Training Evaluation: How to Effectively Supervise Professionals Treating Individuals Who Perpetrate Sexual Violence

(OT185-A) Evaluation – How to Effectively Supervise Professionals Treating Individuals Who Perpetrate Sexual Violence

Course Name: How to Effectively Supervise Professionals Treating Individuals Who Perpetrate Sexual Violence

Learning Objectives

As a result of participating in this training, participants will be better able to:
1) Describe their own vulnerabilities and agency in protecting against ethical boundary violations.
2) Explain common pitfalls in supervising new therapists working with individuals with histories of sexual abuse.
3) Apply specific steps to optimize the supervisory relationship for therapists working with individuals with histories of sexual abuse.
4) Demonstrate ways to facilitate self-care, education, and skills development for new therapists working with individuals who have sexually abused.
5) Identify signs of boundary concerns with supervisees

I certify that I am the above-named person completing this form and that the information I submit here is accurate.
1. How much did you learn as a result of this CE program? 5 = Very much, 1 = Very little
2. Rate the quality of the program content 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
3. Rate how current/relevant the program content is 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
4. How useful was the content of this CE program for your practice or other professional development? 5 = Extremely Useful, 1 = Not Useful at all
5.1. Rate the first instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Paul Hoard, PhD, LMHC) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
5.2. Rate the second instructor’s knowledge and expertise of the subject (Seth Wescott, LMLP) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.1. Rate the first instructor’s teaching ability (Paul Hoard, PhD, LMHC) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
6.2. Rate the second instructor’s teaching ability (Seth Wescott, LMLP) 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
7.1. Would you agree that learning objective #1 was met?
Learning Objective #1: “Describe their own vulnerabilities and agency in protecting against ethical boundary violations.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.2. Would you agree that learning objective #2 was met?
Learning Objective #2: “Explain common pitfalls in supervising new therapists working with individuals with histories of sexual abuse.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.3. Would you agree that learning objective #3 was met?
Learning Objective #3: “Apply specific steps to optimize the supervisory relationship for therapists working with individuals with histories of sexual abuse.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.4. Would you agree that learning objective #4 was met?
Learning Objective #4: “Demonstrate ways to facilitate self-care, education, and skills development for new therapists working with individuals who have sexually abused.” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
7.5. Would you agree that learning objective #5 was met?
Learning Objective #5: “Identify signs of boundary concerns with supervisees” 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree
8. Rate how well the program met your expectations (according to the promotional materials) 5 = Very well, 1 = Not well at all
9. Rate the quality of the provided course materials 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
10. Rate the quality of the facilities (in-person) or technology (online). 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
11. Rate how well disability accommodations were met, if requested. 5 = Very High, 1 = Very Low
12. Rate the ease of the registration process 5 = Very Easy, 1 = Very Difficult
13. Rate the first presenter’s (Paul Hoard, PhD, LMHC) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all
14. Rate the second presenter’s (Seth Wescott, LMLP) responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all
15. Rate the program staff’s responsiveness to questions 5 = Very responsive, 1 = Not responsive at all