Using the Nominal Group Technique to Identify the Problems Experienced by Persons Living with Severe Physical Disabilities

Abstract

Changes in health care have dramatically curtailed services to people with severe physical disability and their families. This has placed a greater burden of responsibility on those who live with these conditions and have ongoing care needs. Yet little is known about the subjective problems, challenges, and solutions reported by these people. We demonstrate how the nominal group technique can be used to obtain consumer-oriented information germane to these individuals and their concerns. We conducted nominal group technique meetings with 2 groups for persons with physical disability and a third with a group for family members in caregiving roles. We demonstrate how focus groups can be conducted with the nominal group technique to identify problems experienced by individuals who live with severe physical disability. Recommendations for using the nominal group technique with client populations are presented, and implications for clinical practice are discussed.

focus groups rehabilitation psychology physical disability caregiving 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Chwalisz, K., & Stark-Wroblewski, K. (1996). The subjective experiences of spouse caregivers of persons with brain injuries: A qualitative analysis. Applied Neuropsychology, 3, 28–40.Google Scholar
  2. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. (1993). Physicians and family caregivers: A model for partnership. JAMA, 69, 1282–1284.Google Scholar
  3. Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 466–492.Google Scholar
  4. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  5. Duggan, C. H., & Dijkers, M. (2001). Quality of life after spinal cord injury: A qualitative study. Rehabilitation Psychology, 46, 3–27.Google Scholar
  6. Elliott, T. (in press). Defining our common ground to reach new horizons. Rehabilitation Psychology.Google Scholar
  7. Elliott, T., Kurylo, M., & Rivera, P. (2002). Positive growth following acquired physical disability. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 687–699). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Elliott, T., & Richards, J. S. (1999). Living with the facts, negotiating the terms: Unrealistic beliefs, denial and adjustment in the first year of acquired physical disability. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 4, 361–381.Google Scholar
  9. Elliott, T., & Shewchuk, R. M. (1998). Recognizing the family caregiver: Integral and formal members of the rehabilitation process. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 10, 123–132.Google Scholar
  10. Elliott, T., & Shewchuk, R. M. (2000). Problem solving therapy for family caregivers of persons with severe physical disabilities. In C. Radnitz (Ed.), Cognitive‐behavioral interventions for persons with disabilities (pp. 309–327). New York: Jason Aronson.Google Scholar
  11. Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  12. Forsyth, D. R., & Elliott, T. (1999). Group dynamics and psychological well-being: The impact of groups on adjustment and dysfunction. In R. Kowalski & M. R. Leary (Eds.), The social psychology of emotional and behavioral problems: Interfaces of social and clinical psychology (pp. 339–361). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  13. Frank, R. G. (1997). Lessons from the great battle: Health care reform 1992‐1994. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78120–124.Google Scholar
  14. Frankel, S. (1987). NGT C MDS: An adaptation of the nominal group technique for ill-structured problems. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 543–551.Google Scholar
  15. French, R. D. S. (1984). The long-term relationships of marked people. In E. E. Jones, A. Farina, A. H. Hastorf, H. Markus, D. T. Miller, & R. A. Scott (Eds.), The psychology of marked relationships (pp. 254–294). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  16. Gallagher, M., Hares, T., Spencer, J., Bradshaw, C., & Webb, I. (1993). The nominal group technique: Aresearch tool for general practice. Family Practice, 10, 76–81.Google Scholar
  17. Grant, J. S., Bartolucci, A., Elliott, T., & Giger, J. (2001, April). Telephone problem-solving partnerships with family caregivers. Paper presented at the convention of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  18. Hoffman, C., Rice, D., & Sung, H. (1996). Persons with chronic conditions: Their prevalence and costs. JAMA, 276, 1473–1479.Google Scholar
  19. Johnstone, B., Frank, R. G., Belar, C., Berk, S., Bieliauskas, L. A., Bigler, E. D., Caplan, B., Elliott, T., Glueckauf, R., Kaplan, R. M., Kreutzer, J., Mateer, C., Patterson, D., Puente, A., Richards, J. S., Rosenthal, M., Sherer, M., Shewchuk, R., Siegel, L., & Sweet, J. J. (1995). Psychology in health care: Future directions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 341–365.Google Scholar
  20. Kosciulek, J. F. (2000). Implications of consumer direction for disability policy development and rehabilitation service delivery. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 11(2), 82–89.Google Scholar
