Field supervisors' assessments of trainee performance: Are they reliable and valid?
Field supervisors' assessments of trainee performance: Are they reliable and valid?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/00050060600827615
复制
发表时间：
2007-03-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Freestone, John
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gonsalvez, Craig J.;Freestone, John
这项研究引起了人们的注意，即主管的评估并不像专业心理学所假设的那样可靠或有效。该研究检查了130名主管在12年期间积累的实习结束报告，这些主管对131名临床心理学学员完成的291个实地实习的表现进行了评估。主管的评级很可能受到宽大偏见的影响。此外，早期的安置评级是较差的预测随后安置评级由不同的主管。对11个广泛表现维度的评级产生了一个单一的临床技能因素，其中的项目聚集在两个集群中：评估和干预；人际关系和专业技能。本文讨论了导致主管偏见的因素，以及减少偏见和提高主管评级价值的策略。
This study draws attention to the very real possibility that supervisors' assessments are not as reliable or valid as professional psychology assumes. The study examines end-placement reports accrued over a 12-year period from 130 supervisors who rated performance in 291 field placements completed by 131 clinical psychology trainees. It is likely that supervisor ratings are affected by a leniency bias. Further, earlier placement ratings are poor predictors of subsequent placement ratings by different supervisors. Ratings on the 11 broad performance dimensions yield a single clinical skills factor within which items congregated into two clusters: Assessment and Intervention; and Interpersonal and Professional skills. Factors that contribute to supervisor bias and strategies to reduce bias and to enhance the value of supervisor ratings are discussed.