mental health settings and addict populations, and combines internal
consistency with other solid psychometric properties (DeWilde & Hendriks, 2005).
Nine conceptual domains of client satisfaction are addressed in the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8), which are physical surroundings; procedures; support staff; type or kind
of service; treatment staff; quality of service; amount, length, or quantity of service; outcome of
service; and general satisfaction (Sederer & Dickey, 1996). An 8-item 4-point Likert scale, the

70
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) is easily scored, and optional identification by a
respondent has not been found to result in lower response rate or higher reported satisfaction
(Sederer & Dickey, 1996). Scoring involves an unweighted sum of all responses to compute a
total scale score (Attkisson & Zwick, 1982; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson &
Greenfield, 1999). Higher total customer satisfaction scores indicate higher levels of customer
satisfaction.
The recommended approach by Attkisson and Greenfield (1994) for the questionnaires
administration was a point-of-service survey. This was the approach taken in this study, that is,
surveys were given at the each of the research sites where services were received. According to
Capella (2002), a desired reading level in consumer satisfaction instruments should be 5
th
to 6
th

grade. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level for readability statistics of the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire indicated it was a grade 4.7 level (Attkisson & Zwick, 1982; Attkisson &
Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999). This was an appropriate level of reading ease
for any participant in this study that may have a disability. Formal permission was obtained from
its researcher for use in this study; applicable fees were paid; and no modifications or changes
were made to the questionnaire, which was a requirement by the researcher.
Reliability and Validity
The internal consistency of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire is very high, measuring
0.83-0.93 (Cronbachs coefficients). Moderately high item-correlations for the questionnaire are
reported, which supported its use as a one-dimensional and general satisfaction measure (Sederer
& Dickey, 1996). Inter-item correlations among scale items are also moderately high (Sederer &

71
Dickey, 1996). Construct validity of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire is enhanced by high
correlations (.6 to .8) between it and other client satisfaction instruments (Attkisson & Zwick,
1982; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994; Attkisson & Greenfield, 1999). A low relationship has been
typically observed between satisfaction and other variables of the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire, contributing to its favorable discriminant validity (Attkisson & Greenfield, 1994).
Due to its highly desirable psychometric properties, the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-
8) allowed for comparability and external reporting use, reduced costs, and more easily
guaranteed reliability and validity (McColl-Kennedy & Schneider, 2000; Sederer & Dickey,
1996).

Data Collection Procedures
A survey data collection process was chosen for this study because it allowed for a
representative sample from the population, as well as the the likelihood that customers would be
willing to participate, the likelihood of avoiding social desirability bias, a medium response rate,
and cost effectiveness (Dillman, 1978). Data collection was done through the use of two
questionnaires, the anonymous Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) and an original
background information sheet, using the following procedure. The researcher initially mailed a
letter to four one-stop career centers that were identified as suitable. The letter requested
voluntary participation, and asked to identify a contact person at each one-stop career center. The
two one-stop centers that agreed to participate were then mailed a survey package. The package
contained a cover letter to the contact person and 50 participant packets in separate envelopes.

72
The cover letter detailed how to identify, administer, and collect survey packets for each
participant. Each research participant packet contained the following items; a cover letter with
information about the research; a request for voluntary participation; explanation of risks,
benefits, privacy, and confidentiality; researcher contact information; consent to participate by
completion of the questionnaires and instructions of completion; an anonymous background
information sheet; a Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8); and a self-addressed stamped
envelope. Each survey, background information sheet, and envelope were coded with a number
that only the researcher knew and tracked. The code included a letter for the site, and a number
for each survey. In addition, the researcher called and emailed the contact person at each
participating one-stop career center to follow-up with reminder notifications and status updates.
The identity of the respondents was not recorded and the questionnaires were
administered by the pen-and-paper method. A participant was orally requested to agree to
participate before given access to the questionnaires. The participant was then requested to
complete the questionnaires immediately after the meeting with the disability program navigator.
After completion of the questionnaires, the participant was asked to place them in the self-
addressed stamped envelope and return it to the one-stop career centers front desk, where it was
be put in the mail by the contact person to the researcher.
When the surveys were returned to the researcher, the data was entered into the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences for evaluation and data management. The data management
allowed for access and transformation of data collected, organization of the data, analysis, and
presentation of the results, as well as a secure data file storage (Gall et al., 2003). Data was then

73
stored on a computer flash drive and on paper hard copies that were kept in a locked file cabinet.
Only the researcher had access to the locked file cabinet, computer software programs, computer
flash drive, and paper hard copies. All data from the study, whether written or computerized, will
be stored in a locked file cabinet that is only accessible by the researcher, and will be protected
for seven years after the publication of the dissertation results. At the end of seven years, any
personal identifying data will be destroyed in a shredding machine by the researcher.

Data Analysis Procedures
The purpose of statistical analyses is to summarize the data of the characteristics of the
sample population and determine the extent and degree of any relationships among chosen
variables. The statistical analyses used for this studys research design and research questions are
discussed in this section.
Standard screening techniques were performed before the actual data analysis was
conducted. These procedures included a visual inspection of the surveys and data file for missing
data, data entry errors, gaps in the sampling plan, and whether there was a pattern for omitted
data. Surveys were scored and all data gathered from the surveys and background information
sheet was coded and entered in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences program for
statistical analyses. Surveys were given identification numbers and were not used if there were
missing values or information.
A univariate analysis was done by examining the information obtained from the
Background Information sheet. Numbers were assigned to categories and frequency distribution

74
tables were developed for the raw data results for each item (Sproull, 2002). Frequency
distribution tables included percentages and allowed for collapsing the results into categories or
groups, which assisted in examining the data and identifying unanticipated findings (Gall, Gall,
& Borg, 2004; Sproull, 2002).
Descriptive statistics were conducted to summarize the sample characteristics, which
included the number in the sample, the minimum, maximum, mean, mode, and median.
Distributions were displayed with histograms for nominal variables (gender, disability) and box
plots for interval variables (age, education, amount of time until appointment with the disability
program navigator, amount of time spent with the disability program navigator, and scores from
the Client Satisfaction Questionnaires). This aided in interpreting and understanding whether
data was symmetrical, bimodal, or skewed (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2004).
Next, measures of variability were conducted on the raw data to identify how
homogeneous or heterogeneous they were, and the spread of the data (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2004;
Sproull, 2002). The measures included the range in the distribution of scores, standard deviation,
and variance. A greater variability of the set of scores indicated a greater deviation from the
mean (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2004). Therefore, an additional cross-reference to examine the data
dispersion, obtain a visual impression, and locate any outliers, was performed, which was to
calculate box-and-whiskers plots using SPSS (Brase & Brase, 1999).
The study also examined the relationship between two or more quantifiable variables.
The degree of the relationship between the demographic variables (age, gender, and education),
the amount of time until the appointment with the disability program navigator, and amount of

75
time spent in the appointment with the disability program navigator, and the customers levels of
satisfaction were expressed as a bivariate coefficient of correlation, that is, the Pearson
correlation coefficient. The Pearson correlation coefficient measured the association between
two variables, furnished a numerical expression of the strength of relationship, and established
the significance level, which was determined by the final size of the sample (Gall, Gall, & Borg,
2003). Coefficients of determination were calculated, and assisted in explaining the proportion of
variance in one variable accounted for by another variable, that is, the amount of variance in
customers satisfaction levels between each variable.

Limitations of Methodology
Several limitations existed in the study. First, in quantitative methodology, the existence
of a relationship among variables must be determined, and any established relationship is not
proof of a cause-effect relationship (Szymanski, 1993). Second, variables not controlled may
suggest causation where there is none (Sproull, 2002; Weinbach & Grinnell, 2004). Uncontrolled
variables in the study included gender, educational level, and age, as well as whether individuals
in the sample had sufficient knowledge and understanding to express a meaningful opinion (Gall
et al., 2003) or whether the participants were able to easily respond to them (Sproull, 2002).
Third, implementation and aspects of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative have varied
between the two sample sites, which posed a threat to statistical and test scores, as well as
external validity, that is, generalizability (Parker, 1993). Fourth, the disability-friendliness of the
community of the sample one-stop career centers may have impacted the accessibility of

76
individuals with disabilities to the sites. Fifth, the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)
assumed an equal value of each item, since scoring resulted in a sum for all items (Sproull,
2002). Sixth, although timing of the studys satisfaction measures were planned to result in the
highest response rate, results taken at the end of a treatment tend to be skewed toward higher
levels of satisfaction (Maruish, 1999). In this study, data was not collected as to whether the
customers meeting with the disability program navigator was their first, last, or only meeting.
Lastly, it is possible that findings from the study may not generalize to one-stop career centers in
different geographic regions of the country, due to the size of the sample and that it was not a
random study.

Expected Findings and Ethical Issues
It was expected that findings from the study would provide an indication of whether the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative was meeting the goals of the one-stop career center
system. Unique feedback from customers with a disability and patterns of customer satisfaction
levels for different disability categories were gained, as well identification and insight of other
needs required by customers with disabilities at the one-stop career centers (Capella, 2002).
Ethical issues in research involving human subjects are a significant concern, and include
obtaining informed consent, protecting participants from harm, maintaining confidentiality, and
professional honesty in reporting research findings (Gall et al., 2003). All data from the study,
whether written or computerized, was stored in a locked file cabinet that was only accessible by

77
the researcher and protected for seven years. After seven years from completion of the study, any
personal identifying data will be destroyed by use of a shredder.
In clear, nontechnical language at an appropriate reading level, the informed consent
process advised participants of the nature of the study; provided an overview of the studys
procedures and how participants were selected; explained risks and benefits; assured participants
that participation was voluntary; and described procedures on confidentiality, privacy, and
anonymity. The informed consent process also included contact information for the researcher
and the Institutional Review Board of Capella University; alternative procedures to complete the
survey; and how to obtain a summary of the studys findings, if desired or required (Gall et al.,
2003; Sreenivasan, 2003).
The research did not violate participants' privacy. Protection of anonymity involved the
use of procedures that prevented communication of participants' identity throughout the research
study, on the questionnaires, and in reporting results. These procedures included refraining from
collecting identifying information, and only distinguished participants by demographic
information, that is, gender, age, and educational level, and results were reported in the aggregate
only. All participants confidentiality were maintained by using procedures to protect the
integrity of any information that could be used to identify participants, as well as restricted
access to the information to unauthorized persons (Gall et al., 2003).
A second issue in the ethical conduct of research is the protection of participants from
physical harm, psychological abuse, and legal jeopardy (Gall et al., 2003). Because the study was
not an experiment, participants were not subjected to any potential physical, psychological,

78
mental, social, financial, or legal risks. Individuals were advised that they were free to refuse to
participate. If an individual chose to participate, he or she was advised that no compensation was
provided, and that the studys results may be obtained as aggregate results with no personal
identifiers through Capella University (Sreenivasan, 2003). Safeguards and special precautions
were included to protect the rights and welfare of any possible vulnerable populations and
minimize risk. These included the use of experts to solicit appropriate research sites and
participants; the researchers training, education, and certification in knowledge about the
particular vulnerabilities of people with disabilities; the disability program navigators training
required in his or her employment, and ensuring that disability accommodations were available
to participants if requested. The two participating research sites were identified by a panel of
experts as one-stop career centers serving people with disabilities to meet criteria necessary to
properly serve this population, and which included the availability of disability accommodations
(Bader, 2003).
Sreenivasan (2003) wrote that not only does an individual have the greatest motivation to
weigh correctly in his or her own case, but are also the most familiar with the details of his or her
own situation, and to deny he or she the right to make an ignorant decision to participate or
refuse to participate is morally wrong. A one-stop career centers is operated as a self-service
facility and if an individual with a disability is able to both use the one-stop career center and
consents to meeting with the disability program navigator, it was a reasonable expectation that
any participants disability was not an obstacle to minimal comprehension for consent to
participate in the study.

