The Relationship Between Continuing Education and Perceived Competence, Professional Support, and Professional Value Among Clinical Psychologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Continuing education is one of the means by which professionals maintain and increase their level of competence. However, the relationship between continuing education and the professional's sense of personal competence and other practice-related variables remains unclear. This study examined practicing psychologists' continuing education activities and how these relate to feelings of perceived competence, professional value, and professional support. METHODS: Psychologists (n = 418) licensed to practice in Quebec were surveyed by pencil-and-paper mail-in survey concerning their continuing education activities, as well as their perceptions of their competence in practice, and their feelings of being professionally valued and professionally supported. RESULTS: Results indicated that feelings of competence in practice were related to professional reading, taking courses/workshops, years being licensed, and attending psychology conferences/conventions. Feelings of professional value were related to age and participating in psychology networking groups, and feelings of professional support were related to participating in case discussion groups, supervision groups, and psychology networking groups. DISCUSSION: The results showcase the complexity of professional development. Although relationships were found between continuing education activities and the 3 factors of interest, these relationships were moderate. Findings are discussed in the context of their value to individual psychologists, as well as to psychology licensing and regulatory boards, such as promoting participation in those activities related to feelings of competence and support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".