Feasibility and practicality of a simulated placement: an exploratory pilot of a novel training method for postgraduate psychology students in the wake of COVID-19

Figures & data

Figure 1. 7-point Likert scale with behavioural anchors for COPPR-S (Rice, Schutte, et al., 2022).

Please use the following scale to rate level of competence for each item. Competence is defined as the level expected of a registered psychologist (Rating = 4).

Read the detailed description of this figure

7-column figure providing behavioural descriptions of different stages of a psychologist’s professional competence from “Not Yet Competent” to “Expert”.

Table 1. Placement completion rates and extensions of time 2019–2021.

Placement delivery (year)	Proportion completed the placement after enrolment	Extension of time required to complete placement requirements
Face-to-face (2019)	72%	100%
Face-to-Face (2020)	62%	100%
Simulated (2021)	85%	5%

Table 2. Student ratings of simulated placement acceptability (N = 10).

Statement	M	SD
A simulated placement provided a good learning experience	4.10	.57
A simulated placement enabled me to develop my skills as a psychologist	4.20	.42
A simulated placement prepared me for future training and work in psychology	3.90	.74
A simulated placement has allowed me to improve my competence as a psychologist	4.30	.48

Statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree.

Table 3. N and percentage (%) for each anchor of the simulated placement acceptability Likert scale (N = 10).

Statement		SD	SWD	N	SWA	SA
A simulated placement provided a good learning experience	n(%)	0(0)	0(0)	1(10.0)	7(70.0)	2(20.0)
A simulated placement enabled me to develop my skills as a psychologist	n(%)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	8(80.0)	2(20.0)
A simulated placement prepared me for future training and work in psychology	n(%)	0(0)	1(10.0)	0(0)	8(80.0)	1(10.0)
A simulated placement has allowed me to improve my competence as a psychologist	n(%)	0(0)	0(0)	0(0)	7(70.0)	3(30.0)

Item wording has been abbreviated in the table.

N, neither agree nor disagree; SA, strongly agree; SD, strongly disagree; SWA, somewhat agree; SWD, somewhat disagree.

Table 4. Outcome for the competencies of professional psychology rating scale – self-report version (COPPR-S) total and subscale scores (N = 9).

Measure	M	SD	Range
COPPR-S Mean Item Score	4.80	0.75	3.69–5.95
Scientist-Practitioner	4.59	0.74	3.33–5.67
Working Across the Lifespan	4.00	0.53	3.00–4.75
Cultural Responsiveness	3.79	0.87	2.33–5.00
Professional Communication and Liaison Skills	4.64	0.55	3.88–5.25
Counselling Micro-Skills	5.42	1.06	3.88–7.00
Clinical Interviewing	5.04	0.96	3.89–6.89
Formulation and Diagnosis	4.81	0.82	3.86–6.00
Assessment	4.59	0.85	3.60–5.70
Intervention	4.49	0.79	3.43–6.00
Ethics	5.18	1.13	3.64–7.00
Self-Reflective Practice	5.32	1.12	3.88–7.00

Possible range 1 to 7, see Figure 1 for descriptives.

Table 5. Outcome for the psychologist and counsellor self-efficacy scale (PCES) total and subscale scores (N = 9).

	M	SD
Ethics	4.37	0.51
Legal Matters	3.28	0.57
Assessment and Measurement	3.52	0.58
Intervention	3.83	0.46
Research	3.78	0.76

Possible subscale range 1 to 5.

Rice, K., Schutte, N. S., Cosh, S. M., Rock, A. J., Banner, S. E., & Sheen, J. (2022). The utility and development of the Competencies of Professional Psychology Rating scales (COPPR). Frontiers in Education (Lausanne), 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.818077

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study may be available on reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions to preserve the anonymity of the participants.