Süpervizyon Çalışma Uyumu Envanteri Kısa Formu’nun (SÇUE-KF) Türkçe’ye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 856 - 870, 28.12.2022

Betül Meydan Ali Serdar Sağkal

https://doi.org/10.51460/baebd.1098798

Öz

Süpervizyon Çalışma Uyumu Envanteri Kısa Formu (SÇUE-KF), süpervizör ve süpervizyon alan kişi arasındaki süpervizyon çalışma uyumunun niteliğini süpervizyon alan kişinin perspektifinden ölçmektedir. Bu araştırmada, SÇUE-KF Türkçe’ye uyarlanmış ve psikometrik özellikleri test edilmiştir. Öncelikle, orijinal çalışmanın yazarlarından envanter uyarlama izni alınmıştır. Envanterin Türkçe’ye uyarlanmasında ileri-geri çeviri ile pilot uygulama işlemleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmaya toplam 284 süpervizyon alan kişi katılmıştır. Araştırmada veri toplama araçları olarak Demografik Bilgi Formu, SÇUE-KF, Süpervizörlük Tarzları Envanteri ve Süpervizyonda Değerlendirme Süreci Envanteri kullanılmıştır. SÇUE-KF’nun psikometrik özelliklerini test etmek için yapı geçerliği, ölçüt-bağıntılı geçerlik ve güvenirlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, SÇUE-KF’nun tek faktörlü orijinal yapısının hedef örneklemde doğrulandığını göstermiştir. SÇUE-KF’nun ölçüt-bağıntılı geçerliğe ve yüksek güvenirliğe sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak, araştırmanın sonuçları, SÇUE-KF’nun Türkiye’de süpervizyon çalışma uyumunun niteliğinin ölçümünde kullanılabilecek güçlü, geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğunu göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Süpervizyon, Süpervizyon çalışma uyumu, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik, Uyarlama

