msv studens

8/6/2019 msv studens

1/17

MSW STUDENTS' SATISFACTION WITH THEIR FIELD PLACEMENTS:THE ROLE OF PREPAREDNESS AND SUPERVISION QUALITY

Hanae KannoUniversity of PittsburghGary F. KoesiceUniversity of Pittsburgh

A path model predicting students' satisfaction with their field placement wastested on 144 MSW students at a northeastern university. The results showedthat supervision w as related to satisfaction both directly and indirectly throughits influence on efficacy in the field and strain. Amount of preparation for thefield affected satisfaction only indirectly by its relationship to higher efficacy.There was no indication tha t supervision buffered the presum ed negative effectof poor preparation on dissatisfaction, strain, or efficacy Limitations imposedby the cross-sectional design and single-school sample are considered, and rec-omm endations are made to continue attempts to enhance field supervision andincrease student preparation. Particular emphasis is given to implementingprocedures that address the mediating roles of student strain and efficacy.

FIELD EDUCATION within the school of socialwork is critically important for increasing thequality of service provided by professionalsocial workers. The quality of social work andof social workers depends in part on the avail-ability and effectiveness of field educationopportunities provided within schools ofsocial work. Field placement has a particular-ly significant role in the MSW program,requiring a student to work in the field for 900

skills at the highest level in specialized areas(as outlined in the 2008 Educational Policyand Accreditation Standards by the Councilon Social Work Education [CSWE, 2008]).Consequently, students need to receive excel-lent training in theirfieldplacements. Yet, thereis some evidence that students often enter theirplacements with apprehension, stress, anxiety,and unclear expectations, negative emotionsthat may well interfere with effective learning


2/17

2 4 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATIONStudents may enter the field with low confi-dence in their skill level to work with certainclients, experience role confusion or conflict,and undergo emotional strain as a result oftheir work (Gelman, 2004). The Gelmanreview reported empirical evidence and a the-oretical rationale for a number of variablerelationships studied and discussed in rela-tion to the field placement training experi-ence. These include associations of negativeemotion with deficient field preparation, anx-iety or strain with poorer performance, andsupervision with strain and low satisfaction.

Anxiety and Negative StudentEmotions in the Fieid Setting

According to previous literature, the founda-tion-year MSW stud ent has significant anxietyabout beginning the first field placement(Royse, Dhooper, & Rompf, 2003; Sun, 1999).Rompf and colleagues (1993) studied the anx-iety levels and major concerns of 255 BSW andMSW students before starting placementassignments. Gelman (2004) assessed founda-tion-year MSW students' anxiety regardingtheir field placements. In addition, studentsmay be distressed by client reactions of out-rage and grief that they may encounter intheir field placement (Saakvitne & Pearlman,1996, cited by Barlow et al., 2006). It might besuggested that students m ay suffer the type ofstrain commonly referred to as burnout, com-passion fatigue, or emotional exhaustion,reactions commonly found among humanservice workers who experience intenseinvolvement with clients in their work role.

Some MSW students may experience con-

ments. Barlow et al. (2006) described a case ofa student who experienced physical illness inthe final weeks of her placement, apparentlyarising from conflicts in the field context.Thus, mental and physical symptoms and ill-ness might arise as a consequence of fieldplacement Stressors, just as it is known tooccur from the stress of full-time work.

There is some evidence that negative emo-tions arising from the workplace might im pairlearning and work performance (Firth-Cozens& Mowbray, 2001; Haslam, Atkinson, Brown,& Haslam, 2005; Waghorn, Chant, White &Whiteford, 2005). According to Haslam andcolleagues (2005), who explored the effects ofanxiety on workplace performance throughfocus group interviews with 74 employeesfrom a range of occupations, research showsthat the employees' anxiety symptoms im-paired their work performance. Applying thisto the field placement context, students withhigher anxiety and strain will not learn aseffectively or perform as competently.

