Assessing ourselves : is the assessment of performance in clinical psychology field placements due to biased raters or defective rating instruments?

John Bushnell, Craig J. Gonsalvez, Russell Blackman, Alice Shires, Christopher Allan, Kathryn Nicholson Perry, Roslyn Knight, Yasmina Nasstasia, Frank Deane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

In common with the training for many health professions, there are serious weaknesses in normal practices for assessing the performance of clinical psychology students in field placements, and these are evident in the field placement data captured from five NSW postgraduate clinical psychology courses. Iterative improvements in assessment forms, including the introduction of electronic data capture, and a criterion-referenced basis for decisions about competence within a developmental framework applied to agreed domains were found to do little to reduce the evident leniency and halo bias in supervisor ratings. Whilst not totally devoid of value (the field placement ratings do show credible improvement between mid-placement and end-placement), the supervisors’ ratings of student performance at end of placement show uniform reluctance to describe a student as “unsatisfactory” or “needs development”. The implications of this finding are discussed with particular reference to patient safety and professional responsibility.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)4-11
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists
Volume23
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Keywords

  • clinical psychology
  • psychologists
  • training of

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing ourselves : is the assessment of performance in clinical psychology field placements due to biased raters or defective rating instruments?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this