Increasing Restroom Checks

Name: Beckie TelckClass: BSAP/460

Semester: Fall 2006TA Name: Allison

Setting and Participant Description

• The project took place at Applebee's Neighborhood Bar and Grill on West Main

• The participants were the hosting staff– About 10 employees

• The manager involved was the General Manger

Reason to Intervene

• Restrooms need to be checked every ½ hour

• Hosts were only completing bathroom checks at about 1% during baseline data

• We wanted to improve this to as close to 100% as possible

Analyze the Natural Contingencies

• The ineffective natural contingency acting for the hosts in this situation was escape.

• By checking the restrooms they lowered the probability of losing their job.

• Since the probability of losing their jobs due to not checking the rest room was too low it did not effectively control behavior.

Analyze the Natural Contingencies

Ineffective Natural Contingency

Have a low probability of

losing job

Checks restroom

Have an infinitesimally

lower probability of

losing job

Analyze the Natural Contingencies

Natural Competing Contingency

Has a given amount of time to greet guests

at door

Checks restroom

Has less amount of time to greet guests

at door

Baseline Graph

Restroom Checks

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3

Weeks

Nu

mb

er

of

sessio

ns w

ith

100%

Co

mp

lete

d

Restr

oo

m C

hecks

Baseline

Baseline Graph Description

• There were 3 weeks of baseline data

• Restroom checks were being completed approximately 1% of the time– This needed great improvement to help achieve

better customer service

Specify the Performance Objectives

The goal of the intervention was to

increase the frequency of restroom checks as

close to 100% as possible to help increase

customer service and cleanliness of the

restaurant.

Input-Process-Output Model

[100% Completed Restroom Checks (output)

Production: Using checklist to monitor hosts (process)

[Less than 100% Completed Restroom Checks] (input)

Goal Specification FormOutput 100% Completed Restroom Checks Standards

Quality

Current Ideal

1% of the time 100% of the time

Quantity Less than ½ of hosts All hosts

Timeliness Every few hours Every ½ hour

Costn/a

No more than $50 dollars on intervention

Process Using checklist to monitor hosts

Production: XDistribution_ __ R&D__ _

Input Less than 100% Completed Restroom Checks

Design the Intervention

• The hosts would be required to initial a checklist for every restroom check

• They would be provided graphic feedback each week

• Managers would provide verbal feedback

• Each time they initialed they would be entered in a weekly drawing

Design the Intervention3 Contingency Performance Management

Have a low probability of losing job

Checks restroom

Has a slightly lower

probability of losing job

Checks restroom

Won’t lose opportunity for

positive feedback

Checks restroom

No fear of losing

opportunity for positive feedback

Will lose opportunity for positive feedback

Fear of losing

opportunity for positive feedback

Ineffective Natural Contingency

Indirect-acting Performance Management Contingency

Theoretical Contingency

Implement the Intervention

• The intervention was implemented on February 23, 2007

• We first introduced the checklist, which the hosts had to initial for each bathroom check

• We introduced graphic feedback the following week• Mangers provided verbal feedback throughout the

intervention

Evaluate the InterventionRestroom Checks

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

Weeks

Nu

mb

er o

f S

essi

on

s w

ith

10

0% C

om

ple

ted

Res

tro

om

Ch

ecks

Baseline Intervention

Evaluate the Intervention

• The intervention was not 100% successful, but there was improvement!

• They went from 1% all the way to 43% in the first week. A great improvement!

Social Validity• Hosts were given a social validity questionnaire to

evaluate their experience with the interventionChecklist benefited the employees and organization

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

Opinion

Am

ou

nt

of

emlo

yees

Social Validity (cont.)

Restroom checks improved cleaning task completion

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 2 3 4 5

Opinion

Am

ou

nt

of

em

plo

ye

es

•When asked if the restroom checklist improved cleaning all hosts agreed and rated it 5

IOA

• Interobserver agreement was taken at the beginning and the end of the intervention– Another employee that was not involved with the

intervention assisted– We each took data during one hour – We both agreed that the all behavior occurred in

each restroom check was correct making IOA = 100%

Treatment Integrity

• Treatment Integrity: is the degree to which an intervention is reliably implemented as reported during the BSAP project. – An outline was designed to implement all the components

of the intervention– I was monitored by my systems manager and general

manager of Applebee’s– Social validity was used to determine the satisfaction and

completion of each component

Personal Experience

• I thought this project provided me with great experience.

• I learned hands on how to implement an intervention by using the 6 steps of behavior analysis.

• I was happy with the results of my intervention and thought it made a significant difference.

Manager and Employees’ Experience

• Feedback from the managers and employees was positive

• I was able to help them improve on an behavior that was not occurring often enough

• Even though the hosts may have not like doing the checklist, they appreciated it and knew that it was beneficial

Questions or Comments???