79
As with participating customers, a letter was sent to the participating one-stop career
centers giving assurances of anonymity and confidentiality that the name of the one-stop career
center, the state in which it is located, and the names of any staff and contacts involved in the
study would not be revealed. Each one-stop career center was requested to provide a letter
granting permission to the researcher, and consent to participate, provide a contact persons
information, and to return the permission and consent to the researcher. Anonymity of the two
research sites were maintained and identifying information was not included in reporting results
or in any of the appendices of the research.
The study used personal resources for funding, which eliminated the concern with
restrictions in the honest communication of research results. Credit was given to other
researchers work and reported findings were not misrepresented. Approval of this study was
obtained from the Institutional Review Board at Capella University.

80
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This chapter describes the data collection and results of the research to assess and analyze
levels of one-stop career center client satisfaction participating in the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative. Following a discussion of the studys sample characteristics and descriptive
statistics for both the Background Information Sheet and Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8), the results of the correlational analysis are reported for the purpose of answering the
research questions. The research questions in this quantitative study addressing the factors that
influence customer satisfaction were;
2. What areas do customers identify as needing improvement?

Description of the Sample
The adults who participated in this study were recruited from two one-stop career center
sites located in the U.S.A. Fifty survey packets were sent to each research site, for a total of 100
survey packets, with specific instructions for soliciting voluntary participation. The individual

81
chosen by the contact person at each research site to handle the survey packets and instructions
was the on-site disability program navigator. This data collection method was chosen to decrease
limitations of a mailed survey and administration bias, and to increase response rate (LeVois,
Nguyen & Attkisson, 1981; Nguyen, Attkisson & Stegner, 1983). The data collection method
also sent a message to the participants of the importance of their satisfaction and opinions, since
the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) explicitly reflects the perspective of the client
(Attkisson & Greenfield, 2004, p 808).
Immediately after their meeting with the disability program navigator, customers were
read the standardized script and given a survey packet with a letter indicating why the data was
being collected, what the data would be used for, and how the data would be stored. In the letter,
an assurance was given as to confidentiality of their responses and maintenance of anonymity,
and also requested their voluntary participation in the study. Data collection was conducted and
completed at one research site at a time, in order to obtain surveys at different times of the year.
Although it was planned to complete all data collection within three months at each site,
delays were encountered that required additional time for data collection. Delays included
flooding in one of the research sites area, changes in the disability program navigators
responsibilities, and hiring and training of a replacement disability program navigator. Since data
collection at only one research site was done and completed at a time before initiating data
collection at the second site, completion of data collection from both research sites took 14
months (June 1, 2007 through July 31, 2008). Data was securely stored until collection from both
research sites was finalized.

82
A total of 63 surveys out of the 100 sent to both sites was returned to the investigator via
the U.S. Postal Service, for a response rate of 63%. Data was visually inspected for missing data,
gaps in the sampling, and patterns for omitted data. A visual screening of the returned survey
documents conducted to separate those that were usable resulted in 41 usable research packets,
that is, all questions on the Background Information Sheet and Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) were completely filled out and answered. A high number of unusable surveys from
Research Site 2 was noted (16 total), which included those not completely filled out or all
questions were not answered. The Statistical Packages for Social Sciences was used for coding,
inputting, computing, and analyzing the resultant usable data.
Background Information Sheet Survey Sample Characteristics and Descriptive Statistics
A univariate analysis was conducted on the information obtained from the Background
Information Sheet. The Background Information Sheet asked four questions regarding a
participants demographic information on gender, age, educational level, and whether a disability
was disclosed. A copy of the Background Information Sheet is shown in Appendix B. The
purpose for asking these questions was to obtain information on how representative of the
population the sample participants were, and to provide a description of who they were. The total
sample of 41 participants was comprised of 16 men (39%) and 25 women (61%). The total
number of participants who self-identified that they had a disability was 29 (70.7%).
Participants were given five different referring sites to choose from; the one-stop career
center, a website/online, the Social Security Office, the unemployment office, or from family and
friends. Twenty (48.8%) respondents indicated they found out about the disability program

83
navigator services from the one-stop career center, 4 (9.8%) from a website or online, 6 (14.6%)
from the Social Security Office, and 17 (41.5%) from the unemployment office, while 10
(24.4%) found out from a friend or family member. The majority of participants found out about
the disability program navigator from the one-stop career center (48.8%) and the unemployment
office (41.5%).
The ages of the combined samples from both research sites ranged from 25 years to 74
years, and is shown in Figure 1.
Ages of partipants
80 70 60 50 40 30 20
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 1. Ages of participants.
The mean was 45, the mode was 51, the median was 47, and the standard deviation was
10.80. Although a wide age distribution existed within the sample, a slight majority of the

84
sample fell between the ages of 25 and 58 years. Of note was the nonexistence of any
respondents between ages 60 and 70, and one outlier at age 74.
The sample range for the participants educational level was 9 to 19 years, shown in
Figure 2.
Years of education of participants
20 18 16 14 12 10 8
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 2. Years of education of participants.
The mean was 13.73, mode was 12, median was 13, and standard deviation was 2.32.
Figure 2 displays a histogram of the frequencies of the participants educational levels, indicating
the majority of participants completed 12 to 14 years of education. Of note was the nonexistence
of any respondent with an educational level of 17 years.

85
Summary of Results
A brief summary of the results and findings of the research data analysis organized
around the research questions is presented in this section.
Research Question 1. To what extent are customers satisfied the services of the
disability program navigators in one-stop career centers? Total client satisfaction scores ranged
from 16 to 32. The majority of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire scores from both sites fell
between 24 and 32, with a mean of 27.49.
Research Question 2. What areas do customers identify as needing improvement? More
than 50% of respondents scored the disability program navigator service with favorable response
ratings on all eight items on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Lowest scores were
on Item 3; To what extent has the program met your needs? Highest scores were on Item 4; If a
friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend our program to him or her? and Item
8; If you were to seek help again, would you come back to our program?
Research Question 3. How do the customers levels of satisfaction with services received
from the disability program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about
the disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability program
navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting? Results of the Pearsons correlation
coefficient calculations indicated that older respondents tended to have lower total client
satisfaction scores, participants with more years of education tended to have higher total client
satisfaction scores, participants who met with the disability program navigator sooner tended to
have higher total client satisfaction scores, and participants that spent more time in their meeting

86
with the disability program navigator tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores.
Independent-samples t tests to evaluate the degree of the relationship between a participants
total client satisfaction score and gender, whether a disability was disclosed, and where the
individual found out about the disability program navigator, showed no significant differences.
Coefficients of determination results in the amount of variance between age, years of education,
number of days until a participants meeting with the disability program navigator, and minutes
in the meeting, and total client satisfaction scores were low, with little overlap.

Details of Analysis and Results
In this section, a detailed presentation of the data analysis and results will be provided.
Distribution of Data in Sample
The study initially planned to randomize the convenience sample; however, due to the
small sample of 41 returned usable surveys, this was not feasible. Therefore, after visually
examining the histograms, further exploration was done to determine if the sample used in this
study had a fairly normal distribution, to allow for reliability of inferences, and check for any
violations of the assumptions required in statistical techniques (Brase & Brase, 1999; Pallant,
2007). In addition to the mean, the mode, and the median, another statistical cross-reference of
the data spread was done to locate extreme values (Brase & Brase, 1999). Using the frequency
distributions previously prepared, the variations chosen to examine the data dispersion further
were the range, the variance, the standard deviation, and the interquartile range, which is the
spread of the middle half of the data. To obtain a visual impression of the data range and location

87
of the middle half of the data for age, years of education, number of days until meeting, total
minutes in meeting, and Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores, SPSS was used to
develop box-and-whisker plots (Brase & Brase, 1999). Box-and-whisker plots show high and
low outliers that fall beyond the limits of the interquartile range, and provide the five-number
summary, that is, the lowest value, Quartile 1, median, Quartile 3, and highest value, which is
used in creating a graphic sketch of data (Brase & Brase, 1999). From this five-number
summary, calculations were done to find the Interquartile Range (IQR) and limits to locate
outliers that would need to be discarded to avoid distorting the statistics (Brase & Brase, 1999).
Box-and-whisker plots were developed for the samples age, years of education, number
of days until a participant met with the disability program navigator, total minutes in the meeting
with the disability program navigator, and participants total scores on the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Five-number summaries of the minimum value, maximum value,
median, Quartile 1, Quartile 3, and Interquartile Range (IQR) are reported for each in the
following figures. Additionally, lengths of the whiskers for each boxplot were calculated using
the five-number summary to identify extreme outliers that should be removed, to avoid values
that would distort the statistics (Pallant, 2007). Calculating the boxplots whisker lengths was
done by multiplying the Interquartile Range (IQR) by 1.5, and then subtracting this number from
Quartile 1, as well as adding it to Quartile 3. These values were the endpoints of the boxplots
whisker lengths, and values beyond these endpoints were the samples outliers to be considered.
Figure 3 is a box-and-whiskers plot for participants ages that shows the five-point
summary and whisker lengths.

