Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: 台灣諮商心理師能力指標建構之共識研究
Other Titles: Development of Competency Benchmarks for Counseling Psychologists in Taiwan
Authors: 林家興
Chia-Hsin Lin
Pei-Chuan Huang
Issue Date: Mar-2013
Publisher: 國立臺灣師範大學教育心理學系
Department of Educational Psychology, NTNU
Abstract: 本研究目的在研擬臺灣諮商心理師能力指標作為諮商心理系所和臨床督導訓練與評量的依據。研究者採用德懷術問卷調查法進行專家意見資料收集和分析,以尋求專家對於臺灣諮商心理師能力指標的共識。研究對象為資深諮商心理師和擔任諮商實務課程的諮商心理系所教師,共計29人。研究者根據Rodolfa等人(2005)的「能力立方模型」和Fouad等人(2009)的能力指標,編製一份諮商心理師能力指標問卷作為本研究工具。研究結果:1. 確定諮商心理師專業能力包括六個能力構面,共計13個能力次構面與60個能力指標。六個專業能力構面是:(1)衡鑑診斷與概念化能力;(2)介入能力;(3)諮詢能力;(4)研究與評鑑能力;(5)督導能力;以及(6)管理能力。2. 德懷小組專家對研究者所編製諮商心理師能力指標的共識程度相當高(QD均小於0.6),僅撰寫研究計畫的能力一項為中度共識(QD=0.75)。德懷小組專家評量60個能力指標的重要性,有50項能力指標為「非常重要程度」(83.3%),另有10項為「重要程度」(16.7%)。最後針對研究結果進行討論和建議。
Competency-based approach to education and training has become a high priority in the field of professional psychology. However, few research studies have been conducted on this topic in Taiwan. This study attempts to develop competency benchmarks for counseling psychologists in Taiwan. The competency benchmarks could be useful in training and evaluating counseling psychologists across different training levels. The Delphi technique was used to collect counseling experts' criticality consensus of the competency benchmarks. A group of 29 seasoned counseling psychologists and faculty of counseling psychology were invited to participate in the study. For this study, we developed a competency questionnaire based on Rodolfa et al.'s (2005) competency cube model and Fouad et al.'s (2009) competency benchmarks. Results: (1) The 6 functional competency domains for the counseling psychologist consisted of 13 sub-domains and 60 competency benchmarks. The 6 domains are: assessment, diagnosis and conceptualization, intervention, consultation, research and evaluation, supervision, and management. (2) The Delphi experts had a high criticality consensus on all but one competency benchmark (research proposal writing ability). Among the 60 competency benchmarks, 50 (83.3%) were rated as very critical and 10 (16.7%) as critical by the Delphi experts. lmplications of the study and suggestions were also discussed.
Other Identifiers: 86426268-2B39-26C9-89BD-B7773BD5CC19
Appears in Collections:教育心理學報

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
ntnulib_ja_A0201_4403_735.pdf389.98 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.