The relationship between genetic counseling student self‐efficacy and clinical training

Abstract

Clinical experience is an important part of the training required in genetic counseling graduate programs, but little evidence exists for the number of clinical cases a student may need in order to confidently perform skills. The purpose of this study was to further describe the relationship between genetic counseling student self‐efficacy and the number of core cases students log during their training. In this study, second year genetic counseling students nearing the end of their training completed a questionnaire that included the Genetic Counseling Self‐efficacy Scale (GCSES) and questions related to the students' clinical experiences. Genetic counseling student self‐efficacy was found to be positively associated with the number of core cases the student accumulated during training, with a plateau in GCSES scores between 80 and 100 core cases. These data suggest that 50 cases may not be enough for the average student, but over 100 may be more than needed in order to feel confident in their skills. Genetic counseling programs may benefit from increased flexibility in clinical training to meet the different needs of their trainees. Further studies characterizing the relationship between genetic counseling student self‐efficacy and clinical competency, and well as the effectiveness of clinical training by genetic counseling programs, may aid in better understanding the clinical training specifications that best meet the needs of genetic counseling trainees.

Further validation of the Genetic Counseling Self‐Efficacy Scale (GCSES): Its relationship with personality characteristics

“…In the current study, the highest mean self‐efficacy was for information gathering (96.2 ± 6.1) and the lowest mean self‐efficacy was for complex skills (86.9 ± 11.1). This phenomenon was also observed in Caldwell et al () study and Owens‐Thomas et al () study. The mean GCSES factor scores in the current study were higher for all six factors than those reported in genetic counseling students at the beginning of their second year of training (Caldwell et al, ) and at the end of their second year of training (Owens‐Thomas et al, ) (Table ).…”

“…A further aim was to look at professional experiences and job characteristics of genetic counselors in relation to self‐efficacy with genetic counseling skills. Lastly, the current study aimed to provide further validation of the GCSES by confirming the six‐factor model that has been demonstrated in previous studies (Caldwell et al, ; Owens‐Thomas et al, ). Self‐efficacy is an important factor, separate from competence, which can impact individual performance during training and on the job.…”

“…Previous studies utilizing the GCSES showed that genetic counseling students’ average factor scores on the GCSES increased from the beginning of their second year to the end of their second year (Caldwell et al, ; Owens‐Thomas et al, ). However, Owens‐Thomas et al found that factor scores on the GCSES for second year genetic counseling students seemed to plateau between 80 and 100 core clinical cases.…”

“…Additionally, genetic counseling (GC) students’ GCSES scores in the beginning of their second year of graduate training were highest for more basic skills, such as information gathering and genetic counseling process, and were lowest for complex genetic counseling skills (Caldwell et al, ). Recently, Owens‐Thomas et al found that for GC students at the end of their second year of graduate training, higher genetic counseling self‐efficacy factor scores were associated with a higher number of core cases accumulated during training (Owens‐Thomas, Wusik, He, Yager, & Atzinger, ). It has also been found that the GC student's perceived genetic counseling self‐efficacy was related to the supervisory working alliance, which is the relationship between supervisor and student that facilitates the student's learning (Caldwell, Wusik, He, Yager, & Atzinger, ; Efstation, Patton, & Kardash, ).…”

Supervision in genetic counselor training in North America: A systematic review

“…This can help the novice supervisor feel more comfortable and confident with few students supervised (Allsbrook et al, ). The competencies can be used by supervisors as a guide for their rotations. For example: Conduct an orientation with a contract regarding the details of the clinical placement and supervisory relationship, as well as set realistic learning goals with student and comment on positive changes made by students in response to feedback (Eubanks Higgins et al, ). Supervisors can create an informed consent to review with students to orient them to the rotation, expectations, how to handle boundary issues (e.g., more than one relationship present between student and supervisor; Gu et al, ; Hendrickson et al, ; McCarthy & LeRoy, ). It may be that some students are seeing more patients than are necessary per rotation (Owens‐Thomas, Wusik, He, Yager, & Atzinger, ). Setting shorter rotations or giving more breaks to supervisors may also be a way to reduce GC supervisor burden (Berg et al, ). Program directors could potentially increase supervisors by utilizing genetic counselors farther away from a training program during summer rotations.…”