Also, one of the negative em otions arisingfrom the workplace among social workers,bumout (emotional exhaustion, depersonaliza-tion, and personal accomplishment), has beenextensively examined by researchers. The workof helping professionals tends to be demand-ing due to intensive encounters with people,and social workers may experience bumout asa consequence of their work (Maslach, Schau-feli, & Leiter, 2001; Pines, 1993), resulting innegative job performance (Kim & Lee, 2007).However, evidence has indicated that receivinggood quality of workplace support, includingpositive supervisory communication, can


3/17

SATISFACTION W ITH FIELD PLACEMENT 2 5(Ben-Zur & Michael, 2007; Kim & Lee, 2007;Koeske & Koeske, 1989; Mor Barak, Nissly, &Levin, 2001). Also, there is evidence that beingwell-prepared for the field, including partici-pating in clinical skiU-development training,contributes to alleviating social workers' levelof bumout, since enrichment of clinical skillscan enhance social workers ' level of self-effica-cy (Cohen & Gagin, 2005; Corrigan, McCraken,Edwards, Kommana, & Simptico, 1997;Ewers, Bradshaw, McGovem, & Ewers, 2002).Further, social workers' age and years in prac-fice have been recognized as predictors of theirlevel of negafive effect (Schwartz, Tiamiyu, &Dwyer, 2007). Within the fie ld placement con-text, students with higher bumout would notbe able to learn effectively in thefield.Studentsadvantaged by certain conditions, such asreceiving positive supervision, nght be par-tially insulated from experiencing negativeeffect.

Lack of Adequate Preparationfor the Field Placement

One of the main factors possibly responsiblefor negative fieldwork experiences is the stu-dents' level of preparation when they enterthe field (Gelman, 2004). In the absence ofadequate preparafion, the student may enterthe field with apprehension and anxiety andbecome at risk for burnout/strain. Rompfand colleagues (1993) found that the fartheralong students were in their academic pro-gram, the better prepared they were and theless anxiety they experienced about enteringthe field. They also found greater prepared-ness and less anxiety occurred for more

more volunteer or work experience than otherstud ents . Gelman (2004) also found less anxi-ety about entering the field among better pre-pared students.

Quality of Supervisionand the Field Experience

Researchers have focused infrequently onhow the quality of supervision and thestrength of the supervisory relationship affectthe social work students' anxiety and strainoccurring in the field setting. However, someresearchers have found that the quality ofsupervision that social work students receivein their field placement is related to their over-all satisfaction with the placement (Alperin,1998; Bogo & Vayda, 2000; Giddings, Vodde,& Cleveland, 2003; Knight, 1996, 2000, 2001;Raskin, 1982). In addition, there is some evi-dence that strong supervisory relationshipsbetween students and their supervisors affectthe students' satisfaction with the field(Cohen & Cohen, 1998; Fernandez, 1998;Fortune & Abram son, 1993; Fortune et al.,1985; Freeman, 1985; Siporin, 1982). Fortuneand Abramson (1993) found that the quality offield instruction was the most powerful pre-dictor of MSW students' satisfacfion in theirfield placement. In contrast, some researchhas found that conflicts occurring betweensupervisors and students were associatedwith problems within the general fieldworkexperience (Benson, 1995; Sawa, 1995). And,problems or conflicts associated with thesupervisor-student transaction were relatedto greater student distress in their fieldwork(Barlow & Hall, 2003; Barlow et al., 2006; Gid-


4/17

26 JOURNAL O F SOCIAL WORK EDUCATIONPurpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was toorganize the variables that have previouslybeen studied at an essentially bivariate levelinto a multivariate path model in which satis-faction with the field experience was predictedas the tinal outcome variable. This causal pathmodel was tested with cross-sectional or staticdata and the temporal ordering of the vari-ables is based on our conceptualization andpresumption, so strong causal inferences arenot possible. We can, nonetheless, subject theproposed model to possible falsification, basedon the data collected. We will occasionally usecausal terms to avoid stilted verbalization,while acknowledging here the limitations ofour design and tentativeness of inferences.

A secondary p urpose was to evaluate thepossibility that supervision quality acted as amoderator of the preparedness-satisfactionrelationship. If this were the case, poor p repa-ration for the field would be expected to resultin dissatisfaction with the placement, but onlyor more markedly when supervision was oflow quality. High-quality supervision wouldbuffer the negative consequences of poorpreparation. This type of buffering relationsh ipwas also explored for the relationships of pre-paredness with efticacy and student burn out aswell. Quality of supervision has no t been test-ed in th is buffering role, but the expectation ofsuch an effect is grounded in the vast literatureon the buffering role of social support in therelationship of stress to negative outcomes(Kim & Stoner, 2008; Lincoln, Chatters, & Tay-lor, 2005; Madhavappallil & Choi, 2006; Scott &Beth, 2008; Ying, 2008). In this context, supervi-

support, poor preparedness as a type of Stres-sor, and dissatisfaction as a negative outcome.

