Investigation of psychological and neuropsychological factors associated with clinical outcome following a group rehabilitation programme

The present study investigated neuropsychological and psychological factors associated with successful treatment outcome following a group intervention for individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). Participants were classified into two groups (Clinically Improved and Not Improved) based upon the findings of a previous study (Ownsworth, McFarland, & Young, 2000a). A discriminant analysis was used to predict group membership on three outcome measures (Awareness and Strategy Behaviour indices of the Self-Regulation Skills Interview and the Psychosocial Dimension of the Sickness Impact Profile) between pre-assessment and post-assessment, and between pre-assessment and 6 months follow-up. Neuropsychological factors involved measures of executive functioning and psychological factors were assessed using measures of personality-related denial and coping-related denial. Overall, the results indicated that individuals with impaired executive functioning were most likely to be classified as Clinically Improved on measures of awareness, strategy behaviour and psychosocial functioning. Individuals who deny or minimise their ABI symptoms were less likely to improve their psychosocial functioning following the group intervention. Future research needs to evaluate interventions for enhancing self-regulation skills and improving psychosocial functioning for individuals who employ denial as a main strategy for coping following ABI.

The development of research supervision: 'Turning the light on private space'

Educational development for research supervisors is still a recent phenomenon. Early optional sessions on research supervision have now been replaced, particularly in the UK, continental Europe, and Australasia, by comprehensive and, in some cases, mandatory programs. Yet some of these programs focus solely on the administrative roles and responsibilities of supervisors, attempting to provide technical “fixes” that deny the genuine difficulties and complexities involved in supervision relationships. Some research supervisors resent the intrusion of educational developers into what many of them have regarded as a private pedagogical space. They interpret such programs as further instances of the quality assurance agendas of governments and university administrators, and are justifiably suspicious of what some describe as the colonial underpinnings of educational development. These reactions create tensions for educational developers. This article explores why educational development can be problematic for research supervisors. It then charts some current supervision educational development programs that seek to go beyond administrative interpretations of supervision. Finally, it examines whether the “Compassionate Rigour” supervision program, developed to address these difficulties, manages to respond respectfully and sensitively to supervisors’ educational development needs.