End-of-placement failure rates among clinical psychology trainees:exceptional training and outstanding trainees or poor gate-keeping?

Supervisor versus self‐assessment of trainee competence: Differences across developmental stages and competency domains

“…However, it would be important to examine the trajectory of this inflationary trend as sustained or increasing inflation postlicensure would be of serious concern because it could lead to neglect of required professional development and adverse client consequences. Admittedly, large discrepancies early in training (negative δ ‐scores at Level 1) may be a consequence of multiple influences: trainees' underrating themselves and supervisors' tendency to leniency, a bias well‐documented in the literature (e.g., Gonsalvez et al, 2021). It is of interest to determine if supervisors' concerns about client care and their gate‐keeping responsibilities temper their default tendency to be lenient when they assess trainees on the threshold of gaining registration.…”

“…The 11 domain scores are obtained by averaging scores across the specific items within each domain and a grand mean score is obtained by averaging the domain scores for each rater. The CΨPRS has good psychometric properties including high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .91; Gonsalvez et al, 2015) and good convergent validity (Gonsalvez et al, 2021). The 11‐domain structure used by the current study is supported by results from a stepwise hierarchical cluster analysis indicating a close relationship between items included within each domain and a more distant relationship between items across domains (Gonsalvez et al, 2020).…”

“…It is also worth noting that CΨPRS assessments capture supervisors' overall, subjective ratings that may be vulnerable to leniency and halo biases (e.g., Gonsalvez et al, 2021). As with other ratings, CΨPRS scores may be less able to reliably capture complex processes including meta-competencies (Kaslow et al, 2009).…”