Measuring competence in systemic practice: development of the ‘Systemic Family Practice – Systemic Competency Scale’ (SPS)

Abstract

Ensuring that practitioners are competent in the therapies they deliver is important for training, therapeutic outcomes and ethical practice. The development of the Systemic Practice Scale (SPS) is reported -a measure to assess the competence of novice systemic practitioners trialed by Children and Young Person's Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (CYP-IAPT) training courses. Initial reliability assessment of the SPS with twenty-eight supervisors of systemic practice evaluating students' competence using an online recording of a family therapy session is detailed.The SPS was found to be a reliable measure of systemic competence across training settings.Rating variability was noted, with training and benchmarking to improve rating consistency recommended. Further research using the SPS to further establish the reliability and validity of the scale is required. Practitioner Points SPS represents an important tool, particularly for the supervision and development of more junior staff or students  Initial reliability for use of the SPS as a formative tool has been established. Further benchmarking is required if using the tool in a summative manner.

The journey towards digital systemic competence: Thoughts on training, supervision and competence evaluation

“…Treatment skills, such as offering reflecting teams, will need to draw on new ways to monitor the impact of reflections on family members. The most common tool for assessing systemic skills in training is the Systemic Practice Scale (SPS, Butler et al ., 2020), which will also need to be extended to include digital practice.…”

Student and supervisor experiences of the Systemic Practice Scale (SPS): a discourse analysis

“…Some have suggested that competence-based training challenges this systemic paradigm of interaction and locates competence solely within the individual irrespective of the context (Simon, 2010;Sutherland et al, 2012). Simon (2010) discusses the challenges systemic supervisors have working in training courses that are 'dominated by inflexible professional narratives' (p. 308) that may not fit within a culture where micro-measurement of clinical practice has become the norm (Butler et al, 2018;Tweed et al, 2010). Sutherland et al (2012) argued from a social constructionist perspective that 'what is "noticed" will depend in part on the observer's theoretical and philosophical commitments' (p. 3).…”

“…The systemic practice scale (SPS) 1 was developed in response to current changes in the delivery of mental health services for children's and young persons' IAPT (CYP-IAPT) and the lack of measures to assess systemic competence (Butler et al, 2018). It is used in CYP-IAPT systemic family practice (SFP) courses across the UK, providing a structured assessment of systemic skills that can be used in supervision or as a training tool (Butler et al, 2018, Supporting Information).…”

“…It is used in CYP-IAPT systemic family practice (SFP) courses across the UK, providing a structured assessment of systemic skills that can be used in supervision or as a training tool (Butler et al, 2018, Supporting Information). The measure consists of twelve items to assess supervisees' competence across a number of domains, such as interpersonal effectiveness, collaboration and use of questioning (Butler et al, 2018). A small-scale study demonstrated high internal reliability and face validity based on use in CYP-IAPT training courses (Butler et al, 2018).…”

“…The measure consists of twelve items to assess supervisees' competence across a number of domains, such as interpersonal effectiveness, collaboration and use of questioning (Butler et al, 2018). A small-scale study demonstrated high internal reliability and face validity based on use in CYP-IAPT training courses (Butler et al, 2018). A thematic analysis of twenty-three supervisors' experiences of using the scale concluded the SPS was helpful but recognised that this approach required flexibility in providing 'feedback beyond the scale' (Butler et al, 2018, p.16).…”