A Psychometric Study of a Brief Measure of Trauma-Informed Teaching and Trauma-Informed Supervision in Field Education

Background

While the social work profession has embraced trauma-informed practice principles for direct practice, less attention has been paid to the use of these principles in social work education. The field component of the social work curriculum is particularly well-suited for this approach, since students may be exposed to secondary trauma in their internships. Agency supervisors in field placement sites and instructors teaching field seminar courses are key to addressing this exposure and its impacts on student interns. Researchers have produced a number of comprehensive measures that identify the level of use of trauma-informed practice principles in teaching (Axelsen, 2017; Baker, 2016) and supervision (Baird, 2022; Hurless, 2021; Sprang, 2018), but the field is lacking a brief measure. To support the further development of research regarding this important topic, this study focused on the development and testing of a new brief measure of trauma-informed supervision and trauma-informed teaching.

Methods

The team developed two brief eight-item measures based on SAMHSA’s (2023) six trauma-informed practice principles. The two measures were very similar to one another except one version focused on the field supervisor, while the other focused on the field seminar instructor. These two measures were piloted in a sample of 80 MSW interns. Students were asked to rate their supervisors’ and instructors’ use of trauma-informed care principles through these two brief measures. Factorial validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis, while internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity was tested though t-tests. Total scores on the two brief measures were compared based on student responses to additional questions (whether the student’s supervisor/instructor took practical steps to address student stress by providing information regarding stress and self-care to students).

Results

An exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood extraction yielded a unidimensional structure for the brief measure of trauma-informed supervision. This factor explained 80% of total variance. Factor loadings (above .75) and communalities (above .60) were high. Cronbach’s alpha was .963. Scale scores were significantly higher among supervisors who provided students with information on stress (t(78) = 6.002, p<.001) and self-care (t(78) = 6.952, p<.001).

An exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood extraction yielded a unidimensional structure for the brief measure of trauma-informed instruction. This factor explained 81% of total variance. Factor loadings were high (above .80), as were communalities (above .60). Cronbach’s alpha was .965. Instructors who provided students with information on stress had significantly higher scale scores (t(78) = 3.445, p<.001), as did instructors who provided information on self-care (t(78) = 3.214, p<.001).

Conclusion

This study provides the field with a brief measure of trauma-informed supervision and trauma-informed teaching. While the psychometric properties are promising, further research is needed to test additional forms of validity and reliability within a wide variety of student samples.