@article{KuehneMaasWiesenthaletal.2019,
  author    = {K{\"u}hne, Franziska and Maas, Jana and Wiesenthal, Sophia and Weck, Florian},
  title     = {Empirical research in clinical supervision},
  series = {BMC Psychology},
  volume    = {7},
  journal   = {BMC Psychology},
  publisher = {BioMed Central},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {2050-7283},
  doi       = {10.1186/s40359-019-0327-7},
  pages     = {11},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Background: Although clinical supervision is considered to be a major component of the development and maintenance of psychotherapeutic competencies, and despite an increase in supervision research, the empirical evidence on the topic remains sparse. Methods: Because most previous reviews lack methodological rigor, we aimed to review the status and quality of the empirical literature on clinical supervision, and to provide suggestions for future research. MEDLINE, PsycInfo and the Web of Science Core Collection were searched and the review was conducted according to current guidelines. From the review results, we derived suggestions for future research on clinical supervision. Results: The systematic literature search identified 19 publications from 15 empirical studies. Taking into account the review results, the following suggestions for further research emerged: Supervision research would benefit from proper descriptions of how studies are conducted according to current guidelines, more methodologically rigorous empirical studies, the investigation of active supervision interventions, from taking diverse outcome domains into account, and from investigating supervision from a meta-theoretical perspective. Conclusions: In all, the systematic review supported the notion that supervision research often lags behind psychotherapy research in general. Still, the results offer detailed starting points for further supervision research.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{LorenzMatthiasPieperetal.2019,
  author    = {Lorenz, Robert C. and Matthias, Katja and Pieper, Dawid and Wegewitz, Uta Elke and Morche, Johannes and Nocon, Marc and Rissling, Olesja and Schirm, Jaqueline and Jacobs, Anja},
  title     = {A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Epidemiology},
  volume    = {114},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Epidemiology},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {New York},
  issn      = {0895-4356},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.05.028},
  pages     = {133 -- 140},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Objectives: The objectives of this study were to determine the interrater reliability (IRR) of assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) 2 for reviews of pharmacological or psychological interventions for the treatment of major depression, to compare it to that of AMSTAR and risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS), and to assess the convergent validity between the appraisal tools. Results: The median kappa values as a measure of IRR indicated a moderate agreement for AMSTAR 2 (median = 0.51), a substantial agreement for AMSTAR (median = 0.62), and a fair agreement for ROBIS (median = 0.27). Validity results showed a positive association for AMSTAR and AMSTAR 2 (r = 0.91) as well as ROBIS and AMSTAR 2 (r = 0.84). For the overall rating, AMSTAR 2 showed a high concordance with ROBIS and a lower concordance with AMSTAR. Conclusion: The IRR of AMSTAR 2 was found to be slightly lower than the IRR of AMSTAR and higher than the IRR of ROBIS. Validity measurements indicate that AMSTAR 2 is closely related to both ROBIS and AMSTAR. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}