ModelWe propose that quality supervision andhigher preparedness for the field experiencewill increase satisfaction with the field experi-ence, both directly and indirectly, throughtheir salutary effects of perceived efficacy infieldwork and lessened strain or burnout.Supervision quality and preparedness areindep enden t variables that are not expected tobe correlated; efficacy and student strain areco-mediators that are expected to be associat-ed. This model w as tested controlling for fourbackground variables: year in the program,current employm ent, age, and studen t gender.Year in the program and employment mayalternatively be perceived as part of prepa red-ness, but we opted to treat them as separatebackground variables that were entered asstatistical controls.

MethodSample and ProcedureOne hun dre d fifty-four MSW stud ents volun-teered to com plete an in-class survey in 17 dif-ferent classes at the University of Pittsburgh.The study received exempt status after reviewby the school institutional review board offi-cial. Data were analyzed for 144 cases withfull data on the test and control variables. The72 first-year MSW students were roughly inthe middle of their foundation field placementexperience when they were asked to completethe "Survey of MSW Students' Perceptions ofTheir Eield Placement." The 72 second-year


5/17

SATISFACTION WITH FIELD PLACEMENT 27their second (concentration) field placementwhen they w ere surveyed . Overall, 81 % of thestudents were female; their median age was25 years. Most students (86%) were in thedirect practice concentration and were full-time students (90% ), whereas 65% of the stu-dents were em ployed either full- or part-time.

The researcher visited the classes todescribe and distribute the survey to studentscurrently in field placements. She describedthe general purpose of the study and ex-plained that their participation was voluntaryand that their responses would be madeanonymously. No students refused participa-tion. Although the survey distribution proce-dure resulted in a convenience sample, thediverse and large assortment of participatingclasses should have produced a roughly rep-resentative cross-section of the school's MSWstudents participating in fieldwork.The Survey Instrum entThe survey consisted of four sections. Section1 addressed the s tude nts' level of preparation,including questions on BSW/BASW programexperience, previous course work, attendanceat a field orientation, and previous work expe-rience. In Section 2 ratings of quality of super-vision in the field context were solicited.Section 3 contained items measuring "Feel-ings About My Field Placement," whichassessed burnout/strain, perceived efficacy inthe field, and satisfaction with the placement.Section 4 provided demographic information,including gender, age in years, type of concen-tration (direct practice/Community Organi-zation and Social Administration), full- or

Index of formal preparation for the field.An index w as developed to reflect the amountof field preparation based on school, volun-teer, and work experience. The work of Gel-man (2004) influenced aspects of the indexdevelopment. The index score was obtainedby counting/summing 11 dichotomouslyscored items. A case received a tally or countfor the following responses: (1) having ob-tained the BSW/BASW degree; (2) havingcompleted or being erurolled in at least 2 of 7listed required skill courses; (3) completion ofor enrollment in at least one second-levelresearch course; (4) completion or enrollmentin 3 or more skill lectives from a list of allsuch courses in the curriculum; (5) participa-tion in at least one field orientation; (6 through9) having a past or current position as anintern, volunteer, part-time staff, or full-timestaff position in a social service agency; (10)having worked, interned, or volunteered in ahuman service agency in the same practicearea as the current field placement; and (11)having worked with the same type of clientpopulation as currently engaged with in thefield placement.

Convergent validity for the index wassupported by a moderate size (see Rosenthal& Rosnow, 1991) correlation of .32, p< .001,between the index score and a self-rating ofperceived (subjective) preparation. The sub-jective rating ("How prepared did you feelwhen entering your field placement?") wasadapted from Gelman (2004) and given on a10-step scale from i=not at all prepared throug5=moderately well prepared to 10=extremely welprepared.


6/17

2 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION(1981,1982,1992) by revising item w ording torefer to the tield instructor-student relation-ship that is relevant to the current application.The items were rated on a 5-point frequencyscale from 1 {not at all) to 5 {very frequently).Higher scores reflected higher perceived qual-ity of the supervisory relationship. Sampleitems are "My tield instructor explains howwe would work together and discusses thekind of help s/he would provide me," "Myfield instructor is able to sense my feelingswithout my having to put them in to words,"and "My field instructor encourages me toexplore my strengths and weaknesses." Thealpha reliability of the scale was .95 in the cur-rent study, comparable to homogeneity reliabil-ity estimates reported by Shulman (1981, 1992)for the original application in the worker-supervisor context.

Satisfaction w ith the field placement. Re-spondents rated the direct report item, "Howsatisfied are you overall with your field place-ment?" on a 5-step scale from 1 {very dissatis-fied) to 5 {very satisfied). This direct rating pro-vided the measure of the depen dent variable.Single-item global measures of satisfactionhave been found to be valid indicators, some-times outperforming multi-item facet meas-ures that may om it .critical facets from theselected item set (Patrician, 2004; Wanous,Reichers, and Hurdy, 1997).

Student strain/burnout associated with thefield placement. Student strain or bu rnou t aris-ing in the field context was assessed using anadapted version of the Koeske (Koeske &Koeske, 1991) Student Burnout Scale, whichwas based on the Maslach Burnout Inventory

rated how frequently he or she experienced 17feelings associated with field experience on ascale from 1 {never) to 7 {always). Sample itemsincluded "I feel emotionally drained from myfield placem ent," "I feel used u p at the en d ofthe day," "I feel 'burned out' from my fieldwork," and "I feel 'under stress' due to myfield placement." Higher scores reflectedhigher strain, emotional exhaustion, or feel-ings of burn out. The original general studentburnout version of the scale had an alpha reli-ability of .90 (Koeske & Koeske, 1991). In thecurrent adaptation, the alpha reliability was.92. Theoretical construct va lidity for the orig-inal scale was supported by significant corre-lations of burnout with stressful events andmental health symp toms (Koeske & Koeske,1991).

Perceived efficacy in field wo rk performance.Two items were totaled to assess the perceivedefficacy felt in performing duties in the fieldplacement. The iterris were "How confidentdo you feel tha t you can successfully performyour field duties?" {l=not at all confident to5=totally confident), and "How well do you feelyou are performing your role in your fieldplacement?" {l=very poorly to 5=very well).These items correlated .63, resulting in analpha reliability estimate of .77.

ResultsDescriptive ResuitsThe 144 respon dents as a whole fell in the mid-dle range of the scales measuring the test vari-ables. The mean for quality of superv ision was3.38 (SD=.98), indicating on the 1-5 metric that


7/17

SATISFACTION WITH FIELD PLACEMB^T 29occur between "some" and "frequently."Bumout or strain-related feelings associatedwith the f ie ld exper ience were repor ted"rarely," using the 1 {never) to 7 {always) met-ric (M=3.30, SD=.97). Similarly, satisfactionwith the current field experience (M=3.84,median=4.0) fell closer to the "satisfied" (4)than "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" (3)m arker on the 1-5 satisfaction scale. Perceivedefficacy (M=7.67, SD=1.46) was rated some-wh at higher than an average or "fair" am oun t.Finally, the students rated themselves slightlymore than mo derately pr epar ed (M=5.84) on a1 {not at all prepared) to 10 {extremely prepared)scale of preparedness for entering the currentfield placement. The index of objective prepa-ration is difficult to interp ret des criptive ly andspecific to the MSW program studied, but itshowed a mean in the middle of the 0-11range (M=5.31, SD=2.17); this indicated thaton a bou t one half of the 11 dic ho tom ou s crite-ria, the typical stud ent did p ossess the experi-ence or status reflecting preparedness (coded1) rather than lacking it (coded 0).

Test of Path Model

A conventional path analysis, using leastsquares multiple regression, was conducted toevaluate the proposed mo del in which the qual-ity of supervision and amount of preparednesswere predicted to relate to higher satisfactionwith the field placement, both directly and ind i-rectly (through their impact on greater efficacyand less s tudent burnout/s tra in associa tedwith the field experience). This mo del w as test-ed controlling for year in the program (first orsecond), employment status (any vs. none),gender, and age. Figure 1 shows the path (beta)coefficients of the lines for all relationships thatachieved significance at an alpha=.O5 criterion.Lines for nonsignificant effects and the inter-correlation of control variables were omitted toenhance readability of the diagram. Given thenearly saturated nature of this test, fit indicesare not informative, and the model must beevaluated primarily on the basis of presence orabsence of predicted effects. Table 1 shows thebivariate correlations for the variables in the

TABLE 1 . Pearson Intercorre lations o f Control and Test VariablesM eas u re 1 2Gender (Female=l , Male=2)A geYear ( l= l s t , 2=2nd)Employment (0=no, l=ye s )Preparat ion indexQuali ty of superv isionEfficacyS t ra i n / b u rn o u t

3

.21**

.02-.09

.16

.00- .01

.05

4

.16*.19*

-.01-.00

.01

.13

5

.19*.43***.13.06.16*

6

.24**

- .02.06.07

-.01.18*.10

7

.41***

-.34***-.32***


8/17

30 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL W O R K EDUCATION

model test. These coefficients were generallyconsistent with the partial coefficients and atypical redundant system, indicating the sys-tem is not complex in the sense of displayingsuppressive effects.

