No abstract

Clinical supervision is a functional competency for health service psychologists, but how supervisor competency develops through coursework is not yet well understood. This study is the first to investigate the state of supervision training in American Psychological Association (APA) accredited school psychology doctoral programs. Descriptive results of a survey of course instructors (N ϭ 23) and a systematic qualitative analysis of syllabi (N ϭ 15) are reported, with a focus on characteristics of course instructors; course content and instructional methods; and the alignment of syllabi with APA (2015) supervision competency domains (i.e., their coverage, and evaluation). Findings indicate that instructors had limited supervision training and syllabi focused on clinical supervision but also issues specific to supervision in school psychology (e.g., systems-level change in schools, and the multifaceted school psychologist role). Only some syllabi indicated applied supervision practice opportunities, with few techniques to support these experiences. Coverage of the APA (2015) supervision competency domains of Diversity; Professionalism; and Professional Competence Problems were limited in their coverage and evaluation. Implications of these findings are discussed. Public Significance StatementThis study is the first to investigate supervision training in American Psychological Association (APA) accredited school psychology doctoral programs. Results suggest supervision training in doctoral-level school psychology shares common limitations with documented challenges in related specialties. Suggestions for enhancing supervision training in health service psychology, including school psychology, are offered as are future research directions.

Within multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), including Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) and Response to Intervention (RTI) models, Tier III represents the most intense level of intervention. Interventions at Tier III are highly individualized, with a specific student in mind, and carefully consider the context of behavior, including function, for intervention planning. Given the intense and individualized nature of Tier III interventions, it follows that these efforts are reserved for students with the most significant needs. It estimated that 1%–5% of students require Tier III intervention for behavior. This chapter describes the distinguishing features of Tier III, discusses issues related to the transition from Tier II to Tier III, overviews appropriate assessment and progress-monitoring methods, outlines effective intervention approaches, and provides general guidelines for implementation of Tier III services.