Perceptions of Self-Efficacy in Select Supervision Competencies Among Clinical Supervisors in Genetic Counseling By Sabra Ledare Finley
Capstone Project Committee: Nancy Callanan, MS, CGC (UNCG), Chair; Patricia McCarthy Veach, PhD (University of Minnesota); Bonnie LeRoy, MS, CGC (University of Minnesota) and Sat Gupta, PhD (UNCG), Statistical Consultant
Background: Supervision is the primary instructional vehicle for genetic counseling student clinical training. Seventy-one percent of genetic counselors report supervisory roles (NSGC PSS, 2012). The first comprehensive list of empirically-derived competencies for genetic counselor supervisors published recently (Higgins et al., 2013). Studies have yet to evaluate whether supervisors possess these competencies, how they learn supervision skills, and whether experience is related to competencies. Purpose: This study investigated three major research questions: (1) How do genetic counselor supervisors assess their capabilities (self-efficacy) for a select group of supervisor competencies? (2) Are their self-assessments related to years of supervision experience and years of genetic counseling experience? (3) What methods do they use to develop supervision skills and what are their training methods preferences? Methods: One-hundred thirty-one genetic counselor supervisors completed an anonymous online survey assessing demographics (including supervision experience, years of genetic counseling experience); self-efficacy (confidence) for 12 goal setting and 16 feedback competencies (Scale: 0-100%); competencies that are challenging, methods used to learn about supervision, and preferred training methods (open-ended). Regression analyses, ANOVA, and correlation analyses assessed relationships between self-efficacy ratings and supervision and work experience and relationships between preferred training methods and supervision and work experience. Results: Mean self-efficacy ratings were high across competencies (>83.7). Participant comments revealed several challenging goal setting and feedback competencies, however. Self-efficacy was significantly related to supervision experience (p < .05) but not work experience. Training methods rated as highly effective included consultation with colleagues (61%), peer supervision group (54%) and workshops/seminars provided by genetic counseling programs (50%). Training methods preferences differed between measures of supervision experience and work experience. Conclusion: Self-efficacy regarding competencies was significantly related to supervision experience but not genetic counseling experience, supporting assertions that supervision is a discrete activity involving a distinct skill set. Despite generally high self-efficacy ratings, participants’ comments provide insight into competencies they found challenging, and indicate preferred training methods for further skill development. The findings will inform future supervision training and research.