ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2026
Current Practices for Evaluating Clinical Supervisors in North American Genetic Counseling Programs.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinical supervision is a cornerstone of genetic counseling education, yet there are no standardized methods for evaluating supervisors across North American programs. The Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling requires that supervisors be evaluated regularly but provides minimal guidance on implementation. This study explored how genetic counseling programs evaluate their clinical supervisors and examined the perceived effectiveness and limitations of these approaches. 16 out of a possible 64 fieldwork directors (FDs) from accredited genetic counseling programs across the United States and Canada completed semi-structured interviews. Participants described their evaluation practices and were asked to share their relevant evaluation tools. Using a constructivist paradigm, we analyzed interview data using inductive content analysis followed by interpretive description. All 16 programs used student evaluations; three used self-assessments; one used peer evaluation; and none used management reviews. The content of the student evaluations as described by FDs addressed aspects of the learning environment including the supervisory relationship, clinical teaching ability, and the clinical site experience. Document analysis indicated broad alignment between the intended purpose of student evaluations and survey content, while also highlighting considerable variability in survey design. Self-assessment and peer evaluation were rarely implemented but were largely considered positive. Challenges to supervisor evaluation included limited resources, relational dynamics within supervision, and concerns about retaliation. While supervisor evaluation is universally practiced, inconsistent implementation and tool design may limit its value for both students and supervisors. These findings demonstrate the need to clarify the specific purpose of student evaluations in order to develop validated tools and ensure alignment between supervisory practice, training, and goals. Improving supervisor evaluation may enhance both the quality of supervision and the learning environment for students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.