Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11898974

A quantitative method for studying the testing supervision process.

Clifford M DeCato
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A quantitative method by Holloway for studying the supervision process in counseling training was adapted for use in psychological testing supervision. Ratings of 80 sessions indicated that most of the 25 potential interactions between the supervisor and trainee occurred in most of the sessions. The rate of occurrence was the lowest for the Emotional Awareness task (21%-24%). The author offers a speculation about how this result may be understood as involving the structured nature of testing. Results suggested that this model could be used as a tool for both practical and theoretical empirical evaluation of the supervision process during training in psychological testing.

Explore related subjects

CounselingCurriculumHumansOrganization and AdministrationPsychological TestsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Clifford M DeCato. 2002. A quantitative method for studying the testing supervision process.. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2002.90.1.137

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Welfare rights advice in primary care: prevalence, processes and specialist provision.

BACKGROUND: Despite persistent poverty-related health inequalities, few sustained responses have been developed in primary care. Welfare rights provision has been proposed as one potential pathway to addressing health inequalities. OBJECTIVES: This study was set up to address the prevalence of welfare rights issues in general practice, and the practitioner response to unmet need. METHODS: A postal questionnaire was sent to practitioners in GP surgeries of an inner city health authority with high levels of deprivation. By means of a 'most recent case audit', data on welfare advice needs were collected. Practices with in-house welfare rights provision were compared with those surgeries with no such provision. RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned by 153 practitioners, describing their most recent case with a welfare rights need (mean 10.41 days ago). Of the respondents, 70.6% felt that there was a mental health element to this consultation, 49.8% of problems were described as urgent, and 65.8% of patients requested information or guidance. Those practitioners with specialist advisers in the surgery (n = 81) were significantly more likely to find referring patients to advisers easy, that quality of advice for patients was good, that welfare providers enhanced their ability to practice effectively and that such provision improves the health and well-being of patients. In those surgeries without provision (n = 72), patients were more likely to approach their practitioner for advice. GPs were more likely than nurses and other practising staff to see a case with welfare rights needs. Practitioners were more likely to raise the welfare issues if they had specialist advice in the surgery. CONCLUSIONS: A large amount of practitioner consultation time is spent on welfare rights-related issues. Although practitioners are skilled in detecting need, and their practice is enhanced by specialist support, expansion is needed to provide the advice which cannot be met by clinical consultation.

Counseling↗
PubMed2003

Match the best smoking cessation intervention to your patient.

Various treatment modalities and programs provide smoking cessation aid, but how effective are each of these treatment options? Select the optimum treatment for your patient by learning the efficacy and applicability of interventions such as counseling, nicotine replacement therapy, non-nicotine drugs, harm reduction, and acupuncture.

Counseling↗