Figure 1 show s, as anticipated, that quali-ty supervision seems to facilitate greater satis-faction with the field experience, both directly(j3=.36, p


9/17

SATISFACTION WITH FIELD PLACEMENT 3 1their first year (/3=.41, p


10/17

3 2 JOURNAL O F SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

process by which this enhancement to satis-faction might occur. Some elements of theprocess were evident in earlier work on therelationships of efficacy to satisfaction (Coleet al., 2004; Sharma & Ghosh, 2006), andamount of field prepara tion w ith efficacy (Gel-man, 2004; Rompf et al., 1993). The role ofburnout (strain, emotional exhaustion) in thefield of human service has been studied inrelafion to anxiety Qayaratne, Chess, & Kunk-el, 1986; Wheeler, 1987), sadsfaction (Penn, Ro-mano, & Foat, 1988; Rimmerman, 1989; Ursula& Steven, 1998) and supervision (Abu-Bader,2000; Itzhaky & Aviad-Hiebloom, 1998; Mena& Marguerite, 2001), but it had not formerlybeen placed in an explanatory context with theother variables identified in the current study.

Our secondary purposeto examine thepossible buffering role of supervision qualityyielded no evidence for a moderating role forsupervision in either its relation to safisfactionor the mediating variables of efficacy andstrain. Correlafional designs lack power indetecting moderated effects, but our samplesize was m oderate, and the interaction effectssizes were very small and did not approachsignificance. It would seem that supervisionacts prominently only in the direct and indi-rect manner previously reviewed. In essence,supervision quality was a crifical factor in theprocess by which student satisfaction wasdetermined, but it may not buffer whatevernegative consequences occur due to poorpreparafion for the field. The data suggested,however, that those negafive consequencesattributable to poor preparafion were smallrelafive to the benefits derived from effecfive

There were some unp redicted stafisficallysignificant effects arising in the model test thatwere small (


11/17

SATISFACTION W ITH FIELD PLACEMENT 3 3ble that strain affects satisfaction throughmechanisms unspecified in this model test,such as the acquisition of coping skills or theformation of a realistic perspective of whatcan be accomplished by the practitioner. Itmay also be the case that preparation, eitheras occurring in practice or as measured here-in, does not provide resources to the studentfor controlling work exhaustion and strain.Thus, preparation, differently engineeredand/or assessed, might be directiy or indirect-ly contributory, but not manifested in this test.Preparedness w as, of course, somewhat bene-ficial thro ugh the enhancem ent of felt efficacyin the field.

Given that the critical test measures werederived from self-reports, and all but one(preparation) was a subjective report of feel-ings or attitude, shared method (self-report)variance m ight be considered to inflate bivari-ate estimates of relationship. However, themultivariate regression analyses performed toobtain the path coefficients act to remove suchshared explanation when estimating the effectsizes. Even with this built-in control forshared method variance, most of the criticaland anticipated coefficients were statisticallysignificant, and some were substantial bybehavioral standa rds.

There is some concern that the effect ofpreparedness might be underestimated,because we opted to include year in the pro-gram and current employment as separate(control background) variables rather than asdetiners of amount of preparation. Indeed,year in the program and employment statusdirectly affect preparation level. We might

in particular, to be more substantial than the.22 estimate reflects, since that effect sizereflects its influence independent of class sen-iority and current w ork experience. We, there-fore, retested the model after removing year inprogram and employment status as controlsand incorporating them into the preparationindex. Preparedness continued to be not sig-nificantly related to either satisfaction orburnout/strain. Consequently, at least inthese data, preparedness plays only a second-ary role in the process explaining student sat-isfaction with the fleld placement.

A final threat to inference arises from lowexternal validity. The model test occurred on asingle sample from one school of social work.Part of the preparedness measure was specificto this particular school and its curriculum.The model wou ld have to be tested on a larg-er and more diverse sample, or retested onnumerous diverse additional sam ples, to gainsupport for its general relevance. The supportfound for the model in this one test doesserve, however, as a starting point for laterinvestigation and extension.

impiications and AppiicationsThere has long been an awareness that fieldeducation, and therefore social work educa-tion generally, would be enhanced by highquality supervision in the field and by a high-er level of preparedness among the studentswho enter the field. Some previous research(Freeman, 1985; Gelman, 2004; Rompf et al.,1993; Siporin, 1982) and the findings of thisstudy have empirically documented thisawareness. The implication is clear that we


12/17

3 4 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

and improve the type of supervision studentsreceive in their field settings. In addition, weshould continue to endeavor to send well-prepared students into their placements,where our data show that they should derivea greater sense of efficacy and feel a sense ofsatisfaction w ith the placement.