  21. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Kurylo, M., Elliott, T., & Shewchuk, R. (2001). FOCUS on the family caregiver:Aproblem-solving training intervention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 79, 275–281.Google Scholar
  23. Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1995). The patient as the pivot point for quality in health care delivery. Hospital and Health Services Administration, 40, 25–39.Google Scholar
  24. Long, M. P., Glueckauf, R. L., & Rasmussen, J. (1998). Developing family counseling interventions for adults with episodic neurological disabilities: Presenting problems, persons involved, and problem severity. Rehabilitation Psychology, 43, 101–117.Google Scholar
  25. Longo, D. R. (1993). Patient practice variation: A call for research. Medical Care, 31, YS81–YS895.Google Scholar
  26. Mechanic D. (1998). Public trust and initiatives for new health care partnerships. The Milbank Quarterly, 76, 281–302.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, D., Shewchuk, R., Elliott, T., & Richards. J. S. (2000). Nominal group technique: A process for identifying diabetes selfcare issues among patients and caregivers. The Diabetes Educator, 26305–314.Google Scholar
  28. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. In Sage University Series on Qualitative Research (Vol. 16). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Olkin, R. (1999). What psychotherapists should know about disability. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  30. Ptacek, J. T., Pierce, G. R., Ptacek, J. J., & Nogel, C. (1999). Stress and coping processes in men with prostate cancer: The divergent views of husbands and wives. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 18, 299–324.Google Scholar
  31. Quittner, A. L., Opipari, L., Regoli, M., Jacobsen, J., & Eigen, H. (1992). The impact of caregiving and role strain on family life: Comparisons between mothers of children with cystic fibrosis and matched controls. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 275–290.Google Scholar
  32. Robert Woods Johnson Foundation. (1996). Chronic care in America: A 21st century challenge. Princeton, NJ: Author.Google Scholar
  33. Schopp, L., Johnstone, B., & Merrell, D. (2000). Telehealth and neuropsychological assessment: New opportunities for psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31179–183.Google Scholar
  34. Seal, D. W., Bogart, L. M., & Ernhardt, A. A. (1998). Small group dynamics: The utility of focus group discussions as a research method. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 253–266.Google Scholar
  35. Shewchuk, R., & Elliott, T. (2000). Family caregiving in chronic disease and disability: Implications for rehabilitation psychology. In R. G. Frank & T. Elliott (Eds.), Handbook of rehabilitation psychology (pp. 553–563). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  36. Shewchuk, R., Franklin, F., Harrington, K., & Reynolds, K. (1999, November). Cognitive mapping framework for community based interventions. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Public Health Association, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  37. Shewchuk, R., & O'Conner, S. J. (2000). Using cognitive concept mapping to understand what health care means to elderly persons. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  38. Shewchuk, R., O'Connor, S. J., Fottler, M. D., & Trinh, H. (2001). Health care organizational research: hat does it mean to us? Advances in Health Care Management, 2, 63–90.Google Scholar
  39. Sofaer, S. (1998). Aging and primary care: An overview of organizational and behavioral issues in the delivery of health care services to older Americans. Health Services Research, 33, 298–321.Google Scholar
  40. Stephen, T. D. (1985). Q-methodology in communication science: An introduction. Communication Quarterly, 33(3), 133–208.Google Scholar
  41. Stokols, D. (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: Toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47, 6–22.Google Scholar
  42. Temkin, A. J., & Jones, M. L. (1999). Electronic medicine: Experience and implications for treatment of SCI [Special issue]. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 5(3), 1–74.Google Scholar
  43. Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., & Von Korff, M. (1996). Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. The Milbank Quarterly, 74511–544.Google Scholar
  44. Ware, J. E., Bayliss, M. S., Rogers, W. H., Kosinski, M., & Tarlov, A. R. (1996). Differences in 4-year health outcomes for elderly and poor chronically ill patients treated in HMO and fee-forservice systems. JAMA, 276, 1039–1047.Google Scholar
  45. Webb, P. M., & Glueckauf, R. L. (1994). The effects of direct involvement in goal setting on rehabilitation outcome for persons with traumatic brain injuries. Rehabilitation Psychology, 39179–188.Google Scholar
  46. Wright, B. A. (1983). Physical disability: A psychosocial approach. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  47. Wright, B. A., & Fletcher, B. (1982). Uncovering hidden resources: A challenge in assessment. Professional Psychology, 12, 229–235.Google Scholar
  48. Yalom, I. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirmingham
  2. 2.Department of Health Services AdministrationUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamBirmingham

Personalised recommendations