Destekleyen Kurum

TÜBİTAK 1001

Proje Numarası

121K877

Kaynakça

• Aladağ, M. (2014). Psikolojik danışman eğitiminin farklı düzeylerinde bireyle psikolojik danışma uygulaması süpervizyonunda kritik olaylar. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 2(15), 428-475.
• Atik, Z. (2017). Psikolojik danışman adaylarının bireyle psikolojik danışma uygulaması ve süpervizyonuna ilişkin değerlendirmeleri. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara, Türkiye.
• Atik, Z. ve Yıldırım, İ. (2017). Süpervizyonda Değerlendirme Süreci Envanteri Türkçe Formu’nun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 18(1), 146-173.
• American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for clinical supervision in health service psychology. American Psychologist, 70, 33–46. doi: 10.1037/a0038 112.
• Bahrick, A. S. (1989). Role induction for counselor trainees: Effects on the supervisory working alliance. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. https://www.proquest.com/docview/303821611?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true adresinden elde edilmiştir.
• Bambling, M. ve King, R. (2014). Supervisor social skill and supervision outcome. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 14, 256–262.
• Behling, J., Curtis, C. ve Foster, S. A. (1988). Impact of sex-role combinations on student performance in field instruction. The Clinical Supervisor, 6, 161-168. doi:10.1300/J001v06n03_12
• Bernard, J. M. ve Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. MA: Pearson.
• Borders, L. D. ve Brown, L. L. (2005). The new handbook of counseling supervision (2. bs.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
• Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085885
• Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(1), 35-42.
• Büyükgöze-Kavas, A. (2011). An evaluation regarding individual and group counseling practicums. Turkish Educational Sciences Journal, 9(2), 411-432.
• Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2. bs.). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Cliffe, T., Beinart, H. ve Cooper, M. (2016). Development and validation of a short version of the supervisory relationship questionnaire. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 23(1), 77-86.
• Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. 2016. CACREP Standards. https://www.cacrep.org/for-programs/2016-cacrep-standards/ adresinden elde edilmiştir.
• Crockett, S. ve Hays, D. G. (2015). The influence of supervisor multicultural competence on the supervisory working alliance, supervisee counseling self‐efficacy, and supervisee satisfaction with supervision: A mediation model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 54(4), 258-273. doi:10.1002/ceas.12025
• Edwards, P. J., Roberts, I., Clarke, M. J., DiGuiseppi, C., Wentz, R., Kwan, I., ... ve Pratap, S. (2009). Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane database of systematic reviews, (3). doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4
• Efstation, J. F., Patton, M. J. ve Kardash, C. M. (1990). Measuring the working alliance in counselor supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37(3), 322-329. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.37.3.322
• Ellis, M. V. (1991). Critical incidents in clinical supervision and in supervisor supervision: Assessing supervisory issues. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(3), 342-349.
• Fernández-Ballesteros, R. ve Botella, J. (2008). Self-report measures. Evidence-based outcome research: A practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials for psychosocial interventions, 95-122.
• Fernando, D. M. ve Hulse‐Killacky, D. (2005). The relationship of supervisory styles to satisfaction with supervision and the perceived self‐efficacy of master's‐level counseling students. Counselor education and supervision, 44(4), 293-304. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2005.tb01757.x
• Friedlander, M. L. ve Ward, L. G. (1984). Development and validation of the Supervisory Styles Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31(4), 541-557. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.31.4.541
• Ghazali, N. M., Jaafar, W. M. W., Tarmizi, R. A. ve Noah, S. M. (2016). Influence of supervisees’ working alliance on supervision outcomes: A study in Malaysia context. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 6(1), 9-14. doi:10.7763/IJSSH.2016.V6.609
• Gonsalvez, C. J., Hamid, G., Savage, N. M. ve Livni, D. (2017). The supervision evaluation and supervisory competence scale: Psychometric validation. Australian Psychologist, 52(2), 94-103.
• Gunn, J. E. ve Pistole, M. C. (2012). Trainee supervisor attachment: Explaining the alliance and disclosure in supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 6(4), 229–237. doi: 10.1037/a0030805
• Haynes, R., Corey, G. ve Moulton, P. (2003). Clinical supervision in the helping professions: A practical guide. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.
• Hindes, Y. L. ve Andrews, J. J. W. (2011). Influence of gender on the supervisory relationship: A review of the empirical research from 1996 to 2010. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 45(3), 240-261.
• Holloway, E. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Sage: Thousand Oaks.
• Horrocks, S. ve Smaby, M. H. (2006). The supervisory relationship : Its impact on trainee personal and skills development. Compelling Perspectives on Counselling: VISTAS, 173-176.
• Jain, S. ve Angural, V. (2017). Use of Cronbach’s alpha in dental research. Medico Research Chronicles, 4(3), 285-291.
• Karpenko, V. ve Gidycz, C. A. (2012). The supervisory relationship and the process of evaluation: Recommendations for supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 31(2), 138-158.
