諮商心理師專業基礎能力量表之編製與應用：從督導者及其受督者觀點評量
實習心理師專業能力之研究

本研究旨在編製「諮商心理師專業基礎能力量表」與運用之相關研究，分為子研究一、二。研究一係根據Rodolfa等人的立方模式、ASPPB的能力架構為理論基礎，編製適合國內心理師使用之專業基礎能力量表，研究方法採用量化取向，由12位學者實務專家審閱與修改題目，研究對象為不同專業發展階段心理師，包括兼職實習、全職實習心理師、新手、中堅與資深心理師，發出500份問卷，回收有效問卷316份。資料進行信效度考驗、內部一致性分析，透過驗證性因素分析。研究結果顯示本量表題目經項目分析皆具鑑別度、二階驗證性因素分析結果尚屬合理適配模式，二階組合信度為.58-.85之間，有良好聚斂效度；內部一致認性介於.83-.91，Cronbach’s α為.96，顯示信度良好。本量表刪題後有四個分量表，14個次向度，38題，包括科學取向與實證基礎、專業素養與自我反思、合作與人際關係、專業倫理等分量表。研究一建立國內諮商心理師專業基礎能力之本土化立方模式，適合機構與課程教師於實習心理師甄選與評量使用。研究二從實習心理師與督導者的觀點評量實習心理師的專業能力，並進一步了解學分數、學校成績、督導總評分、督導關係在實習心理師自評與督導者他評之預測力。研究對象以配對實習心理師及其專業督導者為樣本，邀請158所單位，有效樣本為103組。研究工具為「諮商心理師專業基礎能力量表」、「心理師專業能力量表」。以描述性統計、變異數分析、皮爾遜積差相關及多元迴歸分析等進行分析，研究結果發現實習心理師平均每週個案量為7.76人次，個別諮商一年平均為285.10人次；每週平均接受督導1.5小時。不同場域實習心理師之實作項目與接案問題類型有所不同，「婚姻與家庭諮商」、「初談」、「教學與工作坊」、「心理衛生推廣工作」、「入班座談」等工作項目在不同場域有顯著的差異。督導者總評分發現因學派不同有顯著差異，關係及體驗取向的督導者總評分高於認知行為取向的督導者。實習心理師自評在「介入」、「管理」評量差異較大，其他能力的標準差較為接近；督導者的一致性比實習心理師高。實習心理師在功能能力自評得分會因具備諮商相關工作與否而有顯著差異。不同性別、學歷的督導者對實習心理師之基礎能力評量得分也有顯著差異。實習心理師的自評的與督導者評量的相關；個案量愈高，實習心理師自評專業能力越高；學校成績越高，督導者評量實習心理師的功能能力卻會越低。最後根據研究結果與討論，提出後續研究以及訓練心理師教、考、訓、用之實務建議。

關鍵字

專業能力評量；專業基礎能力量表；督導者；諮商心理師；實習心理師

並列摘要

This research project aimed to develop an assessment inventory to evaluate the foundational competency of counseling psychologists in Taiwan; also, to investigate the implementation and application of this instrument in related fields. Two studies were included in the current research project. Based on Rodolfa and colleagues’ Cube Model for Competency Development among psychology professionals and the theoretical framework for psychology competence stipulated by the Association of State and Provincial Psychology, study I intended to develop an instrument that can effectively evaluate and measure the foundational competency of domestic counseling psychologists and psychology interns. Twelve expert psychologists were invited to review and revise the original inventory to suit the Taiwanese contexts and populations. Data collection was conducted through questionnaires that carry the revised items and were distributed to 500 professionals at different stages of their career development. Based on the numbers of year in practice, participants ranged from graduate student in practicum, psychology intern, novice psychologists, experienced psychologists, and expert supervisors. At the end of the data collection process, 316 valid responses were obtained for analysis. Item analysis shows that the revised inventory has an acceptable fair discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrates a reasonable fit for the original model (component reliability .58 ~ .85), a good convergent validity, and a robust reliability with internal-consistency (α = . 83 ~. 91) and a Cronbach’s alpha .96. In addition, a good postdictive criterion-related validity (r = .77) was found using the Counselor’s Self-Efficacy Inventory as criterion. The final revised version, Counseling Psychology Professional Foundational Competency Assessment (CPFCA) , includes four scales (i.e., the scientific approach and empirical foundation scale, the professional qualities and self-reflection scale, the cooperation and interpersonal relationship scale, and the professional ethics scales) and 38 items across 14 dimensions. In brief, study I constructed a contextually-modified version of the Cube-Model, which can be applied for the use of intern selection/evaluation by training institute instructors and field supervisor.study II investigated the professional competency of psychology interns from the perspective of the interns and that of their supervisors. It further examined the predicability of for variables, namely 1) the number of credits completed by the interns, 2) academic performance (GPA), 3) the supervisor’s evaluation on the interns, 4) the supervisor-intern relationship, respectively on the interns’ self-report and the supervisor-report evaluations on the CPFCA. Sample were recruited from paired interns and their supervisors recruited from 158 field institutes. Instruments included the CPFCA and the Professional Functional Competency Inventory. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, Pearson correlation coefficient, and multiple regression were used for statistical analysis. study II revealed: a) Psychology interns reported an average workload of 7.76 individual hours (285.10 hours annually) and received 1.5 supervised hours on a weekly basis. b) Assigned task items and client issues faced by the interns vary according to the internship settings. Significant differences varied by settings were found on tasks such as ‘couple and family counseling’, ‘intake’, ‘teaching and workshop training’, ‘psycho-education related activities’, and ‘in-classroom outreach’’. c) The supervisors’ theoretical approaches were found an significant variable that affects the results of their intern evaluation. Supervisors holding a relation-oriented approach or an experiential approach reported higher scores on intern competency in comparison to those holding a cognitive behavioral approach. d) With regard to interns’ self-evaluation, standard deviation across all respondents were seen only in two domains, namely their competency in ’intervention’ and ‘management’ . On the other hand, supervisors demonstrated greater consistency in their evaluation on the interns’ competency across all domains. e) Psychology interns’s self-report evaluations on functional competency varied by whether they had work experiences in counseling-related fields prior to their internship. Supervisors’ evaluation on interns’ foundational competency also varied by the gender and education levels of the supervisors. d) Positive correlation was found between the client load handled by the interns and the interns’ overall self-evaluation; however, school GPA was found negatively correlated to the supervisors’ evaluation on the interns’ functional competency. Based on the research findings and discussions, suggestions were made on future research and on education, evaluations, and practices of counseling psychology profession in Taiwan