Clinical supervision in Canadian academic and service settings: The importance of education, training, and workplace support for supervisor development.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract A national sample of Canadian psychologists who provide clinical supervision in academic or service settings (n = 156) was surveyed regarding their background preparation for clinical supervision, satisfaction with current supervisory load, and workplace support for supervisory activities and development. With respect to supervisor training and development, we found that (a) almost twothirds of the respondents received no formal training in supervision, (b) most initially felt inadequately prepared to supervise trainees, (c) subsequent self study of supervision was perceived as helpful, and (d) self study was associated with administrative encouragement for professional development. Exploration of supervisory load and workplace support showed that (a) a large majority of respondents were satisfied with their load, (bj satisfaction did not differ across academic and service settings, and (c) supervisors in service settings were more satisfied with opportunities for peer support around supervision. Respondents called for more training in supervision and increased amounts of time on the job to devote to supervision. The need for increased training in supervision at all levels, continuing professional education, and workplace enhancements to facilitate supervision are discussed. Consider the following question: What aspect of graduate training and education has the greatest impact on the applied competencies of clinical psychology trainees? For many psychologists the answer to this question would likely include the quality and quantity of clinical supervision received. Despite the importance of clinical supervision to the education and training of clinical students, our collective scientific knowledge about supervision has traditionally suffered from benign neglect (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998).In contrast to our knowledge about the theory and practice of psychotherapy, where we know a great deal, the literature on clinical supervision remains in its infancy (Watkins, 1997b) . The knowledge base concerning the practice of supervision by psychologists in Canada is no exception to the general neglect of supervision in the literature. To our knowledge, there exists only one published survey concerning psychology supervision in Canada. In 1996, Howes, Vallis, Wilson, Ross, and Louisy reported the results of a survey they distributed to psychology supervisors at 35 internships listed in the 1992-93 Canadian Council of Professional Psychology Programs (CCPPP) directory. Because our research builds on Howes et al.'s work, we will review some of their findings. The first noteworthy finding from the Howes et al. (1996) survey is that few clinical supervisors received training in supervision in the form of either supervision of supervision or an academic course in supervision. The absence of formal training in supervision is striking in view of the importance of supervision to the profession and the ubiquitous demand for supervision from clinical psychologists in their workplaces. This lacuna in the professional training of clinical psychologists is likely to have a variety of important implications for how supervisors conceptualize, practice, and feel about clinical supervision as a distinct professional endeavour. A somewhat unsettling consequence of this lack of training was noted by Howes et al., namely, that most supervisors could not articulate their model of supervision. Formal training in supervision can provide supervisors with an awareness of supervision models, as well as a conceptual framework and vocabulary for thinking through their supervision practice. The ability to reflect on one's approach to supervision may be particularly important for resolving conflict and other difficulties in the work. According to Howes et al.'s findings, occurrences of problems in supervising interns are by no means rare. They found that 42% of supervisors encountered problems, of which 41 % could not be resolved within the supervision relationship and required outside mediation. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».