Pre-Conference Training Session - Exploring Clinical and Community Interventions for Hoarding and Cluttering

Question Title

* 1. Please enter your name and credential.

Question Title

* 2. Please select your discipline or specialty.

Psychology

Social Work

Counseling

Psychiatry/Medicine

Nursing

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 3. How did you learn about this Conference?

Brochure

Website

Colleague

Other (please specify)

Question Title

* 4. Please indicate if the following course objectives were met:

	5 - Strongly Agree	4 - Agree	3 - Neutral	2 - Disagree	1 - Strongly Disagree
Participants will be able to recognize and describe hoarding disorder.	Participants will be able to recognize and describe hoarding disorder. 5 - Strongly Agree	Participants will be able to recognize and describe hoarding disorder. 4 - Agree	Participants will be able to recognize and describe hoarding disorder. 3 - Neutral	Participants will be able to recognize and describe hoarding disorder. 2 - Disagree	Participants will be able to recognize and describe hoarding disorder. 1 - Strongly Disagree
Participants will develop skills to treat hoarding problems, specifically, controlling acquisition, organizing, room mapping and sorting/discarding.	Participants will develop skills to treat hoarding problems, specifically, controlling acquisition, organizing, room mapping and sorting/discarding. 5 - Strongly Agree	Participants will develop skills to treat hoarding problems, specifically, controlling acquisition, organizing, room mapping and sorting/discarding. 4 - Agree	Participants will develop skills to treat hoarding problems, specifically, controlling acquisition, organizing, room mapping and sorting/discarding. 3 - Neutral	Participants will develop skills to treat hoarding problems, specifically, controlling acquisition, organizing, room mapping and sorting/discarding. 2 - Disagree	Participants will develop skills to treat hoarding problems, specifically, controlling acquisition, organizing, room mapping and sorting/discarding. 1 - Strongly Disagree
Participants will be able to identify peer and family support options for clutter problems.	Participants will be able to identify peer and family support options for clutter problems. 5 - Strongly Agree	Participants will be able to identify peer and family support options for clutter problems. 4 - Agree	Participants will be able to identify peer and family support options for clutter problems. 3 - Neutral	Participants will be able to identify peer and family support options for clutter problems. 2 - Disagree	Participants will be able to identify peer and family support options for clutter problems. 1 - Strongly Disagree
Participants will be able to describe a community task force approach to hoarding and clutter.	Participants will be able to describe a community task force approach to hoarding and clutter. 5 - Strongly Agree	Participants will be able to describe a community task force approach to hoarding and clutter. 4 - Agree	Participants will be able to describe a community task force approach to hoarding and clutter. 3 - Neutral	Participants will be able to describe a community task force approach to hoarding and clutter. 2 - Disagree	Participants will be able to describe a community task force approach to hoarding and clutter. 1 - Strongly Disagree

Question Title

* 5. This course met my personal objective(s) for attending and satisfied my learning need(s) related to the topic.

5 - Strongly Agree

4 - Agree

3 - Neutral

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

Question Title

* 6. Please indicate your reaction to the following statements by selecting the appropriate option:

