Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Continuing education is an integral ingredient in the maintenance and development of essential competencies in professional psychology. However, there is a lack of knowledge and investigation into the continuing education practices, needs, interests, attitudes, and modality preferences among practicing psychologists, particularly those practicing in Canada. Essential aspects of continuing education among a sample of 418 licensed psychologists in clinical practice in Quebec were examined. Professional reading, case discussion groups, and private courses and workshops were the most frequently used continuing education activities. In terms of continuing education needs, related to intervention and assessments were rated most frequently, and information pertaining to adult psychopathologies, assessment of mental illness, comorbidity, and medication were the most highly rated continuing education interests. Preferred modalities for continuing education include those that are offered by psychology associations and those offered by the local regulatory body (Ordre des Psychologues du Quebec). Findings are discussed in the context of their value to psychology licensing and regulatory boards.Keywords: continuing education, psychologists, psychology, training, interestsContinued professional education is engrained in the fabric of virtually all helping professions, including medicine, social work, psychiatry, nursing, and psychology. In the behavioural health fields, continuing education is classified as a second wave of education, that of the postlicensing phase, and is geared toward refinement of existing clinical skills, mastery of changes in the knowledge base and clinical techniques, and development of new skills (Daniels & Walter, 2002, p. 360). Despite the fact that continuing education and sustained competence have been topics of concern in the psychology research and clinical communities for close to 40 years (Brown & Briley, 1979; Daniels & Walter, 2002; Katahn, 1970; Jensen, 1979; Jones, 1975; Lewinsohn, & Pearlman, 1972; Neimeyer, Taylor, & Wear, 2009; Ross, 1974; VandeCreek, Knapp, & Brace, 1990), and is rooted in both the American Psychological Association's (2002) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and of Conduct and the Canadian Psychological Association's (2001) Code of Ethics for Psychologists, there has been criticism of its delayed evolution and lack of research investigating continuing education practices, attitudes, and translation into competent clinical practice (Daniels & Walter, 2002; Neimeyer et al., 2009). Although mandatory continuing education credits are now a requirement for licensure renewal in many jurisdictions, this process has developed at a much slower pace in psychology than in other professions (VandeCreek et al., 1990). In Canada, despite continuing education being an important topic within professional psychology, as evidenced in provincial codes of ethics (e.g., the of Ethics of the Ordre des Psychologues du Quebec, Article 39; Ordre des Psychologues du Quebec, 2001), mandatory continuing education credits are not required in many of the provinces, and there is a lack of research and documentation of continuing education practices among Canadian psychologists. The current era of ever-expanding technology, clinical techniques, theoretical models, client concerns, and research into evidencebased practices (Hunsley, Dobson, Johnston, & Mikail, 1999) only intensifies and highlights the responsibility that practicing clinicians, as well as their licensing bodies, have in ensuring psychologists are up-to-date in terms of their competencies.Preferences in Continuing EducationEarly research investigating preferences in continuing education participation reveals that the most preferred or valued continuing education activities include professional reading (e.g., reading journal articles or books; Allen, Nelson, & Sheckley, 1987; Brown, Leichtman, Blass, & Fleisher, 1982; Donohoe, Atkinson, Scott, & Lemoine, 1985; McNamara, 1977; Morrow-Bradley & Elliott, 1986), supervision (receiving feedback on cases) or contact with other professionals (e. …
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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) | 0,009 | 0,002 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».