The current study ad ds to our knowledgea better sense of why quality supervision maygenerate higher feelings of satisfaction withthe field. It seems to achieve its benefits bystrongly increasing a sense of effective andefficacious fieldwork performance and reduc-ing felt strain and burnout symptoms. Aware-ness of these operative mechanisms enrichesour plans for implementation of effective fieldeducation. Not only should we directly workto increase students' sense of efficacy in theirfield practice, but also we should try to con-struct supervisory input and our curricula tofacilitate perceived and validated efficacy.Students might be considered "prepared" toenter the field when they can be expected tohave a sense of efficacy or at least anticipatoryefficacy regarding their work role. Supervi-sion might be regarded as "quality supervi-sion" when it induces a sense of empower-ment or a sense of efficacy in the student, andwhen it anticipates and is programmed todeal w ith likely feelings of anxiety, strain, an deven exhaustion.

The significant direct effect of supervisionon satisfaction found in the model test suggeststhere are other unspecified paths throughwhich supervision quality enhances eventualsatisfaction. That is, efficacy and strain are notthe whole story. Subsequent research m ight be

nisms through which quality supervision hasits benefit for student attitude toward theplacement. This additional knowledge couldprovide us other bases for designing betterplacement experiences.

ReferencesAbu-Bader, S. H. (2000). Work satisfaction,

burnout, and turnover among socialworkers in Israel: A causal diagram. Inter-national Journal of Social Welfare, 9,191-200.Alperin, D. E. (1998). Factors related to stu-dent satisfaction with child welfare fieldplacements. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 43-54.

Barlow, C, & Hall, B. (2003). Managing vul-nerability in social work field placem ents :Student and field instructor voices. TheNew Social Worker, 10(3), 6-9.Barlow, C , & Hall, B. (2004). Issues of po werand resistance in social work education.International Journal of Learning, 10,2663-2670.

Barlow, C, Phelan, A., Hurlock, D., Sawa, R.,Rogers, G., & Myrick, F. (2006). Virginia:A story of confiict in social work fieldeducation. Affilia: Journal of Women andSocial Work, 21, 380-390.

Benson, G. (1995). Managing dilemmas infield education in a faculty of education.In G. Rogers (Ed.), Social workfieldeduca-tion: Views and visions (pp. 503-509).Dubuque, I A: K endall/Hu nt.

Ben-Zur, H., & Michael, K. (2007). Burnout,social support, and coping at w^orkamong social workers, psychologists, a nd


13/17

SATISFACTION WITH FIELD PLACEMENT 3 5

praisals. Social Work in Health Care, 45(4),63-82.

Bogo, M., & Vayda, E. (2000). The practice offield instruction in social work: Theory andprocess (2nd ed.). New York: ColimibiaUniversity Press.

Cimino, D., Cimino, E., Nuehring, E., Raybin,L., & Wisler-Waldock, B. (1982). Studentsatisfaction with field work. ContemporarySocial Work Education, 5(1), 68-75 .

Cohen, J., & Cohen, B. (1998). Graduatingsoc ia l work s tudents ' communica t ioncompetencies and mofivations: Their ef-fects on satisfaction with social work.International Social Work, 41, 357-370.

Cohen, M., & Gagin, R. (2005). Can skill-development training alleviate burnout inhospital social workers? Social Work inHealth Care, 40(4), 83-97 .

Cole, D., Panchan adesw aran, S., & Daining, C.(2004). Predictors of job satisfaction oflicensed social workers: Perceived effica-cy as a mediator of the relationshipbetween workload and job satisfaction.Journal of Social Service Research, 31, 1-12.

Corrigan, P W., McCraken, S. G., Edwards,M., Kommana, S., & Simptico, T. (1997).Staff training to improve implementa-tion and impact of behavioral rehabili-ta t ion programs. Psychiatric Services, 48,1336-1338.

Council o n Social Work Ed ucation. (2008). Edu-cational Policy and Accreditation Standards.Retrieved May 17, 2009, from h t tp :/ /ww w.csw e.org / NR / rdon lyres / 2A81732E - 1 7 7 6 - 4 1 7 5 - A C 4 2 - 6 5 9 7 4 E 9 6 B E 6 6 / 0 /2008EducationalPolicyandAccredita t ion

Ewers, P., Bradshaw, T., McGovern, J., &Ew ers, B. (2002). Does tra inin g in psy cho -social interventions reduce bumout ratesin forensic nurses? Journal of AdvancedNursing, 37, 470-476.

