A Core Evaluation Battery for Supervision

Wheeler, Sue; Barkham, Michael

doi:10.1002/9781118846360.ch16

Cited by 23 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the literature reports a lack of reliable measures by which supervision can be evaluated. The 49 scales and measures identified by Wheeler and Barkham (2014) as designed for this task, are testament to the energy focused on this area, however, the validity of these tools and measures and the research surrounding them has been questioned (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009;Carpenter et al, 2013;O'Donoghue & Tsui, 2013;Watkins, 2011;Wheeler & Barkham, 2014).…”

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating social work supervision

Davys

May

Burns

et al. 2017

ANZSWJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: The question of whether the practice of professional supervision is effective, and how its effectiveness can be measured, has been debated by both social work and other professions. This study explored how practitioners, supervisors and managers in Aotearoa New Zealand currently evaluate the supervision they receive, provide and/or resource. The study was interprofessional involving counsellors, mental health nurses, psychologists and social workers. This article focuses on the findings from the social work cohort.METHODS: Through an on-line Qualtrics survey participants were asked: 1) how they currently evaluated professional/clinical supervision; and 2) how they thought professional/clinical supervision could be evaluated. Data were extracted through the Qualtrics reporting functions and thematic analysis was used to identify themes. A total of 329 participants completed the survey of which 145 (44%) were social workers. FINDINGS: A majority of the social work participants reported that they evaluated supervision in some form. No culture or policy emerged regarding supervision evaluation, but social workers expressed interest in training and resources to assist evaluation and some saw a supportive and endorsement role for the professional or regulatory bodies. An unexpected finding was reports of unsatisfactory and harmful supervision.CONCLUSION: Evaluation of supervision is an activity with which social workers engage, but further research is needed to explore how evaluation can be embedded in supervision practice. More critically, a broader audit is required to reconsider the definition and model of social work supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand and the environments within which supervision occurs.

show abstract

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

“…QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH Carpenter, Webb, & Bostock, 2013;O'Donoghue & Tsui, 2013;Watkins, 2011;Wheeler & Barkham, 2014). Here scholarly debate wrestles with questions of what should be evaluated in supervision and how that evaluation should take place.…”

Section: Original Articlementioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating social work supervision

Davys

May

Burns

et al. 2017

ANZSWJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, we used reviews of directly or indirectly related instruments [16–18] and Google searches for non-published instruments. Additionally, we searched guidelines about supervision and mentoring within health or social sciences, and performed snowball searches in reference lists.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous instruments have been developed in high-income settings to evaluate the quality of provider-centred supervision [16,17] and training [18] practices. The applicability of these instruments in management-centred, external supervision contexts has not been unexplored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of the ExPRESS instrument for primary health care providers’ evaluation of external supervision

Schriver

Cubaka

Vedsted

et al. 2018

Global Health Action

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: External supervision of primary health care facilities to monitor and improve services is common in low-income countries. Currently there are no tools to measure the quality of support in external supervision in these countries. Aim: To develop a provider-reported instrument to assess the support delivered through external supervision in Rwanda and other countries. Methods: “External supervision: Provider Evaluation of Supervisor Support” (ExPRESS) was developed in 18 steps, primarily in Rwanda. Content validity was optimised using systematic search for related instruments, interviews, translations, and relevance assessments by international supervision experts as well as local experts in Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. Construct validity and reliability were examined in two separate field tests, the first using exploratory factor analysis and a test–retest design, the second for confirmatory factor analysis. Results: We included 16 items in section A (‘The most recent experience with an external supervisor’), and 13 items in section B (‘The overall experience with external supervisors’). Item-content validity index was acceptable. In field test I, test–retest had acceptable kappa values and exploratory factor analysis suggested relevant factors in sections A and B used for model hypotheses. In field test II, models were tested by confirmatory factor analysis fitting a 4-factor model for section A, and a 3-factor model for section B. Conclusions: ExPRESS is a promising tool for evaluation of the quality of support of primary health care providers in external supervision of primary health care facilities in resource-constrained settings. ExPRESS may be used as specific feedback to external supervisors to help identify and address gaps in the supervision they provide. Further studies should determine optimal interpretation of scores and the number of respondents needed per supervisor to obtain precise results, as well as test the functionality of section B.

