iRubric: Mentorship Supervisor Evaluation rubric

Mostly silent and does not appear engaged in dialogue

Attention clearly not present; rarely acknowledges need for clarification


Demonstrates no effective critical thinking skills

Routinely does not solicit, attend to, or accept contributions from others

Totally intolerant of discomfort in new situations and learning

Attends to dialogue between supervisor and peers, but actively participates infrequently

Attention is divided, or mind seems elsewhere most of the time; sometimes asks for clarification

Inconsistently demonstrates critical thinking skills, or critical thinking skills are often ineffective

Accepts, but does not solicit contributions from others both in terms of own and other’s work

Occasionally willing to stretch “comfort zone”, but generally intolerant of discomfort in learning

Participates in interactive dialogue, but usually does not initiate it.
Listens most of the
time, though at times appears to be distracted or inattentive; usually asks for clarification

Demonstrates critical thinking skills most of the time, though sometimes thinking is faulty

Solicits and attends to contributions about own work, or about other’s work, but not both

Willing to stretch “comfort zone” in new learning most of the time, though is usually not the first to volunteer

Consistently initiates interactive dialogue with supervisor and peers

Listens carefully and always asks for clarification when does not understand

Consistently demonstrates effective critical thinking skills in posing questions and comments

Eagerly solicits and attends to contributions of others, both in terms of own and other’s work

Demonstrates willingness to stretch “comfort zone” in new learning (e.g., participating in role plays, trying new techniques)

Identification of problem routinely consists merely of accepting statements from referral without critical evaluation.

No incorporation of environmental considerations

Cannot formulate a clear coaching plan Unclear or nonexistent theoretical orientation guiding the coaching.

Some consideration of the nature of the problem beyond the information included in the referral
Only minimal &/or superficial consideration of multiple aspects of the environment.

Formulates coaching plans, but misses key elements (e.g., not empirically supported, not culturally appropriate, misses several treatment goals) Inconsistent &/or superficial connection between theoretical perspective selected and interventions utilized

Consideration of the nature of the problem and some investigation of alternate sources of information beyond the referral are present.

Incomplete incorporation of multiple dimensions of the environment.

Formulates
culturally appropriate and empirically supported treatment plans, but misses one or two intervention goals
Generally, provides some relationship between interventions selected and theoretical perspective, but the relationship is not always fully or clearly articulated

identification of the nature of a client’s problem goes well beyond the initial referral to include review of client records, consultation with others familiar with case, and independent analysis.

Formulates culturally appropriate and empirically supported treatment plans that clearly address treatment goals Demonstrates a clear link between intervention strategies utilized/planned and selected theoretical perspective.

Routinely submits paperwork late Paperwork has frequent or multiple errors Paperwork is not readable or deviates totally from the required format. Coaching impressions are unclear and there is no use of Coaching appropriate terms Uses inappropriate terms for ethnic and cultural groups

Submits paperwork on time 50-75% of the time Paperwork is basically accurate, with frequent non-content related errors, or with 1-2 errors in content material Paperwork is generally too long or short, is often not clear, or deviates from format Coaching impressions are somewhat unclear and there is little use of appropriate coaching terminology Uses some appropriate & inappropriate terms to describe ethnic and cultural groups

Submits paperwork on time at least 75% of the time Paperwork is usually accurate, with a few minor, non-content related errors Paperwork is somewhat too long or short, and is sometimes not clear or does not strictly conform to format Coaching impressions are written clearly, but with only moderate use of coaching appropriate terms Mostly uses appropriate terms to describe ethnic and cultural groups

Consistently submits all paperwork on time Consistently completes all paperwork accurately Paperwork is concise, neat, readable, and conforms to required format Coaching impressions are written using appropriate professional terminology Employs appropriate terms for ethnic and cultural groups