How well did our faculty supervisor work with you during the internship process? = 4.60; = .55 M SD How did our faculty prepare you for performing as a site supervisor? = 5.00; = 0 M SD Discussion The return count (n=12) was considerably lower than two years ago (n=27). The decrease in response rate could possibly be attributed to lack of follow-up by the Counselor Education faculty and staff, as well as the continued use of electronic administration of the survey. Overall, site supervisor ratings were higher than previous-years findings. Each category and the respective averages for 2016-2017 and 2014-2015 are discussed. Ratings for well did our faculty prepare you for performing as a site supervisor?’ ‘how was the highest (M=4.58) and it was higher than two years ago (M=4.41). Reviewed by program, results either increased or remained relatively stable over the past two years, School Counseling (M=5.0, 2016-2017; 2014-2015) and College Counseling (M=4.40, 2016-2017; M=4.69, 2014-2015), and Clinical Mental Health (M=4.50, 2016-2017; 2014-2015). M=4.56, M=3.60, Ratings for adequately trained by our program was your intern prior to becoming ‘how decreased slightly (M=3.92, 2016-2017; 2014-2015). Broken down by your M=4.41, intern?’ concentration, an increase was again seen in both School Counseling (M=4.2, 2016-2017; 2014-2015) and College Counseling (M=3.80, 2016-2017; 2014-2015), with a M=4.69, M=4.22, decrease in Clinical Mental Health (M=3.50, 2016-2017; 2014-2015). M=4.00, Ratings for well the faculty supervisor worked with the site supervisor’ ‘how also increased overall (M=4.42, 2016-2017; 2014-2015) from the previous year. Broken M=4.41, down by concentration, an increase was again seen in both School Counseling (M=4.60,
How well did our faculty supervisor work with you during the internship process? M = 4.60; SD = .55 How did our faculty prepare you for performing as a site supervisor? M = 5.00; SD = 0 Discussion The return count (n=12) was considerably lower than two years ago (n=27). The decrease in response rate could possibly be attributed to lack of follow-up by the Counselor Education faculty and staff, as well as the continued use of electronic administration of the survey. Overall, site supervisor ratings were higher than previous-years findings. Each category and the respective averages for 2016-2017 and 2014-2015 are discussed. Ratings for ‘how well did our faculty prepare you for performing as a site supervisor?’ was the highest (M=4.58) and it was higher than two years ago (M=4.41). Reviewed by program, results either increased or remained relatively stable over the past two years, School Counseling (M=5.0, 2016-2017; M=4.69, 2014-2015) and College Counseling (M=4.40, 2016-2017; M=4.56, 2014-2015), and Clinical Mental Health (M=4.50, 2016-2017; M=3.60, 2014-2015). Ratings for ‘how adequately trained by our program was your intern prior to becoming your intern?’ decreased slightly (M=3.92, 2016-2017; M=4.41, 2014-2015). Broken down by concentration, an increase was again seen in both School Counseling (M=4.2, 2016-2017; M=4.69, 2014-2015) and College Counseling (M=3.80, 2016-2017; M=4.22, 2014-2015), with a decrease in Clinical Mental Health (M=3.50, 2016-2017; M=4.00, 2014-2015). Ratings for ‘how well the faculty supervisor worked with the site supervisor’ also increased overall (M=4.42, 2016-2017; M=4.41, 2014-2015) from the previous year. Broken down by concentration, an increase was again seen in both School Counseling (M=4.60,
Entry-level-report-2016-2017.docx