show abstract

“…There have been excellent recent reviews of instruments used in supervision. In a fairly extensive review, a comprehensive list comprising 49 instruments was subjected to close scrutiny before a smaller set of measures was identified (Wheeler & Barkham, ). Based on predetermined criteria (e.g., psychometric properties, applicability across theoretical approaches, brevity), six measures were recommended for both routine and occasional use: the Brief Supervisory Alliance Scale (Rønnestad & Lundquist, ), The Development of Psychotherapist Common Core Questionnaire (Orlinsky & Rønnestad, 2005), Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Inventory (Olk & Friedlander, ), The Helpful Aspects of Supervision Questionnaire (Llewelyn, ), and the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI; Efstation, Patton, & Kardash, ).…”

Section: Competency Models Of Supervisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Supervision Evaluation and Supervisory Competence Scale: Psychometric Validation

Gonsalvez¹,

Hamid²,

Savage

et al. 2017

Australian Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The last two decades has witnessed a strong endorsement of competency-based models for both practitioner training and professional supervision. The valid and reliable measurement of supervisee and supervisory competence is an essential step towards progress, yet currently there are few instruments that can claim to measure the range of supervisor competencies. The current study establishes the Supervision Evaluation and Supervisory Competence (SE-SC) scale as a new, psychometrically sound instrument. Method: A total of 142 supervisees anonymously completed overall evaluations of supervision satisfaction and supervisor effectiveness and of specific supervisor competencies using the SE-SC instrument. The specific competencies were subjected to a hierarchical cluster analyses to determine the underlying structure of supervisory competence. Results: The results supported a six-cluster solution that included (a) Openness, caring and support, (b) Supervisor's Knowledge and Expertise as Therapist, (c) Supervision Planning and Management, (d) Goal-Directed Supervision, (e) Restorative Competencies, and (f ) Insight into and Management of Therapist-Client Dynamics and Reflective Practitioner Competencies. The results yielded excellent internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity for the six clusters, with high and meaningful correlations with subscales of the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI) and the Supervisory Styles Inventory (SSI). More importantly, the six clusters together better predicted overall scores on supervision satisfaction and effectiveness (85% of variance) than did subscales of the SWAI (56%) and the SSI (57%). Conclusion: The SE-SC demonstrates good psychometric properties and is a useful scale to measure a supervisee's evaluation of supervisory competence. What is already known on this topic1 Evaluation of supervision satisfaction and effectiveness by supervisees are important components of supervision evaluation. 2 Available measures of supervision evaluation do not adequately represent the range of supervisor competencies. 3 Supervisory working alliance is a strong predictor of supervision satisfaction. What this paper adds1 The development and psychometric validation of a new instrument, the Supervision Evaluation and Supervisory Competence (SE-SC) scale. 2 Innovative cluster analyses to reveal the underlying structure of supervisory competence into six independent clusters. 3 Evidence that competency clusters better predict supervision satisfaction and supervisor effectiveness than omnibus constructs such as supervisory alliance.The last two decades has witnessed the rise and rise of competency-based models for practitioner training across the range of health professions within Australia and internationally, and the effects of this substantive paradigm shift have inexorably filtered into professional supervision training and practice. In the words of Milne and Watkins (2014) "… there has perhaps never been a more sweeping and all-pervasive singular ch...

show abstract

A Core Evaluation Battery for Supervision

Cited by 23 publications

References 50 publications

Evaluating social work supervision

Evaluating social work supervision

Development and validation of the ExPRESS instrument for primary health care providers’ evaluation of external supervision

The Supervision Evaluation and Supervisory Competence Scale: Psychometric Validation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About