受督導者督導情境焦慮量表之編製研究

本研究旨在編製一具有信、效度的「受督導者督導情境焦慮量表」，作為適用於國內評量受督導者督導情境焦慮之客觀評量工具，以提供諮商心理師教育者與督導實務工作者進行早期評估，擬訂更適切的督導策略與督導作為。本研究以諮商心理師及106學年度全職實習諮商心理師為對象，預試樣本113人，正式施測樣本310人。本研究之研究工具乃研究者自編之「受督導者督導情境焦慮量表」。問卷經回收整理後，透過SPSS 22.0和AMOS統計軟體，分別以項目分析、Pearson積差相關分析、結構方程模式之驗證性因素分析等進行資料分析。本研究之研究結果如下：受督導者督導情境焦慮量表總計15題，且本量表分為四個分量表，分別為「表現焦慮」分量表共4題，「評量焦慮」分量表共3題，「結構焦慮」分量表共3題，「關係焦慮」分量表共5題。本量表內部一致性α係數的分析，各分量表α值介於.79至.86，總量表α值為.88，顯示本量表具有不錯的內部一致性信度。此外，本量表具備建構效度，受督導者督導情境焦慮量表的因素結構獲得支持。因此，本研究將根據上述研究結果，針對諮商心理師教育與督導工作，以及未來研究提出進一步具體可行之建議，供諮商輔導機構及其人員參考。

關鍵字

諮商心理師；量表編製；受督導者；督導情境焦慮

並列摘要

Although those learning counseling receive counseling supervision as anticipatory training in the professional development process, most supervised students are rarely adequately prepared for supervision, often with little or no knowledge of the supervision process. When the supervisee knows that they will be supervised but does not know how supervision will proceed, they enter a supervisory relationship with limited understanding, which affects the relationship, supervisory quality, and supervisory effectiveness. The reasons for and manifestations of supervisory anxiety differ, and multiple influencing factors exist. After collating domestic and foreign research, the researchers summarized four constructs: Performance anxiety, evaluation anxiety, structural anxiety, and relationship anxiety. 1. Performance anxiety: The degree to which the supervisee is concerned about the requirement to demonstrate their professional counseling skills in a supervisory situation. Example statements: "I worry about not being able to demonstrate my true counseling skills in front of my supervisor." "I feel anxious when the supervisor asks about the case." 2. Evaluation anxiety: The degree to which the supervisee is concerned that supervision assessment results reflect their professional effectiveness. Example statements: "I view the supervisor's suggestions as questioning my professional competence." "I view a poor supervisor's assessment as an indication of my lack of professional competence." 3. Structural anxiety: The degree to which supervisees are confused about their roles and tasks in a supervision situation. Example statements: "I am terrified of not knowing the expectations of my supervisor." "I am anxious about not knowing the goals of my supervisor." 4. Relationship anxiety: The degree to which supervisees are anxious because of their perception of the role of the supervisor in the supervisory relationship. Example statements: "I feel anxious imagining the supervisor's possible supervisory actions." "I will keep my distance from the supervisor to maintain a harmonious supervisory relationship." Six localized consultation and supervision assessment tools have been compiled by domestic experts and scholars, including the Counseling and Supervision Professional Perception Scale, Counseling and Supervision Ability Scale, and Supervisor Countertransference Scale, which have been created from the supervisor's point of view. The only supervision scales that have been designed from the supervisee's point of view are the Supervised Dependent Behavior Scale, Intern Counselor's Experience of Supervision, and Supervisory Relationship Scale; thus, the development of research tools to examine supervisee perspectives is urgently required. This study compiled a Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale and assessed its reliability, validity, and norms as an objective assessment tool for domestic assessment of supervision anxiety for use by counselling psychologists. Educators and supervisory practitioners conducted early assessments to develop more appropriate supervisory strategies and actions. This study recruited counseling psychologists and full-time trainee counselling psychologists in the 2017-2018 academic year. The presample included 113 participants and 310 were officially tested. The results of the background variable analysis of the participants were as follows: 1. Gender: 23.5% were men and 76.5% were women. 2. University professional background: 59.4% were undergraduates of counseling, 25.8% were undergraduates in counseling-related departments (such as psychology, social work, or education), and 14.8% were undergraduates of unrelated departments. 3. Personal distinction: 34.2% were fulltime trainee counseling psychologists and 65.8% were counseling psychologists. 4. Main service units: Most worked at colleges and universities (41.9%), followed by student counseling and consultation centers (20%). 5. Time under supervision: Up to 2 years (48.7%), 2-5 years (34.2%). 6. Supervision experience: 94.5% had mostly positive experience, and 5.5% had mostly negative experience. The research tool used was the Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale compiled by the researchers. After the questionnaires were collected and sorted, data analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0 and AMOS statistical software to test the reliability and validity of the scale. 1. Reliability test (internal consistency): SPSS 22.0 was used for item analysis, and the items in the pre-examination questions that were less strongly associated with the research construct were removed. The research construct was determined to establish the structure of the formal Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale and test the internal consistency. 2. Validity test: (1) SPSS 22.0 was used for factor analysis to explore the structure of the Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale to test the construct validity. (2) AMOS 20 was used to conduct structural equation modelling analysis to verify the Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale model. The original scale had 43 questions. After statistical analysis (item analysis, exploratory factor analysis), the formal scale had 15 questions and an explained variation of 69.510%. The four factors obtained were consistent with those of the original scale. Although only 15 questions remained on the scale, the original four constructs were maintained and named relationship anxiety (original questions: 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, a total of five questions), performance anxiety (original questions: 4, 5, 6, 8, a total of four questions), structural anxiety (original questions: 23, 25, 26, a total of three questions), and evaluation anxiety (original question numbers: 12, 19, 20, a total of three questions). The findings of this study were as follows: 1. The Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale had 15 questions. The scale was divided into four subscales, namely the performance anxiety subscale with four questions, the evaluation anxiety subscale with three questions, the structural anxiety subscale with three questions, and the relationship anxiety subscale with five questions. 2. The Cronbach's α coefficients of each subscale ranged from .79 to .86 (performance anxiety = .835, evaluation anxiety = .820, structural anxiety = .855, relationship anxiety = .794), and while that of the whole scale was .88, indicating substantial stability. 3. The scale exhibited high construct validity, indicating that the four factors (performance anxiety, evaluation anxiety, structural anxiety, and relationship anxiety) of the Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale developed by the researcher were supported. The Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale designed in this research had a total of 15 questions, and the test could be completed in approximately 5-10 minutes. It provided a practical, convenient, and quick method of assessing the supervision anxiety experienced by supervisees. For the different anxiety types, this study provides corresponding suggestions: 1. Performance anxiety and evaluation anxiety: Empathize with, affirm, and support the supervisee. 2. Structural anxiety: Allow the supervisee ample time and opportunity to prepare. 3. Relationship anxiety: Be aware of the supervisor role and consider the supervisory relationship. Recommendations for future research are as follows: 1. Explore the indicators of supervisory situational anxiety at different stages of professional development. 2. Explore the relationship between supervisory situation anxiety and other variables. 3. Conduct a longitudinal study to understand changes in supervisory situational anxiety in supervisees. 4. Explore the psychometric quality of this scale and obtain more information regarding its reliability and validity. Based on the results, this study proposes further concrete and feasible suggestions for the counseling psychology and supervision fields for the reference of counseling agencies and their staff.

