1. Individual and Organizational Correlates
of Secondary Traumatic Stress Among
MSW Students
Michael Clarkson-Hendrix, PhD Candidate, MSW
Lynn A. Warner, PhD, MSW

2. Upstate New York-Mental and Behavioral Health
Consortium Members (UNY-MBHEC)
University at Albany
Katharine Briar-Lawson
Estella Williamson
University at Buffalo
Nancy Smyth
Diane Elze
Laura Lewis
Binghamton University
Laura Bronstein
Paul Gould
Nazareth College-College at
Brockport
Virginia David
Debra Fromm-Faria
Roberts Wesleyan College
David Skiff
Laura Ribbing
Syracuse University
Carrie Jefferson Smith
Kristin Esposito
HRSA Grant Number: M01HP25193

3. Background
• Secondary traumatic stress (STS)
– A negative feeling driven by fear and work-related trauma (Stamm, 2010)
– STS among current practitioners has been studied, especially child
welfare workers
– Little attention to STS among MSW students
• For practitioners
– Interferes with their efficacy and productivity, possibly increases
burnout
• For students
– Hampers competency development
• For clients
– Impedes quality of care

4. Purpose
• Examine factors associated with secondary
traumatic stress among a group of MSW
students
– Factors include individual student, placement,
and supervision characteristics
• Students are in advanced clinical field
placements where exposure to traumatic
stress is a particular concern

5. Methods
• Sample
– Voluntary sample of MSW students in interprofessional field
placements
• 10-12 students competitively selected each year from 2013-2015
for HRSA-funded traineeship
• Clients are Veterans and/or underserved rural populations
• Sample characteristics (n=29)
– 79.3% female
– 96.6% white
– 48.3% under the age of 25
– 44.8% no prior paid human service experience (mean years 1.94)

6. Procedures
– Data collected via online survey
– Univariate analysis to assess normality and scale
reliability
– Bivariate analysis to select variables for inclusion in
multivariate analysis
• Due to small sample size, only variables significantly
associated with STS at the bivariate level (p < .05) were
included in multivariate analyses
– Ordered logistic regression was used to test
significance of association between correlates and STS

7. Measures
Secondary traumatic stress
Prompt: Select the response that honestly reflects the
frequency of this experience in the last 30 days.
“I feel as though I am experiencing the trauma of
someone I have helped”
Responses range from 1 (Never) to 6 (Very often)
– Never 76%
– Rarely 14%
– A few times 10%

8. Measures
INDIVIDUAL CORRELATES Mean
Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration (IIC) Subscales
Interdependence (thirteen items; α = .68) 3.51
Newly created professional activities (six items; α = .75) 3.81
Flexibility (five items; α = .67) 3.84
Collective ownership of goals (eight items; α = .70) 3.61
Reflection on process (ten items; α = .78) 3.48
Role stress: Role Ambiguity (five items; α = .88) 2.69
Role stress: Role Overload (three items; α = .29) 2.57
ORGANIZATIONAL CORRELATES %
Field Instructor Role in Agency: Direct practitioner 65%
Client Population Focus: Veterans 66%

9. Results – Significant Bivariate Associations
with Secondary Traumatic Stress
INDIVIDUAL CORRELATES
Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration (IIC) Subscales
Interdependence (thirteen items; α = .68)
Newly created professional activities (six items; α = .75)
Flexibility (five items; α = .67) ✔
Collective ownership of goals (eight items; α = .70)
Reflection on process (ten items; α = .78)
Role stress: Role Ambiguity (five items; α = .88)
Role stress: Role Overload (three items; α = .29)
ORGANIZATIONAL CORRELATES
Field Instructor Role in Agency: direct practitioner
Client Population Focus: Veterans ✔

10. Secondary Traumatic Stress
Multivariate Ordered Logistic Regression Results
Variables OR CI OR CI OR CI
Flexibility 1.53 1.05-1.22 1.72 1.08-2.73
Veterans 0.07 0.01-0.53 0.04 0.00-0.50
-2 log
likelihood
35.34 33.83 26.76
Pseudo R2 0.15 0.19 0.36
p 0.012 0.005 < .001
OR = Odds Ratio; CI = 95% Confidence Interval

11. Limitations
• Small and unique sample
– Sample size limits estimating multiple measures simultaneously
– Replication with students in a range of settings is warranted
• Survey administered to students early in their
placements; replication at the end of the placements is
planned
• Additional measures of trauma exposure at field
placement sites could provide more ability to capture
variation

12. Conclusions
Individual factors
The flexibility subscale was the only individual correlate significantly
associated with STS
The items in the subscale suggest greater STS when:
– MSW students report willingness to take on tasks outside of their
placement responsibilities
– MSW students’ perceive professionals from other disciplines
performing duties outside their scope of practice

13. Secondary
traumatic stress
Exposure to traumatic
stress likely
Role confusion
Engaging in
tasks outside of
placement
responsibilities
Witnessing
intentional role
blurring

14. Conclusions
Organizational factors
Students in VA behavioral health placements were much less
likely to experience STS than students in other behavioral health
placements
As a field placement setting where traumatic stress treatment is
more common, Veteran placements may have more awareness
and may more readily work towards prevention of STS

15. Practice Implications
• Teach field instructors about intentional role blurring in
interprofessional practice and how to assist students
in navigating it without strain
• Teach students skills in clarifying role expectations
with field instructors
• Partner with local VAs in colloquia on strategies to
improve recognition of STS and its prevention in the
field