MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1992468154 · doi:10.1037/h0086862

Clinical supervision in Canadian academic and service settings: The importance of education, training, and workplace support for supervisor development.

2000· article· en· W1992468154 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edward Johnson, Donald W. Stewart

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCounseling Practices and Supervision
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSupervisorPsychologyClinical supervisionTraining (meteorology)Medical educationService (business)Professional developmentApplied psychologyTraining and developmentPedagogyPsychotherapistManagementMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,975
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,184

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,010
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,002
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,069
Tête enseignante GPT0,391
Écart entre enseignants0,321 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations19
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienneMême sujetCounseling Practices and SupervisionTravaux en français237 207