OBJECTIVE: Organizational changes, such as program management and managed care, and fluctuations in resources present challenges to the effective provision of fieldwork placements. This study compared an innovative group model with a traditional 1:1 supervision model to determine their effect on students and supervisors. METHOD: The two models were implemented at an urban clinical facility in several areas of practice over a 2 year period. Questionnaires were used to assess student skill development, student and supervising therapist satisfaction, and impact on supervising therapists' use of time. Focus groups were used to explore the advantages and disadvantages of each model. RESULTS: There were few statistically significant differences in students' (n = 26) and supervising therapists' (n = 28) ratings when the two models were compared. The qualitative findings suggest that the advantages of one model often relate to the disadvantages of the other model. In addition, supervising therapists and students offered several suggestions for how to improve implementation of the group model. CONCLUSION: When the results of the study are compared to the objectives established for the group model, it appears that many of the objectives outlined for the model were partially achieved. Several issues, such as the student-supervisor relationship and the evaluation process, need to be addressed with participants to ensure successful implementation of the group model.
OBJECTIVE: Organizational changes, such as program management and managed care, and fluctuations in resources present challenges to the effective provision of fieldwork placements. This study compared an innovative group model with a traditional 1:1 supervision model to determine their effect on students and supervisors. METHOD: The two models were implemented at an urban clinical facility in several areas of practice over a 2 year period. Questionnaires were used to assess student skill development, student and supervising therapist satisfaction, and impact on supervising therapists' use of time. Focus groups were used to explore the advantages and disadvantages of each model. RESULTS: There were few statistically significant differences in students' (n = 26) and supervising therapists' (n = 28) ratings when the two models were compared. The qualitative findings suggest that the advantages of one model often relate to the disadvantages of the other model. In addition, supervising therapists and students offered several suggestions for how to improve implementation of the group model. CONCLUSION: When the results of the study are compared to the objectives established for the group model, it appears that many of the objectives outlined for the model were partially achieved. Several issues, such as the student-supervisor relationship and the evaluation process, need to be addressed with participants to ensure successful implementation of the group model.