	5 - Strongly Agree	4 - Agree	3 - Neutral	2 - Disagree	1 - Strongly Disagree
The educational content of the course met or exceeded my expectations.	The educational content of the course met or exceeded my expectations. 5 - Strongly Agree	The educational content of the course met or exceeded my expectations. 4 - Agree	The educational content of the course met or exceeded my expectations. 3 - Neutral	The educational content of the course met or exceeded my expectations. 2 - Disagree	The educational content of the course met or exceeded my expectations. 1 - Strongly Disagree
The material was presented at the appropriate level.	The material was presented at the appropriate level. 5 - Strongly Agree	The material was presented at the appropriate level. 4 - Agree	The material was presented at the appropriate level. 3 - Neutral	The material was presented at the appropriate level. 2 - Disagree	The material was presented at the appropriate level. 1 - Strongly Disagree
The handouts were useful in supplementing the presentations.	The handouts were useful in supplementing the presentations. 5 - Strongly Agree	The handouts were useful in supplementing the presentations. 4 - Agree	The handouts were useful in supplementing the presentations. 3 - Neutral	The handouts were useful in supplementing the presentations. 2 - Disagree	The handouts were useful in supplementing the presentations. 1 - Strongly Disagree
The session had appropriate participant and faculty interaction.	The session had appropriate participant and faculty interaction. 5 - Strongly Agree	The session had appropriate participant and faculty interaction. 4 - Agree	The session had appropriate participant and faculty interaction. 3 - Neutral	The session had appropriate participant and faculty interaction. 2 - Disagree	The session had appropriate participant and faculty interaction. 1 - Strongly Disagree
I would recommend this session to a friend.	I would recommend this session to a friend. 5 - Strongly Agree	I would recommend this session to a friend. 4 - Agree	I would recommend this session to a friend. 3 - Neutral	I would recommend this session to a friend. 2 - Disagree	I would recommend this session to a friend. 1 - Strongly Disagree

Question Title

* 7. Please rate the facilities:

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Space	Space 5 - Excellent	Space 4 - Good	Space 3 - Neutral	Space 2 - Fair	Space 1 - Poor
Comfort	Comfort 5 - Excellent	Comfort 4 - Good	Comfort 3 - Neutral	Comfort 2 - Fair	Comfort 1 - Poor
Visibility	Visibility 5 - Excellent	Visibility 4 - Good	Visibility 3 - Neutral	Visibility 2 - Fair	Visibility 1 - Poor
Acoustics	Acoustics 5 - Excellent	Acoustics 4 - Good	Acoustics 3 - Neutral	Acoustics 2 - Fair	Acoustics 1 - Poor

Question Title

* 8. How much did you learn as a result of this activity?

5 - A great amount

4 - A good amount

3 - Neutral

2 - Little

1 - Very little

Question Title

* 9. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development?

5 - Very useful

4 - Useful

3 - Neutral

2 - A little useful

1 - Not useful

Question Title

* 10. Do you think commercial support influenced the content of this course or any presentations?

Somewhat

Yes (please explain)

Question Title

* 11. I plan to make changes in my practice as a result of attending this course. (Explain)

Question Title

* 12. Please rate each speaker:

Randy O. Frost, PhD

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Speaker's knowledge and expertise.	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 4 - Good	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 2 - Fair	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 1 - Poor
Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction.	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 4 - Good	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 2 - Fair	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 1 - Poor
Educational objectives were met.	Educational objectives were met. 5 - Excellent	Educational objectives were met. 4 - Good	Educational objectives were met. 3 - Neutral	Educational objectives were met. 2 - Fair	Educational objectives were met. 1 - Poor
Relevance to practice.	Relevance to practice. 5 - Excellent	Relevance to practice. 4 - Good	Relevance to practice. 3 - Neutral	Relevance to practice. 2 - Fair	Relevance to practice. 1 - Poor
Overall.	Overall. 5 - Excellent	Overall. 4 - Good	Overall. 3 - Neutral	Overall. 2 - Fair	Overall. 1 - Poor

Comments about speaker:

Question Title

* 13. Gail Steketee, PhD

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Speaker's knowledge and expertise.	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 4 - Good	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 2 - Fair	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 1 - Poor
Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction.	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 4 - Good	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 2 - Fair	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 1 - Poor
Educational objectives were met.	Educational objectives were met. 5 - Excellent	Educational objectives were met. 4 - Good	Educational objectives were met. 3 - Neutral	Educational objectives were met. 2 - Fair	Educational objectives were met. 1 - Poor
Relevance to practice.	Relevance to practice. 5 - Excellent	Relevance to practice. 4 - Good	Relevance to practice. 3 - Neutral	Relevance to practice. 2 - Fair	Relevance to practice. 1 - Poor
Overall.	Overall. 5 - Excellent	Overall. 4 - Good	Overall. 3 - Neutral	Overall. 2 - Fair	Overall. 1 - Poor

