changes in supervision as counselors and supervisors … supervision as experience is... · changes...
TRANSCRIPT
Changes in Supervision as Counselors and Supervisors GainExperience: A Review
Everett L. Worthington, Jr.Virginia Commonwealth University
Evidence bearing on whether and how counselors and supervisors receive or givedifferent types of supervision of psychotherapy as they each gain experience wasinvestigated. Theories describing changes in supervision of counselors as they gainexperience are reviewed. Most are similar to each other. They posit changes in thesupervisee, with supervision environments being matched to the changing needs of thesupervisee. There are three theories concerning how the supervisor changes as he or shegains experience. Findings from empirical studies are consistent with theories ofcounselor development but only weakly supportive of the theory that actual supervisionenvironments are matched to supervisee needs. Findings from empirical research onchanges in supervisors as they gain experience reveal few differences in supervisors atany level beyond the master’s degree.
Presumably, therapists and supervisors agelike wine. In this article, I sample their sounds,sights, bouquets, and tastes as they gain expe-rience. Supervision of prepracticum counselorsis not covered in this review (for a recent re-view, see Kurtz, Marshall, & Banspach, 1985).Rather, this article is a summary of supervisionof counselors from their first practicum andbeyond. First, the issue of what supervisionshould be is discussed. Then research onchanges in supervision as counselors gain expe-rience is reviewed. Last, research on changes insupervision as supervisors gain experience atsupervision is examined.
Theories of Changes in Supervision WithExperience
We assume (and hope) that counselors andsupervisors learn and improve as they gain ex-perience. As professional helpers who have in-vested time, energy, and professional identity in
the wine rack of learning helping skills, wepsychologists have a vested and emotional in-terest in finding that change occurs with expe-rience. Should we find that time and experienceturn our wine to vinegar, we would be incredi-bly threatened. In general, we assume thatchange occurs and ask how counselors and su-pervisors change as they gain experience. Thishas generated several conflictual issues thatmust be understood in order to understand theresearch on changes in supervision resultingfrom changes in experience.
Conflicts in Supervision Theory
One conflict is this: Should supervision beproactive or reactive? Some supervision isdriven by an agenda: Sessions are planned;goals are clearly identified; interventions areusually initiated by the supervisor or evenplanned before a supervision session. Anothertype of supervision is reactive: Goals are iden-tified, but the supervisor awaits critical inci-dents and intervenes when those incidents arise,not initiating his or her agenda. Should thissupervision style change as a counselor gainsexperience? In practice, most training of pre-practicum students and often students in earlypractica is more proactive than reactive. As thecounselor becomes more proficient, the super-visor becomes more reactive. Is this desirable?If we could identify the component skills ofadvanced counseling or even master-level coun-
EVERETT L. WORTHINGTON, JR., PhD, is Associate Pro-fessor of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth Univer-sity. His current research activity includes supervision ofpsychotherapy, religious counseling, adolescent pregnancy,and other topics relating to marriage, family, and values.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should beaddressed to Everett L. Worthington, Department of Psy-chology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 800 WestFranklin, Richmond, Virginia 23284-0001.
This article is a reprint from Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 1987 Vol. 18, No. 3, 189–208.
Training and Education in Professional Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association2006, Vol. S, No. 2, 133–160 1931-3918/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1931-3918.S.2.133
133
Table 1Supervision of the Developing Counselor
Stage/stage of counselor Supervisor behaviors
Fleming (1953)
1. Imitative learning Anxious supervisees learn by imitating their supervisors, whogive suggestions and demonstrate ways of counseling
2. Corrective learning Supervisor corrects inaccurate interpretations and techniques(less support is necessary because counselor self-confidence is relatively high)
3. Creative learning Supervisor investigates the supervisee’s personal reactions tothe client and how these affect counseling
Grotjahn (1955)
1. Period of preparation Provide technical help and respect and encouragement,restrain the counselor from beginner mistakes (hastyreassurance and support)
2. Elaborate on therapist’s knowledge of client Help the therapist to understand the client’s personalitydynamics and psychopathology
3. Working through Help the therapist to understand and deal with own feelingsand conflicts that are part of the therapeutic process
Hogan (1964)
1. Dependent on supervisor: Neurosis bound, insecure,uninsightful, highly motivated, imitative
Tuition (identifying predictable outcomes), interpretation,support, awareness training, exemplification
2. Dependency-autonomy conflict: Struggle betweenoverconfidence and being overwhelmed, ambivalent,fluctuating motivation; personal therapy withsomeone other than supervisor is recommended
Support, ambivalence clarification, exemplification, sometuition
3. Conditional dependency: Increased professionalself-confidence; greater insight, especially aboutneurotic and healthy motivations; more stablemotivations
Sharing as peers, examplification, confrontation
4. Master psychologist: Personal autonomy,insightfulness with motivation, need forconfrontation
Sharing, confrontation, mutual consultation
Ard (1973)
1. Perceptorship: Student has need of orientation Orients beginning student2. Apprenticeship: Requests specific instruction Gives specific instructions3. Mentorship: Student demonstrates work and
wrestles with personal issuesCritiques the work of the supervisee, helps supervisee in self-
examination4. Sponsorship: Student is largely competent Instills further confidence in an already competent counselor5. Peership: Student has emerged from training to full
professional statusEstablishes coequal relationship after termination of formal
supervision
Gaoni & Neumann (1974)
1. Teacher-student stage2. Apprenticeship3. Developing the therapeutic personality4. Mutual consultation among equals
Littrell, Lee-Borden, & Lorenz (1979)
1. Initial Goal setting, clarification of nature of supervision and itscomponents
2. Counselor-therapeutic Supervisor acts as counselor to supervisee3. Teacher Supervisor teaches supervisee the skills of counseling4. Consultation Cooperation; supervisor and supervisee work together5. Self-supervising Supervisee systematically seeks to improve own counseling
through self-observation
134 WORTHINGTON
Table 1 (continued)
Stage/stage of counselor Supervisor behaviors
Stoltenberg (1981)a
1. Attempts to define boundaries between the“counselor” and the “person‘
Encourages autonomy within a normative structure;encourages risk taking, acts as teacher, integrates theoryand practice, does not answer all questions correctly,attends to the supervisee’s behavior in supervision as wellas in counseling, gives opportunities to observe thesupervisor
2. Begins to define own identity; not content toinitiate; experiments with different styles; begins todisagree with supervisor
High autonomy, low normative pressure; instructs the traineein new skills and gives advice when necessary
3. Increased empathy, more highly differentiatedinterpersonal orientation, no longer a disciple of anygiven technique, tolerant, can work with a varietyof clients
Increased emphasis on sharing; an exemplification by bothpartners, appropriate professional and personalconfrontation; supervisor might acknowledge ownweaknesses
4. Capable of independent practice, willfulinterdependence with others, integrates the standardsof the profession within a personal value system
Consultation given when deemed appropriate by thesupervisee
Hart (1982)
1. Didactic instruction by the supervisor, acquisition of the caseconceptualization and intervention skills
2. Additional work on supervisee skills but also supervisoryfeedback on supervisee therapeutic work, some work onpersonal awareness
3. Integration of skill development with personal awareness,especially as it applies to clients
Yogev (1982)
1. Role definition: Student acknowledges commitmentto becoming a therapist, demystifies therapy,experiences anxiety, feels inadequate, recognizessome strengths
Helps student to define role, clarifies expectations insupervision, evaluates the supervisee
2. Skill acquisition: Learning the skills of counseling Observation of student, possible cotherapy with thesupervisor
3. Solidification and evaluation of practice Uses both emotional aspects and didactic and skill-practiceaspects
Blount (1982)
1. Adequacy versus inadequacy Supportive relationship, awareness training, modeling,didactic skills instruction
2. Independence versus dependence Exemplification and integration of dynamics, advanced skilldevelopment
