Attending to Power and Diversity in Supervision: An Exploration of Supervisee Learning Outcomes and Satisfaction With Supervision
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversity is becoming more important in clinical training programs as clients, students, and supervisors become more diverse. At the same time there is a focus on learning outcomes in order for programs to graduate competent therapists. Supervision that attends to power and diversity can provide a supportive environment where the supervisor can model the importance of addressing these issues to influence (a) positive clinical outcomes for clients because of isomorphism, (b) satisfaction with supervision, and (c) enhanced learning outcomes for supervisees. The purpose of this study was to explore the use and influence of feminist supervisory practices on satisfaction and learning outcomes from the perspective of supervisees and supervisors in Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education-accredited programs who completed a 70-question online survey. Results indicated that from supervisees' perspective attending to power and diversity in supervision influenced satisfaction with supervision (β = .793, p < .001) and learning outcomes (β = .806, p < .001). From supervisors' perspective there were no significant effects of attending to power and diversity in clinical supervision on supervisor satisfaction with supervision or supervisee learning outcomes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it