University trainers' versus field supervisors' perceptions of training in school psychology: A comparative survey
The relationship between school psychology training programs and their respective internship training sites is one that is crucial for the continued development of the profession and the preparation of future school psychologists. The present research utilized a unique survey methodology in which university trainers' and field supervisors' perceptions of school psychology training were compared nationwide. University faculty respondents were requested to provide a list of school psychologists who supervised interns within the community. Matched pairs of university trainers and affiliated field supervisors were then obtained. The two main sections of the survey utilized a list of competencies and role areas that were developed in previous research of students' and practitioners' perceptions of training (Graden, Christenson, Ysseldyke, and Meyers, 1984). The six roles (comprised of 64 competencies in total) were identified as: Assessment, Intervention, Consultation, Research/Program Evaluation, Change Agent, and Communication/Interpretation. Differences were explored with respect to relative importance and level of preparation in competency areas. Areas of perceived need for more training were identified for both groups. Similarities and differences were also explored with respect to the way trainers and supervisors perceived the patterns of carry over in training from one major role to another. Ninety one universities contributed to the study (representing 44% of the programs sampled). The total sample consisted of 130 university trainers (representing 50% of available responses), and 105 field supervisors (representing 53% of available responses).^ A general trend was noted for trainers to give significantly higher ratings than field supervisors along the dimension of importance for nearly every competency. This finding was significant in the areas of Assessment, Intervention, Research/Program Evaluation, Consultation, and Communication/Interpretation. One important exception was noted, e.g., field supervisors rated the competency of "facilitating team decision making" as significantly more important than university trainers. Field supervisors gave significantly lower ratings than trainers along the dimension of degree of preparation for many competencies. These reached significance in the areas of Assessment, Intervention, Research/Program Evaluation, Consultation, Change Agent, and Communication/Interpretation. Implications of the areas of agreement and disagreement among university trainers and field supervisors in relation to school psychology were discussed. Areas of improvement and areas in need of more training were identified. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) ^
Education, Educational Psychology|Psychology, General|Education, Higher
Barbara Rochelle Rubenstein,
"University trainers' versus field supervisors' perceptions of training in school psychology: A comparative survey"
(January 1, 1992).
ETD Collection for Pace University.