P-1152 - Pilot survey of cognitive behavioral psychotherapy (CBT) supervisors to determine their supervisory practice and learning needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Substantial empirical support for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) effectiveness in treatment of various psychiatric disorders has been demonstrated. However, we do not have a complete and accurate understanding of how CBT supervisors themselves acquire competence in CBT or of the methods of CBT supervision they use. Become familiar with styles and techniques used by CBT supervisors Become familiar with educational needs of CBT supervisors Learn about supervisory practice of CBT supervisors and determine their learning needs. We piloted an anonymous self-administered questionnaire survey to CBT supervisors. The survey included questions on kind of training CBT supervisors have had both in CBT and in CBT supervision, supervisory methods they currently use and their perceived educational needs. 12 supervisors were invited to participate, and 7 responded (58% response rate). Only 43% have attended a formal teaching/supervision course. Modeling of the structure of CBT session during the supervision was done always or often by 57% of respondents. More then 50% of responders never or rarely observed traineés therapy session. 100% of the respondents were interested in receiving further training in CBT supervision with 86% of the respondents believing that this training should be done through a formal course. Surveyed CBT supervisors have expressed a strong need to receive further training in CBT supervision through a formal course. The needs assessment will serve as a platform for the development of a faculty development program for CBT supervisors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".