Clinical supervision in school counselling and career counselling: Is it time to develop a new story?

Supervision provides benefits for school counsellors and career counsellors such as support, an opportunity to gain new ideas and strategies, and personal and professional development. Despite this, studies have also shown that school counsellors perceive that the amount of time they participate in supervision is inadequate. In career counselling, there is little evidence that supervision has even been established as a mainstream professional practice. The reasons for this curious situation, whereby little time is spent on a potentially beneficial activity, are uncertain. The present study investigated the supervisory experiences of a group of school counsellors and career counsellors for a six month period following their completion of an intensive supervision training program. Participants recorded their supervisory experiences in a structured diary. Even though the participants were well informed about supervision, the findings of the present study are consistent with those of previous studies. This history of repeatedly similar findings suggests that it may be timely to ask some fundamental questions about supervision in these two professions. Such questions in turn suggest possible new research directions.

Development and evaluation of the Clinician Suicide Risk Assessment Checklist

This paper describes the development and evaluation of a new instrument – the Clinician Suicide Risk Assessment Checklist (CSRAC). The instrument assesses the clinician’s competency in three areas: clinical interviewing, assessment of specific suicide risk factors, and formulating a management plan. A draft checklist was constructed by integrating information from 1) literature review 2) expert clinician focus group and 3) consultation with experts. It was utilised in a simulated clinical scenario with clinician trainees and a trained actor in order to test for inter-rater agreement. Agreement was calculated and the checklist was re-drafted with the aim of maximising agreement. A second phase of simulated clinical scenarios was then conducted and inter-rater agreement was calculated for the revised checklist. In the first phase of the study, 18 of 35 items had inadequate inter-rater agreement (60%>), while in the second phase, using the revised version, only 3 of 39 items failed to achieve adequate inter-rater agreement. Further evidence of reliability and validity are required. Continued development of the CSRAC will be necessary before it can be utilised to assess the effectiveness of risk assessment training programs.