This article describes an initiative to train public sector clinicians in competency-based clinical supervision. It was delivered as an 18-session course taught online to clinicians employed in departments of behavioral health in nine Southern California counties. The curriculum was co-constructed by a team of clinical supervision scholars and leaders who then served as instructors. Each two-hour meeting addressed a specific topic for which a training video had been prepared, usually featuring a member of the training team who had expertise in that topic. The second part of each meeting focused on a class member’s supervision case presentation. Those presentations revealed 35 themes; the four most frequently occurring were: developing supervisees’ clinical competencies, addressing countertransference and parallel process, balancing clinical and administrative supervisory roles, and addressing record keeping/paperwork. Participants’ pre-to-post supervisory self-efficacy changes demonstrated a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d?=?.46) for the training, with the greatest pre- to post-training changes being in the use of technology, multicultural competencies (awareness of oppression, bias, and stereotyping in clinical work and in clinical supervision), and contracting. They reported that the strengths of the course included an inclusive learning environment and opportunities to reflect on and apply new knowledge and skills, though they also reported struggling with the assignments and the course platform software. Lessons learned reflected the use of technology in this online program, the importance of obtaining buy-in from agency decision makers and being prepared to address challenges related to the use of direct observation in supervision, gatekeeping, and enacting the simultaneous roles of administrative and clinical supervisor.
Many animals modify behavioural decisions based on information they have previously acquired. Contest behaviour is often affected by previous contest experiences: individuals behave more and less aggressively after a victory and defeat, respectively (winner/loser effect). Individuals in the field sometimes encounter multiple competitors in quick succession, but whether these experiences interact to influence each other’s importance is unclear. We tested five hypotheses for experience interaction (no interaction, retroactive interference, proactive interaction, reinforcement and diminishing returns) using Kryptolebias marmoratus. Focal individuals were paired up with opponents having the same 1-month contest outcome (1 month before the experiment), as this difference in actual or perceived fighting ability has been shown to affect the fish’s response to new experiences. We gave the focal individual of a pair a winning or losing experience on day 1. Then both fish of the pair received the same winning, losing or no-contest experience on day 2. Then we organised fights between the two. The effect of a day-1 losing experience did depend on the fish’s actual or perceived fighting ability: one-month losers readily showed loser effects from the day-1 losing experience, irrespective of the day-2 experience (i.e. no interaction between day-1 and day-2 experiences). One-month winners, however, only showed loser effects from a day-1 losing experience when the day-2 experience was also a loss (i.e. reinforcement). Day-1 winning experiences did not interact with day-2 experiences in 1-month losers or winners. Therefore, multiple experiences sometimes reinforce each other, but how they combine to influence behaviour depends on an individual’s actual or perceived fighting ability. 相似文献