88
A
g
e
s

o
f

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
80
60
40
20
0

Figure 3. Box-and-whiskers plot of ages of participants.
The minimum value was 25, the maximum value was 74, and the median was 46. The
Quartile 1 was 38, the Quartile 3 was 54, and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 16. Endpoints of
the whisker lengths were 14 and 78. There were no outliers higher than 78 or lower than 14;
therefore, no data was removed.
Figure 4 is a box-and-whiskers plot for the years of education reported by the participants
that shows the five-point summary and whisker lengths.

89
Y
r
s

o
f

e
d
u
c
20
18
16
14
12
10
8

Figure 4. Box-and-whiskers plot of years of education of participants.

The minimum value was 12, the maximum value was 19, and the median was 13. The
Quartile 1 was 9, the Quartile 3 was 15, and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 6. Endpoints of
the whisker lengths were 0 and 21. There were no outliers higher than 21 or lower than 0;
therefore, no data was removed.
Figure 5 is a box-and-whiskers plot for the data for the number of days until a participant
met with the disability program navigator that shows the five-point summary and whisker
lengths.

90
22
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

d
a
y
s

u
n
t
i
l

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

n
a
v
i
g
a
t
o
r
.
16
12
8
4
0

Figure 5. Box-and-whiskers plot for number of days until participants meeting with disability
program navigator. Outlier at 14-day mark.

The minimum value was 0 (on the same day), the maximum value was 14, and the
median was 1 day. The Quartile 1 was 0 days, the Quartile 3 was 3 days, and the Interquartile
Range (IQR) was 3. Endpoints of the whisker lengths were 4.5 and 7.5. There was one outlier of
14 days, which was removed to avoid distorting the statistics.
Figure 6 is a box-and-whiskers plot for the number of minutes participants were in their
meeting with the disability program navigator, and shows the five-point summary and whisker
lengths.

91
M
i
n
u
t
e
s

i
n

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

m
e
e
t
i
n
g

w
i
t
h

d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

n
a
v
i
g
a
t
o
r
.
100
80
60
40
20
0 33
23 11

Figure 6. Box-and-whiskers plot for minutes in participants meeting with disability program
navigator. Outliers at 2-minute mark and 45-minutes mark.

The minimum number of minutes was 2, the maximum was 90 minutes, and the median
was 44 minutes. The Quartile 1 was 13, the Quartile 3 was 60, and the Interquartile Range (IQR)
was 47. Endpoints of the whisker lengths were 0 and 130.5. There were no outliers higher than
130.5 minutes or lower than 0 minutes; therefore, no data was removed.
Figure 7 is a box-and-whiskers plot showing the five-point summary and whisker lengths
for participants total scores on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8).

92

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s

t
o
t
a
l

C
l
i
e
n
t

S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n

Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
n
a
i
r
e

(
C
S
Q
-
8
)

s
c
o
r
e
s
.
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 7. Box-and-whiskers plot for participants total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)
scores.

The minimum score was 16, the maximum was 32, and the median was 28. The Quartile
1 was 16, the Quartile 3 was 31, and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 15. Endpoints of the
whisker lengths were 0 and 53.5. There were no outliers higher than 53.5 minutes or lower than 0
minutes; therefore, no data was removed.
Based on the box-and-whiskers plot, five-point summaries, and calculations identifying
outliers, the SPSS data was modified to eliminate the case with the 14-day outlier.
In addition to demographic questions, other questions asked on the Background
Information Sheet related to where participants found out about the one stop career centers
disability program navigator from, how many days it was until they met with the disability

93
program navigator, and how many minutes they spent in their meeting. The purpose for asking
these questions was to obtain information on factors that might be related to customers
satisfaction levels in order to answer research question 1; To what extent are customers satisfied
the services of the disability program navigators in one-stop career centers, and research question
2; What areas do customers identify as needing improvement? The majority of participants
found out about the disability program navigator from the one-stop career center (48.8%) and the
unemployment office (41.5%).
A frequency analysis was conducted on how many days it was after participants asked to
meet with the disability program navigator until they were actually able to meet with him or her.
A frequency histogram of the days is provided in Figure 8.
Number of days until meeting with disability program navigator
15 10 5 0 -5
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0.0

Figure 8. Number of days until meeting with disability program navigator.

94
The results indicated by participants regarding the number of days until a participant met
with the disability program navigator were; 0 days = 14 (34.1%; that is, met on the same day), 1
day = 10 (24.4%); that is, within 24 hours), 2 days = 5 (12.2%; that is, within 48 hours), 3 days =
5, (12.2%; that is, within 72 hours), 5 days = 2 (4.9%), 6 days = 1 (2.4%), 7 days = 3 (7.3%), and
14 days = 1 (2.4%). The majority from both sites fell between 0 days and 3 days. As indicated in
Figure 8, the sample ranged in dates until an actual meeting with the disability program navigator
from 0 to 14 days, the mean was 2.1, the mode was 1, and the standard deviation was 2.84. Of
note was that there were no days reported for 4 days or 6 days, there was only one reporting of 5
days and 7 days, and there was an absence of any days between 7 and 14 days.

A frequency analysis for how much time participants spent in their first meeting with the
disability program navigator is shown in Figure 9.

95
Minutes in meeting with disability program navigator
100 80 60 40 20 0
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 9. Minutes in meeting with disability program navigator.
The number of minutes in their meeting indicated by participants were 2 minutes = 1
(2.4%), 15 minutes = 1 (2.4%), 20 minutes = 5 (12.2%), 30 minutes = 12 (29.3%), 45 minutes =
12 (29.3%), 55 minutes = 1 (2.4%), 60 minutes = 7 (17.1%), and 90 minutes = 2 (4.9%). The
majority of the sample ranged between 20 minutes and 45 minutes.
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire Sample Characteristics
The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) consisted of eight questions about
satisfaction with services received, each of which was rated using a Likert scale of 1 through 4,
and then are added together, for a total satisfaction score that could range from 8 to 32. The
highest score that could be given on any one item was a 4. A frequency analysis of the
distribution of total satisfaction scores is shown in Figure 10.

96
Distribution of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores.
35 30 25 20 15
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 10. Distribution of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores. Histogram shows
bimodal shape.

The sample ranged in client satisfaction scores from 16 to 32. The mean was 27.49, the
median was 28, the mode was 32, and the standard deviation was 3.97. The majority of Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire scores from both sites fell between 24 and 32. Of note were an outlier
of 16, and the lack of any scores between 17 and 21. The histogram of the distribution of Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores indicates a bimodal shape. Brase & Brase (1999)
stated that bimodal shapes indicate sampling from two different populations.
Results for each of the 8 items of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire are shown in the
following tables. Table 1 shows the results of the responses to item 1; How would you rate the

97
quality of service you received? The majority of respondents (58.5%) replied with an excellent
rating, and 95.1% rated the quality of service as good or excellent.

Table 1. Responses to Item 1. How would you rate the quality of service you received

Rating

Frequency

Percent

Fair

2
Good 15
Excellent 24
Total 41

4.9
36.6
58.5
100.0

Table 2 shows the results of the responses to item 2; Did you get the kind of service you
wanted?
Table 2. Responses to Item 2. Did you get the kind of service you wanted

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

no, not really

1

2.4

2.4

2.4
yes, generally 22 53.7 53.7 56.1
yes, definitely 18 43.9 43.9 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

The majority of respondents (53.7%) replied with a yes, generally rating, for a total of
97.5% yes respondents indicating satisfaction with the quality of service.
Table 3 shows the results of the responses to item 3; To what extent has our program met
your needs?

98
Table 3. Responses to Item 3. To what extent has the program met your needs

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

none of needs met

2

4.9

4.9

4.9
only a few needs met 7 17.1 17.1 22.0
most of needs met 22 53.7 53.7 75.6
almost all of needs met 10 24.4 24.4 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

The majority of respondents (53.7%) replied that most of needs met. A total of 78.1% of
respondents appeared to have received the kind of service they wanted from the disability
program navigator, and that most or almost all of their needs were met.

Table 4 shows the results of the responses to item 4; If a friend were in need of similar
help, would you recommend our program to him or her?
Table 4. Responses to Item 4. Would you recommend the program to a friend

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

no, don't think so

1

2.4

2.4

2.4
yes, I think so 14 34.1 34.1 36.6
yes, definitely 26 63.4 63.4 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

The majority of respondents (63.4%) replied yes, definitely. A total of 97.5% respondents
appeared willing to recommend the disability program navigators services to a friend.
Table 5 shows the results of the responses to item 5; How satisfied are you with the
amount of help you received?

99
Table 5. Responses to Item 5. How satisfied are you with the amount of help received

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

quite dissatisfied

1

2.4

2.4

2.4
indifferent or
mildly dissatisfied
2 4.9 4.9 7.3
mostly satisfied 15 36.6 36.6 43.9
very satisfied 23 56.1 56.1 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

The majority of respondents (56.1%) replied with a very satisfied rating. Of note is the
percentage of respondents who replied that they were mostly satisfied (36.6%), indicating that
92.7% of respondents were mostly satisfied or very satisfied with the amount of help they
received from the disability program navigator. There were no respondents who reported they
were mildly dissatisfied.
Table 6 shows the results of the responses to item 6; Have the services you received
helped you to deal more effectively with your problems?
Table 6. Responses to Item 6. Have the services helped with your problems

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

no, really didn't help

2

4.9

4.9

4.9
yes, helped somewhat 16 39.0 39.0 43.9
yes, helped a great deal 23 56.1 56.1 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

100
The majority of respondents (56.1%) replied yes, helped a great deal. A total of 95.5% of
respondents indicated that services provided by the disability program navigator helped with
their problems.
Table 7 shows the results of the responses to item 7; In an overall, general sense, how
satisfied are you with the service you received?

Table 7. Responses to Item 7. Overall general satisfaction with service

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

indifferent or
mildly dissatisfied

3

7.3

7.3

7.3
mostly satisfied 16 39.0 39.0 46.3
very satisfied 22 53.7 53.7 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

The majority of respondents (53.7%) answered that they were very satisfied overall with
service from the disability program navigator. The percentage of respondents that were mostly or
very satisfied overall with service from the disability program navigator was 92.7%. Of note,
was that 3 respondents were indifferent or mildly dissatisfied with the service.

Table 8 shows the results of the responses to item 8; If you were to seek help again,
would you come back to our program?

