Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42602428›Full record

ArticleAustralian journal of psychology2026

A clinical psychology competency framework and measure: the development and initial validation of the Clinical Subscale for the Competencies of Professional Psychology Rating (COPPR) Scales, the COPPR-Clinical.

Kylie Rice, Stephanie E Banner, Julie C Clark, Jaeva Shelley, Adam J Rock, Jade Sheen, Clara V Murray, Hayley Farrell, Amanda Jefferys, Nicola Schutte and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Australian journal of psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Kylie RiceSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7072-5619
Stephanie E BannerSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.
Julie C ClarkSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5741-3447
Jaeva ShelleySchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4813-5508
Adam J RockSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1430-3745
Jade SheenSchool of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8327-5314
Clara V MurraySchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9594-7421
Hayley FarrellSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7693-9889
Amanda JefferysSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1361-8470
Nicola SchutteSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3294-7659
Margot MoodySchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8281-112X
Debra A DunstanSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0298-7393
Ryan L DaviesSchool of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5890-9688

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Evaluation of professional competence is important at all levels of psychology training and practice; however, there is no tool for practitioners to adequately assess professional competencies at the level of area of practice endorsement in clinical psychology. Designed to be used with the Competencies of Professional Psychology Rating (COPPR) Scales, this paper outlines the development and validation of the COPPR-Clinical Subscale (COPPR-Clinical). Method: Items for the COPPR-Clinical were developed in accordance with the Australian Psychology Accreditation Council's (APAC) Accreditation Standards (2025), followed by iterative rounds of expert review. Participants included 177 professional psychologists with Australian registration, and the psychometric properties of the COPPR-Clinical were analysed. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis showed a unidimensional structure of the COPPR-Clinical consistent with the theoretical foundation of APAC Accreditation Standards (2025). Additionally, internal consistency was strong, with evidence of convergent and divergent validity assessed through a structural equation model, and a strong, positive correlation was found between years of professional experience and scores on the COPPR-Clinical. Conclusions: In conjunction with the COPPR Scales, the COPPR-Clinical offers the assessment of professional competencies for area of practice endorsement in clinical psychology. Together, they have utility to assess the acquisition and development of professional competencies during training, professional practice over the course of a psychologist's career, and in research contexts.

Indexed as

assessmentclinicalCompetencypsychologistself-assessmentself-reflection

Identifiers

PMID42602428
PMCPMC13474532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.