3. Conditional dependency versus individuation Greater autonomy and appropriate confrontation,encouragement of peer relationship
4. Professional integrity versus personal autonomy Shaping and collegial consultation, self-supervision,supervision of others, mentoring
Wiley (1982)
Expands on Stoltenberg’s model of counselor complexitybut identifies five critical issues that are behaviorallydefined for each of Stoltenberg’s four stages
Expands on Stoltenberg’s model of supervision environmentsbut identifies five critical issues that are behaviorallydefined for each of Stoltenberg’s four stages
Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth (1982)
1. Stagnation: Naive unawareness, simplistic dualisticthinking; counseling may lack intensity; linearproblem solving, low self-concept, extremedependence on the supervisor
Supervisors are thought to assess and evaluate supervisee andto have five types of interventions: facilitative, confrontive,conceptual, prescriptive, and catalytic interventions
(table continues)
135CHANGES IN SUPERVISION
Table 1 (continued)
Stage/stage of counselor Supervisor behaviors
Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth (1982) (continued)
2. Confusion: Instability, conflict, fluctuation betweenfeelings of incompetence and feelings of greatability; supervisor may be thought of as all-knowing or incompetent
All types of interventions may be appropriate for any stageon any issue
3. Integration: Calm reorganization, a refreezing ofattitudes, basic acceptance of self and of limitations;supervisor is seen as a realistic person with strongand weak areasb
R. Miller (1982)
1. Quiescence Interventions are represented along three continua: Intrusive-reflective, oppositional-supportive, and prescriptive-elicitive
2. Early exploration3. Imitation4. Partial autonomy5. Autonomy
Sansbury (1982)
1. Prepracticum: Basic listening skills and assimilationof the role of counselor
Evaluative feedback, needs assessment; models goodcounseling skills, reinforces and supports students
2. Practicum: Develops new therapeutic techniques;improves conceptualization, refines personal theory,develops competence, establishes limits ofresponsibility for self and client
Analyzes cases; helps resolve counselor-client impasses;promotes counselor understanding through confrontation,role reversals, interpretation, and feedback; teachessupervisees to ask for help in supervision
3. Internship: Broadens and refines understanding ofclients, learns types of clients that are best helped,examines personal issues, learns reliance on self
Confronts supervisee on differences in talk and behavior,supports increased risk taking, helps supervisee withpersonal issues, assists supervisee to self-evaluate
S. R. Friedlander, Dye, Costello, & Kobos (1984)
1. Ambiguity in supervisee Helps supervisee deal with demands for wide-rangingtolerance of ambiguity; emphasizes learning to learn
2. Recognition of limits of therapeutic conditions Helps supervisee to see difference in theory and practice;accepts mistakes and unanticipated client responses; helpsto deal with guilt over failures
3. Discovery of therapy as deep communication Helps to take focus off techniques and onto humanrelationships
4. Eclecticism in light of client’s needsc Helps to develop a repertoire of interventions; helps to applyon the basis of sensitive assessment of clients
Hess (1986)
1. Inception: Confusion, unanchored experience,anxiety, identity formation, adequacy versusinadequacy
Helps to identify experience with cognitive maps forhandling experience; encouragement, support, mutual trust
2. Skill development: Choice of theory, dependenceversus independence
Induces students to try out techniques; rehearses techniqueswith them; gives corrective feedback
3. Consolidation: Skills become “owned,” new skillsdevelop; may supervise less experienced colleagues
Helps students to learn new skills; encouragement
4. Mutuality: Establishes professional identity,conditional dependency versus individualism
Mentoring; collegial supervision; focuses on how therapists’personality affects the case; stages are “spiraled” (e.g.,repeated at different depths)
a Uses Hogan’s (1964) four stages (dependent, dependency-autonomy conflict, conditional dependency, master counselor)but expands on them.b There are thought to be eight critical issues: competence, emotional awareness, autonomy, theoretical identity, respect forindividual differences, purpose and direction, personal motivation, and professional ethics. For each issue, the superviseeis thought to negotiate the three stages listed.c All four issues may arise simultaneously but may be resolved in the order given.
136 WORTHINGTON
seling with the same precision with which wearticulate basic listening skills, would supervi-sion still largely be reactive at advanced coun-selor levels? Or does our inability to preciselyidentify higher order counseling skills shape ourtheory of supervision?
Another conflict in supervision is whether thecounselor should learn the theory of the super-visor or whether the supervisor should adapt hisor her methods to work within the theoreticalframework of the supervisee. A supervisor’sposition on this issue may change as the super-visee gains experience. Beginning traineesmight be taught a doctrinaire way of counseling,whereas interns and postdoctoral superviseesare allowed more freedom. An exception to thisgeneralization is when the supervisee explicitlyasks to learn the counseling style of the super-visor (e.g., learning strategic family therapyfrom Jay Haley, or Paul Wachtel’s learningbehavioral counseling from Gerald Davison).Even in these exceptions, though, what istaught, how fast it is taught, and what is as-sumed to be known differs with the experiencelevel of the counselor.
Whether and how supervision changes ascounselors gain experience also depends on thesupervisor’s beliefs about supervision andcounseling (Bartlett, Goodyear, & Bradley,1983). Some models of supervision are basedon counseling theories, which are adapted andgenerally used consistently with supervisees.The component parts of the counseling theoryare identified and taught to the supervisees, andthe methods by which they are taught are oftensome of the same methods that are used withclients within counseling. Supervision changeswith skill level of the therapist, but changesmight be more content specific than processspecific. A second approach to supervision isnot based on a specific counseling theory.Counselors are thought to change in needs andabilities as they gain counseling experience. It isassumed that supervision should be matched tothe level of the counselor. According to thisdevelopmental model, how a supervisor inter-venes is determined by the supervisor’s view ofthe stages of counseling, by the experience thatthe supervisor has with counselors of varyingexperience, and by the supervisor’s assessmentof the level of both performance and knowledgeof the supervisee. The content of the supervis-
ee’s theory is generally irrelevant in this devel-opmental approach.
Supervision of the Developing Counselor
Much of the research on how supervisionchanges with time has been done by develop-mental theorists who have described supervi-sion apart from the supervisor’s theory of coun-seling. Several such theories have been articu-lated (see Table 1 for a summary). Generally, inthese theories an implicit stage theory of coun-selor development is assumed, and supervisorybehaviors that are thought to be consistent withthe hypothesized level of development of thecounselor are specified. What is surprising isthat few researchers have directly investigatedthe actual development of counselors as theygain supervised and unsupervised experience.One notable exception is Hill, Charles, andReed (1981), who found that counselors in theirdoctoral program in psychology (at the Univer-sity of Maryland) progressed through fourstages. The first stage involved self-conscious-ness of the counselor and attention to their in-ternal experiences, sometimes to the exclusionof understanding the clients’ experiences. Dur-ing a second stage, counselors adopted a coun-selor’s stance in which they used some standardapproach to counseling. Therapeutic failureswere explained in terms of the counselors’ in-ability to execute counseling skills prescribedby the theory. Application of the theory wasgenerally rigid; clients were fit into a procrust-ean bed of prescribed theory. As the counselorgained expertise in the chosen model, however,the occasional therapeutic failures did not stop,though they decreased in numbers. These anom-alies, to use a Kuhnian term, generally intro-duced uncertainty into the counselor’s theoriz-ing. There occurred a third stage, whichspanned late practicum, internship, and early(and sometimes later) professional experience,during which the counselor became confusedover the anomalies and rejected the originaltheory in favor of eclecticism. Sometimes thecounseling theory that guided their practice wasleft unarticulated. At other times theoreticalpropositions were inconsistent and contradic-tory. If counselors progressed beyond this stage,they articulated a reasonably clear and inter-nally consistent personal theory of counselingand behaved consistently with that articulation.