並列關鍵字

counselor ； scale development ； supervisee ； supervision situational anxiety

參考文獻

王子欣（2011）：〈從受督者的知覺談什麼是高品質的督導〉。《諮商與輔導》，306，45-49+44。[Wang, T.-H. (2011). Cong dudaozhe di zhijue tan shenme shi gaopinzhi di dudao. Counseling & Guidance, 306, 45-49+44.] https://doi.org/10.29837/CG.201106.0014

王文秀、徐西森、連廷嘉（2006）：〈我國大學校院與社會輔導機構諮商督導工作實施現況及其人員專業知覺之探討研究〉。《中華輔導學報》，19，1-40。[Wang, W.-H., Shyu, S.-S., & Lian, T.-J. (2006). A Survey of the implementation of counseling supervision and professional perceptions in colleges and counseling institutes. Chinese Annual Report of Guidance and Counseling, 19, 1-40.] https://doi.org/10.7082/CARGC.200603.0001

林烝增、林家興（2019）：〈諮商心理師全職實習與專業督導的現況調查研究〉。《教育心理學報》，51，275-295。[Lin, C.-T., & Lin, C.-H. (2019). Survey on the current internship training and supervision in counseling psychology. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 51, 275-295.] https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.201912_51(2).0005

林家興、黃佩娟（2013）：〈台灣諮商心理師能力指標建構之共識研究〉。《教育心理學報》，44，735-750。[Lin, C.-H., & Huang, P.-C. (2013). Development of competency benchmarks for counseling psychologists in Taiwan. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 44, 735-750.] https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.20121003

洪雅琴（2012）：〈（六）心理諮商實習生常見的迷思〉。《諮商與輔導》，316，57-59。[Hung, Y.-C. (2012). (6) Xinli zishang shixisheng changjian de misi. Counseling & Guidance, 316, 57-59.] https://doi.org/10.29837/CG.201204.0023

主題瀏覽