101
Table 8. Responses to Item 8. Would you come back to the program

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative
Percent

no, don't think so

1

2.4

2.4

2.4
yes, think so 18 43.9 43.9 46.3
yes, definitely 22 53.7 53.7 100.0

Total 41 100.0 100.0

The majority of respondents (53.7%) replied yes, definitely, for a total of 97.6% of
respondents indicating they would come back to the program.
Descriptive statistics were obtained for each of the eight items on the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8), which are shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Descriptive Statistics 8 Items on Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

SD

1. Quality of service 41 2 4 3.54 .596
2. Did you get kind of
service wanted
41 2 4 3.41 .547
3. To what extent program
met needs
41 1 4 2.98 .790
4. Would you recommend
program to friend
41 2 4 3.61 .542
5. How satisfied with
amount of help received
41 1 4 3.46 .711
6. Have services helped
with problems
41 2 4 3.51 .597
7. Overall general
satisfaction with service
41 2 4 3.46 .636
8. Would you come back to
program
41 2 4 3.51 .553

102
Mean ratings on the eight items ranged from 2.98 on Item 3 to 3.61 on Item 4. Standard
deviations ranged from .542 to .790. The lowest rating of 1 was given on Item 3; To what extent
has the program met your needs? and Item 5; How satisfied are you with the amount of help you
received?
In summary, more than 50% of respondents scored the disability program navigator
service with favorable response ratings on all eight items on the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8). The lowest mean score of 2.98 on any item, the lowest rating score of 1,
and the lowest percentage of favorable responses (78.1%) was on Item 3; To what extent has the
program met your needs? The highest mean score of 3.61 was on Item 4; If a friend were in need
of similar help, would you recommend our program to him or her? The highest total of
respondent percentages (97.6%) was on Item 8; If you were to seek help again, would you come
back to our program?

Pearsons Correlation Coefficients
A visual inspection of the histograms did not indicate any violations of the assumptions
of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity (Pallant, 2007). The histograms inspected included
participants total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores, their age, years of
education, number of days until they met with the disability program navigator, and number of
minutes they spent in their meeting.
To evaluate the variables with respect to each other, and determine if one variable
influenced or caused the resultant total satisfaction scores, t tests were run, and the Pearsons

103
correlation coefficient (r) was determined. These results assisted in answering research question
3; How do the customers levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability
program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the disability
program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability program navigator,
and the amount of time spent in their meeting? The Pearsons correlation coefficient (r) was used
to explore the relationship between the ratio scale variables, that is, the participants total Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores and their age, years of education, number of days
until they met with the disability program navigator, and number of minutes they spent in their
meeting. Results of the SPSS calculation for the participants age and total client satisfaction
scores are shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Pearsons Correlation Results for Age and Total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) Scores

Age of person

Total CSQ-8
score

Pearsons Correlation

1

-.096
Sig. (2-tailed) .554

Age of person
N 40 40
Pearsons Correlation -.096 1
Total CSQ-8 score
N 40 40

The Pearsons correlation coefficient calculation for the relationship between the
participants age and total client satisfaction score revealed a weak negative relationship that was

104
not significant (r(38) = -.096, p > .05). Older respondents tended to have lower total client
satisfaction scores.
Results of the SPSS calculation for the participants years of education and total client
satisfaction scores are shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Pearsons Correlation Results for Years of Education and Total Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8) Scores

Total CSQ-8
score

Years of
education


1

.247

Years of education
N 41 41
Pearsons Correlation .247 1
Total CSQ-8 score
N 41 41

participants years of education and total client satisfaction score revealed a weak positive
relationship that was not significant (r(39) = .247, p < .05). Participants with more years of
education tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores.
Results of the SPSS calculation for the number of days until a participant met with the
disability program navigator and total client satisfaction scores are shown in Table 12. The data
used in this calculation omitted the 14-day outlier.

105
Table 12. Pearsons Correlation Results for Days until Meeting With Disability Program
Navigator and Total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) Scores

Days until
meeting

Total CSQ-8
score


1

-.163

Days until meeting
with disability
program navigator
N 39 39
Total CSQ-8 score
N 39 39

participants years of education and total client satisfaction score revealed a weak negative
relationship that was not significant (r(39) = -.163, p < .05). Participants who met with the
disability program navigator sooner tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores.
Results of the SPSS calculation for minutes that participants spent in their meeting with
the disability program navigator and total client satisfaction scores are shown in Table 13.
Table 13. Pearsons Correlation Results for Minutes Spent in Meeting With Disability Program
Navigator and Total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) Score

Minutes of
meeting

Total CSQ-8
score


1

-.145

Minutes of meeting
with disability
program navigator
N 40 40
Total CSQ-8 score
N 40 40

106
The Pearsons correlation coefficient calculation for the relationship between the minutes
spent in the participants meeting with the disability program navigator and total client
satisfaction score revealed a weak negative relationship that was not significant (r(38) = -.145, p
< .05). Participants that spent more time in their meeting with the disability program navigator
tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores.

T Tests
To evaluate the degree of the relationship between a participants total client satisfaction
score and gender, whether a disability was disclosed, and where the individual found out about
the disability program navigator, independent-samples t tests were calculated in SPSS. A 95%
confidence interval of the difference was used for all t tests. The results of the independent-
samples t tests to compare the means of the total client satisfaction scores for women and men
are provided in Table 14.

107
Table 14. Independent Samples Test for Means of Total Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8) Scores for
Women and Men

Gender

N

Mean

SD

Std. Error
Mean

female

24

28.17

3.371

.688

male 16 26.25 4.640 1.160

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differ-
ence
Std.
Error
Differ-
ence

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Total CSQ-8 score Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower
Equal variances assumed

1.047 .313 1.514 38 .138 1.917 1.266 -.645 4.479

There was no significant difference in mean scores for women (M = 18.17, SD = 3.37)
and men (M = 26.25, SD = 4.64). Since the Levenes Test Sig. value was larger than .05 (.313),
the Equal Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between women and
men, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p = .138, there was no significant difference
between the two groups (t (38) = .313, p > .05).
The results of the independent-samples t test to compare the means of the total client
satisfaction scores and whether a disability was self-identified or not by the participants are
provided in Table 15.

108
Table 15. Independent Samples Test for Means of Total Client Satisfaction (CSQ-8) Scores and
Participants who Self-Identified a Disability

Self-identified disability

N

Mean

SD

Std. Error
Mean

no

11

29.00

3.376

1.018

yes 29 26.79 4.083 .758

Total CSQ-8
score
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
t test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differ-
ence
Std.
Error
Differ-
ence

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower

.445 .509 1.594 38 .119 2.207 1.384 -.596 5.009

There was no significant difference in mean scores for individuals who did not self-
identify as having a disability (M = 29.00, SD = 3.37) and individuals who did self-identify (M =
26.79, SD = 4.08). Since the Levenes Test Sig. value was larger than .05 (.509), the Equal
Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between participants who self-
identified as having a disability and those who did not self-identify, that is, the t test for Equality
of Means, p = .119, there was no significant difference between the two groups (t(38) = 1.59, p >
.05).

109
satisfaction scores and whether or not a participant found out about the disability program
navigator from the one-stop career center are provided in Table 16.
Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From One-Stop Career Center

Found out about
disability program
navigator from One-
stop career center

N

Mean

SD

Std. Error
Mean

no

21

27.10

4.134

.902

yes 19 27.74 3.899 .895

Total CSQ-8
score
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differ-
ence
Std.
Error
Differ-
ence

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

.086 .771 -.504 38 .618 -.642 1.274 -3.221 1.938

There was no significant difference in mean scores for individuals who did not find out
about the disability program navigator from the one-stop career center (M = 27.10, SD = 4.13)
and individuals who did (M = 27.74, SD = 3.89). Since the Levenes Test Sig. value was larger
than .05 (.77), the Equal Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference
between participants who did not and did find out about the disability program navigator from

110
the one-stop career center, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p = .618, there was no
significant difference between the two groups (t(38) = .504, p > .05).
navigator from a website/online are provided in Table 17.

Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From a Website/Online

Found out about
disability program
navigator from a
website/online

N

Mean

SD

Std. Error
Mean

no

36

27.17

3.939

.656

yes 4 29.50 4.359 2.179

Total CSQ-8
score
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differ-
ence
Std.
Error
Differ-
ence

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

.001 .974 -1.114 38 .272 -2.333 2.094 -6.573 1.906

about the disability program navigator from a website/online (M = 27.17, SD = 3.93) and
individuals who did (M = 29.50, SD = 4.35). Since the Levenes Test Sig. value was larger than

111
.05 (.97), the Equal Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between
participants who did not and did find out about the disability program navigator from a website
or online, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p = .272, there was no significant difference
between the two groups (t (38) = 1.11, p > .05).
navigator from the Social Security office are provided in Table 18.

Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From the Social Security
Office

Found out about
disability program
navigator from Social
Security office

N

Mean

SD

Std. Error
Mean

no

34

27.44

4.136

.709
yes 6 27.17 3.312 1.352

Total CSQ-8
score
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differ-
ence
Std.
Error
Differ-
ence

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

.557 .460 .154 38 .879 .275 1.787 -3.344 3.893

112
about the disability program navigator from the Social Security office (M = 27.44, SD = 4.13)
the Social Security office, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p = .879, there was no
navigator from the unemployment office are provided in Table 19.
Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From the Unemployment
Office

Found out about disability
program navigator from
unemployment office

N

Mean

SD

Std. Error
Mean

no

24

27.04

3.316

.677
yes 16 27.94 4.892 1.223

Total CSQ-8
score
Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differ-
ence
Std.
Error
Differ-
ence

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

3.784 .059 -.692 38 .493 -.896 1.295 -3.518 1.726

113
about the disability program navigator from the unemployment office (M = 27.04, SD = 3.31)
the unemployment office, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p = .493, there was no
navigator from family/friends are provided in Table 20.
Participants Who Found Out About Disability Program Navigator From Family or Friends

Found out about disability
program navigator from
family/friends

N

Mean

SD

Std. Error
Mean

no

30

27.63

4.123

.753
yes 10 26.70 3.653 1.155

Total CSQ-8 score

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances
F Sig. t df Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Differ-
ence
Std.
Error
Differ-
ence

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference

.594 .446 .636 38 .528 .933 1.467 -2.036 3.902

114
about the disability program navigator from the family or friends (M = 27.63, SD = 4.12) and
individuals who did (M = 26.70, SD = 3.65). Since the Levenes Test Sig. value was larger than
.05 (.446), the Equal Variances Assumed row was applied. In assessing the difference between
participants who did not and did find out about the disability program navigator from
family/friends, that is, the t test for Equality of Means, p = .528, there was no significant
difference between the two groups (t(38) = .636, p > .05).