• Koçyiğit-Özyiğit, M. (2019). Bireyle psikolojik danışma uygulaması dersinde grup süpervizyonu sürecinin incelenmesi: Bir durum çalışması. Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Ege Üniversitesi, İzmir, Türkiye.
• Ladany, N. ve Lehrman-Waterman, D. E. (1999). The content and frequency of supervisor self-disclosures and their relationship to supervisor style and the supervisory working alliance. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 143–160. https ://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1999.tb005 67.x.
• Ladany, N., Mori, Y. ve Mehr, K. E. (2013). Effective and ineffective supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 41(1), 28-47. doi:10.1177/0011000012442648
• Ladany, N., Walker, J. A. ve Melincoff, D. S. (2001). Supervisory style: Its relation to the supervisory working alliance and supervisor self‐disclosure. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40(4), 263-275.
• Lehrman-Waterman, D. ve Ladany, N. (2001). Development and validation of the Evaluation Process Within Supervision Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(2), 168- 177. doi: 1037//0022-0167.48.2.168
• Lizzio, A., Wilson, K. ve Que, J. (2009). Relationship dimensions in the professional supervision of psychology graduates: Supervisee perceptions of processes and outcome. Studies in Continuing Education, 31(2), 127-140.
• Meydan, B. (2020). Turkish first-time supervisees’ disclosure and nondisclosure in clinical supervision. Qualitative Research in Education, 9(1), 1-31.
• Meydan, B. (2019). Facilitative and hindering factors regarding the supervisory relationship based on supervisors' and undergraduate supervisees' opinions. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 9(1), 171-208.
• Meydan, B. ve Denizli, S. (2018). Turkish undergraduate supervisees' views regarding supervisory relationship. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research , 74, 1-23.
• Meydan, B. ve Koçyiğit, M. (2019). The supervisory relationship experiences of Turkish first-time and advanced supervisees. Qualitative Research in Education, 8(1), 89-121.
• Min, R. M. (2012). Impact of the supervisory relationship on trainee development. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(18), 168-177. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1233/eacb1f0a76ec147e39ebe54aed62e14573b5.pdf adresinden elde edildi.
• Muse-Burke, J. L., Ladany, N. ve Deck, M. D. (2001). The supervisor relationship. In L. J. Bradley & N. Ladany (Eds.), Counselor supervision: Principles, process, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 28-62). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Palomo, M., Beinart, H. ve Cooper, M. J. (2010). Development and validation of the Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) in UK trainee clinical psychologists. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49(2), 131-149.
• Pearce, N., Beinart, H., Clohessy, S. ve Cooper, M. (2013). Development and validation of the Supervisory Relationship Measure: A self‐report questionnaire for use with supervisors. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52(3), 249-268.
• Ramos-Sánchez, L. L., Esnil, E., Goodwin, A., Riggs, S., Touster, L. O., Wright, L. K., … Rodolfa, E. (2002). Negative supervisory events: Effects on supervision and supervisory alliance. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(2), 197-202. doi:10.1037//0735-7028.33.2.19.
• Rønnestad, M. H. ve Lundquist, K. (2009). The Brief Supervisory Alliance Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Oslo, Norway.
• Sabella, S. A., Schultz, J. C. ve Landon, T. J. (2020). Validation of a brief form of the supervisory working alliance inventory. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 63(2), 115-124.
• Satorra, A. ve Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507-514. doi: 10. 1007/BF02296192
• Schacht, A. J., Howe, H. E. ve Berman, J. J. (1989). Supervisor facilitative conditions and effectiveness as perceived by thinking-and feeling-type supervisees. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 26(4), 475.
• Smith, T. R., Younes, L. K. ve Lichtenberg, J. W. (2002). Examining the Working Alliance in Supervisory Relationships: The Development of the Working Alliance Inventory of Supervisory Relationships. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
• Son, E. ve Ellis, M. V. (2013). A cross-cultural comparison of clinical supervision in South Korea and the United States. Psychotherapy, 50(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033115
• Stewart-Hopkins, P. F. (2012). Correlations between supervisory relationships and effectiveness: Self-perceptions of supervisor and supervisee. Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi, University of Cincinnati.
• Tangen, J. L. ve Borders, L. D. (2016). The supervisory relationship: A conceptual and psychometric review of measures. Counselor Education and Supervision, 55, 159–181.
• Wainwright, N. A. (2010). The development of the Leeds Alliance in Supervision Scale (LASS): A brief sessional measure of the supervisory alliance. University of Leeds. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/1118/1/Nigel_Antony_Wainwright_DClinCsychol_THESIS_2010_.pdf adresinden elde edilmiştir.
• Watkins, C. E. (2014). The supervisory alliance as quintessential integrative variable. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 44, 151–161.
• White, V. E. ve Queener, J. (2003). Supervisor and supervisee attachments and social provisions related to the supervisory working alliance. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42(3), 203-218.
• Worthington, E. L. ve Stern, A. (1985). Effects of supervisor and supervisee degree level and gender on the supervisory relationship. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 32(2), 252-262.