Development and preliminary validation of a measure for assessing staff perspectives on the quality of clinical group supervision

Background: In the UK clinical supervision is regarded as an essential process supporting quality improvement within the clinical governance framework, and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists regards it as a tool for promoting critical reflective practice. There is limited evidence o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of language & communication disorders 2008-03, Vol.43 (2), p.126-134
Hauptverfasser: Horton, Simon, Drachler, Maria de Lourdes, Fuller, Alison, Leite, Jose Carlos de Carvalho
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: In the UK clinical supervision is regarded as an essential process supporting quality improvement within the clinical governance framework, and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists regards it as a tool for promoting critical reflective practice. There is limited evidence of the impact on practice or improvements in healthcare quality, and the need for an evaluation instrument specifically tailored to group supervision. Aims: To develop a measure for assessing staff perspectives on the quality of clinical group supervision and its impact on the quality of care. Methods & Procedures: A self-completion questionnaire was devised to measure staff perceptions of purpose, process and impact of clinical group supervision. Items were developed through an inductive process of consultation, peer and literature review. The questionnaire's content validity was assessed. The questionnaire was then administered to 57 subjects who had received approximately 1 year of clinical supervision to evaluate acceptability, factor structure and convergent validity. Outcomes & Results: Response rates were 91% (52 57). Principal component factor analysis suggested a three-factor structure, the first three factors accounting for 72.4% of the total variance. Items loaded appropriately onto purpose, process and impact. These three dimensions were positively and moderately correlated. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86) indicated that the 14 items could be regarded as a scale. The overall CSEQ score was positively correlated with a single question assessing 'general opinion' about the CS program (Spearman's rho = 0.79, p
ISSN:1368-2822
1460-6984
DOI:10.1080/13682820701380031