Coefficients of Determination
To assist in explaining the amount of variance between the independent variables of age,
years of education, number of days until a participants meeting with the disability program
navigator, and minutes in the meeting, and the dependent variable of the total client satisfaction
scores, coefficients of determination were calculated. This involved squaring the Pearsons r
value and converting to percentage of variance by multiplying by 100, which was done using a
calculator. The results of the coefficients of determination between the independent variables of
age, years of education, number of days until a participants meeting with the disability program
navigator, and minutes in the meeting, and the dependent variable of the total client satisfaction
scores are provided in Table 21.

115
Table 21. Coefficients of Determination for Client Satisfaction Scores

Independent Variable

Pearsons r Value

Percentage of coefficient
of determination

Age .096 .92%

Years of education .247 6.1%

Number of days until participants
meeting with disability program
navigator

.163

2.7%
Minutes in meeting .145 .02%

For all independent variables, the calculated per cent of shared variance was low,
indicating little overlap between the two variables. The independent variables of age, years of
education, number of days until a participants meeting with the disability program navigator,
and minutes in the meeting did not appear to explain much of the variance in the client

Conclusion
In this chapter, data analysis and results were reported. The following research questions
were addressed.
The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) was used to obtain data relative to clients
satisfaction with the services of the disability program navigators in one-stop career centers. A

116
total satisfaction score could range from 8 to 32. Reported total client satisfaction scores ranged
from 16 to 32. The mean was 27.49, the median was 28, the mode was 32, and the standard
deviation was 3.97. The majority of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire scores was between 24 and
32.
satisfaction with services received. Answers were rated using a Likert scale of 1 through 4, and
the highest score that could be given on any one item was a 4. Descriptive statistics were done on
the eight items on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Mean ratings on the eight items
ranged from 2.98 on Item 3 to 3.61 on Item 4. Standard deviations ranged from .54 to .79. The
lowest rating of 1 was given on Item 3; To what extent has the program met your needs? and
Item 5; How satisfied are you with the amount of help you received?
In summary, more than 50% of respondents scored the disability program navigator
service with favorable response ratings on all eight items on the Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8). The lowest mean score of 2.98 on any item, the lowest rating score of 1,
and the lowest percentage of favorable responses (78.1%) was on Item 3; To what extent has the
program met your needs? This suggested less satisfaction in this area, and that improvement may
be needed in the effectiveness of services provided. The highest mean score of 3.61 was on Item
4; If a friend were in need of similar help, would you recommend our program to him or her?
The highest total of respondent percentages (97.6%) was on Item 8; If you were to seek help
again, would you come back to our program?

117
Ages of participants ranged from 25 years to 74 years. The mean was 45, and a slight
majority of the sample fell between the ages of 25 and 58 years. Participants educational level
ranged from 9 to 19 years, and the majority of participants had 12 to 14 years of education. There
were no outliers other than a 14-day outlier until the meeting with the disability program
navigator, which was removed to avoid distorting the statistics. A visual inspection of the
histograms did not indicate any violations of the assumptions of normality, linearity, and
homoscedasticity.
The Pearsons correlation coefficient (r) was used to explore the relationship between the
participants total Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores and their age, years of
education, number of days until a meeting with the disability program navigator, and number of
minutes spent in the meeting. Results indicated that older respondents tended to have lower total
client satisfaction scores, participants with more years of education tended to have higher total
client satisfaction scores, participants who met with the disability program navigator sooner
tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores, and participants that spent more time in
their meeting with the disability program navigator tended to have higher total client satisfaction
scores.

118
Independent-samples t tests were calculated to evaluate the degree of the relationship
between a participants total client satisfaction score and gender, whether a disability was
disclosed, and where the individual found out about the disability program navigator. Results
indicated no significant difference in total client satisfaction scores between women and men or
between participants who self-identified as having a disability and those who did not self-
identify. Also, there was no significant difference in total client satisfaction scores between
participants who did not and did find out about the disability program navigator from the one-
stop career center, between participants who did not and did find out about the disability program
navigator from a website or online, between participants who did not and did find out about the
disability program navigator from the Social Security office or unemployment office, or between
participants who did not and did find out about the disability program navigator from family and
friends.
Coefficients of determination were calculated to assist in explaining the amount of
variance between age, years of education, number of days until a participants meeting with the
disability program navigator, and minutes in the meeting, and total client satisfaction scores.
Results indicated a low percent of shared variance, little overlap, and that the variables of age,
years of education, number of days until a participants meeting with the disability program
navigator, and minutes in the meeting appeared to explain little of the variance in the client
In Chapter 5, a detailed discussion of the findings of the research is provided, as well as
implications that can be drawn. Recommendations for future research are offered.

119
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to assess and analyze levels of satisfaction of customers
who were referred to and used the services provided by a disability program navigator under the
Disability Program Navigator Initiative at two one-stop career centers. In this chapter, a
summary and discussion of the studys results will be provided, as well as a discussion of the
conclusions, interpretations, and limitations. Recommendations and implications for further
research, and a final conclusion will be presented.

Summary of the Results
Although the one-stop career center system has been in existence since its creation by the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998, there is limited research with customer satisfaction surveys
involving people with disabilities (Barlas, 1998). Questionnaires assessing client satisfaction
with services in human services agencies, however, are plentiful, yet, a significant gap exists
regarding customers actual experiences in the use of the one-stop career centers and services of
a disability program navigator. Likewise, there is no data available from disability program
navigator program assessments specifically on customer satisfaction from individuals who
disclosed they had a disability, or required assistance with a disability-related issue. To add to
the limited knowledge in this area, this quantitative studys research questions addressed the
factors influencing one-stop career center customer satisfaction, as follows;

120

Two surveys were used to obtain information in assessing client satisfaction, a
Background Information Sheet and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). Four one-stop
career centers were contacted for this study, as they were identified as serving people with
disabilities by a panel of experts in a previous study (Bader, 2003). Two of the one-stop career
centers no longer had disability program navigators due to the fact that the grant funding the
program had ended. The other two sites agreed to participate in this study, and each site was sent
50 survey packets to hand out to customers who met with the disability program navigators. A
total of 63 surveys were returned, of which 41 were totally completed and subsequently used in
this study. A correlational analysis using the Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS,
15.0) was done to ascertain what, if any, relationships existed between the demographic
information and customer satisfaction variables, as well as how customers found out about the
disability program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability program
navigator, and the amount of time spent in their meeting.

121
satisfaction with services received; each question was rated using a Likert scale of 1 through 4,
which were then added together, for a total satisfaction score ranging from 8 to 32. The highest
score that could be given on any one item was a 4. Mean scores and standard deviations for each
of the eight items on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) are shown in Table 22.

Table 22. Mean and Standard Deviation on 8 Items on Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)

Mean

SD

1. Quality of service 3.54 .596
2. Did you get kind of
service wanted
3.41 .547
3. To what extent program
met needs
2.98 .790
4. Would you recommend
program to friend
3.61 .542
5. How satisfied with
amount of help received
3.46 .711
6. Have services helped
with problems
3.51 .597
7. Overall general
satisfaction with service
3.46 .636
8. Would you come back to
program
3.51 .553

The lowest satisfaction ratings were on Item 3 of the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8), which was, To what extent has the program met your needs? This suggested less
satisfaction in this area, and that improvement may be needed in the effectiveness of services
provided. Highest satisfaction ratings were on Item 4; If a friend were in need of similar help,

122
would you recommend our program to him or her? Total client satisfaction scores ranged from
16 to 32. The mean was 27.49, the median was 28, the mode was 32, and the standard deviation
was 3.97. The majority of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire scores from both sites fell between
24 and 32. Data analysis indicated the majority of customers who met with the disability
program navigator were satisfied with the services they received.
Results indicated that older respondents tended to have lower total client satisfaction
scores, participants with more years of education tended to have higher total client satisfaction
scores, participants who met with the disability program navigator sooner tended to have higher
total client satisfaction scores, and participants that spent more time in their meeting with the
disability program navigator tended to have higher total client satisfaction scores. There was no
significant difference in total client satisfaction scores between women and men, or between
participants who self-identified as having a disability and those who did not self-identify. No
significant difference was found in total client satisfaction scores between participants who did
not and did find out about the disability program navigator from the one-stop career center, from
a website or online, from the Social Security office, from the unemployment office, or from
family and friends. The variables of age, years of education, number of days until a participants
meeting with the disability program navigator, and minutes in the meeting appeared to explain
little of the variance in the client satisfaction scores, with a low percent of shared variance and
only a small amount of overlap.

123
Discussion of the Results
In this section, an interpretation of the results of the study in relation to the research
questions is presented.
Research Question 1
To what extent are customers satisfied with the services of the disability program
The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) was used to obtain data on a clients
satisfaction with the services of the disability program navigators in one-stop career centers.
Although the majority of Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores indicated that most
customers who met with the disability program navigator were satisfied with the services they
received, the Questionnaire did not allow for additional feedback as to the specifics of each item
rated. Analysis incorporating both the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) and
Background Information Sheet revealed that higher client satisfaction scores were given by
participants with more years of education, participants who met with the disability program
navigator sooner, and participants that spent more time in their meeting with the disability
program navigator. Lower total client satisfaction scores were given by older respondents.
Results indicated no significant difference in total client satisfaction scores between women and
men, between participants who self-identified as having a disability and those who did not self-
identify, or any of the participants from any of the referring locations.

124
Research Question 2
What areas do customers identify as needing improvement?
Descriptive statistics done on the eight items on the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire
(CSQ-8) revealed the lowest rating of 1 was given on both Item 3; To what extent has the
program met your needs? and Item 5; How satisfied are you with the amount of help you
received? The lowest mean score on any item, the lowest rating score of 1, and the lowest
percentage of favorable responses (78.1%) was on Item 3; To what extent has the program met
your needs? This suggested less satisfaction in this area, and that improvement may be needed in
the effectiveness of services provided. Although it was anticipated that the data might show that
a meeting with the disability program navigator later, versus sooner, would result in lower client
satisfaction scores, the statistical analysis indicated that this was not so.

