Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42634265›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2026

Current Practices for Evaluating Clinical Supervisors in North American Genetic Counseling Programs.

Sydney Schulz, Tasha Wainstein, Susan Randall Armel, Jenna Scott, Tracey Oh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

5 authors.

Sydney SchulzDepartment of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2696-0853
Tasha WainsteinDepartments of Pediatrics and Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4890-9657
Susan Randall ArmelDepartment of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5016-3148
Jenna ScottGenetic Counselling Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1631-332X
Tracey OhDepartment of Medical Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6809-5803

Funding

University of British Columbia Graduate School
6 · The paper itself

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

Genetic CounselingAccreditationHumansUnited Statesclinical supervisiongenetic counselingpeer evaluationpeer supportself‐assessmentstudent evaluation of teaching

Identifiers

PMID42634265
PMCPMC13500935

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.