Preliminary Exploration of Psychologists’ Knowledge and Perceptions of Electronic Security and Implications for Use of Technology‐Assisted Supervision

Abstract

Objective

Technology is increasingly used in the provision of psychology services, and technology‐assisted supervision may offer improved access, convenience, and cost efficiencies in supervision settings, as well as augmenting and extending traditional supervision tools. The successful implementation and uptake of technology in supervision and training may be impacted by psychologists’ understanding of digital security mechanisms and their perception of risk associated with new technologies.

Method

Twenty‐five psychologists completed a survey exploring knowledge of e‐security, perceptions of risk associated with different behaviours in both digital and more traditional working contexts, and the extent to which they engaged in these behaviours. Comfort and willingness to utilise new supervision technologies was also assessed.

Results

Results reveal a perceived lack of understanding of electronic security mechanisms. Comparisons of perceived risk between physical and equivalent digitally managed information were rated as similar. Psychologists tend to engage in higher perceived risk behaviours less often, although there are some clear discrepancies. Greater knowledge of e‐security was associated with less comfort in using new supervision technologies.

Conclusions

User perceptions of risk may impact the uptake of potentially useful technologies that support supervision. Education in the implementation of appropriate digital security mechanisms is recommended, coupled with further research to understand barriers associated with greater knowledge of security risks.

Key words:

• clinical supervision
• digital security
• risk perception
• technology
• training
• video recording

Acknowledgements

Development and ongoing support of the e‐supervision application and database was provided by Health Workforce Australia. The author asserts that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.