1 / 18

National Survey of CACREP Programs Supervision Practices

National Survey of CACREP Programs Supervision Practices. Mark Young, Gonzaga University Pit Kolodinsky, Northern Arizona University Charles Lindsey, U. Wisconsin Oshkosh Mike Zlatev, NAU Community Counseling Student Bennett Edgerly, NAU Community Coun. Student. Background.

fhilbert
Download Presentation

National Survey of CACREP Programs Supervision Practices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. National Survey of CACREPPrograms Supervision Practices Mark Young, Gonzaga University Pit Kolodinsky, Northern Arizona University Charles Lindsey, U. Wisconsin Oshkosh Mike Zlatev, NAU Community Counseling Student Bennett Edgerly, NAU Community Coun. Student

  2. Background CACREP’s current (2001) standards for Clinical Instruction allow for flexibility about supervision methods (2009 standards similar). CACREP doesn’t differentiate between less intrusive/more fluid methods (bug-in-the-ear) and other live supervision methods (phone-in, walk-in), or post-session review only. Impetus for study: which methods are we using, which are we most satisfied with? Goals for this exploratory study: variability of supervision methods across USA satisfaction levels with current supervision methods supervision-related changes sought by supervising instructors

  3. Additional literature For background and context, please see our attached book chapter handout: Young, M., Lindsey, C. & Kolodinsky, P. (2008-in press), “The Role of Live Supervision in Counselor Education Training Clinics”, in Mobley, A. K., & Myers, J. E. (Eds.). Developing and maintaining counselor education laboratories (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association of Counselor Education and Supervision.

  4. Supervision Modalities in Context Differentiating types of Live Supervision: • Co-therapy • Watching behind a one-way mirror. • Listening to a session via audio connection. • Watching and listening via closed circuit television. Supervisor Interventions during Live Supervision: • Sitting-in on the session and providing co-therapy or feedback to the trainee. • Walking into the session on an as-needed basis to provide guidance. • Phoning-in to the session at critical junctures. • Providing input via an earpiece (“bug-in-the-ear”). • Typing suggestions to the trainee who views the interventions on a monitor placed strategically behind the client (“bug-in-the-eye”).

  5. Scant Research about SV methods • In one survey of CACREP program directors, live supervision was the third most frequently used supervision model behind videotape and audiotape review (Carlozzi, Romans, Boswell, Ferguson, & Whisenhunt, 1997). • No distinction was made between live supervision models, but co-therapy was cited as an example of live supervision. An earlier study found 51% of master’s degree and 57% of doctoral counselor education programs using live supervision (Bubenzer, West, & Gold, 1991). • The most popular live supervision formats reported in this earlier research were co-therapy (52.9% of respondents) and one-way mirror observation of the supervisee with telephone contact (45.5% of respondents)

  6. Brief review of Different types of live supervision Bug-in-the ear: Counselor at left with earbug, & client Bug-in-the ear: Monitoring Room

  7. Brief review of Different types of live supervision Bug-in-the eye: Counselor views monitor situated behind client’s head… 1-way mirror w/ walk-in or phone-in

  8. Research Questions What supervision methods are CACREP programs using in their on-campus practicum labs? How much live supervision vs. post-session feedback only (Post-only) is being used? Among those using live supervision, which are the most common forms? How satisfied are practicum supervisors with their current supervision methodologies? If Practicum supervisors could change one thing in their current supervision methodology, what would it be?

  9. Procedures • CACREP directory obtained in 2007 • All CACREP Programs contacted • G.A.’s requested Practicum instructors contact info • 2 CESNET postings in 2007 and 2008. • Contacting ceased when 1 survey completed from each program, or when no response was obtained by early 2009

  10. Participants • 184 participants responded • In several cases, more than one professor responded completed survey from same program. • Also, in several cases, the same professor responded twice from the same program (usually once in 2007 and again when contacted in 2008 via CESNET). • Since we were aiming forone response from each CACREP program, we utilized only the most recent response from each program • N of 135 participants from 135 CACREP Programs • 63% of CACREP programs responded.