137CHANGES IN SUPERVISION
This empirically derived model of counselordevelopment is similar to the theorizing ofHogan (1964). Hogan hypothesized four stagesof counselor development. Beginning counsel-ors were thought to be insecure, neurosis bound,and uninsightful; second-stage counselors werethought to struggle with dependency-autonomyconflicts and to have supervision relationshipscharacterized by ambivalence; in the third stage,the trainee was thought to gain self-confidenceand to evidence more stable motivation; and thefourth stage was termed master psychologistand was hypothesized to be characterized bypersonal autonomy and self-assurance.
Hogan (1964) proposed that ideal supervisionenvironments promote counselor growth ineach stage. If the environment was matched tothe developmental needs of the counselor, thenoptimal growth and improvement of the super-visee should result. Hogan’s operationalizationof supervision behaviors ideal for such stage ofsupervisee development was skimpy in compar-son to the specification of the supervisee’s de-velopment. Nonetheless, this seminal paper pro-voked both subsequent theorizing (Stoltenberg,1981) and research (Reising & Daniels, 1983).
Stoltenberg (1981) expanded Hogan’s (1964)model, terming his elaboration the counselorcomplexity model. As the counselor develops,he or she is thought to become more cognitivelycomplex. Stoltenberg accepted Hogan’s specu-lations about the development of counselors andmore carefully described how supervisors mightcreate growth-producing environments. Duringthe first stage, the supervisee is provided with astructure and encouraged to develop autonomywithin the safety of the structure. In the secondstage, the supervisor deals with identity issuesby offering new skills and advice from whichthe supervisee can choose. In the third stage,increased sharing and collegiality exist, and per-sonal confrontation is sometimes sought andgiven. In the master counselor stage, consulta-tion is given when sought.
Loganbill, Hardy, and Delworth (1982) iden-tified three stages of counselor development:stagnation (naive unawareness), confusion, andintegration. These stages are similar to stagesidentified by Hill et al. (1981) as well as byHogan (1964) and Stoltenberg (1981). How-ever, Loganbill et al.’s (1982) added twist wasthat counselors need to resolve eight criticalissues before becoming master counselors:
competence, emotional awareness, autonomy,theoretical identity, respect for individual dif-ferences, purpose and direction, personal moti-vation, and professional ethics. The counselor isthought to resolve the issues independently ofeach other. Thus the counselor could be in anyof the three stages (stagnation, confusion, orintegration) with any issue. The supervisor’stask is to assess the level of development on theissue that is being dealt with in supervision andto promote growth to the next level of develop-ment on that issue. Loganbill et al. thus pro-posed the most flexible theory of the develop-ment of the counselor. Hess (1980) was simi-larly flexible within a less completelydeveloped theory. He proposed that develop-ment of the counselor occurs in spirals of in-creasing complexity rather than linearly.
Extant stage theories of supervision are anal-ogous to California wines, showing nuances inquality and subtlety but often being quite simi-lar to each other. There are some deficiencies inthe current theories. For example, each theoryof supervision depends on a picture of counselordevelopment that is clear in what it says but ispainted with broad brush strokes. From afar theshapes are noticeable but on closer inspectionthere are no details. The descriptions of coun-selor development rest on scant research. Thereis no specification of what higher order coun-seling skills are or when each level of counsel-ing skill might come into ascendency. For ex-ample, it is generally agreed that basic listeningskills are the building blocks of therapy and thatadvanced empathy, confrontation, focusing,conceptualization, and intervention skills arenecessary to good counseling. However, whenare counselors most ready to learn conceptual-ization? When and how does the counselorshow readiness to learn how to use the concep-tualization arrived at in the supervision sessionor in private thought to help the client adopt thatconceptualization as his or her own? When doesthe counselor learn to deal with defensivenessand resistance? Obviously, all of these skills areneeded with most clients, but counselors in theirfirst practicum cannot learn everything. Con-cepts are postponed until less self-conscious-ness and anxiety inhibit the counselor. A spec-ification is needed for how and when the super-visor can tell that the counselor is receptive tolearning.
138 WORTHINGTON
Another deficiency with current developmen-tal stage theories of supervision is that they areprimarily stage theories rather than theories ofhow transitions take place between stages. Theyspecify—albeit broadly—what the counselorand the supervisor experience and do duringeach stage. But how does the supervisor pro-mote movement from one stage to another? Atransition theory of counselor development andconsequent supervisor behavior is sorelyneeded.
Supervision by the Developing Supervisor
Few theorists have addressed how supervi-sors change as they gain experience. Becausethere has been little attention to this problem,research on the issue has been helter-skelter.
Bernard (1979, 1981, 1982) described howsupervisors can be trained to increase theirawareness of options during supervision. Sheoutlined a training method that is equally appli-cable to beginning and experienced supervisors.Three segments constitute her 16-hr trainingmodule: baseline data gathering, exposure tomodels of supervision, and evaluation plus eth-ical dilemmas. In the first segment, supervisorsidentify the focus of the supervision that theyhave audio- or videotaped. Three areas of focusare defined: process skills, which include howthe counselor behaves during counseling; con-ceptualization skills, which are concerned withhow the counselor thinks about counseling; andpersonal skills, which include how the coun-selor reacts to counseling. Supervisors deter-mine the approximate weighting that they cur-rently give to each focus. Three roles are alsoidentified: teacher, consultant, and counselor.Bernard (1981, 1982) reported that supervisorsoften become aware of a discrepancy betweenintention and performance. The most commondiscrepancy is the case of the supervisor whothinks that he or she uses the counselor rolemost often but finds, upon objective self-observation, that he or she usually uses theteacher role (see also Hess & Hess, 1983). In thesecond segment, Bernard broadened the theo-retical horizons of the supervisor. She explainedfour approaches to supervision and had the su-pervisors use each model briefly: Bernar’s(1979) discrimination model; Interpersonal Pro-cess Recall (Kagan, 1980); microtraining (For-syth & Ivey, 1980); and live supervision (con-
trasting with retroactive supervision rather thandead supervision). In the third part of her pro-gram, Bernard discussed evaluation in supervi-sion, showing supervisors the difference be-tween pinpointing evaluation issues and com-municating the issues to the supervisee (seeTyler & Weaver, 1981, for a discussion). Shediscussed ethical behavior with the use of vi-gnettes that pose issues and require decisionsthat have generally not been thought through bythe supervisors. Bernard’s training is system-atic, and she reported that it was useful both forthe neophyte and the experienced supervisor.She found that the experienced supervisors gen-erally show more responsivity to the materialthan the inexperienced supervisors.
Alonso (1983) proposed a different type oftheory of supervisor development. She consid-ered how a supervisor might change throughoutthe entire professional life cycle, moving fromnovice to midcareer to late-career concerns. Ateach stage in the career of the supervisor, thesupervisor must wrestle with three issues: selfand identity, the relationship between therapistand supervisor, and administration. The super-visor in each of the stages resolves the issuesdifferently because the demands of life and pro-fessions differ at each life stage.
Hess (1986) noted the paucity of theories ofdevelopment of the supervisor and has proposeda three-stage model of supervisor development.In the beginning stage, the new PhD assumesthe mantle of the supervisor by virtue of grad-uation rather than by training or experience. Thenew supervisor must therefore deal with the rolestatus change from trainee to trainer, superviseeto supervisor. Because only about one third ofinterns receive training in supervision (Hess &Hess, 1983), lack of awareness of the structureof supervision and the techniques of supervisionmake the supervisor sensitive to the criticism ofpeers and students and often promote self-consciousness. The new supervisor often copeswith the self-doubts and ambiguity by adoptinga concrete structure for supervision and focus-ing on techniques of counseling or on clientdiagnosis.
In the second stage, exploration, the supervi-sor has gained confidence and competence andis often able to baffle and amaze the superviseewith feats of apparent psychological legerde-main. Supervision is accepted as a professionalactivity of value, and the supervisor’s enthusi-
139CHANGES IN SUPERVISION
asm promotes increased student interest incounseling. Two pitfalls are common to thesecond stage of supervisor development: givingsupervision that is too restrictive or toointrusive.
The third stage of development is character-ized by continued and increased respect fromstudents and respect for students. More atten-tion is given to the student’s learning agenda,and more relationship per se occurs (rather thancognitive attention to relationship). Supervisorsare sought because they are perceived to beexcellent teachers of psychotherapy. Gratifica-tion is achieved when the supervisee excelsrather than when the supervisor is recognized asbeing a good supervisor.
Despite the beginning of theorizing aboutthe professional development of the supervi-sor, the field is at a rudimentary level, likegrapes fermenting in the sun in comparison tomaking California wines (i.e., theories aboutthe development of supervisors). Missing isany explication about (a) how supervisorsmight behave at different levels of develop-ment, (b) differentiation between develop-ment of counseling skills and supervisionskills, (c) whether continuing to counsel cli-ents impedes, accelerates, or does not affectsupervision competence (and if it affects it,how), (d) the ways in which supervisors learntheir trade, (e) how a supervisor develops andmodifies his or her theory or model of super-vision with experience, (f) what types of ex-periences and critical incidents help supervi-sors to improve, (g) what might impede thedevelopment of a supervisor, (h) how otherprofessional experiences dovetail with devel-opment of supervision skills, and (i) whethera supervisor can provoke critical incidents insupervision to help the supervisee improve.An explicit, testable theory of the developingsupervisor is needed in order to drive andfocus research concerning the supervisor. Thetheory must transcend the descriptive modelscurrently available and identify theoreticalvariables of import within the larger frame-work of psychology. Whatever the thrust ofthe theory, new thinking is needed in order tofurther the understanding of the supervisorand how he or she can help people to learnpsychotherapy.
Supervision of the Developing Counselor:Empirical Research
Historical Perspective
The types of training that counselors withdifferent levels of experience receive haschanged over time (Leddick & Bernard, 1980).Early in the history of supervision, psychoanal-ysis dominated the field and supervisees under-went training analysis, presumably learningpsychotherapy skills through experiencing therole of client and through observing the traininganalyst at work. Later, it was thought that teach-ing of theories of therapy and personality de-velopment occurred in the classroom, whereastraining in counseling occurred at practicumsites or counseling agencies. As Carl Rogers,Robert Carkhuff, Charles Truax, Allen Ivey,Gerard Egan, Steven Danish, and others devel-oped technologies of training, though, skilltraining began to occur earlier in programs thattrained therapists. Currently, counselors are ex-pected to enter their first counseling practicumalready proficient at beginning counselingskills. Technologies continue to advance. Thereis increasing use of videotaping, bugs in the ear,and even computer simulation (Phillips, 1984).The component skills of advanced psychother-apy are being identified and studied, and pro-cess models are being explicated. With increas-ing sophistication, we researchers might expectthe types of training offered to therapists tocontinue their evolution.
Methodology
In general, studies of supervision as counsel-ors gain experience have been of two types:investigations of one level of counselor (begin-ning counselors or post-master’s counselors)and investigations of several levels of counselorsimultaneously (see Table 2 for a summary ofthe method and findings arranged by thosecategories).
Samples for four of the six studies of begin-ning counselors were drawn from the Universityof Missouri. The other four studies were drawnfrom one practicum site also. This is a seriousrestriction in generalizing the results becauseWorthington (1984a) found that the supervisiongiven at different university counseling centers
(text continues on page 149)
140 WORTHINGTON
Tab
le2
Stud
ies
ofSu
perv
isio
nof
Beg
inni
ngC
ouns
elor
s,P
ost-
MS
Cou
nsel
ors,
and
Cou
nsel
ors
atSe
vera
lL
evel
sof
Exp
erie
nce
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
ors
Supe
rvis
ees
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ent
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Beg
inni
ngco
unse
lors
Wor
thin
gton
&R
oehl
ke(1
979)
Uni
vers
ityco
unse
ling
cent
er,
mid
wes
t14
inte
rns,
2po
st-
PhD
s31
begi
nnin
gpr
actic
umst
uden
ts
Cor
rela
tiona
lSu
perv
isio
nQ
uest
ionn
aire
Em
piri
cal
anal
ysis
ofpe
rcei
ved
supe
rvis
orbe
havi
ors
1.Su
perv
isor
sth
ough
tgi
ving
feed
back
abou
tev
alua
ting
and
mon
itori
ngpe
rfor
man
cew
asm
ost
impo
rtan
tsu
perv
isio
nac
tivity
.Sup
port
and
teac
hing
wer
eno
tco
nsid
ered
tobe
impo
rtan
t2.
Supe
rvis
ees
perc
eive
dsu
ppor
tan
dte
achi
ngto
bem
ost
impo
rtan
tin
begi
nnin
gpr
actic
um3.
Beg
inni
ngpr
actic
umst
uden
tsas
ked
for
feed
back
(pos
itive
and
nega
tive)
,bu
tne
gativ
efe
edba
ckw
asno
tre
late
dto
actu
alsa
tisfa
ctio
n
Hep
pner
&H
andl
ey(1
981)
One
mid
wes
tern
univ
ersi
ty,
four
coun
selin
gpr
actic
a
20do
ctor
alst
uden
ts33
begi
nnin
gM
Sst
uden
tsC
orre
latio
nal,
self
-rep
ort
ques
tionn
aire
sC
RF-
SRF;
Bar
rell-
Len
nard
Rel
atio
nshi
pIn
vent
ory.
Five
item
s:2
satis
fact
ion,
3im
pact
Soci
alin
fluen
ce1.
Supe
rvis
eepe
rcei
ved
supe
rvis
oras
trus
t-w
orth
y,at
trac
tive,
and
expe
rt2.
Mos
tsu
perv
isee
ssa
tisfie
dw
ithsu
perv
isio
n,bu
tno
tm
uch
influ
ence
dby
supe
rvis
or3.
Supe
rvis
orpe
rcei
ved
little
impa
ct,
too
4.R
elat
ions
hip
char
acte
rist
ics
ofsu
perv
isor
sre
late
dto
satis
fact
ion
but
not
toim
pact
5.Fi
ndin
gsdo
not
supp
ort
Stro
ng’s
(196
8)tw
o-st
age
mod
elof
influ
ence
Hep
pner
&H
andl
ey(1
982)
One
mid
wes
tern
univ
ersi
ty20
doct
oral
stud
ents
33be
ginn
ing
MS
stud
ents
Cor
rela
tiona
l;tw
ose
lf-
repo
rtqu
estio
nnai
res
CR
F-SR
FSu
perv
isio
nQ
uest
ionn
aire
:17
item
s;Su
perv
isio
nQ
uest
ionn
aire
(sup
ervi
sor)
:17
item
s
Soci
alin
fluen
ce1.
Eva
luat
ion
bysu
perv
isor
sre
late
dto
supe
rvis
ees’
perc
eptio
nof
them
asex
pert
,at
trac
tive,
and
trus
twor
thy
2.T
rust
wor
thy
and
attr
activ
ew
ere
rate
dm
ore
impo
rtan
tth
anex
peri
ence
(tab
leco
ntin
ues)
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
ors
Supe
rvis
ees
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ent
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Beg
inni
ngco
unse
lors
(con
tinu
ed)
Han
dley
(198
2)M
idw
este
rnun
iver
sity
coun
selin
gce
nter
20do
ctor
alst
uden
ts33
begi
nnin
gpr
actic
umC
orre
latio
nal
ques
tionn
aire
MB
TI,
BL
RI,
Cou
nsel
ing
Eva
luat
ion
and
Rat
ing
Scal
e(o
ne-i
tem
ratin
gsof
satis
fact
ion
with
supe
rvis
ion)
Pers
onal
ityty
pe1.
Intu
ition
(vs.
sens
ing)
pred
icte
dsa
tisfa
ctio
nw
ithsu
perv
isio
n
2.M
atch
ing
onI–
Sva
riab
lew
asre
late
dto
satis
fact
ion
Hol
low
ay&
Wam
pold
(198
3)
Aw
este
rnun
iver
sity
9do
ctor
alst
uden
ts30
begi
nnin
gM
Sst
uden
tsT
hree
step
wis
em
ultip
lere
gres
sion
s(p
redi
cted
vari
able
s:su
perv
isor
eval
uatio
nof
trai
nee,
supe
rvis
orse
lf-
eval
uatio
n,an
dco
mfo
rtle
vel;
pred
icto
rs:
code
sof
beha
vior
and
sequ
ence
s)
Aud
iota
pes
ofSe
ssio
ns3,
6,an
d9
(Blu
rnbe
rgsy
stem
);SP
RS,
TPR
S
Em
piri
cal
1.Su
perv
isor
eval
uatio
nof
supe
rvis
eepr
edic
ted
byhe
lper
-he
lpee
role
s;su
perv
isor
self
-ev
alua
tion
byin
tera
ctio
n(n
otsi
lenc
e);
leve
lof
com
fort
byre
peat
edqu
estio
ning
bysu
perv
isee
2.Su
perv
isee
eval
uatio
nof
supe
rvis
orpr
edic
ted
bysu
perv
isor
prob
lem
orin
dire
ctne
ss;
supe
rvis
eese
lf-
eval
uatio
nby
repe
ated
ques
tioni
ngby
supe
rvis
or;
leve
lof
com
fort
byde
fens
ive
supe
rvis
or
Ric
kard
s(1
984)
Eas
tern
univ
ersi
tyco
unse
ling
prac
ticum
17pr
actic
umin
stru
ctor
s(5
PhD
,10
MS,
2M
SW)
28be
ginn
ing
MS
stud
ents
Cor
rela
tiona
lbe
twee
non
ese
lf-r
epor
tan
dco
ded
verb
albe
havi
or
SRF;
25-m
inau
diot
ape
(Blu
m-b
erg
syst
emfo
rco
ding
)fr
omSe
ssio
ns9–
12
Soci
alin
fluen
ce1.
Mod
erat
ere
latio
nbe
twee
nsu
perv
isor
verb
albe
havi
oran
dpe
rcep
tions
ofsu
perv
isee
2.B
egin
ning
supe
rvis
eepe
rcei
ves
supe
rvis
oras
posi
tive
unle
sssu
perv
isor
’sbe
havi
oris
nega
tive
3.SR
Fun
itary
fact
or
Post
-MS
coun
selo
rs
Lam
bert
(197
4)U
nive
rsity
coun
selin
gce
nter
4Ph
D,
1M
SW;
staf
fm
embe
rsw
ithat
leas
t5
year
s’co
unse
ling
expe
rien
ce
10(8
coun
selin
gps
ycho
logy
,2
first
-yea
rM
SW;
7m
en,
3w
omen
)
AN
OV
As:
IV�
coun
selin
gor
supe
rvis
ion:
DV
�em
path
y,re
spec
t,ge
nuin
enes
s,an
dsp
ecifi
city
;H
IM(w
ork
inco
unse
ling
orsu
perv
isio
n)
Car
khuf
fra
ting
scal
es;
audi
otap
esra
ted
with
Hill
inte
ract
ion
mat
rix
Rog
eria
n1.
Inco
unse
ling
ther
ew
asm
ore
empa
thy,
spec
ifici
ty,
and
“wor
k”th
anin
supe
rvis
ion.
2.R
espe
ctan
dge
nuin
enes
sw
ere
equa
lin
each
.
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
ors
Supe
rvis
ees
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ent
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Post
-MS
coun
selo
rs(c
onti
nued
)
Hut
t,Sc
ott,
&K
ing
(198
3)U
nive
rsity
ofPi
ttsbu
rgh
trai
ning
prog
ram
s
6po
st-M
Ss,
2ea
chfr
omco
unse
lor
educ
atio
n,cl
inic
alps
ycho
logy
,so
cial
wor
k
Phen
omen
olog
ical
(int
ervi
ews,
iden
tifica
tion
ofco
nstr
ucts
,re
inte
rvie
w)
Aud
iota
peof
stru
ctur
edin
terv
iew
Phen
omen
olog
ical
theo
ry1.
Posi
tive
supe
rvis
ion
mar
ked
bybo
thta
skan
dre
latio
nshi
por
ient
atio
n;fo
cus
onre
latio
nshi
pan
dsu
perv
isor
self
-di
sclo
sure
used
tobr
eak
impa
sses
2.N
egat
ive
supe
rvis
ion
mar
ked
bysu
perv
isor
criti
cism
with
out
supp
ort,
infle
xibl
esu
perv
isio
n,un
reso
lved
impa
sses
,su
perv
isee
resi
stan
ce;
supe
rvis
eefo
cuse
son
rela
tions
hip
and
not
task
Cou
nsel
ors
atse
vera
lle
vels
Wile
y(1
982)
9m
ajor
univ
ersi
tyco
unse
ling
cent
ers
(Eas
tC
oast
toPl
ains
;8
stat
es)
71su
perv
isor
s(6
5%Ph
D,
28%
inte
rns,
7%ot
her)
107
(10
atL
evel
I,36
atL
evel
II,
30at
Lev
elII
I,31
atL
evel
IVas
rate
dby
supe
rvis
or(1
–9
sem
este
rs)
AN
OV
As:
IV�
supe
rvis
eele
vel,
DV
�no
.pr
actic
a;IV
�su
perv
isio
nen
viro
nmen
t,D
V�
no.
prac
tica
Psc
ale
(rat
ing
ofsu
perv
isee
leve
l);
Esc
ale
(rat
ing
ofsu
perv
isio
nen
viro
nmen
t);
end
ofse
mes
ter
ratin
gsin
satis
fact
ion
and
impa
ctof
supe
rvis
ion
onsu
perv
isee
(fro
mSQ
)
Stol
tenb
erg’
s(1
981)
Cou
nsel
orC
ompl
exity
Mod
el
1.Su
perv
isee
leve
l(P
scal
e)re
late
dto
supe
rvis
edbu
tno
tun
supe
rvis
edex
peri
ence
2.Su
perv
isio
nen
viro
nmen
t(E
scal
e)re
late
dto
supe
rvis
edbu
tno
tun
supe
rvis
edex
peri
ence
3.C
ongr
uenc
yof
supe
rvis
ion
leve
lan
dsu
perv
isio
nen
viro
nmen
tw
asno
tre
late
dto
satis
fact
ion
orim
pact
ofsu
perv
isor
4.Su
perv
isor
ste
nded
topr
ovid
een
viro
nmen
tsth
atei
ther
wer
em
atch
edto
orw
ere
less
adva
nced
than
supe
rvis
ee’s
leve
l
Rap
hael
(198
2)U
nive
rsity
coun
selin
gce
nter
,U
nive
rsity
ofM
aryl
and
10(M
�9.
5ye
ars
ofex
peri
ence
assu
perv
isor
)
10(4
infir
stor
seco
ndpr
actic
um,
6w
ithfo
uror
mor
ese
mes
ters
ofpr
actic
um,
usua
llyin
tern
)
AN
OV
As
Supe
rvis
ion
Ver
bal
Res
pons
eC
ateg
ory
Syst
em
1.N
odi
ffer
ence
inam
ount
ofta
lk,
but
diff
eren
ces
inty
peof
talk
bysu
perv
isor
ofbe
ginn
ing
and
adva
nced
supe
rvis
ees
2.Su
perv
isor
ofad
vanc
edsu
perv
isee
mad
em
ore
stat
emen
tsfo
cusi
ngon
clie
nt,t
hera
py,a
ndsu
perv
isor
;su
perv
isor
ofbe
ginn
ing
supe
rvis
eem
ade
mor
est
atem
ents
focu
sing
onsu
perv
isee
beha
vior
duri
ngth
erap
y,su
perv
isee
feel
ings
rega
rdin
gth
erap
y,an
dsu
perv
isio
nre
latio
nshi
p.(t
able
cont
inue
s)
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
ors
Supe
rvis
ees
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ent
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Cou
nsel
ors
atse
vera
lle
vels
(con
tinu
ed)
Cro
ss&
Bro
wn
(198
3)
Mar
riag
eco
unse
ling
agen
cy9
(7m
ale,
2fe
mal
e)pr
ofes
sion
als
inps
ycho
logy
orso
cial
wor
kw
ithm
ean
of4
year
s’ex
peri
ence
assu
perv
isor
s
19(5
mal
e,14
fem
ale)
trai
ned
but
nopr
actic
um;
22(5
mal
e,17
fem
ale)
trai
ned
plus
1ye
arof
prac
ticum
:9
(1m
ale,
8fe
mal
e)tr
aine
dpl
us2
year
sof
prac
ticum
Fact
oran
alys
is,
then
MA
NO
VA
with
IV�
supe
rvis
eeex
peri
ence
,D
V�
four
fact
orgr
oups
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
repl
ustw
oite
ms
Em
piri
cal
anal
ysis
ofpe
rcei
ved
supe
rvis
orbe
havi
ors
1.Fa
ctor
anal
ysis
reve
aled
four
fact
ors:
eval
uativ
e,su
ppor
t,tim
e/st
ruct
ure
met
hod
ofsu
perv
isio
n,an
dra
ppor
t2.
Gro
uptr
aine
dpl
us1
year
ofpr
actic
umdi
das
wel
las
grou
ptr
aine
dpl
us2
year
sof
prac
ticum
for
met
hod
ofsu
perv
isio
n3.
Gro
uptr
aine
dpl
us1
year
ofpr
actic
umdi
das
wel
las
grou
ptr
aine
dpl
us2
year
sof
prac
ticum
for
supp
ortiv
ean
din
tens
ive
and
for
effe
ctiv
enes
s
M.
L.
Frie
dlan
der
&Sn
yder
(198
3)
New
Yor
k,O
hio,
Uta
hN
one
82tr
aine
es(2
9be
ginn
ing,
31ad
vanc
edpr
actic
a;22
inte
rns)
Hie
rarc
hica
lm
ultip
lere
gres
sion
Self
-Effi
cacy
Inve
ntor
yT
rain
ing
Exp
erie
nces
Que
stio
nnai
re.
SRF
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re:
17
Cou
nsel
orco
mpl
exity
,so
cial
influ
ence
,se
lf-e
ffica
cy
1.Su
perv
isee
expe
cted
supe
rvis
orto
betr
ustw
orth
y,th
enex
pert
,th
enat
trac
tive
and
eval
uativ
e,an
d(l
ast)
supp
ortiv
e2.
Exp
erie
nce
leve
lac
coun
tsfo
rlit
tledi
ffer
ence
inex
pect
atio
ns
Mia
rset
al.
(198
3)U
nive
rsity
facu
ltyor
coun
selin
gce
nter
staf
f
37(1
6m
ale,
21fe
mal
e)Ph
Dco
unse
ling
orcl
inic
alps
ycho
logi
sts
with
supe
rvis
ion
expe
rien
ce(M
�8.
2ye
ars)
Firs
tse
mes
ter,
seco
ndse
mes
ter,
adva
nced
prac
ticum
,in
tern
MA
NO
VA
:IV
�su
perv
isee
expe
rien
ce;
DV
�su
perv
isor
’spe
rcep
tion
ofth
eir
beha
vior
.A
NO
VA
s:IV
�su
perv
isor
’spo
st-P
hDex
peri
ence
,su
perv
isor
’sse
x,su
perv
isor
’sjo
bfu
nctio
n;D
V�
supe
rvis
or’s
perc
eptio
nof
beha
vior
Lev
elof
Supe
rvis
ion
Surv
ey(6
5ite
ms
from
Stol
tenb
erg’
sth
eory
and
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re)
Cou
nsel
orco
mpl
exity
1.G
ener
ally
,su
perv
isor
spe
rcei
ved
them
selv
esas
beha
ving
diff
eren
tlyw
ithsu
perv
isee
sat
first
and
seco
ndpr
actic
avs
.ad
vanc
edpr
actic
aan
din
tern
ship
2.G
ener
ally
,su
perv
isor
svi
ewed
them
selv
esas
prov
idin
gm
ore
mon
itori
ng,
inst
ruct
ion,
dire
ctio
n,an
dsu
ppor
tan
dle
sspe
rson
alfo
cus
and
deal
ing
with
clie
ntre
sist
ance
for
less
expe
rien
ced
than
for
mor
eex
peri
ence
dco
unse
lors
3.Su
perv
isor
sof
diff
eren
tco
unse
ling
orsu
perv
isio
nex
peri
ence
did
not
mak
edi
ffer
entia
ldi
scri
min
atio
nac
cord
ing
tole
vel
ofsu
perv
isee
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
ors
Supe
rvis
ees
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ent
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Cou
nsel
ors
atse
vera
lle
vels
(con
tinu
ed)
Mia
rset
al.
(198
3)(c
onti
nued
)
4.Su
perv
isor
sw
how
ere
psyc
hoan
alyt
ical
lyor
ient
edm
ade
mor
edi
scri
min
atio
nsby
supe
rvis
eele
vel
than
did
supe
rvis
ors
who
wer
ehu
man
istic
orot
her
orie
nted
5.Su
perv
isor
sdi
dno
tdi
ffer
indi
scri
min
atio
nby
supe
rvis
eele
vel
byei
ther
gend
eror
job
func
tion
Rei
sing
&D
anie
ls(1
983)
20un
iver
sity
coun
selin
gce
nter
sth
roug
hout
U.S
.
Non
e14
1(3
0pr
e-M
S;42
MS
plus
upto
2ye
ars’
expe
rien
ce;
44M
Spl
us3
year
s’ex
peri
ence
orin
tern
ship
;25
PhD
)
Fact
oran
alys
is;
disc
rim
inan
tan
alys
is;
AN
OV
AS
with
plan
ned
com
pari
son
acro
ssex
peri
ence
Cou
nsel
orD
evel
opm
ent
Que
stio
nnai
re,
crea
ted
and
valid
ated
inth
isst
udy.
Tw
osu
b-te
sts:
Tra
inee
and
Supe
rvis
ory
Nee
ds(i
tem
sfr
omSQ
,re
sear
chby
Kir
chne
r[1
975]
and
Rei
sing
&D
anie
ls)
Hog
an’s
deve
lopm
enta
lth
eory
1.St
rong
supp
ort
for
the
cons
truc
tva
lidity
ofH
ogan
’sm
odel
thou
ghno
tfo
rhi
ssu
perv
isio
nre
com
men
datio
ns2.
Supe
rvis
eeat
adva
nced
MS
leve
lor
belo
wis
anxi
ous,
depe
nden
t,te
chni
que
orie
nted
,an
dno
tre
ady
for
conf
ront
atio
nin
rela
tion
tosu
perv
isee
atin
tern
and
PhD
leve
l3.
Inte
rns
and
PhD
sdi
ffer
edin
inde
pend
ence
,w
ork
valid
atio
n,an
dco
mm
itmen
tas
coun
selo
rsM
.L
.Fr
iedl
ande
r&
War
d(1
984)
Stud
y1
API
Csi
tes
(35
stat
es)
202
PhD
s(1
1.5
year
ssu
perv
isor
yex
peri
ence
)
Fact
oran
alys
is,
cano
nica
lco
rrel
atio
nSu
perv
isor
ySt
yles
Inve
ntor
y(p
aral
lel
vers
ions
for
supe
rvis
oran
dsu
perv
isee
)
Supe
rvis
ory
styl
eis
mul
tidim
ensi
onal
(attr
activ
e,in
terp
erso
nally
sens
itive
,an
dta
skor
ient
ed.
Psyc
hody
nam
icsu
perv
isor
diff
eren
tin
styl
efr
omco
gniti
ve-b
ehav
iora
lsu
perv
isor
;m
ore
inte
rper
sona
llyse
nsiti
ve,
less
task
orie
nted
Stud
y2
Gra
duat
epr
ogra
ms
orin
tern
ship
site
sin
9st
ates
183
grad
uate
stud
ent
trai
nees
(36
MS,
147
doct
oral
)
Sam
eas
for
Stud
y1
Sam
eas
for
Stud
y1;
32st
uden
tsal
soco
mpl
eted
the
Cro
wne
-Mar
low
e(1
964)
Soci
alD
esir
abili
tySc
ale
Supe
rvis
ory
styl
eis
mul
tidim
ensi
onal
(as
for
Stud
y1)
(tab
leco
ntin
ues)
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
ors
Supe
rvis
ees
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ent
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Cou
nsel
ors
atse
vera
lle
vels
(con
tinu
ed)
Stud
y3
API
Csi
tes
(19
stat
es)
135
PhD
s(8
.8ye
ars’
supe
rvis
ory
expe
rien
ce)
Fact
oran
alys
is;
AN
OV
As
Sam
eas
for
Stud
y1
Supe
rvis
orra
ted
selv
eshi
gher
onin
terp
erso
nal
sens
itivi
tyan
dat
trac
tiven
ess
with
inte
rns
than
with
prac
ticum
stud
ents
but
wer
em
ore
task
orie
nted
with
prac
ticum
stud
ents
than
with
inte
rns
Stud
y4
Gra
duat
epr
ogra
ms
105
grad
uate
stud
ents
52M
S;48
doct
oral
,5
psyc
hiat
ric
resi
dent
s)
Sam
eas
for
Stud
y3
Sam
eas
for
Stud
y1
Supe
rvis
eera
ted
supe
rvis
orhi
gher
onin
terp
erso
nal
sens
itivi
tyan
dlo
wer
onta
skor
ient
atio
nfo
rin
tern
sth
anfo
rpr
actic
umst
uden
ts
Stud
y5
One
nort
heas
tern
univ
ersi
ty’s
trai
ning
prog
ram
s
28pr
e-Ph
Dst
uden
tsR
atin
gof
vide
otap
e;A
NO
VA
with
repe
ated
mea
sure
s
Sam
eas
for
Stud
y1
Exp
ert
supe
rvis
ors
(n�
4)w
ere
rate
das
diff
erin
gfr
omea
chot
her
Hep
pner
&R
oehl
ke(1
984)
Stud
y1
Uni
vers
ityco
unse
ling
cent
erst
uden
tsSu
perv
isor
sin
begi
nnin
gpr
actic
umw
ere
all
inte
rns;
for
adva
nced
prac
ticum
,al
lw
ere
post
-PhD
exce
ptfo
r3
who
wer
ein
tern
s.A
llin
tern
coun
selo
rs’
supe
rvis
ors
wer
epo
st-P
hD
56(2
5be
ginn
ing,
19ad
vanc
edpr
actic
um;
12in
tern
s)
MA
NO
VA
:IV
�ex
peri
ence
leve
ls,
DV
�ex
pect
atio
ns;
LO
C;
SRF
Rot
ter’
sin
tern
al-e
xter
nal
locu
sof
cont
rol
scal
e;Su
perv
isor
yE
xpec
tatio
ns,
expe
ctat
ions
abou
tco
unse
ling,
CR
F-SR
FSu
perv
isio
nPe
rcep
tion
Form
(thi
sst
udy)
Inte
rper
sona
lin
fluen
cea.
No
diff
eren
ces
insu
perv
isor
yex
peri
ence
leve
lfo
rex
pect
atio
ns,
locu
sof
cont
rol,
orpe
rcep
tions
ofsu
perv
isor
asex
pert
,at
trac
tive,
ortr
ustw
orth
yb.
Few
diff
eren
ces
insu
perv
isee
char
acte
rist
ics
and
perc
eptio
nsof
supe
rvis
or
Stud
y2
Sam
eas
for
Stud
y1
Supe
rvis
ors
wer
eal
lpo
st-P
hDex
cept
for
3w
how
ere
inte
rns.
All
inte
rnco
unse
lors
’su
perv
isor
sw
ere
post
-PhD
49(1
8be
ginn
ing,
19ad
vanc
edpr
actic
um;
12in
tern
s)
Cor
rela
tiona
lSu
perv
isio
nQ
uest
ionn
aire
(rev
ised
)E
mpi
rica
la.
Beg
inni
ngst
uden
ts’
ratin
gsof
supe
rvis
orbe
havi
orw
ere
mos
tco
rrel
ated
with
posi
tive
eval
uatio
nof
supe
rvis
or(5
9of
135
sign
ifica
nt);
adva
nced
prac
ticum
stud
ents
(41
of13
5)an
din
tern
s(1
2of
135)
show
edle
ssre
latio
nshi
pb.
Beg
inni
ngsu
perv
isee
sra
ted
rapp
ort,
supp
ort,
and
none
valu
ativ
ete
achi
ngas
mos
tim
port
ant;
adva
nced
supe
rvis
ees
rate
dte
achi
ngm
ost
impo
rtan
t,th
ensu
ppor
t;in
tern
supe
rvis
ees
rate
dsu
ppor
t,pe
rson
alco
nfro
ntat
ion,
and
criti
cal
feed
back
asm
ost
impo
rtan
t
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
ors
Supe
rvis
ees
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ent
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Cou
nsel
ors
atse
vera
lle
vels
(con
tinu
ed)
Stud
y3
Sam
eas
for
Stud
y1
Supe
rvis
ors
wer
eal
lpo
st-P
hDex
cept
for
2w
how
ere
inte
rns.
All
inte
rnco
unse
lors
’su
perv
isor
sw
ere
post
-PhD
40(1
5be
ginn
ing,
13ad
vanc
edpr
actic
um;
12in
tern
s)
Freq
uenc
yco
unt
Cri
tical
Inci
dent
sQ
uest
ionn
aire
(thi
sst
udy)
Log
anbi
llet
al.’
sde
velo
pmen
tal
issu
esin
supe
rvis
ion
a.C
ritic
alin
cide
nts
occu
rred
earl
ier
for
inte
rns
than
for
prac
ticum
stud
ents
b.B
egin
ning
and
adva
nced
prac
ticum
stud
ents
had
criti
cal
inci
dent
sre
latin
gto
emot
iona
law
aren
ess/
conf
ront
atio
n;co
mpe
tent
and
supp
ortiv
ein
tern
sha
dcr
itica
lin
cide
nts
rela
ting
tope
rson
alis
sues
Wor
thin
gton
(198
4a)
10un
iver
sity
coun
selin
gce
nter
sfr
om6
geog
raph
ical
regi
ons
with
inco
ntin
enta
lU
.S.
