MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2006710538 · doi:10.1037/a0020197

Training graduate students to be clinical supervisors: A survey of Canadian professional psychology programmes.

2010· article· en· W2006710538 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Heather D. Hadjistavropoulos, Melissa D. Kehler, Thomas Hadjistavropoulos

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCounseling Practices and Supervision
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Regina
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPracticumCourseworkClinical supervisionAccreditationPsychologyMedical educationProfessional developmentTraining (meteorology)PedagogyMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Recognising the need for training in clinical supervision, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) requires that accredited professional psychology programmes offer graduate students training in supervision. To fill a gap in the existing supervision literature, we surveyed training directors (or designates) of CPA accredited clinical and counselling programmes to understand how this training standard is currently being met in the area of clinical supervision. Responses were obtained from 20 of 28 programmes (7 1 .4% response rate). Approximately 50% of respondents indicated that their programmes required some coursework related to clinical supervision, with wide variability, however, in the number of hours of coursework provided to students (range 3 to 39). Most courses included lectures and group discussion, but also often provided students with practical experience in clinical supervision provision. Only 25% of programmes required a practicum in which students gained experience in clinically supervising other students, although an additional 40% of programmes offered an elective practicum in which students gained some training in clinical supervision. Most programmes (-71%) identified strategies for improving training in clinical supervision (e.g., improving course work, requiring practical experience), but also identified challenges to offering clinical supervision training (e.g., availability of skilled supervisors, insufficient time to devote to supervision, student competency). Based on the findings, we offer some recommendations for how training in clinical supervision could be improved in Canadian professional psychology programmes as well as describe some important directions for future research in this area. Keywords: clinical supervision training, Canadian professional psychology programmes, survey Clinical supervision in psychology is recognised as a multifaceted task that requires specific knowledge and skills to both train the supervisee and monitor the supervisee's practise (Falender et al., 2004). That is, clinical supervisors need to provide training so supervisees enhance their skills. Supervisors are also ethically and legally responsible for the actions of supervisees and for preventing harm that may come from an incompetent or impaired supervisee (Campbell, 2006). Illustrating the importance given to clinical supervision, statistics provided by the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) reveal that most students in 2006/2007 obtained over 1550 hours of supervised clinical experience prior to the predoctoral internship (CPA, 2009a). Additional supervised clinical hours are also obtained during the one year predoctoral internship (CPA, 2002), and many provincial regulatory bodies have postdegree clinical supervision requirements (Council of Provincial Associations of Psychology Database, 2005). Review of the literature shows that, while not all research finds that clinical supervision results in better patient care (e.g., Steingelber, Patterson, Cliffe, & LeGoullon, 1984), there is literature, albeit with some design limitations, that can be used to support the emphasis placed on clinical supervision. As an example, recent findings suggest that clinical supervision may assist therapists in managing the working alliance with clients and result in better client outcomes (Bambling, King, Raue, Schweitzer, & Lambert, 2006). Clients treated for depression, for example, rated the working alliance with their therapist as stronger when their therapist received clinical supervision compared to when their therapist did not (Bambling et al., 2006). In the same study, it was concluded that clients also showed greater improvement in depression when seen by supervised as compared to nonsupervised therapists. The findings from this study, however, are also open to alternative interpretations given design limitations. All supervised therapists had a pretreatment meeting with their supervisors that focused on alliance management principles; it is possible that it was this pretreatment meeting rather than ongoing clinical supervision that resulted in the differences between supervised and nonsupervised therapist. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,332
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0040,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

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 Opus0,382
Tête enseignante GPT0,500
Écart entre enseignants0,118 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
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

Citations23
Publié2010
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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