Clinical supervision in Canadian academic and service settings: The importance of education, training, and workplace support for supervisor development.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".