Comments about speaker:

Question Title

* 14. Christiana Bratiotis, PhD, LICSW

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Speaker's knowledge and expertise.	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 4 - Good	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 2 - Fair	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 1 - Poor
Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction.	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 4 - Good	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 2 - Fair	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 1 - Poor
Educational objectives were met.	Educational objectives were met. 5 - Excellent	Educational objectives were met. 4 - Good	Educational objectives were met. 3 - Neutral	Educational objectives were met. 2 - Fair	Educational objectives were met. 1 - Poor
Relevance to practice.	Relevance to practice. 5 - Excellent	Relevance to practice. 4 - Good	Relevance to practice. 3 - Neutral	Relevance to practice. 2 - Fair	Relevance to practice. 1 - Poor
Overall.	Overall. 5 - Excellent	Overall. 4 - Good	Overall. 3 - Neutral	Overall. 2 - Fair	Overall. 1 - Poor

Comments about speaker:

Question Title

* 15. Jordana Muroff, PhD, LICSW

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Speaker's knowledge and expertise.	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 4 - Good	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 2 - Fair	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 1 - Poor
Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction.	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 4 - Good	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 2 - Fair	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 1 - Poor
Educational objectives were met.	Educational objectives were met. 5 - Excellent	Educational objectives were met. 4 - Good	Educational objectives were met. 3 - Neutral	Educational objectives were met. 2 - Fair	Educational objectives were met. 1 - Poor
Relevance to practice.	Relevance to practice. 5 - Excellent	Relevance to practice. 4 - Good	Relevance to practice. 3 - Neutral	Relevance to practice. 2 - Fair	Relevance to practice. 1 - Poor
Overall.	Overall. 5 - Excellent	Overall. 4 - Good	Overall. 3 - Neutral	Overall. 2 - Fair	Overall. 1 - Poor

Comments about speaker:

Question Title

* 16. Lee Shuer, CPS

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Speaker's knowledge and expertise.	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 4 - Good	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 2 - Fair	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 1 - Poor
Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction.	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 4 - Good	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 2 - Fair	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 1 - Poor
Educational objectives were met.	Educational objectives were met. 5 - Excellent	Educational objectives were met. 4 - Good	Educational objectives were met. 3 - Neutral	Educational objectives were met. 2 - Fair	Educational objectives were met. 1 - Poor
Relevance to practice.	Relevance to practice. 5 - Excellent	Relevance to practice. 4 - Good	Relevance to practice. 3 - Neutral	Relevance to practice. 2 - Fair	Relevance to practice. 1 - Poor
Overall.	Overall. 5 - Excellent	Overall. 4 - Good	Overall. 3 - Neutral	Overall. 2 - Fair	Overall. 1 - Poor

Comments about speaker:

Question Title

* 17. Bec Belofsky Shuer

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Speaker's knowledge and expertise.	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 4 - Good	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 2 - Fair	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 1 - Poor
Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction.	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 4 - Good	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 2 - Fair	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 1 - Poor
Educational objectives were met.	Educational objectives were met. 5 - Excellent	Educational objectives were met. 4 - Good	Educational objectives were met. 3 - Neutral	Educational objectives were met. 2 - Fair	Educational objectives were met. 1 - Poor
Relevance to practice.	Relevance to practice. 5 - Excellent	Relevance to practice. 4 - Good	Relevance to practice. 3 - Neutral	Relevance to practice. 2 - Fair	Relevance to practice. 1 - Poor
Overall.	Overall. 5 - Excellent	Overall. 4 - Good	Overall. 3 - Neutral	Overall. 2 - Fair	Overall. 1 - Poor

Comments about speaker:

Question Title

* 18. Jesse Edsell-Vetter

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Speaker's knowledge and expertise.	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 4 - Good	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 2 - Fair	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 1 - Poor
Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction.	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 4 - Good	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 2 - Fair	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 1 - Poor
Educational objectives were met.	Educational objectives were met. 5 - Excellent	Educational objectives were met. 4 - Good	Educational objectives were met. 3 - Neutral	Educational objectives were met. 2 - Fair	Educational objectives were met. 1 - Poor
Relevance to practice.	Relevance to practice. 5 - Excellent	Relevance to practice. 4 - Good	Relevance to practice. 3 - Neutral	Relevance to practice. 2 - Fair	Relevance to practice. 1 - Poor
Overall.	Overall. 5 - Excellent	Overall. 4 - Good	Overall. 3 - Neutral	Overall. 2 - Fair	Overall. 1 - Poor

Comments about speaker:

Question Title

* 19. Erin Winsor

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Speaker's knowledge and expertise.	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 4 - Good	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 2 - Fair	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 1 - Poor
Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction.	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 4 - Good	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 2 - Fair	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 1 - Poor
Educational objectives were met.	Educational objectives were met. 5 - Excellent	Educational objectives were met. 4 - Good	Educational objectives were met. 3 - Neutral	Educational objectives were met. 2 - Fair	Educational objectives were met. 1 - Poor
Relevance to practice.	Relevance to practice. 5 - Excellent	Relevance to practice. 4 - Good	Relevance to practice. 3 - Neutral	Relevance to practice. 2 - Fair	Relevance to practice. 1 - Poor
Overall.	Overall. 5 - Excellent	Overall. 4 - Good	Overall. 3 - Neutral	Overall. 2 - Fair	Overall. 1 - Poor

Comments about speaker:

Question Title

* 20. Elspeth Bell, PhD

	5 - Excellent	4 - Good	3 - Neutral	2 - Fair	1 - Poor
Speaker's knowledge and expertise.	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 4 - Good	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 2 - Fair	Speaker's knowledge and expertise. 1 - Poor
Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction.	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 5 - Excellent	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 4 - Good	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 3 - Neutral	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 2 - Fair	Speaker's teaching ability and quality of instruction. 1 - Poor
Educational objectives were met.	Educational objectives were met. 5 - Excellent	Educational objectives were met. 4 - Good	Educational objectives were met. 3 - Neutral	Educational objectives were met. 2 - Fair	Educational objectives were met. 1 - Poor
Relevance to practice.	Relevance to practice. 5 - Excellent	Relevance to practice. 4 - Good	Relevance to practice. 3 - Neutral	Relevance to practice. 2 - Fair	Relevance to practice. 1 - Poor
Overall.	Overall. 5 - Excellent	Overall. 4 - Good	Overall. 3 - Neutral	Overall. 2 - Fair	Overall. 1 - Poor

Comments about speaker:

Question Title

* 1. Please enter your name and credential.

Question Title

* 2. Please select your discipline or specialty.

Question Title

* 3. How did you learn about this Conference?

Question Title

* 4. Please indicate if the following course objectives were met:

Question Title

* 5. This course met my personal objective(s) for attending and satisfied my learning need(s) related to the topic.

Question Title

* 6. Please indicate your reaction to the following statements by selecting the appropriate option:

Question Title

* 7. Please rate the facilities:

Question Title

* 8. How much did you learn as a result of this activity?

Question Title

* 9. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development?

Question Title

* 10. Do you think commercial support influenced the content of this course or any presentations?

Question Title

* 11. I plan to make changes in my practice as a result of attending this course. (Explain)

Question Title

* 12. Please rate each speaker:Randy O. Frost, PhD

Question Title

* 13. Gail Steketee, PhD

Question Title

* 14. Christiana Bratiotis, PhD, LICSW

Question Title

* 15. Jordana Muroff, PhD, LICSW

Question Title

* 16. Lee Shuer, CPS

Question Title

* 17. Bec Belofsky Shuer

Question Title

* 18. Jesse Edsell-Vetter

Question Title

* 19. Erin Winsor

Question Title

* 20. Elspeth Bell, PhD

Question Title

* 21. Overall comments about the session:

* 12. Please rate each speaker:

Randy O. Frost, PhD