  11. Instrumentation • Survey developed after an extensive lit review (Young, Lindsey and Kolodinsky, 2007, on Mobley & Myers), and was completed online by participants • Participants were asked to “check off all methods of supervision used in your program's university-based (clinical instruction (practicum/internship) courses”. Live Supervision Options on the survey: • bug-in-the-ear, bug-in-the-eye, phone-in consultation, walk-in consultation, in vivo (supervisor as co-therapist). The post-session options on survey: • Post-session audio-review; post-session video-review; supervisee post-session self-report (1 on 1); supervisee post-session self-report (group supervision); an “other” option offered for additional clarifications and comments. • Challenges and concerns about live-SV or Delayed • Satisfaction rating with current system • “If you could change one thing about your current SV modality…”

  12. RESULTS • 63% of Programs using some form of LIVE, intrasession supervision (n=133)** • 53% have some form of walk-in consultation available, • 33% have some type of in vivo method available • 25% have phone-in capacity, • 16% utilize bug-in-the-ear • 6% offer bug-in-the-eye supervision. ** many programs use more than 1 method…

  13. Challenges & Concerns with Live Supervision LIVE SUPERVISION SITE COMMENTS (ie: we use it, but we face these challenges/concerns) 33%: Maintenance & costs 33%: Time-consuming 31%: Ongoing concerns about client reactions 24%: Challenges with facilities were cited as a concern in almost one-fourth of the cases (24%). DELAYED SV Site Comments (ie, we don’t use it, and here’s why we don’t) 96% - $$$$ 73% - tech implementation 73% - time to set up, maintain 39% - lack of training 15% - Clinical philosophy (ethics of live supervision, negative effects on clients, that live supervision is ineffective, fear of supervisee dependence on live supervision interventions, etc). only 8% cited lack of facilities as a reason 13

  14. Are there Satisfaction differences between LIVE vs. DELAYED sites? There was no significant difference in satisfaction score between those using LS and those using delayed-only, t(125) = 1.268, p > .05, although those using LS did rank their satisfaction with their current system higher (5.45 vs. 5.13)

  15. Comments re “desired changes” (n=184*) 2 Prominent Themes from LIVE SITES (77% of participants commented): • Time-oriented (n-33 unique comments) themes were most prevalent, w/ comments such as “we simply need more time with students in live supervision”. • More/better technology (n=27 unique comments), w/ several citing the desire to upgrade to digital recording and organization systems, such as the Landro system. 1 Prominent Theme from DELAYED-ONLY SITES * 43% of participants from Delayed-Sites desire an on-campus practicum lab with some form of live supervision

  16. Conclusions • Almost 2/3 (63%) of CACREP Programs according to this sample are using 1 or more forms of Live Supervision, up from 51-57% (Bubenzer et al, 1991) • Prac Professors are roughly equally satisfied whether from Live Supervision (LS)programs or Delayed-Only (DO) • Many LS Professors seek more TIME and better TECH • Many Practicum Professors from programs using Delayed-Only Supervision wish for some form of Live Supervision and on-campus labs, and more $$$, training and technology to implement labs.

  17. Limitations Unvalidated survey Partial response set (63% of CACREP programs responded) No data from satellite sites, data limited to one supervisor per site, unless reached by CESNET listserv Having live supervision available doesn’t mean it’s being used: IE, frequency of direct, during-session intervention not known No accounting for qualitative differences in supervision approaches Other plausible factors not looked at: Satisfaction variable limited to single Likert-scale item

  18. Future Research Exploring: Which types of programs (School Counseling vs. Mental Health Counseling) use which types of supervision, & are their satisfaction differences among them? Collect other indep. variable data (supervisors’ training as grad students; supervisory personality/professional variables) How many are using digital coding systems for session review purposes (ie, Landro-type systems), and how satisfied are they? How will supervision be affected by 2009 CACREP standards? Analyze how Live SV is actually being used (do programs with Bug-in-the-Eye, etc., actually use it consistently?) NOTE: We are currently collecting data from BITE sites vs. those using Delayed-Only Supervision (counselor efficacy, client ratings of counselor effectiveness, supervisory data, etc.). To be completed in 2010.

More Related