Upload
cole-roach
View
221
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Ali January, M.A., & David Meyerson, M.A, Felice Reddy, M.A, Anna Docherty, M. A.
.
Supervisory competence (Falender et al, 2004; Barnett, Doll, Younggren, & Rubin, 2007)
Perceptions of strong and weak supervisors (Martino, 2001; Lowry, 2001)
More than 50% of supervisees surveyed reported experiencing at least one unethical behavior on the part of a clinical supervisor (Ladany, 2002)
HOWEVER, when it comes to faculty members in clinical psychology, the literature is quite sparse
IntroductionIntroduction
Better understand ethical dilemmas faced by students in faculty relationships and students’ reactions to these ethical violations
Gain some knowledge about the types of professional competence issues students’ perceive in clinical psychology faculty and the impact on their well being
Examine the relation of climate to ethical violations and problems of professional competence
Reasons for this StudyReasons for this Study
We asked about the number of faculty with specific problem behaviorsDrug and alcohol problemsBeing unavailable, unhelpful feedback etc.
We also asked about the impact of and sympathy for broad categories of problemsSkill BasedRelationalPersonal Ethical
In this SurveyIn this Survey
Clinical Clinical Program Climate Program Climate ScaleScale• Originally 26 itemsOriginally 26 items• Principal Components Analysis, Principal Components Analysis,
extracted one factorextracted one factor• One item removed because low One item removed because low
correlation with factorcorrelation with factor• Final scale has 25 items (all items load Final scale has 25 items (all items load
above .380 on factor); single factor above .380 on factor); single factor explains 48% of varianceexplains 48% of variance
• Cronbach’s Cronbach’s = .952 = .952
Clinical Clinical Program Climate Program Climate ScaleScalePlease respond to the following items while thinking
about the clinical psychology graduate program at your university:
“Students feel that faculty are ‘on their side.’”
“I feel wanted and needed in my program.”
“Attendance is good; students stay away only for urgent and good reasons.”
“Most people in my program are kind.”
“Faculty treat students as persons.”
In which ways do clinical In which ways do clinical faculty demonstrate faculty demonstrate problems with professional problems with professional functioning?functioning?
PROBLEM Average SD NLack interpersonal skills 1.73 2.02 339
Lack self-awareness 1.64 2.03 336Provide Unhelpful/Inconsistent feedback
1.55 1.59 348
Are consistently unavailable 1.46 1.73 348
Are unnecessarily punitive or critical 1.19 1.46 349
Lack statistical skills 1.14 1.85 330Have fatigue or burnout 1.03 1.65 339Are consistently unreliable .98 1.35 345
Have Poor judgment .75 1.25 330Have Axis I issues (depression, eating disorders,
.71 1.70 307
Have a Personality disorder .64 1.18 308
Have Violated ethnical standards .59 1.31 329
Have anger management problems .33 .69 328
Lack intellectual reasoning .26 .73 324Have alcohol abuse/dependence problems
.16 .54 306
Have drug abuse/dependence problems
.09 .32 308
PROBLEM Average SD N
Lack interpersonal skills1.73 2.02 339
Lack self-awareness1.64 2.03 336
Provide Unhelpful/Inconsistent feedback
1.55 1.59 348
PROBLEM Average SD N
Lack intellectual reasoning.26 .73 324
Have alcohol abuse/dependence problems
.16 .54 306
Have drug abuse/dependence problems
.09 .32 308
HypothesesHypotheses
Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 1Most students will be able to identify a faculty memberwith competence problems. (n = 300)
269
31
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
# o
f stu
dent
s
At least oneidentified
None identified
HypothesesHypotheses
Hypothesis 2Hypothesis 2
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Skill-based Relationship-based
Personal Ethical Violation
Competency Problems
Sym
path
y(M
, 95%
CI)
Students’ sympathies for faculty with competency problems (n = 311)
Wilks’ Lambda = .045; F(4,307) = 1620.07, p = .000
HypothesesHypotheses
Hypothesis 3Hypothesis 3
Relation of program climate to sympathy for different categories of faculty professional problems
Skill Based r= 0.123, p= 0.03
Relation Based r=0.316, p <.001
Personal problems r= 0.251, p <.001
Ethical Violation r= 0.272, p <.001
HypothesesHypotheses
Hypothesis 4Hypothesis 4
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Skill-based Relationship-based
Personal Ethical Violation
Competency Problems
Neg
ativ
e Em
otio
nal
Impa
ct (
M, 9
5%CI
)
Students’ negative emotional impact in response to faculty competency problems (n = 288)
Wilks’ Lambda = .044; F(4,284) = 1542.48, p = .000
HypothesesHypotheses
Ethical ViolationsEthical Violations
31.3 % of students identified at least one or more faculty members who had committed an ethical violation
Hypothesis 5Hypothesis 5
154
10
109
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
# o
f stu
dent
s
Yes No Not Sure
If you have not witnessed an ethical violation, would you tell someone if you did? (n = 273)
Hypothesis 5Hypothesis 5When you found out about the ethical violation, did you tell someone? (n = 75)
Inappropriate sexual relationships Confidentiality violations Mishandling data Forging Evaluations Plagiarism/Ghost Writing
Types of Ethical Types of Ethical ViolationsViolations
Discuss managing faculty competence issues
Students’ awareness of rights and support to speak up
ConclusionsConclusions
25
Self-report, cross-sectional data
Some issues of non-independent sampling (students replying from the same program)
Some students abandoned survey
Not all CUDCP programs represented
Opportunity for nested analyses
May want to gather faculty ratings to compare against student perceptions
Limitations & Future Limitations & Future DirectionsDirections