Analysis of Clinical Supervisor Feedback in Speech-Language Pathology Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure the interrater agreement of assessment and feedback among speech-language pathology clinical supervisors. Two questions were posed: (a) Does the use of a structured tool that focuses on predetermined target areas of a therapy session increase the interrater agreement of assessment and ... Article
Article  |   August 01, 2013
Analysis of Clinical Supervisor Feedback in Speech-Language Pathology
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • JoAnne Cascia
    Monmouth University West Long Branch, NJ
  • Disclosure: JoAnne Cascia has no financial or nonfinancial relationships related to the content of this article.
    Disclosure: JoAnne Cascia has no financial or nonfinancial relationships related to the content of this article.×
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Professional Issues & Training / Articles
Article   |   August 01, 2013
Analysis of Clinical Supervisor Feedback in Speech-Language Pathology
SIG 11 Perspectives on Administration and Supervision, August 2013, Vol. 23, 39-58. doi:10.1044/aas23.2.39
SIG 11 Perspectives on Administration and Supervision, August 2013, Vol. 23, 39-58. doi:10.1044/aas23.2.39

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to measure the interrater agreement of assessment and feedback among speech-language pathology clinical supervisors. Two questions were posed: (a) Does the use of a structured tool that focuses on predetermined target areas of a therapy session increase the interrater agreement of assessment and feedback among a group of clinical supervisors? (b) Do similarities in a clinical supervisor’s background and experience result in greater interrater agreement of assessment and feedback of an observed therapy session?

Method: This study used a repeated measures design. Participants included 15 clinical supervisors who observed therapy sessions and collected observational feedback in 2 different ways. Method 1 involved the use of the recording evaluative statements method, and Method 2 involved a structured tool developed by the researcher.

Results: A series of 3 paired-sample t tests were used to compare the means of Method 1 and Method 2, revealing a significant difference between the Methods, with Method 2 resulting in greater interrater agreement.

Conclusion: This study revealed that clinical supervisors are more in agreement with each other regarding the elements of a therapy session when they are given guidelines and a structured way to collect observational feedback. These results suggest the need for training and consistency in regard to assessment and feedback in the area of clinical supervision.

Become a SIG Affiliate
Pay Per View
Entire SIG 11 Perspectives on Administration and Supervision content & archive
24-hour access
This Issue
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access
We've Changed Our Publication Model...
The 19 individual SIG Perspectives publications have been relaunched as the new, all-in-one Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups.