Over the past 4 years, various Hints and Tips documents have been completed to support candidates

and their supervisors in the implementation of the Qualification. Much of the detail does not replace

what is written in the Handbook, instead the purpose is to produce guidance that supports and

maximises opportunities for candidates to progress through the Qualification. Within this period, there

has also been one notice of change. The changes highlighted within this notice do replace what is in

the handbook and is presented within this summary as an appendix. The Hints and Tips reflect the

current view of the Forensic Qualification Board. In response to feedback from supervisors, we have

reviewed all of the available Hints and Tips and summarised the guidance into this document.

Hints and Tips will continue to be produced, reflecting current issues and challenges experienced by

our candidates, but it is hoped that this summary document will ensure that everyone on the current

qualification has all historical guidance in one place.

1. Summary of Core Role 1 Hints and Tips:

1.1 Cases

We are aware that the Candidate Handbook does not give any specific guidelines about the number of

cases to use as evidence for this Core Role (if that is how you decide to present your evidence).

But what we do know is that using two or three cases is much more likely to demonstrate competence.

Therefore exemplar plans will not be returned solely due to only planning to submit one case as

evidence for each exemplar; but trainees will be reminded that if this is your plan then the case will

need to be “spot on” in order to pass the submission.

1.2 Overview of the units of competency for CR1

The Practice Diary is the best source of evidence to show your thinking and reasoning (i.e. reflections)

underpinning your clinical work for all core roles but particularly CR1. The PD should show how you

have critically appraised relevant theory/research and policy to inform your practice from 1.1-1.6. It

should show how and why you made the decisions you did as well as examination of how effective

your decisions then were in practice.

The following sections highlight key elements of each unit of competence. The advice is not to

overcomplicate the evidence submitted but keep these key points below in mind in all you do for CR 1.

Please remember you must demonstrate all descriptors for each unit of competence.

1.1 What psychological assessment / intervention do you need to do and why do you need to do it?

What is your understanding of the referral and work requested and why it needs to be done

– why is it a priority?

Show clear evidence of reading around the subject (including file reviews)

The approach taken must be informed by the literature– make those links explicitly clear

within evidence submitted

Evidence is needed to show that you know why you are doing something rather than this

simply being part of organisational practice

Develop preliminary aims and objectives / formulation and make a preliminary plan for the

client

1.2 How do you plan to go about your assessment/ intervention? What do you want to achieve?

What are the aims and objectives of the assessment/intervention and how were they

devised from the work done in 1.1?

Qualification in Forensic

Psychology (Stage 2)

What assessment/intervention approaches do you plan to take and why?

Think about and plan for how are you going to know if the intervention has been beneficial?

Show your thinking / planning around practical considerations

Consult/collaborate with client and colleagues about plans, include them in this process

Don’t forget about Informed consent – ensure forms are accessible and how these have

been developed with the individual’s needs in mind. It is vital to reflect on how consent is

gained, copies of the templates used do not demonstrate thinking or practice.

1.3 How do you work with others?

When completing this unit of competence trainees often forget about their professional

working relationships as well as those with the clients. Both are equally important to

demonstrate.

Show how you have developed, maintained and maximised the effectiveness of working

relationships

Demonstrate good interpersonal and communication skills

Demonstrate professional and ethical practice

1.4 What are you going to do? How did you do it?

Evidence how you have implemented your treatment / assessment plan (including collecting

data for evaluation if appropriate).

Demonstrate your consideration of organisational issues including clear record keeping

You need to be clear about your contribution particularly if the work completed is group work

Evidence your role as a psychologist-especially for accredited interventions

1.5 How have you directed others in a psychologically informed way?

If needed it is reasonable to include a separate piece of work for 1.5

This unit of competency is 100% about you directing others, having a discussion with

someone is not sufficient.

Only providing report recommendations for both 1a and 1b is insufficient, unless they can

evidence having directed or advised others on how to implement them

The skill for this area of competence is about coaching/supervising/supporting others to

implement psychological assessment/intervention

Direction must be psychologically informed (scientist-practitioner)

1.6 How are you going to know if what you have done has been of any use?

Identify aims and plan evaluation methodology (within 1.1, 1.2): have a strategy

Think about a range of methods you could use, but be realistic.

Evaluate the assessment/intervention against the original aims / objectives

Assessment reports alone are not enough, if there is no commentary or reflection on how

the assessment met the original aims

The importance of ethical practice runs throughout this Core Role (as it does with all CRs) and this

needs to be evidenced across all the above.

1.3 What constitutes good primary and secondary evidence to submit?

One of the best forms of secondary evidence for assessments, individual intervention and group

intervention is a case study that draws together how each unit is addressed. Though please

ensure that the traditional approach to format and presentation of a case study is followed if this

is what you plan to submit.

If it is an ‘accredited’ group work programme then selecting one or two participants as the focus

of the case study works well in demonstrating how individual needs might be met within a

structured programme

If you are designing a group work programme, then a case study approach can still work well.

Individual items can then be demonstrated through the case study and with some additional

evidence. For example, for 1.2 a summary of overall and session specific aims can be included

within the case study, and session plans could be used as secondary / supporting evidence.

For 1.4, post session-notes / debrief notes form good secondary evidence

For 1.5, good secondary evidence includes: supervision contracts, supervision notes,

video monitoring notes

For 1.6 an evaluation report can be used as secondary evidence – but could form part of the

case study rather than a separate document

Literature Reviews … the best approach with CR1 is to integrate literature throughout the

exemplar report, with detailed reflections in the PD. A separate literature review isn’t always the

best evidence for CR1 unless you clearly show how it has informed your practice.

A general tip…

Where you use accredited group work as an example of work done you must identify what you

brought to the process as a Forensic Psychologist and demonstrate how individual needs were

met within a structured programme. This also included needing to evaluate progress on

individual aims as well as overall group progress.

1.4 Specific Guidance for 1.5 and 1.6

There seems to be a tendency for candidates to submit exemplar plans where the focus of 1.5 is on the

completion of post-therapy or risk assessment reports. That is, candidates want to demonstrate

competence by writing recommendations for future therapy and/or assessment. This is not what

competence 1.5 is about. This type of evidence is more akin to competence 3.5 where the focus is on

providing feedback to other professionals.

The focus of 1.5 is on directing the applications and interventions of others. It is about the coaching

and supervision aspect of the psychologist role. Some of the most successful exemplar submissions

use evidence of supervising the work of others through accredited programme treatment management

or supervising the work of a research assistant/psychological assistant. These opportunities allow

candidates to use psychological knowledge to supervise and direct the work of others.

It is accepted that trainees do not always have the opportunity to treatment manage an intervention.

However, trainees can be creative as to how they achieve this competence. For example, they may

involve a nurse, prison officer or other professional in co-delivering aspects of an intervention. In doing

so, they can supervise and direct the work that their colleague is delivering (e.g. supporting with role-

plays). Likewise, candidates could support other professionals when they are providing out of session

interventions such as supporting clients in applying their skills at ward/wing level. Again, if a trainee

has completed a risk assessment, they could direct other professionals in monitoring risk indicators and

collating this information as part of their own risk management strategies. If a cognitive assessment is

completed, a trainee might work with others in terms of incorporating the findings in to their work with

clients and their approaches to managing the client.

Registrars cannot approve plans that refer solely to using the written recommendations from reports for

this competence.

1.6 Evaluating assessments is about having clear aims and objectives before starting the assessment and then evaluating the assessment against the original aims – i.e. did the assessment serve its purpose? The questions to ask yourself are:

Did it meet the needs of the referrers or other key stakeholders?

Did it answer the questions it set out to answer?

Were the recommendations useful?

Evaluation can encompass more than this (e.g. reflections on the utility of the assessment tools or approaches, feedback from others about the quality of the report), but there must be some evidence that the aims of the assessment were established, and that the evaluation refers back to those aims. Submitting assessment reports without any accompanying reflection on the extent to which the assessment met its aims is likely to result in CNYD

2. Summary of Core Role 2 Hints and Tips:

2.1 General Guidance

Exemplar plans (EPs) have been received which aim to use evidence from two or more research

projects to demonstrate evidence for one exemplar. We urge you to consider only using one research

project for each exemplar to demonstrate the competences identified in completing an applied piece of

postgraduate research. It is a risky strategy to try to pick out evidence from more than one project for

this exemplar. If in doubt arrange an appointment at a Registrar Clinic to discuss. Also, consider which

further evidence above your research report demonstrates competence for CR2, such as minutes from

meetings in which you disseminate your results.

2.2 Specific Guidance from the Lead Assessor:

Hypotheses and research questions:

Hypotheses and research questions are the heart and soul of all good CR2 exemplars! They help you focus on what you are really interested in exploring, provide a solid structure to the research report, and make life easier for you and the assessors. For most research projects using qualitative methods, I would suggest hypotheses are essential. For projects using qualitative methods, particularly if they are exploratory and the literature doesn’t really suggest what to test, then research questions may be more appropriate. Spend time thinking about your questions and hypotheses, discuss them in supervision, and look at hypotheses/research questions in comparable published papers for ideas. Think carefully about how to phrase them, follow APA guidelines, consider carefully whether hypotheses should be directional or not and present evidence of your reflections on all these things in the Practice Diary. (Remember to match your statistical analysis to the hypotheses i.e. use one tailed tests if your hypotheses predict the direction of the relationship, two-tailed tests if they don’t).

Quantitative and Qualitative methods

There is no hard and fast rule that says you have to use both, do one exemplar using each etc. Many strong submissions do include an exemplar which uses quantitative and one which uses qualitative methods, and this helps demonstrate a breadth of competencies, but this is not essential. If you submit exemplars using similar methods, make sure you do them well, and (as ever) justify your choice of method, showing you considered alternatives. Also as ever, use the handbook as your guide – ask yourself if the work you are submitting allows you to demonstrate to the assessors that you are competent in the large majority of the sub-competencies listed under 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. This can sometimes be harder when you submit two similar exemplars, but it is not impossible. Don’t try and do too much!

One of the most common reasons why candidates do not achieve a Competence Demonstrated first time around is that they try to do too much in their research projects and especially that they try to cram too much into their research report. This means they can’t explore and discuss their results in the depth that assessors want to see, and increases the chance of errors. Typically, they then fall down on CR2.3 as their research reports become too complex and it is difficult to write them in enough depth whilst remaining in the word limit. So, my advice is keep your projects streamlined, focussed and as simple as possible. It is better to stick to a small number of hypotheses or research questions that are clearly

justified by the literature review, then explore them in good detail. If there were other things that you wanted to explore then mention them at the end as ideas for future research! Do try and disseminate your work as much as possible, and why not submit it to peer-reviewed journals…

This is a good idea for lots of reasons. One, you get feedback from conference delegates or peer reviewers and editors, which can help you improve your submission and has made the difference between getting “competence demonstrated” first time and not for some candidates. Second, it’s a great way of getting your work out there, and given all the work and time you (and your participants) put into the project, it seems a shame not to share it more widely. Thirdly, it looks great on your CV. If you ever might want to do some teaching, lecturing or further research in the future, the more publications and conference presentations you have the better. Finally, submitting to journals is actually less daunting than many people think. When submitting exemplar plans for CR2, candidates are reminded to ensure that the Forensic

Psychology focus of any research exemplars is clear. There are increasing examples of exemplar

plans where there is little indication as to what the forensic focus is except that it is being conducted in

a prison or secure hospital.

The good news is that compared to previous years, both the quality of submitted CR2s and the pass

rate is going up! I know how hard it is to complete your CR2, and that candidates are often juggling it

alongside many demands. But don’t give up, you will get there.

Literature Reviews

Make sure that your lit review is more than just a list of the relevant papers. The assessors are looking

for evidence of critical analysis, i.e. comparing papers too each other, spotting problems and gaps in

the evidence base. Your literature review should lead logically to your hypotheses/research questions.

Analysis

Often the part that people find hardest. It is often a good idea to ask advice from an expert, such as an

experienced researcher or university statistician. Assessors and I see this as a positive, it is part of

being a reflective practitioner that we know what we don’t know, and are willing to seek information and

help from elsewhere.

Dissemination

Make sure you make efforts to disseminate your work, even if it was completed some time ago. Don’t

forget to share your results with the participants wherever possible. You and they have put a lot into the

project, it’s important that other people get to hear about it. I always encourage people to submit to

journals and conference presentations; you will get some great feedback and it’s really good to get stuff

out there and/or published

Double check everything…

Make sure you have followed APA guidance in how you lay out your Research Report, phrase your

hypotheses, and reference the literature. It sounds obvious, but get someone else to read through your

work before submitting it, to check for typos, missing references etc.

3. Summary of Core Role 3 Hints and Tips

3.1 General Tip

The use of evidence related to delivering lectures to undergraduate students will not suffice in

demonstrating competence for this Core Role. The evidence should relate to communicating

psychological knowledge and advice to professionals.

3.2 Effective communication is particularly important throughout the submission Remember this Core Role is assessing competence in communicating psychological knowledge to other professionals, so the portfolio submission itself is particularly important. This is a very clear example of your ability to communicate clearly and effectively. Use this as an opportunity to showcase your communication skills! A really well organised, easy to follow submission supports your competence. 3.3 The focus is on psychological knowledge and advice The advice you give MUST be soundly based on psychological theory and evidence. It is up to you to demonstrate how you have reviewed this evidence and ensured that the advice you give is evidence based. Giving advice on process or procedure is not psychological advice, so advising colleagues on referral processes etc. is not considered as evidence for this Core Role. 3.4 Your client is the organisation / other professionals Do not include feedback given to prisoners / service users as this suggests a misunderstanding of the Core Role itself and undermines your assertion that you are a skilled communicator! Good examples include feedback on performance to programmes teams, feeding back an evaluation of policy implementation, needs analyses, service reviews etc. Use the Practice Diary to reflect on how feedback was given and why (e.g. written report, presentation, supervision meeting) what language is used and why and on the evaluation and impact of the feedback, e.g. did practice change as a result? 3.5 The Practice Diary is Key Many areas of the Core Role represent work that happens throughout your working week, and this is often best recorded in the practice diary. Good PD entries for this CR include consideration of the evidence base for the advice being given and a reflection of any limitations, as well as reflection on the impact of the advice and its implementation if appropriate. Quality is at least as important as quantity here. Focus on active examples of promotion and advice outside just going about your daily job. Actively look for opportunities and record them clearly. 3.6 Core Role 3.2 is very broad in scope A wide range of activities can be included here, for example a risk assessment which clearly informs sentence planning, advice based on your own research or a review of the literature in a specific area, advising management following research or a needs analysis. Remember to reflect on the advice you’ve given and why! Let the assessors know what impact your advice had, spell this out. 3.7 Core Role 3.3 can be difficult But remember it only involves giving the advice. Trainees do not necessarily need to take the development and implementation of the policy forward. BUT you should reflect on why it was or was not implemented, how it was or MIGHT HAVE BEEN evaluated. Make sure you include a review of the literature which is used to inform the policy (psychological advice). A good submission will include advice on implementation and evaluation and the practice diary should consider how the need for the policy was identified. 3.8 Presenting in formal settings Preparation is essential here and should be evidenced in the practice diary. It can be difficult to show evidence of the presentation itself so reflect on the process, how you anticipated and prepared for questions and areas of contention and lots of reflection on how best to present information, how you coped in a stressful situation and how you evaluated your performance.

There are a range of settings with varying formality, registrars will determine if acceptable when exemplar plans are submitted. Good examples include attendance at parole hearings, court, mental health review tribunals, HMP risk management teams and MAPPA meetings among others. The work completed for this competence requires the candidate to prepare their evidence and to

present this in a forum where they are likely to be subjected to cross-examination or where they have

to defend their psychological position when questioned/challenged by others. Based on the information

outlined in an exemplar plan, it is not always possible to determine the ‘formal’ nature of the setting

and, as such, it will be the responsibility of the candidate to provide evidence that the setting is formal

and requires them to provide a psychological opinion/view that can be challenged.

4. Summary of Core Role 4 Hints and Tips:

4.1 Training undergraduates

Core Role 4 focuses on job performance and training other professionals. The Registrar and Assessor Teams are very clear that delivering training to undergraduates does not meet the requirements of the Core Role. It is possible that some pieces of work that involve training students taking part in an applied forensic psychology doctorate would be approved as long as the training is clearly related to performance within a role rather than enhancing theoretical knowledge. 4.2 Training in Assessments and Therapy

The Forensic Qualifications Board have recently been advised by the BPS Committee on

Test Standards that it is not appropriate for trainee psychologists to deliver training on the

use of tests which they are unable to use themselves without supervision. Examples may

include WASI, WAIS, HCR-20, PCL-R, etc.

Any Core Role 4 Exemplar Plans which have previously been approved remain valid.

However, any new Exemplar Plans that relate to training others in the use of such tests will

no longer be approved. Despite this, it may still be possible to find creative ways of

developing training around raising awareness of specific tests.

It is recognised that another option that supervisors and trainees might wish to consider is

for the trainee to develop and devise the training and then to co-facilitate the training with

a qualified psychologist who meets the criteria set by the testing publisher and the guidance

outlined by the BPS Committee on Test Standards. This would allow the trainee to

demonstrate competence embodied in CR4 in establishing the need for training, planning

training, implementing the training, assessing learning, and evaluating training, whilst not

working beyond their competence in relation to the specific tool, or beyond the advice of the

testing committee.

4.3 Specific Guidance from the CR4 Lead Assessor.

Core Role 4 continues to have a high pass rate. Even when things go wrong, it is usually

specific areas (typically 4.4 and 4.5) that cause problems. Resubmissions are almost always

passed on the first resubmission. The main thing to remember about Core Role 4 is that it is

sequential and that each sub-unit leads to the next one. If you don’t get 4.1 right then this

can have a knock-on effect on the rest of the exemplar. Some hints and tips to make CR4

more fluid and logical are:

4.1 – This is all about ‘Understanding the Need’

Please don’t embark on a training programme merely because you are interested in the

subject topic or because you think others will find it interesting. Training must benefit the

organisation and therefore there has to be a problem or a gap identified in work

performance. This needs to be linked to a gap in knowledge or skills and a consideration is

then made about whether training is the best method in which to address the problem. A

Training Needs Analysis should then be undertaken to determine exactly what the

knowledge/skills gap is. You then use this to derive specific aims and objectives. Don’t forget

to consult with stakeholders. This is an important part, which often gets overlooked.

4.2 – It’s all about the Planning

This is a major component of Core Role 4. Planning is where you take the results of the TNA

and use them to develop your training programme. Take each aim and objective and

determine (using literature) what the best method will be to meet each one. This includes the

delivery method as well as the information you need to impart for each one. It is important to

consider who your audience (trainees) will be and if there is specific selection criteria

required to ensure the right people attend the training. You also should start planning your

assessment and evaluation methods at this stage. They are then incorporated into the

training design. A Training manual is really helpful secondary evidence for this sub-unit.

You also need to consider what resources you will need to deliver the training, when you will

deliver it and to how many.

Once again, don’t forget to consult stakeholders.

Whereas 4.1 is about identification (what) and 4.2 is about planning (how), 4.3 and 4.4 are

about ‘doing’.

4.3 – Delivering the training

This is really hard to evidence unless you do it through Practice Diaries. Be clear about how

you actually delivered the training. Reflect on the whole training and include what obstacles

got in the way and what went well. Include how you were responsive to trainees and how

flexible you were in your approach. Reflect on all of this.

4.4 - Is about Assessment (not Evaluation)

Consider what your training is trying to do. Was your training intended to increase skills or

knowledge or both? Assessment is where you are trying to establish if the knowledge or

skills you are imparting have been understood and there is an improvement in them

afterwards. The way you can do this is by comparing them pre to post. You need to carefully

select an appropriate assessment measure (usually done at the planning stage) then

implement this and provide an analysis of whether knowledge/skills were increased as a

result of your training. This is best done by considering the aims and objectives and

assessing against them.

4.5 – Is about Evaluation (not assessment)

Evaluation will enable you and your stakeholders to understand if the training has been

effective and what, if any, changes are required for future deliveries. Chose an evaluation

method which is suitable for your training programme then ensure that you consider various

aspects and not just an evaluation of whether the trainees enjoyed the actual training (often

referred to as initial reactions to the training or happy sheets). You need to evidence if your

training had the desired effect. You were developing and delivering training for a reason and

that reason has been evidenced in 4.1. You need to evaluate against your aims and

objectives and the overall impact of the training on the organisation. Many candidates only

consider short-term gains or staff’s perceptions and do not try to apply a method to

determine if the organisation actually benefitted from the training. Remember in 4.1 – your

training topic has to benefit the organisation (or else why are you doing it), so please don’t

forget to evaluate whether it did or not.

Please don’t forget to share your findings with stakeholders. This is often done by producing

an evaluation report but sometimes summaries and communicating to non-psychological

professionals is required.

Summary:

The biggest areas where candidates seem to struggle in CR4 is distinguishing between

assessment and evaluation. Remember – assessment is about determining if the trainees’

knowledge or skills have increased as a result of the training. Evaluation is about evaluating

the full impact of the training and ultimately determining if it had an impact on job

performance. Please remember for assessment or evaluation, that gauging staff’s

perceptions is not a robust method. There is a place for this but don’t let it be your only

measure as it is too subjective. For example, if you are trying to assess whether a trainee’s

knowledge about self-harm has increased then asking them how confident they are at

spotting if someone is at risk of self-harm does not tell you if their actual knowledge of self-

harm has increased as a result of your training. It only tells you if they feel more confident or

not. Actually testing their knowledge will give you concrete results for this. The same applies

for evaluation. For example, training that has been designed to help staff place the

appropriate people on suicide risk observations needs to evaluate if that did actually occur

following the training. As well as all the other levels and measures of evaluation, the impact

on job performance needs to be measured and examining the suicide risk management

paperwork and case conferences would be one way of trying to do this. Asking staff if they

are placing the appropriate people on suicide risk observations would give one measure but

it is subjective and will only tell you if they think they are doing it rather actually finding

evidence that they are.

4.4 General Tips for CR4.

Two exemplars for CR4 must be submitted where every sub-unit of the core role has been

undertaken.

For Core Role 4, one exemplar must be a new training programme. A pre-existing package

can be used for the other exemplar but pre-existing packages cannot be used for both

exemplars. Regardless of whether you are using a pre-existing package or are

designing new training, a Training Needs Analysis must have been completed which

clearly demonstrates that there is a gap in knowledge and/or skills and that training

would meet organisational need.

If using a pre-existing package for one of your exemplars, all sub-units for the core role

must still be completed and the following should be observed:

4.1: A TNA must still be undertaken to determine if the pre-existing training programme will

meet the organisation's needs but also to ensure it meets the learning requirements of the

delegates who are to be trained.

4.2: The literature should be reviewed to determine if the pre-existing programme is up-to-

date and if the methodology suits the needs of the delegates who are to be trained, which

will be informed by the TNA results. Adaptations to the training package should be made in

line with the literature review and TNA findings.

4.3: Implementation remains the same as for a new training programme.

4.4: The assessment measures for the pre-existing package should be reviewed to

determine if they are the most appropriate and these should be implemented accordingly. If

you are unable to change the assessment method (e.g., it has been nationally directed) then

a critical evaluation of the methods being used and reflections about the use of them is

required.

4.5: Evaluation remains the same as for a new training programme.

Implementation of training You must evidence a sufficient number of hours of delivering ‘face-to-face’ training. There is no set number of delivery hours that you must demonstrate but it cannot simply be 1 or 2 hours. Judgement must be used here but – as an example – a training event that lasts a whole day would be sufficient but if the delivery is only 1 or 2 hours then a number of runs must be evidenced. If your TNA determines that your training programme should be e-learning then you must ‘additionally’ evidence your competence at delivering face-to-face training using a separate example. Please don’t try to find massive training projects. You don’t need to. Awareness Training is

perfectly acceptable to evidence your skills in CR4 but if you do undertake 2 x Awareness

projects (4a and 4b) then please try and vary your TNA approach and your assessment and

evaluation approaches. If you do need to employ some of the same methods then please

outline what else you considered and why these ones were the best ones to use again.

4.5 Training Trainees Registrars have received several exemplar plans (EPs) aimed at developing training to

deliver to other trainees. This has led to an exploration of whether it is appropriate for

Forensic Psychologists in Training to develop and provide training to other Forensic

Psychologists in Training.

The decision taken by the Registrar Team was that the important element is about having been appropriately trained and having developed competence in the area in which you are hoping to train, no matter who the intended audience is. We have raised the issue of whether or not Forensic Psychologists in Training should be training other trainees with the Forensic Psychology Qualifications Board; in the short term the decision has been taken to ask trainees to provide evidence of having attended relevant training in the particular area or alternatively how they have developed competency in the subject area in order to train others. As this core role is about improving/enhancing job performance, delivering training to student samples is not appropriate.

The evidence of demonstrating competence in a particular area in order to train others can

be provided in a number of ways:

- Usually this can be easily provided by entries in the competence logbook.

- Alternatively the Registrars may be confident that competence has been

demonstrated as other Core Roles have already demonstrated competence in

the subject area; for example, facilitating sex offender treatment interventions

may be used for Core Role 1 and therefore if an exemplar plan for Core Role 4

was submitted for training others in this area then competence is likely to have

already be demonstrated in Core Role 1 in order to have begun the work.

When preparing your exemplar plan it is useful to ask yourself three questions:

- Do I have competence in this area beyond that of the audience I am planning to

train?

- Can I evidence it (as above)?

- How can I signpost it for the Registrar on the exemplar plan?

The Registrar Team were also of the opinion that a similar process can be applied to Core

Role 1 and 3; competence needs to be demonstrated before you can consult in a particular

area or facilitate interventions aimed at a particular risk or need. We hope this will prevent

Core Roles being returned CNYD due to the submission having a lack of evidence of a

competence being developed before undertaking relevant work.

5. Summary of General Hints and Tips for all Core Roles

Candidates should use the psychological literature to inform their work at all stages

of the process

You need to make it clear that your practice is guided by theory however a literature

review as a stand-alone piece of work is not sufficient. You need to be able to

demonstrate not only that you have read literature but also that you can use it to

guide what you do.

Signpost….signpost….signpost….don’t expect the assessors to know how your work

all links together. Be clear in signposting your evidence of good practice and link all

evidence together where possible

Make sure you clearly evidence your reflective learning, being descriptive alone of

what you have done is not sufficient. Show your learning journey where possible,

how have you developed as a practitioner? What areas do you feel you could still

develop in? You don’t need to pretend you are perfect and well developed in all

areas, being a competent psychologist is about being willing to evolve and learn.

Keep your evidence as simple and concise as possible. Over complicated and

excessive amounts of evidence is hard to assess. Part of the skill for the Core Roles

is being able to communicate your plans and what work you are doing effectively-

make sure this is how you present your evidence.

Double check that you submit all the evidence that was requested in your exemplar

plan.

Double check your work and make sure you have not left in any third-party identifiers!

5.1 Primary and Supplementary Evidence

One of the major focuses of the supervisors’ training and candidate training days was to

encourage candidates to consider placing more emphasis upon primary evidence to

demonstrate competence in submissions. Candidates and supervisors reflected that more

emphasis has historically been placed upon supplementary evidence when designing an

exemplar plan or getting submissions together for deadlines. We are encouraging that this

emphasis and importance is placed upon primary evidence. Candidates and supervisors

have fedback that they found this emphasis refreshing and motivational. Within supervision

encourage candidates to review which competencies can be evidenced by practice diary

entries, only submit supplementary evidence if it is essential to demonstrate competence

and allows the candidate to showcase their skills. There are some competencies which

require supplementary evidence (for example 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3), but some which PD entries

alone would usually be enough if they are detailed. If a candidate wants to use minutes of a

meeting or emails, could a discussion of this and details within a PD entry suffice? Is a log of

informal requests for advice within CR3 essential or is it just replicating PD entries? Support

can be gained from Registrar Clinics to review evidence at the exemplar planning stage.

5.2 Word counts

Section 5.1.2 of the Candidate Handbook gives details of the word counts for each Core Role for the

Qualification in Forensic Psychology. Further guidance on word counts is given in the Regulations for

the Society’s Postgraduate Regulations (Section 9.5).

Essentially the word counts given in the Candidate Handbook are absolute. The word limits are

exclusive of titles, references and appendices. However, citations are within the text of the submission

and should, therefore, be included within the word count. Tables and diagrams are also included in the

word count.

It is important to ensure that the submission can be read without constant reference to the appendices.

The word count should be included on the cover of the submission.

Clarity regarding word counts for Core Role 2

There have been a few queries recently about the word count in relation to Core Role 2 and whether

there is a difference if the work is qualitative research. The simple answer to this question is no the

word limit does not differ – the word count for each exemplar for Core Role 2, irrespective of whether it

is quantitative and qualitative research, is a 500 word reflective report followed by a 5000 word

research report (presented in the format of a research paper for publication).

Many candidates have shown that it is possible to write up a good qualitative piece of work within the

5000 word limit but please find below some tips from the Lead Assessor for Core Role 2:

Include at least one or two brief quotes to illustrate each theme in the main text.

If further quotes are needed to help illustrate points then it is acceptable to put some additional quotes in the appendices.

If the quotes are very long it is acceptable to put a portion of the quote in the main text then put the whole quote in the appendices (where they would not be counted in the word limit). Please remember to signpost this clearly.

As well as reducing the word count it often works well to write a combined results and discussion section in qualitative research.

If you are to write the project up within the word limit consider whether the project is too unwieldy and whether it could be slimmed down for submission. There remains a tendency for candidates to try to do too much.

Final tip - look at published qualitative work in journals which have short articles/a strict word limit for ideas about how to express yourself concisely.

5.3 Identifiers in submissions - Practice Diary

There have been occasions lately where candidates have been awarded a conditional pass because

names have been left in the Practice Diary. On further investigation it has been found that it is the

name of a previous Co-ordinating Supervisor.

In all submitted materials appropriate measures must be taken to maintain confidentiality and security.

For example deleting or disguising names of clients and other identifiers. It is perfectly acceptable for

the name of your Co-ordinating Supervisors (current and past) to be included in your Practice Diary.

However the assessors will not be aware of the historical changes to your supervision arrangements so

will assume that these are third party identifiers which should have been removed. To ensure that

assessors can ascertain whether a name should or shouldn’t be included in the Practice Diary please

ensure that you include a cover sheet which outlines the names of your Co-ordinating Supervisors and

the date range within the Practice Diary that they were approved for.

The forensic psychology qualification board have been made aware that some trainees are under the

impression that it is not appropriate for them to refer to the Parole Board in their submissions. This is

not the view of the board and the Parole Board can be referred to as a body in the same way that other

bodies/ organisations are referred to. However, all trainees must ensure that the information contained

within their submission does not identify individual locations, establishments, organisations and/or

people.

The Qualification Board has clarified this further and confirms that names of presenters / facilitators

at conferences or training events do not count as identifiers and can be referenced within a

competence log or practice diary in the same

5.4 The Assessment Process

The current assessment timeframe is three months from the date your submission is sent to the

assessors. Submissions are accepted throughout the year and your submission should be received at

the Society’s office by the first of the month. Where the first falls on a weekend or bank holiday the

submission date is the preceding working day.

Please be aware you will need to register for assessment a month prior to submitting. Failure to

complete this will delay your submission from being moderated for that particular month.

If your results are going to be delayed for any reason you will be notified. However this notification

probably won’t arrive until the deadline date because until then everyone is working very hard to get

your results to you on time.

5.5 Enrolment and Applying for AEC

Using a candidate’s prior experience when first enrolling –

Is there something they can train colleagues in? For example if they have been in a role

recently working with a particular client group or behaviour could they bring that experience in to

training their new colleagues?

Can their experience be used to plan and sequence their exemplars?

If a candidate has just finished a qualification involving research, would it be better to do CR2

sooner, while it is still fresh for them?

AEC needs to be considered at the enrolment stage; supervisors felt that not enough emphasis has

been placed upon this in supervision. When reviewing prior experience is there evidence of work that

could be considered for AEC for one or more Core Roles; the work must have been supervised by a

Registered and Chartered Forensic Psychologist (with the exception of Core Role 2). Considering this

early in the qualification can help with sequencing and planning Core Roles; it also can ensure that any

supplementary evidence that may be required when a candidate applies for AEC is still available.

5.6 Supervision

Coordinating the Supervisors

If a candidate will be receiving supervision from one or more Designated Supervisors; it is important as

CS that you have communication with the DS and record regular updates of competence in the

Competency Log. As CS you are still responsible for all supervision that the candidate receives and

you must co-ordinate the individuals involved. We have had recent examples where the CS has had no

contact with the DS during the supervision period which has led to difficulties when submissions have

failed or complaints have been made.

RAPPS

It is an HCPC requirement that all Co-ordinating Supervisors are registered with RAPPS. If you are not

currently registered you must undertake the distance learning BPS modules (Modules 1 and 2) and

attend the Module 3 training, which is planned twice a year, in order to fulfil the requirements for

inclusion on the Register. Provisional approval of a supervisor can only be temporarily made, if the

supervisor commits to undertake the training process, and begins the process immediately. All

supervisors, to which this applies, will be contacted by the BPS; we therefore strongly recommend

that you begin this process immediately if you have not done so previously. Can we also remind all

supervisors to ensure they are familiar with the responsibilities of their role as set out in the Candidate

Handbook 4.3.1.

Supervision Levels

The Qualification Team thought it would be useful to clarify the levels of supervision required when a

candidate is working on a part-time basis.

In the Handbook (revised handbook 4.3) it states that the recommended minimum level of contact

between yourself and your Co-ordinating Supervisor is two hours per fortnight overall. Where your CS

is not supervising your work directly it is recommended that you spend the equivalent of an additional

hour per month in contact with your Co-ordinating Supervisor.

Where a candidate is working part-time on the Qualification, the expectation remains that this

level of supervisory contact remains the minimum and is not reduced pro-rata.

Designated Supervisors

Use of designated supervisors is an important part of the qualification; and there is helpful guidance in

the Handbook (revised handbook 4.3). It is important to note that:

- No more than half of the areas of work specified in the Exemplars should be assigned to

Designated Supervisors who are not Forensic Psychologists

- In all cases Designated Supervisors must be approved by the CS and noted in the Practice

Diary

- The CS should maintain contact with the candidate throughout periods of designated

supervision and should countersign any work signed by the DS

It remains the role of the CS to sign off competences in the competence log book when they are

demonstrated.

It remains the role of the CS to sign the Practice Diary, but the DS should countersign relevant entries.

5.7 Submission of Exemplar Plans

There appears to have been an increase in the number of candidates who are resubmitting exemplar

plans for revision on a very frequent basis. There can be genuine reasons for resubmitting exemplar

plans such as an individual no longer being able to complete an identified piece of work. However, on

other occasions there is perhaps little need to resubmit the plan for approval, especially when the

change is simply the addition or deletion of a single word which does not change the essence of the

plan, or the intended evidence for submission. Some guidance is given here about possible situations

where it makes sense to resubmit an exemplar plan for approval and occasions when this is perhaps

not necessary.

Reasons for resubmitting an exemplar plan

You are no longer able to conduct the work you originally set out to do and the focus of your

work has changed considerably.

You are not able to submit a substantial piece of evidence that was on the originally approved

plan.

Occasions when it may not be necessary to resubmit an exemplar plan

When there is a slight change to a single piece of evidence – consider waiting until you are

clear about what evidence you have available to you and resubmit the plan then rather than on

every occasion that something minor changes.

When a registrar has added/ amended evidence on your original plan – you do not need to

resubmit the plan with the additional comments incorporated. The plan has all the information

on and you just need to work to the plan incorporating the registrars’ comments in your work.

When all you are doing is changing a word on the plan. If you do this, it is likely that the

registrar will send the plan back to you for clarification of what has changed. If you do need to

make a slight amendment, consider sending a covering letter detailing what the change is, or

highlight the change on the resubmitted plan.

Other considerations

If it is likely that your plans or evidence will change again prior to submission, perhaps consider

sending in your revised plan once you are confident that you have all the evidence identified

and you are confident about what you are going to do and submit as evidence for assessment.

Be mindful about writing very specific plans at the start of your training. For example, you could

have an exemplar plan for CR1 which focuses on delivering long-term group interventions to

prisoners or forensic patients rather than specifying the exact group if that is likely to change

over time. Likewise, if you intend to deliver individual psychological applications and

interventions, stating what these will be prior to commencing the work may be difficult to predict

and likely to change several times over the period of your supervised practice. Therefore,

consider being more general i.e. delivering individual applications and interventions to prisoners

designed to asses and/or reduce risk. That way, you have some ability to be flexible. You can

always submit a revised plan prior to submission to confirm the exact cases that will be

submitted for assessment.

If a registrar has sent an exemplar back to you with comments or additional evidence listed on

it, ensure that any future resubmissions of the plan include the relevant information and/or

evidence. Failure to do this will result in the plan not being approved.

If you are unsure about how to write an exemplar plan, or are having challenges in getting the

plan approved then make an appointment for a registrar clinic to speak to your registrar about

this. It is likely to reduce the amount of times that an exemplar plan gets passed back and forth.

5.8 Process Changes and Support

A revised and streamlined Annual Review process was introduced in 2017. Candidates are no longer

required to routinely submit their competence logs. Instead, a sample of 10% of candidates submitting

their annual review documentation will be then asked to submit their competence logs. The sampling

process is one of audit rather than assessment.

Annual Review Documentation and Quarterly Training Plans: For candidates subject to the sampling

process there will be feedback (as previously) from their registrar on their Annual Review

documentation and quarterly training plans.

Sampled Competence Log: Candidates will not receive feedback on issues relating to competence,

quality or the content of the competence log. They will receive acknowledgement only from their

Registrar that their competence log has been received. This acknowledgement will be included in the

Registrar Feedback section of the Annual Review document.

Removal of the requirement to complete PDs once a core role is completed is not retrospective

Removal of the requirement to complete practice diaries once a core role is completed is not

retrospective.

Someone who completed a core role some time ago still needs to have practice diaries in place

between completion of that core role and the issue of the new guidance.

Competence Logs and PD Entries

In the handbook it states that part of the role of the CS is ‘signing off competences in (the) Competence

Logbook as and when demonstrated’.

The candidate has to record and signpost practice diary entries within the competence log, and has to

identify which entries to record. When considering which PD entries to record there is a balance to be

achieved to ensure that the log itself and assessors are not overwhelmed with entries.

Guidance from the Registrar Team is that a candidate should identify those PD entries which

demonstrate competency in the CL rather than log every opportunity they have had to complete work

on that sub-unit. A candidate should select which PD entries best evidence their competence and

which showcase their work. These can be added into their CL during supervision with their CS and

‘signed off’. This means that the CL is being reviewed regularly by the CS.

The competence log records competence as it is achieved and demonstrated. It also means that most

PD entries referenced in the CL will be linked to the specific exemplars being submitted for

assessment.

Consent (see full practice note in appendix 1)

All work used for submission should have received explicit consent from clients.

It is important that candidates are open and direct with clients about their status as trainees, and

gaining consent to use work in submissions is expected to be part of any initial discussion with clients

and explicit consent should be sought.

Anonymising work that has not received consent is not sufficient.

When looking to submit work for assessment any retrospective concerns about consent processes

should be reflected upon within the practice diary.

Clinics

When booking a clinic with your Registrar please can you ensure you include a short note about the

reason for booking the clinic. The Registrar’s spend time preparing for each clinic, but many

appointments do not include the reason for the clinic, making preparation impossible. Often with just a

short note the Registrar can be ready with the answer to your query, rather than having to wait until

sometime after the clinic for a response. We appreciate that some scenarios will be difficult to describe

briefly, but some context is better than none.

Job Role

We have recently had various queries about the role a candidate needs to be in, in order to complete

the qualification i.e do they need to be in a role with the job title “Forensic Psychologist in Training”.

Further discussions about this point are due to take place at subsequent board meetings, but at the

current time, the regulations allow candidate’s to enrol onto the qualification without being employed

within this specific role. The job title is not considered as important as the job role itself. The role must

allow you to have the opportunity to be trained as a Forensic Psychologist and to demonstrate the

competencies required of the qualification. The work you submit from the role in which you are

completing the qualification must demonstrate and evidence work of a chartered psychologist.

It is important to also ensure that the clients you are working with in that role are aware that you are

completing work as a Forensic Psychologist in Training and the work you complete may be used

towards your submitted qualification work if they consent. We have candidates employed under various

job titles, and some of the challenges for them are trying to make the work they complete in that role fit

with the competencies. This is not always appropriate or possible. We recommend that this is

discussed with your CS before enrolment, as not all of the work you complete will necessarily be able

to be used towards the qualification, as the job role does not necessarily require a Forensic

Psychologist in Training to complete the work. But no matter where you complete the work, the client

needs to be aware of your training title (no matter what you job title is) and how the work you complete

may be used for other purposes, e.g. submissions.

Working in courts- we have many candidates working within various courts in various roles. With this

specific work, it is important to consider what work can and cannot be used for the qualification and that

if you are employed to complete “court work” in a particular capacity this may not be appropriate to use

within your training role as it would not be appropriate or ethical for a Forensic Psychologist in Training

to complete similar work. Some considerations you need to consider with your CS if you are working in

a court setting are:

Consent and access to information

Specific ethical contexts of family court and the impact of closed court upon ethics and

information access.

Not having opportunities to work at a chartered level- the tasks are likely to be targeted

at a lower level in terms of preparing and developing competence rather than

demonstrating it.

Not being able to complete expert witness work as a trainee- this limits the opportunities

to operate at a chartered level prior to qualifying.

Limitations on breadth of experience

It is important to discuss these issues with your CS and book a clinic appointment with your

registrar if you require further clarification.

5.9 Submissions from Previous Employers

In recent months we have continued to receive queries about using work from previous employment for

the qualification, when candidates have left that role. Some candidates continue to find that once they

have left a role, that their previous employer is unwilling to allow them access to data/outputs for

remaining submissions. This has been an ongoing issue for many years but has seemed to have

increased in difficulty since the changes last year in requirements for GDPR. This is another situation

that will require further consideration by the Qualifications Board, but it is important to make clear the

position and advice at the current time. If you move jobs whilst on the qualification and before you have

submitted a particular core role, please do not assume that you will be able to use work completed with

your previous employer for any submissions in the future. Many stakeholders have conditions by which

employers need to legally hand over any data sets or secondary evidence they may have in their

possession, thus making it challenging and often impossible to submit work. It is critical that candidates

begin discussions with their current employers before they move to new roles, it is also important that

core roles are completed and submitted in a timely fashion with little delay between completing this

work and finalising the submission work. The majority of our candidates do this and do not have

subsequent difficulties with gaining access to older outputs. It is important to consider that once you

have submitted a core role, if you are asked to resubmit you may need access to data from a previous

employment. This is particularly pertinent for Core Role 2.

We hope to continue to liaise with our stakeholder groups for advice on their current positions in terms

of submissions completed by previous employees and consider who owns a “submission” once the

work has been completed and the candidate is awaiting a second piece of work to complete the core

role. But at the current time, under the current regulations the Qualification in Forensic Psychology

Board would have no authority to instruct a stakeholder to allow a candidate access to previous data or

outputs. It is also likely that the conditions under which you gained consent to use outputs or data for

your submission may change if you are now a previous employer, being supervised by a different

supervisor.

Appendices

1. Consent Discussion Paper

2. Notification Of Change

3. FAQs regarding New Descriptors

4. Registering for Assessment.

Appendix 1.

Qualification in Forensic Psychology May 2019

Consent Discussion Paper

Being a Forensic Psychologist in Training on the Stage 2 Forensic Qualification involves frequent

consideration of issues around consent and reaching of ethical decisions around consent. Issues

around consent are intrinsic to the assessment of submissions being deemed “competence

demonstrated”. Having respect for clients is also intrinsic to BPS values, and both consent and respect

are linked to being a responsible practitioner.

The Qualification in Forensic Psychology Board produces regular Hints and Tips to support candidates,

supervisors and stakeholders in their progress through the qualification and to support our members

with current practice issues which may impact upon their training. Consent has been discussed several

times within the Hints and Tips practice notes and it has been recommended practice for all Forensic

Psychologists in Training to be transparent about their status with clients to support the informed

consent process.

Consent in Core Role 1: During recent discussions on Supervisor Training and more broadly in clinics

and correspondence from supervisors, it has become apparent that consent for clients involved in Core

Role 1 work is widely accepted as standard practice and that almost all of our candidates are gaining

informed consent. This involves ensuring that the client is aware of their trainee status, what this

actually means and entails and that all of their work can be discussed in various formats with a

supervisor.

Stakeholders and host organisations have standards of consent that they wish their employees to

cover but it is important that clients know that as part of the qualification being completed by any

trainee, work will be submitted to the BPS to form part of their assessments. Historically, there was an

agreement that if work is anonymised then client consent is not needed for submissions to the BPS;

this is no longer the case and has not been for some time. Practice notes regarding informing clients

about submissions in order to gain their consent have previously been published to clarify the BPS

expectations. We are aware that in some organisations some formulations are completed on clients

without their consent for security issues, this is practice that raises many ethical dilemmas within

Forensic work, which is not specific to the qualification. Essentially, if work is to form part of a

submission we expect informed consent to have been gained and for it to be discussed and

explored in supervision.

Core Roles 2, 3 and 4: Supervisors seem particularly confident in their practice around consent for

Core Role 2 Research, however, there has been less clarity around requirements for consent in Core

Roles 3 and 4 and whether clients who are professionals are also required to give consent. We

recommend that candidates are always open that they are completing a qualification with all clients,

including peers and professionals. This helps protect how data is handled and participation in a

qualification is not something that needs to be hidden. A respectful approach to all clients will raise

standards and support the message that receiving a service from a clinician who is supervised is safe.

We do not expect all trainees to be “armed” with consent forms, just incase someone asks for some

advice when seeing them unexpectedly in a meeting. Infact, giving advice in informal settings is

assessed as part of Core Role 3; but candidates need to think about consent, openness about

limitations of competence and trainee status in these settings and what the candidate and their

supervisor are comfortable with and will keep the candidate and their clients safe.

Conclusion:

There are lots of best practice examples within the qualification. The principles to be applied are:

Be transparent and open about your trainee status, be open that you are completing a qualification and

much of your work will form part of your assessment portfolio towards your training.

Be supervised, which safeguards your practice and ensures that the clients get the service they

deserve.

Be as transparent with professionals as you are with other clients to whom you provide a clinical

service. When completing a training needs analysis for Core Role 4 or when writing reports for Core

Role 3 be transparent about who you are and how you are training.

Ensure that you are GDPR compliant within your work.

If you are using work in a different capacity towards the qualification, be clear that you are training to be

a Forensic Psychologist and that the work may have a dual purpose.

It is impossible to answer every specific consent scenario that candidates may find themselves in when

producing a practice note but show you are exploring and considering the ethical dilemmas consent

brings in your supervision entries of your Practice Diary. Let it become best practice, when working

with all clients, for you to introduce yourself and explain how you are training and what this entails.

We will ensure that all Qualification documentation and guidance reflects the board’s current view on

consent.

Appendix 2

Notification of Change October 2017

RE: Amendments to the Candidate Handbook for the Qualification in Forensic Psychology Outlined here are a number of amendments that have been agreed by the Qualification in Forensic Psychology Board that should be implemented with immediate effect. Practice Diary As outlined on Page 18 (Section 5.1.4) of the 2011 Candidate Handbook, candidates are required to complete a Practice Diary. The Practice Diary is a record of all significant work, work-related activities and interactions undertaken and should be completed daily. It provides a supplement to the Exemplars by reflecting areas of work relevant to the Core Roles and the competences that define them and the relevant section(s) of the Practice Diary must be submitted together with each Core Role Portfolio. At present, candidates commence the Practice Diary on the first day of their enrolment and continue to complete this across all four Core Roles until the point that notification is received from the Society Office that the final Core Role has been achieved. Going forward, Candidates are advised that once a particular Core Role has been assessed as Competency Demonstrated, there is no longer a formal requirement for candidates to keep a full Practice Diary for that specific Core Role. However, where particular learning takes place in relation to this Core Role, it is recommended that you continue to make reflective entries in your Practice Diary as this is good practice. It is also necessary for Candidates and Supervisors to agree how Candidates will record and discuss the ongoing work being completed in relation to the particular Core Role as supervision is required until full registration with the HCPC is achieved. Annual Review of Supervision As outlined on Page 14 (Section 4.7) of the 2011 Candidate Handbook, on the anniversary of a candidate’s enrolment they are required to provide copies of their quarterly supervision plans to the Society’s Qualifications Office, along with a copy of their Competence Logbook which should be completed and signed off by the Co-ordinating Supervisor. Candidates and Co-ordinating Supervisors should familiarise themselves with the guidance notes and documentation pertaining to the Annual Review process issued in September 2017. This requires the Co-ordinating Supervisor to submit an electronic copy of the completed documentation. There is no

longer a requirement for all Candidates to submit a copy of their Competency Logbook with their Annual Review documentation. However, it is noted that it is fundamental that all documentation is completed as outlined in the candidate handbook and regulations (i.e. the competency logbook, the practice diary, supervision plans). A random selection of 10% of annual reviews will be audited by the Society and the candidate and Co-ordinating Supervisor will be asked to provide all the necessary documents within a three week period of being advised that they have been selected for audit.

Final scrutiny and additional clarification As outlined on Page 19 (Section 5.4) of the 2011 Candidate Handbook, it currently states that upon the successful completion of all four Core Roles, in order to recommend the award of the Qualification (Stage 2) to the Qualifications Board the Chief Assessor will need to see a signed copy of the candidate’s complete Practice Diary, Competence Logbooks and all assessment reports. The submission should also be accompanied by a letter from the candidate’s Co-ordinating Supervisor confirming the candidate’s suitability for the safe, effective and autonomous practice of forensic psychology, registration as a Forensic Psychologist and full membership of the Division of Forensic Psychology. Candidates are asked to submit one copy of this documentation to the Society’s Leicester Office at their earliest convenience. With immediate effect, there is no longer a requirement for all candidates to submit the documentation outlined above. That is, the requirement is now for the Co-ordinating Supervisor to submit a letter confirming the candidate’s suitability for the safe, effective and autonomous practice of forensic psychology, registration as a Forensic Psychologist and full membership of the Division of Forensic Psychology. This letter should also confirm that the Co-ordinating Supervisor has seen a full and signed copy of the candidate’s Practice Diary that covers the period of the Candidate’s supervised practice, that the Candidate has a fully completed Competency Logbook, in addition to having seen all results letters confirming that the Candidate has passed each of the four Core Roles. However, in line with the Candidate Handbook requirements, 10% of candidates successfully completing the qualification will be randomly selected to submit the full documentation as outlined on Page 19 (Section 5.4) of the 2011 Candidate Handbook for review by the Chief Assessor. Those candidates randomly selected for having their documentation reviewed by the Chief Assessor will be advised at the point of passing their final Core Role.

Summary of changes Outlined here is a summary table with the changes in requirements for candidates and coordinating supervisors.

Candidates Coordinating Supervisors

Practice Diary No formal requirement to

complete PD entries once a

specific CR has been

assessed as ‘Competency

Demonstrated’

To agree how trainees will

feedback work being

completed in relation to a

specific CR once this has

been assessed as

‘Competency Demonstrated’

Annual Review of Supervision Trainees to complete their

section of the documentation

as outlined in the guidance

notes

Supervisors to complete their

section of the documentation

as outlined in the guidance

notes and submit the AR

electronically in ‘Word’ format

from their Society registered

email address

Final Scrutiny No requirements (unless Upon the candidate

successfully passing their

selected for audit) final CR, the CS should

submit a letter confirming:

the candidate’s suitability for the safe, effective and autonomous practice of forensic psychology,

the candidate’s suitability for registration as a Forensic Psychologist and full membership of the Division of Forensic Psychology.

that the Co-ordinating Supervisor has seen a full and signed copy of the candidate’s Practice Diary that covers the period of the Candidate’s supervised practice

that the Candidate has a fully completed Competency Logbook

that they have seen all results letters confirming that the Candidate has passed each of the four Core Roles.

Qualification in Forensic Psychology Board October, 2017

Appendix 3

Competence Descriptors

FAQs Competence Descriptors

The FAQs below have been produced to help you with queries relating to the timeframe and

implementation of the competence descriptors which you will required to meet to achieve the

Qualification in Forensic Psychology (QFP) (Stage 2).

I have received an email to inform me that there are new competence descriptors, what

does this mean?

Firstly, it is important to note that the actual competencies are not changing, acting on feedback

received from candidates and assessors, our aim is to clearly describe them to help you to plan your

work and demonstrate your competence at assessment.

How will this affect my work?

Going forward, if you start any new work after 15th January 2020 it will need to meet all the new

competency descriptors.

What if I have already started working on PD entries from work undertaken over the past

few years, does this work need to meet the new descriptors?

No. To ensure that you can meet your expected submission date, any work started before January2020

will not have to meet the descriptors.

Any work that was started after 15th January 2020 will have to meet the new descriptors.

How do I communicate how I intend to meet the descriptors to my registrar/assessors?

Trainees will continue to outline their overall approach to the exemplar and ensure that they meet the

competencies.

Do I have to meet all of the competence descriptors?

Yes. Each descriptor is designed to ensure that the overarching competency has been met.

The assessors will be using marking criteria to assess you against each of these descriptors.

How will the competency and descriptors be presented?

TITLE OF COMPETENCE

1.1a Unit of Competence

1. Sub-unit of Competence

An updated version of the candidate handbook will be circulated shortly. This will include the

competency descriptors.

Appendix 4

Registering for Assessment

REGISTRATION FOR ASSESSMENT FORM

Note: Candidates must register for assessment one month before they intend to submit. This form serves as an “intention to submit”.

Candidate’s Name:

Candidate’s Membership

Number:

Daytime telephone number:

Email address:

Supervisor’s name:

Supervisor’s Membership Number: Supervisor’s HCPC registration number:

Please, tick the submission(s) that you will submit.

First Submission Resubmission

Core Role 1

Core Role 2

Core Role 3

Core Role 4

Please tick the month for which you are applying to register for assessment on this occasion:

January May September

February June October

March July November

April August December

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is any act involving passing off another’s work as one’s own (including the direct copying of the work of another and the

inadequate referencing of published work). I am aware that to enter into plagiarism would represent an act of professional misconduct

and I am aware of the consequences of such fraudulent activity under the Regulations for the Society’s Postgraduate Qualifications. I

thus declare that, apart from properly referenced quotations and acknowledged sources, this work is my own.

Signature of candidate: Date

Signature of Supervisor: Date

Please send this via email: forensic.qualification@bps.org.uk