Research Question 3
How do the customers levels of satisfaction with services received from the disability
program navigator relate to age, gender, education, how they found out about the disability
program navigator, how quickly they were able to meet with the disability program navigator,
and the amount of time spent in their meeting?
Analysis to explore the relationship between the participants total Client Satisfaction
Questionnaire (CSQ-8) scores and their age, years of education, number of days until a meeting
with the disability program navigator, and number of minutes spent in the meeting revealed that
age was negatively related to client satisfaction scores and years of education was positively

125
related to total client satisfaction scores. Total client satisfaction scores were inversely related to
the number of days until participants meetings with the disability program navigator, while the
amount of time spent in the meetings was positively related to total client satisfaction scores. No
significant differences were found in the degree of relationships between total client satisfaction
scores and gender, whether a disability was disclosed, and where the individual found out about
the disability program navigator. Age, years of education, number of days until a participants
meeting with the disability program navigator, and minutes in the meeting explained little of the
variance in the client satisfaction scores.

Discussion of the Conclusions
Review of the literature has revealed a lack of research assessing client satisfaction with
the services provided by the disability program navigator in a one-stop career center. This is
despite the fact that there were over 450 disability program navigators in 45 states, DC, and
Puerto Rico in 2009 (Workforce 3One, 2009). Previous research has focused on client
satisfaction with the one-stop career centers only, and few studies have specifically involved
people with disabilities. If the one-stop career center system and Disability Program Navigator
Initiative were successful in achieving the goal of increasing the employment rate of people with
disabilities, economic statistics would reflect this, and should likewise, reflect an increase in their
employment. The U.S. Department of Labor reported that in September 2009, the unemployment
rate of persons with a disability was 16.2%. The most recent unemployment rate for people with
a disability currently available, that is June 2010, is 14.4% (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010b).

126
Although this appears to reflect a positive increase in employment of people with disabilities, in
June 2009, the unemployment rate for people with a disability was 14.3%, and in June 2008, the
rate was 9.3% (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010b). From these statistics, it cannot be determined the
specific impact the Disability Program Navigator Initiative has had on the employment or
unemployment rates of people with disabilities.

Limitations
In quantitative methodology, the existence of a relationship among variables must first be
determined, and any established relationship is not proof of a cause-effect relationship
(Szymanski, 1993). Variables not controlled may suggest causation where there is none (Sproull,
2002; Weinbach & Grinnell, 2004). Uncontrolled variables in the study included gender,
educational level, and age. Implementation and aspects of the Disability Program Navigator
Initiative varied between the two sample sites, which posed a threat to statistical and test scores,
as well as external validity, that is, generalizability to other one-stop career centers (Parker,
1993). The disability-friendliness of the community of the sample one-stop career centers, as
well as the amount of disability trainings provided to the staff at this studys research sites, could
have impacted the accessibility of individuals with disabilities to the sites. The Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) assumed an equal value of each item, since scoring results in
a sum for all items (Sproull, 2002). Therefore, it cannot be determined if any one item had more
weight than another item.

127
Due to the fact that only two one-stop career center sites with a disability program
navigator participated in this study, generalization of the findings to other one-stop career centers
in the United States is limited. Expanding the research to include other one-stop career centers
that have disability program navigators would assist to corroborate and supplement the studys
findings. Using a true random sampling, or converting the studys convenience sample to a
random sample, would enhance the quality of the data. Because data for the study was collected
via mail with contacts that were long distance and from two different data sources, there were
most likely differences in the way the surveys were administered. This may result in under or
over representation of the sample population.
Events beyond the control of the researcher impacted the length of time to administer 50
survey packets at each site. These included a change in the disability program navigators
responsibilities, departure and subsequent hiring and training of a new disability program
navigator, and major flooding at one sites location. If finances and time were not an issue, being
able to personally administer and collect the survey data at the research sites would increase the
consistency and number of usable results. Other factors that may have influenced responses
could have been the gender, age, amount of training or years of experience with disability-related
issues of the disability program navigator, which were not addressed in this study.

Recommendations for Further Research
Recommendations in this section are developed from the findings obtained in this study,
and are offered as a means to contribute to, and expand on, the existing research from the

128
positive practice incorporating the services provided by the disability program navigators in
one-stop career centers. Since the studys variables of age, years of education, number of days
until a participants meeting with the disability program navigator, and minutes in the meeting
appeared to explain little of the variance in the clients total satisfaction scores, comments or
additional information could be solicited from respondents as to why they rated an item the
way they did, that is, another layer of information could be requested. Additional feedback
could be obtained on the areas for improvement indicated by customers, which related to the
extent the program met their needs and satisfaction with the amount of help received. A focus
group approach could supply this information, as well as why some customers meetings were
longer than others, thereby providing feedback to improve the services provided.
Other issues that could be investigated in future research could include whether a
respondents level of computer literacy had an effect on his or her responses, and why the age
of a respondent appeared to negatively correlate with the client satisfaction scores. Obtaining
information on the type of disability that was self-disclosed and the severity of it could be
compared with a respondents customer satisfaction score, although this is personal
information that individuals may be reluctant to share. Future research addressing customer
satisfaction with disability program navigator services in one-stop career centers could include
obtaining information on the disability program navigator, the relationship of this information
to customer satisfaction, and the disability program navigators feedback. Follow-up studies
could be repeated with the same research sites, or use a different customer satisfaction
questionnaire, as there are many others available, and at least one that has been shown reliable

129
for people with and without disabilities. Also, a regression line analysis could be part of a
future research.

Conclusion
The results of this research contributed knowledge concerning the perceptions and
satisfaction of one-stop career centers customers, both with and without a disability, who used
the services of the disability program navigator. Data analysis showed that a majority of
customers reported high satisfaction levels with the services, that they would recommend the
program to others, and that they would return to the program. Areas for improvement indicated
by customers related to the extent the program met their needs and satisfaction with the amount
of help received. Higher satisfaction scores were given by respondents who were younger, those
who met with the disability program navigator sooner, and individuals who spent more time in
the meeting with the disability program navigator. There were no significant differences in the
degree of the relationship between a participants total client satisfaction score and gender,
whether a disability was disclosed, and where the individual found out about the disability
program navigator. The variables of age, years of education, number of days until a participants
meeting with the disability program navigator, and minutes in the meeting appeared to explain
little of the variance in the clients total satisfaction scores.
Results of this studys correlational analysis between demographic information and the
studys variables have provided increased insight into what extent the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative has achieved the goals of the one-stop career center system. This knowledge

130
allows for monitoring changes, understanding for improvement, program modifications, and
provides favorable evidence that any future plans should incorporate a disability program
navigator in every state. This study could also be used for future research in other one-stop
career centers or programs with a disability program navigator.
It is hoped that the results of this research will encourage other researchers and programs
to further examine client satisfaction with the services provided by current and future disability
program navigators in one-stop career centers. Disability program navigators serve as an
important resource to many populations with disabilities, such as youths and veterans
(Workforce
3
One, 2009). They serve as a connection to workforce supports and programs, and
provide services that cannot be obtained from other sources. Studies evaluating the one-stop
career centers with disability program navigators have reported significant advantages of having
a disability program navigator in the system, and that disability program navigators have had a
positive impact on one-stop career centers (Livermore & Goodman, 2009). However, generated
reports have provided only a limited analysis of data, making it difficult to measure the precise
impact of systems change activities on employment outcomes and evaluate any specific impact
of the project on the employment of people with disabilities (Livermore & Goodman, 2009).
It is strongly recommended that dedicated and ongoing funding be established in all
states to allow the services of the disability program navigators to continue, and also be
expanded to accommodate the challenging and dynamic future economic environment. A
summary report of six Federal partners recommendations, by the U.S. Department of Labors
Office of Disability Employment Policy, specifically identified expansion of the Disability

131
Program Navigator Initiative in all one-stop career centers, as well as dedicated and permanent
funding of the Initiative (U.S. Dept. of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, 2010).
The National Council on Disability (2009) also made the same recommendations in its National
Disability Policy; A Progress Report. In its report, the National Council on Disability advocated
for these recommendations because it was felt that people with disabilities would not only be
better served but a more integrated, inclusive, and cost-effective approach to Federal disability
policy would be provided (2009, p 1). This stance was particularly crucial because, In addition
to the more than 50 million Americans with disabilities, the United States faces a rapidly
approaching demographic shift to an older population, with an attendant increase in the incidence
of disability (National Council on Disability, 2009, p 1).
The recent reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Improvement Act in 2010 was an
important step in strengthening employment programs for target populations in the one-stop
career centers, as well as emphasizing the importance of making the Workforce Investment Act
more results-driven, rather than process-driven (Institute for a Competitive Workforce, 2010).
Listening to the voice of the customer through the use of a disability program navigator in the
one-stop career centers could greatly impact satisfaction from people with disabilities, as
research has shown customers voices improve an organizations competitive position (Stank et
al., 1997). Funding for disability program navigators began in 2002, and extended until June
2010. Unfortunately, the disability program navigator program may not have the opportunity to
continue its positive impact, because according to Secretary Hilda Solis, the administration
proposes to end targeted funding for work incentive grants (it) has accomplished its mission.

132
Workforce investment boards are able to serve workers with disabilities effectively through their
regular One-Stop Career Center operations (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010). An examination of the
budget plan indicated that the Office of Disability Employment Policy has requested funding for
the fiscal year of 2011 for a Disability Employment Initiative, which includes plans to build upon
the past promising practices of the Disability Program Navigator Initiative (U.S. Dept. of Labor,
2010a). Therefore, the future of the disability program navigator remains to be seen.

133
REFERENCES
Adaptive Environments. (2006). History of universal design. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from
http://www.adaptenv.org/index.php?option=Content&Itemid=26

American Customer Satisfaction Index. (n.d.). Retrieved December 30, 2005,
from http://www.theacsi.org/

Anderson, G., Boone, S., & Watson, D. (2002, June). Prioritizing issues & technical assistance
needs for the rehabilitation of persons who are deaf or hard of hearing. The national
picture from state VR programs. Retrieved December 19, 2005, from
http://www.uark.edu/depts/rehabres/Conference%20Outline%20for%20website2.PDF

Attkisson, C.C. & Greenfield, T.K. (1994). Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8 and Service
Satisfaction Scale-30. In M.E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for
treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp 402-420). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Attkisson, C.C. & Greenfield, T.K. (1999). The USCF client satisfaction scales: I. The Client
Satisfaction Questionnaire-8. In M.E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for
treatment planning and outcome assessment (2
nd
ed.; pp 1333-1346). Hillsdale:
Erlbaum.

Attkisson, C. C., & Zwick, R. (1982). The client satisfaction questionnaire: Psychometric
properties and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 5, 233-237.

Atwal, A. & Caldwell, K. (2005). Older people: The enigma of satisfaction surveys. Australian
Occupational Therapy Journal, 52(1), 10-16.