Fernandez, E. (1998). Student perceptions ofsat isfact ion with pract icum learning.Social Work Education, 17(2), 173-201.

Firth-C ozens, J., & Mo wbray, D. (2001). Lead-ership and the quality of care. QualityHealth Care, 10(S2), 3-7.

Fortune, A., & Abramson, J. (1993). Predictorsof satisfaction with field practicumamong social work students. The ClinicalSupervisor, 22(1), 95-110.

Fortune, A. E., Feathers, C. E., Rook, S. R.,Scriment, R. M., Smollen, P., Stemerman,B., et al. (1985). Stu de nt safisfacfion w ithfield placement. Journal of Social WorkEducation, 21{3),92-10A.Freem an, E. (1985). The imp ortance of feedback inclinical supervision: Implications for directpractice. The Clinical Supervisor, 3(1), 5-26.

Gelman, C. R. (2004). Special secdon: Field edu-cation in social work anxiety experiencedby foundation-year MSW stud ents enteringfield placement: Implicafions for admis-sions, curriculum, and field educafion.Journal of Social Work Education, 40, 39-54

Giddings, M. M., Vodde, R., & Cleveland, P.H. (2003). Examining student-field in-structor problems in practicum: Beyondstudent sa t isfact ion measures. ClinicalSupervisor, 22(2), 191-21 4.

Ha slam , C , A tkinson, S., Brown, S. S., &Ha slam , R. A. (2005). Anxiety a nd dep res-sion in the workplace: Effects on the indi-


14/17

3 6 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

investigation). Journal of Affective Disor-ders, 88, 209-215.

Itzhaky, H., & Aviad-H iebloom , A. (1998).How supervision and role stress in socialwork affect burnout. Arete, 22(2), 29-^3.

Jayaratne, S., Chess, W. A., & Kunkel, D. A.(1986). Burn out: Its imp act on child w elfareworkers and their spouses. Social Work,31, 53-58.

Kim , H., & L ee, S.Y. (2007). Sup ervi sory com -munication, burnout, and turnover inten-tion among social workers in health caresettings. Social Work in Health Care, 48,364-385.

Kim, H., & Stoner, M. (2008). Burnout andturnover intention among social workers:Effects of role stress, job autonomy andsocial support. Adm inistration in SocialWork, 32(3), 5-25 .

Knight, C. (1996). A stiidy of MSW and BSWstudents' perceptions of their field in-structors. Journal of Social Work Education,32, 3 9 9 ^ 1 5 .

Knight, C. (2000). Engaging the stiadent in thefield instruction relationship: BSW andMSW students ' views. Journal of Teachingin Social Work, 20(2), 173-201.

Knight, C. (2001). The skills of teaching socialwork practice in the generalist/founda-tion curriculum: BSW and MSW studentviews. Journal of Social Work Education, 37,507-522.

Kdeske, G. F., & Koeske, R. D. (1989). Workload and burn out: Can social sup por t an dperceived accomplishment help? SocialWork, 34, 243-248.

Ko eske, G . F., & Koes ke, R. D. (1991). Stiid ent

outcome relationship. Research in HigherEducation, 32(4), 415-431.

Lincoln, K. D., Chatters, L. M., & Taylor, R. J.(2005). Social support, traumatic events,and depressive symptom s amon g AfricanAmericans. Journal of Marriage and Fam ily,67 , 754-766.

M adhav appa llil, T., & Choi, B. J. (2006). Accu l-turative stress and social support amongKorean and Indian immigrant adoles-cents in the United States. Journal of Sociol-ogy and Social Welfare, 33(2), 123 -143.Maslach, C , & Jackso n, S. F. (1981). MaslachBurnout Inventory (research edition). PaloAlto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ma slach, C , Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P.(2001). Job burno ut . Annual Review of Psy-chology, 52, 397-422.

McPherson, L., & Barnett, M. (2006). Begin-ning practice in child protection: A blen d-ed learning approach. Social W ork Educa-tion, 25, 192-198.

Mena, C , & Margu erite, K. (2001). Impact of thesupervisory relationship on worker job satisfac-tion and burnout. Unpu blished doctoral dis-sertation. University of Houston, Texas.

Mor Barak, M. E., Nissly, J. A., & Levin, A.(2001). Antecedents to re ten t ion andturnover among child welfare , socia lwork, and other human service employ-ees: What can we learn from past re-search? A review and m eta-an alys is .Social Service Review, 75, 625-662.

