The Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale-26 as a Measure of Perceived Clinical Supervision Effectiveness: A Systematic Review.

AIMS: To assess the properties of the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale-26 (MCSS-26) as a measure of perceived clinical supervision effectiveness in healthcare student and professional populations.

DESIGN

Systematic review of assessable measurement properties (content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, and hypotheses testing for construct validity) across MCSS-26 components using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN).

DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to September 2025. Google Scholar and backward and forward citation tracking were used to identify additional studies.

REVIEW

METHODS

Eligible studies examined at least one property of at least one component in healthcare student or professional populations. Study quality and results were appraised using COSMIN methodological standards and measurement property criteria. Appraised evidence was synthesised by property, and certainty was graded using the COSMIN-modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

29 articles were included. Most studies were conducted in nursing-related samples. Evidence for content validity was limited or insufficient, and for structural validity indeterminate. Evidence for internal consistency was inconsistent, although findings for the Formative domain and the Supervisor Advice/Support subscale were supportive. Evidence for cross-cultural validity was inconsistent and for reliability indeterminate. Hypotheses testing for construct validity was favourable for workplace satisfaction, intention to remain in the workplace, emotional intelligence, burnout, and perceived skilfulness.

CONCLUSIONS

The MCSS-26 cannot yet be regarded as a well-supported measure of perceived clinical supervision effectiveness. Although evidence for construct validity was supportive, evidence of other measurement properties was insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate. The instrument appears most defensible as a broad indicator of perceived clinical supervision rather than a precise measure of distinct effectiveness. Future work should prioritise revision of the instrument around a more clearly specified construct or development of context-sensitive alternatives.