Powerpoint template for scientific posters

1
Clinical Supervision An Inter-Institutional Look
at Supervisors Attitudes and Practices Ruth
Peaper-Fillyaw, University of New Hampshire
Susan Bartlett, University of Connecticut Pat
Mercaitis, University of Massachusetts Sandra
Cohn Thau, Emerson College Helen Anis,
Northeastern University Kevin McNamara, Southern
Connecticut State University Elizabeth Gavett,
Boston University Nancy Allen, State University
of New York at Plattsburgh and Ann Veneziano,
Worcester State College Poster presented to
the Annual Meeting of the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, November
2008, Chicago, IL

• Demographics
• Frequency data on program participants, survey
  respondents
• 10 out of 12 NE programs participated
• 447 total respondents
• 96 (N449) Masters level SLPs
• 3 (N16) Doctoral level SLPs
• .4 (N2) missing data
• Years of Clinical experience
• .4 (N2) 1 to 2 yrs.
• 7.4 (N33) 3 to 5 yrs.
• 23.3 (N104) 6 to 10 yrs.
• 18.8 (N84) 11 to 15 yrs.
• 49.7 (N222) 16 yrs.
• .4 (N2) missing data
• Years of Supervisory experience
• 8.1 (N36) 1 or less yrs.

Conclusions We believe that this study is the
first inter-institutional examination of
supervisory processes and the first to yield this
remarkable amount of statistically significant
information about clinical educators attitudes
and practices regarding the supervisory process.
The most important findings of this study
yielded the following 1) Clinical
educators, attitudes about the supervisory
processes corresponded highly to
their actual practices. 2) Regardless of the
settings where supervision takes place, there are
no differences in responses provided on either
the Powell or the Practice scale totals. 3)
The total scores regarding supervisory
perceptions are significantly different when
examining the amount of supervisory experience.
However, the total practice scores are not
significantly different. 4) There are
statistically significant differences between
those whose motivation for supervision was based
on altruistic reasons vs. those who reported
supervising for the purposes of receiving
compensation or to fulfill professional work
requirements. The results of this survey show
particularly interesting findings when the
supervisory conference is the focus. Off-campus
respondents agree that the conference should
focus more on the clients than on the, supervisee
but on-campus supervisors will tend to disagree
with that statement. This might be explained by
the fact that supervisors in on -campus settings
work more with novice or advanced beginners vs.
off campus supervisors who work with more
advanced supervisees. The more direct, active
clinical teaching needed for the novice or
advanced beginners typically relatively equally
attention on both the client and supervisee.
Another possible explanation is that on- and
off-campus supervisors may regard their primary
responsibilities differently. On-campus
supervisors may regard their primary
responsibility as including both the client and
the supervisee while off-campus supervisors may
consider their primary responsibility as the
client with the supervisee considered an add-on
responsibility that they assume (most for
altruistic reasons). Further directions to
explore Do perceptions and practices change
with increased clinical experience? Are the
trends similar to those seen when looking at
increased experience as a supervisor? Are there
trends in attitudes and practices that show a
relationship to the mechanisms for acquiring
supervisory skills?
Research Questions and Data
Introduction Perceptions and practices in the
supervisory process for on-campus and off-campus
clinical instructors in speech-language pathology
within the Northeast were surveyed. Subjects had
provided supervision for graduate students
between 2004 and 2007. A mail survey was used to
obtain data. Results based on 447 respondents
revealed agreement between supervisory attitudes
and corresponding practices in 13/15 areas
surveyed suggesting a high level of consistency
between supervisory perceptions and practices.
Differences were reported in two areas
supervisors direction of the supervisory
conference and supervisors perceived vs. actual
responsibility for problem solving.
1. How do clinical educators perceive the
supervisory process and are their practices
consistent with perceptions? Using the
Kappa Test of Agreement, the measures of
agreement are more than would be found by chance
alone. All items on the Powell Scale and the
Practices Scale achieved statistical significance
with respect to agreement. The respondents showed
that their attitudes as measured by the Powell
Scale corresponded to their actual supervisory
practices as measured by the Practices Scale at
statistically significant levels of agreement for
each item.
Methods and Materials In January 2008 and
following approval by each members local
Institutional Review Board, a packet was sent to
on- and off-campus supervisors throughout the
Northeast who had provided supervision to SLP
students between 2004-07. Respondents were asked
to provide demographic information and then to
respond to two separate sets of statements one
targeted perceptions and the other queried
supervisory practices. The Powells Attitudes
Toward Clinical Supervision Scale (Powell,1987)
was used to measure perceptions about the
supervisory process. A second set of statements
-- an adaptation from the Powell Scale
(Practice) -- mirrored the attitude statements
and was used to collect information about actual
supervisory practices. Respondents were asked to
indicate their agreement with the statements
using a five-point Likert Scale (strongly agree
to strongly disagree). Four hundred forty seven
pairs of surveys and questionnaires were reviewed
by statistical consultants to yield the following
results.
2. Do on- and off-campus clinical educators vary
in their perceptions and practices of the
supervisory process? There is NO statistically
significant difference between the responses on
either the Powell or the Practice totals when
comparing clinical educators perceptions and
practices in on- and off-campus settings. This
indicates that among on- and off-campus
supervisors, perceptions and practices in the
supervisory process are consistent..
References Brasseur, J. J. Anderson (1983).
Observed differences between direct, indirect,
and direct/indirect videotaped supervisory
conferences. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research Powell, T. (1987). A rating scale for
measurement of attitudes toward clinical
supervision. SUPERvision, 11, 31-34 Powell, T.
(2006). Personal communication. Permission
given to use the Powell Rating Scale.
3. Do perceptions and practices change with
increased experience as a supervisor? Regardless
of amount of supervisory experience, the total
Powell scores are significantly different (ANOVA,
significant at .043). The total Practice scores
are not significant across different levels of
supervisory experience. The Robust Tests of
Equality of Means (Brown-Forsythe) were
significant for the Powell total scores by
supervisor experience levels. Using Tukeys HSD
test, the singular statistically significant
difference was between 6-10 years and 16 yrs of
supervisory experience. Interestingly, for those
with 6-10 years, the total Powell scores were
lower than those with 1 or fewer, 2-5, and 11-15
yrs of experience. The results do not support the
conclusion that the total Powell scores differ as
one gains supervisory experience.
4. Do perceptions and practices of the
supervisory process vary according to type of
preparation for the supervisory process or
according to motivation to supervise?
Respondents to the survey, regardless of the
type of preparation they have for the supervisory
process, disagree that the supervisees ideas are
less important than the supervisors. Those
supervisors who obtained preparation to
supervise after graduate school (i.e., through
workshops, books, self-study) were slightly more
likely to disagree with the Powell item
(Supervisees ideas are less important than my
ideas.) than those whose preparation came from
graduate school lectures, coursework, or
mentoring. Motivation for supervision was
collapsed into two categories Group 1 included
those whose interests in supervision were
considered altruistic and prompted by personal
reasons. Group 2 included those whose motivation
was externally driven by factors such as
compensation or fulfilling a work requirement.
While both groups agreed that student clinicians
and supervisors should jointly plan for
supervisory conferences, those whose motivation
was considered altruistic were slightly more
likely to agree with this statement than those
who were compensated or expected to fulfill a
work requirement. This group were more likely to
disagree.
Acknowledgements Susan Riley, MS, CCC-SLP,
formerly clinic director at University of Maine,
for the research idea and
inspiration Ava Goldman and William Parsons
(University of Massachusetts) and for their
statistical
support Deborah Cook, M.A., CCC-SLP, Springfield
College, for printing the poster.