Patrician, P. A. (2004). Single-item gra ph ic r ep -resenta t ional scales . Nursing Research,53(5), 347-352.

Penn, M., Romano, J. L., & Foat, D. (1988). The


15/17

SATISFACTION WITH FIELD PLACEMENT 37

burnout: A study of human service pro-fessionals. Adm inistration in Mental Health,15(3), 157 -^5.

Pines, A. M . (1993). Bu rnou t. In L. Go ldberg er& S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress:Theoretical and clinical aspects (2nd ed., pp.386-402). New York: Free Press.

Raskin, M. (1982). Factors associated w ith stu-dent safisfaction in undergraduate socialwork field placements. Arete, 7(1), 44-54.

Rimmerman, A. (1989). Burn out am ong begin-ning w orke rs in Israel and its relationshipto social support, supervision, and jobsadsfacfion. Rehabilitation Counseling Bul-letin, 32(3), 243-247.

Rompf, E. L., Royse, D., & Dhooper, S. S.(1993). An xiety prec edin g field w ork :What s tudents worry about . Journal ofTeaching in Social Work, 7, 81-95.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essen-tials of behavioral research: Methods and dataanalysis. N ew York: McG raw-Hill.

Royse, R., Dhooper, S. S., & Rompf, E.L. (2003).Field instruction: A guide fo r social work stu-dents (4th ed.). Boston: AUyn & Bacon.

Sawa, R. (1995). Teaching caring in conflictedsystems: Field placem ent teaching in familymedicine. In G. Rogers (Ed.), Social work infield education: Views and visions (pp.510-522). Du buqu e, IA: KendaU /Hun t.

Schw artz, R. H., Tiamiyu, M . F.,& Dw yer, D . J.(2007). Social worker hope and perceivedburnout: The effects of age, years in prac-tice, and setting. Adm inistration in SocialWork, 31(4), 103-119.

Scott, W., & Beth, C. (2008). Perceived stressand resi l ience in Alzheimer 's disease

afion models of social support. Aging andMental Health, 12(3), 357-365 .

Sha rm a, M ., & Ghosh , A. (2006). Perce ption oforganizational climate and job satisfac-tion in nursing staff personnel. IndianJournal of Social Work. 67{3), 263-274.

Shulman, L. (1981). A study of the content, con-text, and skills of supervision. Vancouver:University of British Co lum bia.

Sh ulm an, L. (1982). Skills ofsupervision and staffmanagement. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Shulman, L. (1992). The skills of helping (3rded.). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Siporin, M. (1982). The process of fieldinstru ction. In B.W. Sheafor & L. E. Jenk-ins (Eds.), Qua lity freld instruction in socialwork: Program development and maintenanc(pp. 175-197). Ne w York: Long ma n.

Sun, A. (1999). Issues BSW intern s expe riencein their f irst semester 's practicum. TheClinical Supervisor, 18(1), 105 -123 .

Tepper, B. J. (2000). Co nseq uenc es of a bus ivesupervision. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 43,178-190.

Ursula, M., & Steven, P. S. (1998). O rganizafionaland individ ual factors influencing job safis-faction and bu rnou t of men tal health work -ers. Social Work in Health Care, 28{2), 51-62Waghorn, G., Chant, D., White, R, & White-ford, H. (2005). Disability, employmentand work performance among peoplewith ICD-10 anxiety disorders. Australianand New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39,55-66.

W anou s, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & H urdy , M . J.(1997). Ov erall job satisfaction: H ow goo dare single-item measures. Journal of Ap-


16/17

3 8 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATIONWheeler, J. (1987). A comparative study of the Ying, Y. (2008). The buffering effect of self-

anxiety, burnout and mood of three social detachment against emotional exh austionworker populations. Unpub lished doctoral amo ng social work studen ts . Journal ofdissertation, Adelphi University, Garden Religion & Spirituality in Social Work,City, NY 27(1 /2), 127-146.

Accepted: 07/ 09H a n a e K a n n o is a doctoral student at the University of Pittsburgh. Gary F. K oes ite is professor atUniversity of Pittsburgh.Address c orresponde nce t o Hanae Kanno, University of Pittsbu rgh, School of So cial Work,81 9 College Ave, Apt C-2, Pittsburgh , PA 15232; e-mail: [email protected].


17/17

Copyright of Journal of Social Work Education is the property of Council on Social Work Education and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

msv studens

Documents

Transcript of msv studens