Bader, B.A. (2003). Identification of best practices in one-stop career centers that facilitate use
by people with disabilities seeking employment. (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond). Retrieved January 9, 2006, from ProQuest
Digital Dissertations database. (AAT3091823)

Bagenstos, S.R. (2004). Has the Americans with Disabilities Act reduced employment for people
with disabilities? Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 25(2), 527-563.

Barlas, S. (1998). Jobs bill gives power to locals. American City & County, 113(1), 14.

134
Berkeley Policy Associates. (2001). Evaluation of the DOL disability employment grants.
(Revised final report. Vol. I.) Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.berkeley
policyassociates.com

Bernard, H.R. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Boeltig, H., Brugnaro, L., Gandolfo, C., & Gelb, A. (2004). Taking the mystery out of customer
service. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.communityinclusion.org/
article.php?article_id=128&staff_id=62

Bolton, B. & Brookings, J. (1991). Work satisfactoriness of former clients with severe handicaps
to employment. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 57(4), 26-31.

Brase, C.H. & Brase, C.P. (1999). Understandable statistics (6
th
ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bruyere, S.M. (2002). Disability nondiscrimination in the employment process: The role
for testing professionals. In R.B. Ekstrom & D.K. Smith (Eds.) Assessing
individuals with disabilities in educational, employment, and counseling setting.
(pp 205-220). Washington, DC: American Psychological.

Bruyere, S.M. (1999). Disability policy: Issues and implications for the new millennium.
Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.dimenet.com/dpolicy/archive.php?mode=P&id=8

Bruyere, S.M., Erickson, W. & Horne, R. (2002). Survey of the federal government on
supervisor practices in employment of people with disabilities. Retrieved January 9,
2006, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/65/

Burkhauser, R.V. & Stapleton, D.C. (2004). The decline in the employment rate for people with
disabilities: Bad data, bad health, or bad policy? Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
20(3), 185-201.

Campbell, W.J. (2002). Testing individuals with disabilities in the employment context:
An overview of issues and practices. In R.B. Ekstrom & D.K. Smith (Eds.)
Assessing individuals with disabilities in educational, employment, and
counseling setting (pp 193-204). Washington, DC: American Psychological.

Capella, M.E. (2002). Relationships among vocational rehabilitation counselor satisfaction,
work productivity, and consumer satisfaction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville). Retrieved January 9, 2006, from ProQuest Information and
Learning Company Digital Dissertations database. (3067031)

135
Capella, M.E. & Turner, R.C. (2004). Development of an instrument to measure consumer
satisfaction in vocational rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47(2), 76-85.

The Center for an Accessible Society. (2005). Economics and people with disabilities. Retrieved
December 30, 2005, from http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/economics-
employment

Claes Fornell International (CFI) Group. (2003). New study shows challenges for mortgage
industry in face of reforms, rate increases. [Press release]. Retrieved December 30, 2005,
from http://www.cfigroup.com/resources/articles/MBA_press_release.pdf

Cohen, A., Timmons, J.C. & Fesko, S.L. (2005). The Workforce Investment Act. How policy
conflict and policy ambiguity affect implementation. Journal of Disability Policy Studies,
15(4), 221-230.

Customer Focus Consulting. (2003). Customer satisfaction measurement process. Retrieved
December 22, 2005, from http://www.customerfocusconsult.com/customer-satisfaction-
measurement.htm

DAmico, R., Kogan, D., Kreutzer, S., Wiegand, A., Baker, A., Carrick, G. & McCarthy, C.
(2001). Social Policy Research Associates. A report on early state and local
progress towards WIA implementation. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from
http://acinet.org/acinet/ReadingRoom/00-wia-report.pdf

Dawis, R.E. (2005). The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment. In D.D. Brown & R.W. Lent
(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp 3-
23). Hoboken: Wiley.

Dawis, R.W., England, G.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1964). A theory of work adjustment.
Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation 15, 1-27. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center.

Deese, S. (2002). Customer satisfaction: A comparison of community college and employment
security commission JobLink career centers in North Carolina. (Doctoral dissertation,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh). Retrieved January 9, 2006, from ProQuest

DePaul University. (2007). Exploring the bottom line: A study of the costs and benefits of
workers with disabilities. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.disabilityworks.org/
downloads/disabilityworksDePaulStudyComprehensiveResults.doc

136
DeWilde, E.F. & Hendriks, V.M. (2005). The client satisfaction questionnaire: Psychometric
properties in a Dutch addict population. European Addiction Research, 11(4), 157-162.

Dew, D.W., McGuire-Kuletz, M. & Alan, G.M. (Eds.). (2001). Providing vocational
rehabilitation in a workforce environment. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from
http://www.rcep6.org/IRI/IRI/27th_Workforce.pdf

Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York:
Wiley.

Emery, J., & Bryan, M.C. (2005). Disability program navigator project prospects for systems
change2005. 2005 Four-state study: National overview report. Retrieved August 1, 2010,
from http://www.doleta.gov/disability/pdf_docs/2005-Four-State-Study.pdf

Emery, J., Friedman-Peremel, J., Pike, P., Livermore, G., Stapleton, D., & Kregel, J. (n.d.).
Colorados disability program navigators and systems change employment initiatives: An
evaluation report. Retrieved September 19, 2006, from http://www.cowinpartners.org

Eustis, N.N., Clark, R.F., & Adler, M.C. (1995). Research agenda: Disability data. Retrieved
May 13, 2006, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/resagdd.htm

Federal News Service. (2009). DPN impact: Oregon integrated resource team facilitation.
Transcript of Workforce3One Webinar on September 24, 2009. Retrieved July 30, 2010,
from http://www.workforce3one.org/ws/www/Folders/3000927141586574063/transcript.htm

Fournier-Bonilla, S.D. (1998). A comprehensive quality planning model. (Doctoral dissertation,
Texas A & M University, College Station). Retrieved January 9, 2006, from ProQuest

Funaro, A. & Dixon, K.A. (2002). How the one-stop system serves people with disabilities: A
nationwide survey of disability agencies. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from
http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu

Gervey, R. & Gao, N. (2009). One-stop career center customer satisfaction questionnaire:
Psychometric properties of an instrument that can be used by individuals with and
without disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30(1), 21-29.

Gervey, R., Gao, N. & Rizzo, D. (2004). Gloucester county one-stop project: Baseline level of
access and satisfaction of one-stop center customers with disabilities. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 21(2), 103-116.

137
Giese, J.L. & Cote, J.A. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science
Review. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.amsreview.org/articles/giese01-
2000.pdf

Hall, J.P. & Parker, K. (2005). One-stop career centers and job seekers with disabilities: Insights
from Kansas. Journal of Rehabilitation, 71(4), 38-47. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from
http://cwd.aphsa.org/publications/docs/One%20Stop%20Career%20Center%20and%20J
ob%20Seekers%20with%20Disabilities-%20Insights%20from%20Kansas.pdf

Hamner, D. & Timmons, J.C. (2005). Case studies of local boards and one-stop centers.
Underutilization of one-stops by people with significant disabilities. Retrieved January
10, 2006, from http://www.communityinclusion.org/pdf/cs13.pdf

Hershenson, D.B. (2001). Promoting work adjustment in Workforce Investment Act consumers:
A role for employment counselors. Journal of Employment Counseling, 38(1), 28-37.

Hoff, D. (2002). One-stop career centers: Serving people with disabilities. Retrieved January 10,
2006, from: http://www.onestops.info/article.php?article_id=69

Hoff, D. (1992-2005). The role of public vocational rehabilitation and one-stops. Retrieved
December 19, 2005, from http://www.onestops.info/article.php?article_id=65

Holcomb, P. & Barnow, B.S. (2004). Serving people with disabilities through the Workforce
Investment Acts one-stop career centers. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from
http://www.urban.org/publications/411132.html

Houtenville, A.J. & Burkhauser, R.V. (2004). Research brief: Did the employment of
people with disabilities decline in the 1990s, and was the ADA responsible?
Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/91/

Institute for a Competitive Workforce ICW/U.S. Chamber of Commerce. (2010). Workforce
Investment Improvement Act seeks to improve job training system. Retrieved
July 18, 2010, from http://icw.uschamber.com/newsletter- article/workforce-investment-
improvement-act-seeks-improve-job-training-system

Institute for Community Inclusion. (2004). Massachusetts launches the Disability Program
Navigator Initiative. MassWorks Issue 1, 2004. Retrieved September 9, 2006, from
http://www.massworks.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=
118&Itemid=61

138
Jepsen, D.A. & Sheu, H.B. (2003). General job satisfaction from a developmental perspective:
Exploring choice-job matches at two career stages. The Career Development Quarterly,
52(2), 162-179.

Judge, T.A. & Bretz, R.D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice decisions. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 77(3), 261-271.
Kosciulek, J.F. (2004). Theory of informed consumer choice in vocational rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation Education, 18(1), 3-11.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Jansen, K.J., & Colbert, A.E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the
simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(5), 985-993.

Lawson, W.J. (2002). Managing diverse employees with disabilities. Retrieved
December 30, 2005, from http://www.icdri.org/Employment/managingdivers.htm

Livermore, G. & Colman, S. (2010). Use of one-stops by Social Security Disability beneficiaries
in four states implementing Disability Program Navigator Initiatives. Final report.
Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.doleta.gov/disability/pdf_docs/
Final_DPN_Report_05_2010.pdf

Livermore, G. & Goodman, N. (2009). A review of recent evaluation efforts associated with
programs and policies designed to promote the employment of adults with disabilities.
Retrieved July 18, 2010, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1262&context=edicollect&type=additional

Lordeman, A. (2006). The Workforce Investment Act of 1998: Reauthorization of job
training programs in the 109
th
Congress. Retrieved January 9, 2007, from
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/2348.pdf

Lyons, H.Z. (2004). A moderated model of the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of
African-American employees: Investigating the role of perceptions of fit and racial
climate in the theory of work adjustment. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland).
Retrieved January 9, 2006, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database. (765018881)

Maruish, M.E. (Ed.; 1999). The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and
outcome assessment (2
nd
ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

139
Morris, M. & Silverstein, B. (2002). Review of state plans for the Workforce Investment Act
from a disability policy framework: Executive summary. Retrieved December 30, 2005,
from http://disability.law.uiowa.edu/csadp_docs/WIA_Exec_Sum.doc

National Center on Workforce and Disability. (1998). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
P.L. 101-336 Overview. Retrieved May 19, 2005, from http://www.onestops.info/
article.php?article_id=48

National Council on Disability. (2009). National disability policy: A progress report.
Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/
2009/Progress_Report_HTML/NCD_Progre ss_Report.html#_Toc948

National Council on Disability. (2005). NCD recommendations Workforce Investment Act
reauthorization. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/
publications/2005/workforce_investment.htm

National Council on Disability. (2004). Righting the ADA. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/righting_ada.htm#III

Ostroff, C. & Rothausen, T.J. (1997). The moderating effect of tenure in person-environment fit:
A field study in educational organizations. Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, 70(2), 173-189.

