MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W392720364

The reported use and utility of training and supervisory practices in marriage and family therapy training programs: A study of external and internal practices

2000· book· en· W392720364 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpenCommons - UConn (University of Connecticut) · 2000
Typebook
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCounseling, Therapy, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Family therapyPsychologyMedical educationMedicinePsychotherapistGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary purpose of this study was to explore the use of external training and supervision practices that emphasize technical skill and internal training and supervision practices that emphasize personal growth in COAMFTE accredited training programs. A secondary objective was to evaluate the perceived utility of MFT training and supervisory practices. Tertiary objectives included identifying differences between supervisors' and trainees' perspectives and between degree-granting and post-degree programs. An effort was also made to determine whether there are trends across COAMFTE accredited training programs with respect to the use and utility of external and internal training and supervisory practices. ^ Ten focus groups, with a range of 3–10 participants, and 3 individual interviews were used to identify external and internal training and supervisory practices in COAMFTE programs. Focus groups and interviews were transcribed by an independent transcriber, analyzed by two coders, and used to construct a survey questionnaire on external and internal supervisory practice patterns. ^ Parallel forms of the questionnaire were distributed to 4 trainees and 4 supervisors in 70 COAMFTE programs in the United States and Canada. A total of 189 questionnaires were completed and returned for a response rate of 43.2%. Sixty-six percent of all COAMFTE programs were represented in the study. ^ Findings suggest that, while many respondents describe their use of both external and internal practices in training and supervision, external practices are more prevalent than internal practices, and internal practices are more prevalent than a combination of both. Additionally, there exists a slight inverse relationship between the use of these two practice types. These findings are consistent across trainee and supervisor cohorts and degree-granting and post-degree programs. ^ Respondents reported using most generic training and supervisory practices to primarily facilitate an environment of conceptual and technical guidance, and secondarily to facilitate an environment of respect, support and encouragement. Other supervisory environments, including creating openness and facilitating personal growth, were selected less often. Consistent with the literature, this study suggests MFT programs are characterized by diverse training and supervision practices. ^

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.133 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it