Preliminary development and validation of the Supervisee Attachment Strategies Scale (SASS).
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
The influence of counselor trainees' adult attachment orientations in the context of supervision has the potential to inform both training and supervision practice. However, the pursuit of such research requires the availability of appropriate assessment tools. The present study describes the development and validation of the Supervisee Attachment Strategies Scale (SASS), a theory-based measure of counseling trainees' attachment orientations toward their clinical supervisors. Participants were recruited online through their training directors at Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers member programs. Data were nationally collected from 352 trainees representing programs in the United States and Canada. Exploratory factor analysis yielded 2 interpretable factors along the adult attachment dimensions of avoidance vs. engagement and rejection concern vs. security. These 2 factors accounted for 55.85% of the interitem variance in the rotated solution of the 22-item SASS scale. SASS subscale scores were negatively correlated with the supervisory working alliance and predicted greater endorsement of role conflict and role ambiguity in the current supervisory relationship. Higher avoidance (but not rejection concern) predicted diminished perceptions of satisfaction with the overall training experience. Findings from this study suggest that trainees who engaged in adaptive attachment strategies may be more likely to address conflict, negotiate additional explorative opportunities in training, and seek out their supervisors in times of uncertainty.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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