Parker, R.M (1993). Threats to the validity of research. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,
36(3), 130-138.

Patterson, J.B. & Marks, C. (1992). The client as customer: Achieving service quality and
customer satisfaction in rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation, 58(4), 16-21.

Rand Labor and Population. (2004). The future at work trends and implications.
Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/
RB5070/index1.html

Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board (2009). The Recovery Act. Retrieved July 30,
2010, from http://www.recovery.gov/News/featured/Documents/
Education%20Dept.%20ARRA%20Programs%20and%20Jobs.pdf

Richard, M.A. (2000). A discrepancy model for measuring consumer satisfaction with
rehabilitation services. Journal of Rehabilitation, 66(4), 37-44.

140
Rutgers, State University of N.J., John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development.
(2002). Workforce information customer satisfaction assessment: A primer for
state and local planning. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from
http://www.heldrich.rutgers.edu/publications/workforce-information-customer-
satisfaction-assessment-primer-state-and-local-planning

Schur, L., Druse, D., & Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of persons with
disabilities. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23(1), 3-20.

Sederer, L.I. & Dickey, B.D. (Eds.; 1996). Outcome assessment in clinical practice. Baltimore:
Williams.

Silverstein, R. (2002). One-stop career centers and the new Ticket to Work and self-sufficiency
program. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.onestops.info/article.php?article_id=136

Simon, M.K. & Francis, J.B. (2001). The dissertation and research cookbook (3
rd
ed.). Dubuque:
Kendall/Hunt.

Social Security Administration. (2000). Americans with Disabilities Act: A guide for people with
disabilities seeking employment. Retrieved Jan. 9, 2006, from http://www.ada.gov/workta.htm

Social Security Advisory Board. (2003). The Social Security definition of disability.
Retrieved October 13, 2006, from http://www.ssab.gov/documents/
SocialSecurityDefinitionOfDisability.pdf

Social Policy Research Associates & TATC Consulting. (2004). The Workforce
Investment Act after five years: Results from the national evaluation of the
implementation of WIA. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.spra.com/admin/
uploaded/4cd03879213b2wia%20evaluation.pdf

Spencer, R.A. (2001). Prioritizing customer requirements: Integrating the voice of the customer
with Kano's Model of customer satisfaction. (Masters thesis, California State
University). Retrieved January 6, 2006, from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.
(AAT140212)

Sproull, N.L. (2002). Handbook of research methods (2
nd
ed.). Lanham: Scarecrow.

Sreenivasan, G. (2003). Does informed consent to research require comprehension? The Lancet,
362(9400), 2016-2109.

141
Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P.J., & Ellinger, A.E. (1997). Voice of the customer: The impact on
customer satisfaction. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management,
33(4), 4-9.

Stefan, S. (2002). The substantial limitations of the substantial limitations requirement of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. In S. Stefan Hollow promises: Employment
discrimination against people with mental disabilities. (pp 71-88). Washington, DC:
American Psychological.

Strauser, D.R. & Lustig, D.C. (2003). The moderating effect of sense of coherence on work
adjustment. Journal of Employment Counseling, 40(3), 129-140.

Swanson, J.L. & Fouad, N.D. (1999). Career theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Szymanski, E.M. (1993). Research design and statistical design. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 36(4), 178-182.

Timmons, J.C., Fesko, S.L. & Cohen, A. (2004). Strategies of support: Increasing the capacity of
one-stop centers to meet the needs of job seekers with disabilities. Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 21(1), 27-37.

Timmons, J.C., Fesko, S., & Cohen, A. (2003). Case studies on the implementation of the
Workforce Investment Act. Focus on accessibility. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://www.onestops.info/article.php?article_id=186

Timmons, J.C., Schuster, J., Hamner, D. & Bose, J. (2002). Ingredients for success:
Consumer perspectives on five essential elements to service delivery. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 17(3), 183-194.

United States Code. (2004). Office of the Law Revision Counsel. Retrieved December 30, 2005,
from http://uscode.house.gov

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (n.d.). Project WIN: A systems change project to
expand employment opportunities for individuals with mental and/or physical disabilities
who receive public support. Retrieved Oct. 21, 2006, from http://cowinpartners.org/
pastprojects.asp

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). More than 50 million Americans report some level of disability.
Retrieved May 13, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/
aging_population/cb06-71.html

142
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Disability. Overview. Retrieved May 13, 2006, from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/overview.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Facts for features. CB02-FF-11. July 12, 2002. 12th Anniversary of
Americans with Disabilities Act (July 26). Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=30267

U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2002). Current Population Survey: Design
and methodology. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/
prod/2002pubs/tp63rv.pdf

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2003). The New Freedom Initiative. Retrieved
January 11, 2006, from http://www.hhs.gov/newfreedom/init.html

U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Hurricane Recovery Assistance. Fact sheet: Disability
Program Navigator. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from http://www.dol.gov/opa/
hurricane-fs1.htm

U.S. Department of Labor. (2010). Secretary Solis discusses the FY 2010 budget. Transcript.
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.dol.gov/budget/presentation.htm

U.S. Department of Labor. (2010a). Fiscal year 2011 budget in brief. Retrieved August 2, 2010,
from http://www.dol.gov/dol/budget/2011/bib.htm#odep

U.S. Department of Labor. (2010b). June 2010 disability employment statistics released.
Retrieved August 2, 2010, from http://www.dol.gov/odep

U.S. Department of Labor. (2006). Department of Labor awards $14.5 million for
disability program navigators in 13 new states and D.C. Funding for DPN
initiatives will continue in 17 states. Retrieved October 21, 2006, from
http://projectaction.easterseals.com/site/PageServer?pagename=ESPA_
Newsletter_2006_October

U.S. Department of Labor. (2006a). Draft strategic plan for fiscal years 2006-2011.
Retrieved October 21, 2006, from http://www.dol.gov/_sec/stratplan-draft/

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (2005). Disability
Program Navigator Initiative. Retrieved December 12, 2005, from
http://www.doleta.gov/disability/new_dpn_grants.cfm

143
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (2000). Training and
employment guidance letter no. 7-99. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from
http:www.ows.doleta.gov/dmstree/tegl/tegl99/tegl_07-99.pdf

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (1998). The
Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Retrieved January 10, 2006, from
http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce/wia/wialaw.txt

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy. (n.d.). Americans with
Disabilities Act focus on employment. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from
http://www.dol.gov/odep/pubs/adabro/employ.htm

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy. (2010). January-March
2010 Summary report. A new day: Were listening. Six Federal partners listening
sessions. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from http://www.dol.gov/odep/dltour/
six-partners-listening.htm

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). Workforce Investment Act: Employers
are aware of, using, and satisfied with one-stop services, but more data could
help labor better address employers needs. GAO-05-259. Retrieved December
30, 2005, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05259.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005a). Federal disability assistance wide
array of programs needs to be examined in light of 21st century challenges.
Appendix II: Federal programs serving people with disabilities. U.S. Government
Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees. GAO-05-626.
Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05626.pdf

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004). Workforce Investment Act. Labor has
taken several actions to facilitate access to one-stops for persons with disabilities,
but these efforts may not be sufficient. GAO-05-54. Retrieved December 30, 2005,
from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-54

Vandenberg, R.J. & Scarpello, V. (1990). The matching model: An examination of the processes
underlying realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 60-67.

Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Business, Employment Support Institute,
Workworld. (2005). Disability Program Navigator. Retrieved December 30, 2005, from
http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/disability_program_navigator_dpn_.htm

144
Virginia Department of Rehabilitation Services. (2004). Order of selection.
Retrieved December 19, 2005, from http://www.vadrs.org/orderofselection.htm

The White House. (2010). Presidential proclamation--Anniversary of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/presidential-proclamation-anniversary-americans-with-disabilities-act

The White House. (2010a). Executive order--Increasing Federal employment of individuals with
disabilities. Retrieved July 30, 2010, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/executive-order-increasing-federal-employment-individuals-with-disabilities

The White House. (2009). Statement by the President. Retrieved July 29, 2010, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-Presidents-signing-
statements-on-HR-146-the-Omnibus-Public-Lands-Management-Act

Wilson, S., Burton, J., & Howell, B. (2005). Work and the disability transition in 20
th
century
America. Retrieved September 18, 2006, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11036

Witte, R.H., Philips, L. & Kakela, M. (1998). Job satisfaction of college graduates with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(3), 259-265.

Weinbach, R.W. & Grinnell, Jr., R.M. (2004). Statistics for social workers (6
th
ed.). Boston:
Pearson.

Workforce
3
One, U.S. Department of Labor/Employment and Training Administration. (2009).
Disability program navigators coordination and collaboration between one-stop career
centers and programs that serve disabled veterans (Handout 1). Retrieved July 18, 2010,
from http://www.workforce3one.org/view/2100906960582106913/info

World Health Organization. (2000). Client Satisfactions Evaluations. Workbook 6. Retrieved
March 12, 2006, from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2000/WHO_MSD_MSB_00.2g.pdf

145
APPENDIX A. DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR POSITION DESCRIPTION

146

147

148

149

150
APPENDIX B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION SHEET

ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM
CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR

What is your age?

What is your gender?
1 Female
1 Male

How many years of education have you had?

Have you identified yourself as having a disability?
1 Yes
1 No

Did you find out about the disability program navigator from the one-stop career center?
1 Yes
1 No

Did you find out about the disability program navigator from a website or online?
1 Yes
1 No

Did you find out about the disability program navigator from the Social Security office?
1 Yes
1 No

Did you find out about the disability program navigator from the unemployment office?
1 Yes
1 No

Did you find out about the disability program navigator from a friend or family member?
1 Yes
1 No

How many days was it after you asked to meet with the disability program navigator were you
able to meet with him/her?

How much time did you spend with the disability program navigator the first time you met?
(minutes)

One-Stop Career Centers: An Assessment of Satisfaction From Customers Using Services of A Disability Program Navigator

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

One-Stop Career Centers: An Assessment of Satisfaction From Customers Using Services of A Disability Program Navigator

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF SATISFACTION FROM

CUSTOMERS USING SERVICES OF A DISABILITY PROGRAM NAVIGATOR

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi