Cited by 99Disability Education and EmploymentEmployment and Welfare StudiesSchizophrenia research and treatment

The effectiveness of skills training for improving outcomes in supported employment

Mueser, Kim T., Aalto, Steve, Becker, Deborah R., Ogden, John S., Wolfe, Rosemarie S., Schiavo, Diane, Wallace, Charles J., Xie, Haiyi·2005·Psychiatric Services

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated whether a supplementary skills training program improved work outcomes for clients enrolled in supported employment programs. METHODS: Thirty-five recently employed clients with severe mental illness who were receiving supported employment services at a free-standing agency were randomly assigned to participate in either the workplace fundamentals program, a skills training program designed to make work more "successful and satisfying," or treatment as usual. Knowledge of workplace fundamentals (for example, identifying workplace stressors, problem solving, and improving job performance) was assessed at baseline and at nine months; employment outcomes and use of additional vocational services were tracked for 18 months. RESULTS: Clients in the workplace fundamentals group (N=17) improved more in knowledge of workplace fundamentals than those in the control group (N=18) at the nine-month follow-up, but the two groups did not differ in the number of hours or days worked, salary earned, or receipt of additional vocational services over the 18-month period. In general, clients in this study had higher educational levels and better employment outcomes than clients in most previous studies of supported employment, making it difficult to detect possible effects of the skills training intervention on work. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementary skills training did not improve work outcomes for clients who were receiving supported employment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ps.56.10.1254

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mueser, K. T., Aalto, S., Becker, D. R., Ogden, J. S., Wolfe, R. S., Schiavo, D., Wallace, C. J., & Xie, H.
Affiliations
Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center (US)
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Published
2005-10
Volume
56
Issue
10
Pages
1254-1260
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
OpenAlex
W2154426377
Cited by
98
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 9
FWCI
15.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-56147, R24MH056147)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Employment and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
supported employment, skills training, severe mental illness, employment effects, vocational rehabilitation, occupational stressors, employee performance, intervention effectiveness
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Inservice Training, Job Satisfaction, Male, Professional Competence, Severity of Illness Index, Teaching, Employment, Supported, Treatment Outcome, Workplace, Mentally Ill Persons, Persons with Psychiatric Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review