Supervisee Experiences of Impression Management, the Supervisory Working Alliance, and Counseling Self-Efficacy

Supervision plays a vital role in fostering competent, ethical and effective counseling psychologists. However, studies have shown that supervisees act in ways that counteract the benefits of supervision. Trainees manage supervisor impressions to the detriment of their professional growth; they withhold information that would help supervisors promote learning, clarify misunderstandings, gain insight into supervisee weaknesses and strengths, and provide feedback that would enhance supervisee competence. Supervisee nondisclosure is a particularly prevalent impression management behavior documented in the supervision literature (Hill, Thompson, & Corbett, 1992; Ladany et al., 1996). It and other forms of impression management may be particularly related to counseling self-efficacy and the supervisory working alliance. Recent evidence does suggest that impression management is related to counseling self-efficacy, but its role in the supervisory working alliance has not yet been examined. Given research findings that doctoral level supervisees in counseling and clinical psychology programs withhold information from their supervisors and are concerned with their supervisors\u27 impressions of them impression management at this level of training needs to be understood. This study examined the nature of the relationships among supervisee counseling self-efficacy, supervisory working alliance, and impression management. With more insight into impression management behaviors as it relates to the experiences of supervisees, the findings of this study provided evidence of how further research into impression management is important to preparing effective counseling psychologists

Should applicants to Nottingham University Medical School study a non-science A-level? A cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been suggested that studying non-science subjects at A-level should be compulsory for medical students. Our admissions criteria specify only Biology, Chemistry and one or more additional subjects. This study aimed to determine whether studying a non-science subject for A-level is an independent predictor of achievement on the undergraduate medical course.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The subjects of this retrospective cohort study were 164 students from one entry-year group (October 2000), who progressed normally on the 5-year undergraduate medical course at Nottingham. Pre-admission academic and socio-demographic data and undergraduate course marks were obtained. T-test and hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken to identify independent predictors of five course outcomes at different stages throughout the course.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no evidence that the choice of science or non-science as the third or fourth A-level subject had any influence on course performance. Demographic variables (age group, sex, and fee status) had some predictive value but ethnicity did not. Pre-clinical course performance was the strongest predictor in the clinical phases (pre-clinical Themes A&B (knowledge) predicted Clinical Knowledge, p < 0.001, and pre-clinical Themes C&D (skills) predicted Clinical Skills, p = < 0.01).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study of one year group at Nottingham Medical School provided no evidence that the admissions policy on A-level requirements should specify the choice of third or fourth subject.</p

Which Internal Medicine Clerkship Characteristics Are Associated With Students\u27 Performance on the NBME Medicine Subject Exam? A Multi-Institutional Analysis.

PURPOSE: To identify which internal medicine clerkship characteristics may relate to NBME Medicine Subject Examination scores, given the growing trend toward earlier clerkship start dates. METHOD: The authors used linear mixed effects models (univariable and multivariable) to determine associations between medicine exam performance and clerkship characteristics (longitudinal status, clerkship length, academic start month, ambulatory clinical experience, presence of a study day, involvement in a combined clerkship, preclinical curriculum type, medicine exam timing). Additional covariates included number of NBME clinical subject exams used, number of didactic hours, use of a criterion score for passing the medicine exam, whether medicine exam performance was used to designate clerkship honors, and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 performance. The sample included 24,542 examinees from 62 medical schools spanning 3 academic years (2011-2014). RESULTS: The multivariable analysis found no significant association between clerkship length and medicine exam performance (all pairwise P \u3e .05). However, a small number of examinees beginning their academic term in January scored marginally lower than those starting in July (P \u3c .001). Conversely, examinees scored higher on the medicine exam later in the academic year (all pairwise P \u3c .001). Examinees from schools that used a criterion score for passing the medicine exam also scored higher than those at schools that did not (P \u3c .05). Step 1 performance remained positively associated with medicine exam performance even after controlling for all other variables in the model (P \u3c .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, the authors found no association between many clerkship variables and medicine exam performance. Instead, Step 1 performance was the most powerful predictor of medicine exam performance. These findings suggest that medicine exam performance reflects the overall medical knowledge students accrue during their education rather than any specific internal medicine clerkship characteristics