Masters Theses

Date of Award

6-1976

Degree Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science

Major

Agricultural Extension

Major Professor

Robert S. Dotson

Committee Members

Cecil E. Carter Jr., Ester Hatcher

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine characteristics of Tennessee EFNEP program assistants and to compare these characteristics according to high and low performance rated program assistants. The population of this study included 203 EFNEP program assistants from 36 counties. The counties were fairly evenly distributed across the state. The data were collected by means of a questionnaire with the cooperation and assistance of Mrs. Mildred Clark, Assistant Dean of the Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, the professional home economist in each county included in the study and other Extension personnel. Chi-square, Pearson product moment correlation coefficient and t-test analyses were used to determine the relationship between the level of performance and each of the 153 independent variables. Major findings of this study were; 1. Level of performance was very significantly related to total family income. High performing program assistants tended to have a higher total family income (median $8,333) than low performers (median $6,111) . 2. Level of performance was significantly related to participation in school groups. Higher performing program assistants tended to participate more in school groups (14 percent) than low performers (5 percent). 3. Level of performance was significantly related to grade completed in school. High performance program assistants tended to have completed more years in school (average 12.1 years) than low performers (average 11.7 years). 4. Level of performance was inversely related to the number of children program assistants had. Low performing program assistants tended to have more children (average 3.3) than higher performers (average 2.6). 5. Level of performance was inversely related to the number of children in high school. Low performing program assistants tended to have more children in high school (average .67) than high performers (average .37). 6. Level of performance was significantly related to number of years of previous work experience. High performance program assistants tended to have had more years previous work experience (average 10.6) than low performers (average 8.2). 7. Level of performance was inversely related to previous food related jobs. More low performing program assistants had had food related jobs (17 percent) than higher performers (11 percent). 8. Level of performance was significantly related to previous nutrition training received in college. A higher percent of high performing assistants (17 percent) had received nutrition training in college than was true for the low performers (7 percent). 9. Level of performance was inversely related to previous nutrition training received through adult education. A higher percent of performing program assistants (18 percent) had received nutrition training through adult education than high performers (7 percent). 10. Level of performance was very significantly related to previous nutrition training received from other sources such as H.D.C., other Extension training, training and experience from lunch room management, cooking and other related fields, etc. A higher percent of high performing program assistants (17 percent) had received training from these other sources than low performers (5 percent). 11. Level of performance was inversely related to length of orientation training. Low performing program assistants tended to have had more weeks of orientation training (average 3.6 weeks) than high performers (average 2.8 weeks). 12. Level of performance was significantly related to the frequency of in-service training. High performing program assistants tended to receive in-service training more frequently (73 percent, weekly) than low performers (55 percent, weekly). 13. Level of performance was very significantly related to training given by state specialists in other areas such as preparation, preservation, buying, storing, etc. A higher percent of high performing program assistants (37 percent) tended to have had training in these other areas than low performers (3 percent). , 14. Level of performance was very significantly related to the number of times training was received from state specialist staff. High performing program assistants tended to have received training more times from the state specialist staff (average 8.6 times) than low performers (average 6.4 times). 15. Level of performance was significantly related to nutrition information gathered by program assistants on their own from newspapers. A higher percent of high performing program assistants (55 percent) gathered nutrition information from newspapers on their own than low performers (35 percent). 16. Level of performance was significantly related to program assistants' enthusiasm about their job. High performers rated themselves higher (average 6.57) on enthusiasm than low performers (average 6.13). 17. Level of performance was inversely related to the use of the approved program assistant practice concerning obtaining food recalls. Low performers rated themselves 6.84 average compared to a 6.64 average rating for high performers on carrying out this practice. Implications and recommendations were also included.

Download
Files over 3MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "save as..."

Share

COinS