155
post
-PhD
and
82pr
e-Ph
Dsu
perv
isor
s
237
(67
infir
stse
mes
ter,
31in
seco
ndse
mes
ter,
53in
thir
dse
mes
ter,
47in
four
thse
mes
ter;
37in
tern
s)
MA
NO
VA
s:IV
�hi
ghan
dlo
wsa
tisfa
ctio
n,pe
rcei
ved
com
pete
nce,
and
perc
eive
dim
pact
,ea
chcr
osse
dw
ithfiv
ele
vels
ofex
peri
ence
(thr
ee2
�5
desi
gns)
;D
V�
12fa
ctor
grou
ping
sof
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed)
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed)
Em
piri
cal
anal
ysis
ofpe
rcei
ved
supe
rvis
orbe
havi
ors
1.Su
perv
isio
ndi
ffer
edac
ross
setti
ngs
2.Su
perv
isio
nat
all
leve
lsin
volv
edm
onito
ring
,pe
rson
alin
volv
emen
t,sk
ills
trai
ning
,an
dra
ppor
t3.
Supe
rvis
ion
diff
ered
acro
ssle
vels
on(a
)in
depe
nden
cew
ithdi
rect
ion,
(b)
infr
eque
ntly
taug
htsk
ills,
(c)
dire
ctm
onito
ring
,an
d(d
)es
tabl
ishi
nggo
als
4.Su
ppor
tst
rong
est
infir
stpr
actic
uman
din
tern
ship
5.C
once
ptua
lizat
ion
and
inte
rven
tion
cuts
acro
ssle
vels
6.E
ffec
tive
supe
rvis
ion
was
rela
ted
toac
cept
ance
and
supp
ort
and
tocl
ear
teac
hing
7.Im
pact
ful
supe
rvis
ion
was
rela
ted
toev
alua
tion;
teac
hing
adva
nced
skill
s,an
dsu
ppor
t8.
Pre-
and
post
-PhD
supe
rvis
ors
did
not
diff
er
Yog
ev&
Pion
(198
4)U
nive
rsity
coun
selin
gce
nter
31(1
7m
ale,
14fe
mal
e),
M�
10ye
ars’
coun
selin
gex
peri
ence
and
5ye
ars’
supe
rvis
ion
expe
rien
ce
10fir
st-y
ear
prac
ticum
,13
seco
nd-y
ear
prac
ticum
,8
inte
rns
One
-way
AN
OV
AS
Que
stio
nnai
re(t
his
stud
y)fo
ras
sess
ing
goal
s,ex
pect
atio
ns,
and
proc
edur
esas
perc
eive
dby
supe
rvis
ors
Dev
elop
men
tal
mat
chin
gN
odi
ffer
ence
sw
ithsu
perv
isee
coun
selin
gex
peri
ence
insu
perv
isor
s’go
als,
expe
ctat
ions
,an
dpr
oced
ures
(tab
leco
ntin
ues)
Tab
le2
(con
tinu
ed)
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
ors
Supe
rvis
ees
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ent
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Cou
nsel
ors
atse
vera
lle
vels
(con
tinu
ed)
Wor
thin
gton
&St
ern
(198
5)St
uden
tsin
MS
and
PhD
prog
ram
sat
larg
em
idw
este
rnun
iver
sity
92(1
3po
st-P
hD,
23pr
e-Ph
D;
34m
ale,
14fe
mal
e)
8623
pre-
MS,
23po
st-M
S;12
mal
e,12
fem
ale)
MA
NO
VA
s:IV
�su
perv
isee
degr
eele
vel
and
stat
us,
supe
rvis
eege
nder
,su
perv
isor
gend
er,
gend
erm
atch
ing
(eac
hcr
osse
dw
ithtim
e):
DV
�(f
orsu
perv
isor
)fo
urm
easu
res
ofre
latio
nshi
pst
reng
th,
one
ofsa
tisfa
ctio
n,on
eof
supe
rvis
eeco
mpe
tenc
e;(f
orsu
perv
isee
)th
ree
mea
sure
sof
rela
tions
hip
qual
ity,
thre
eof
eval
uatio
nof
supe
rvis
or
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed);
6L
iken
scal
eite
ms
onsu
perv
isio
nre
latio
nshi
p
Em
piri
cal
exam
inat
ion
ofsu
perv
isio
nbe
havi
oran
dre
latio
nshi
ps;
gend
erdi
ffer
ence
s
1.Su
perv
isor
and
supe
rvis
eedi
ffer
inth
eir
perc
eptio
nsof
supe
rvis
ion
2.Su
perv
isor
sra
tepr
e-M
Ssu
perv
isio
nre
latio
nshi
pto
chan
geov
ertim
e,po
st-M
Sre
latio
nshi
psno
t3.
Supe
rvis
ees
rate
rela
tions
hips
insu
perv
isio
nto
impr
ove
4.Pr
e-M
Sst
uden
tsra
ted
thei
rre
latio
nshi
psw
ithsu
perv
isor
sbe
tter
than
did
post
-MS
stud
ents
5.Su
perv
isor
stat
usas
facu
ltym
embe
ror
doct
oral
stud
ent
mad
eno
diff
eren
cein
rela
tions
hip
6.M
ale
supe
rvis
ees
thou
ght
that
they
had
bette
rre
latio
nshi
psth
andi
dfe
mal
esu
perv
isee
s;m
ale
supe
rvis
ors
thou
ght
that
they
had
bette
rre
latio
nshi
psth
andi
dfe
mal
esu
perv
isor
s7.
Gen
der
mat
chin
gis
impo
rtan
tto
supe
rvis
ees
but
not
tosu
perv
isor
s8.
Supe
rvis
ees
rate
dre
latio
nshi
psas
impr
oved
mos
tby
supe
rvis
orac
tivity
,go
alor
ient
atio
n,an
dsu
perv
isor
supp
ort
Zuc
ker
&W
orth
ingt
on(1
986)
25un
iver
sity
coun
selin
gce
nter
sth
roug
hout
U.S
.
59po
st-P
hDsu
perv
isor
s,84
%lic
ense
d,67
%w
ith6
orm
ore
year
s’ex
peri
ence
atsu
perv
isio
n
25po
st-P
hDps
ycho
logi
sts
bein
gsu
perv
ised
for
licen
sure
and
34in
tern
s
Five
MA
NO
VA
S:IV
�hi
ghan
dlo
wsa
tisfa
ctio
n,co
mpe
tenc
e,im
pact
;in
tern
svs
.po
st-P
hDan
dlic
ensu
rest
atus
ofsu
perv
isor
;D
V�
12fa
ctor
grou
ping
sof
the
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed)
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed),
open
-end
edSu
perv
isio
nQ
uest
ionn
aire
conc
erni
ngtim
ein
supe
rvis
ion
Em
piri
cal
anal
ysis
ofpe
rcei
ved
supe
rvis
orbe
havi
or
1.In
tern
san
dpo
st-P
hDps
ycho
logi
sts
wer
esu
perv
ised
sim
ilarl
yex
cept
for
eval
uatio
n
2.A
dvan
ced
supe
rvis
ion
focu
sed
onpr
ovid
ing
supp
ort,
pers
onal
inte
rsts
,goo
dra
ppor
t,m
aint
enan
ceof
role
dist
inct
ions
,gi
ving
feed
back
,and
conf
ront
atio
nan
dev
alua
tion
3.L
icen
sure
stat
usof
supe
rvis
orm
ade
nodi
ffer
ence
Not
e.C
RF
�C
ouns
elor
Res
pons
eFo
rm;
SRF
�Su
perv
isor
Res
pons
eFo
rm;
MB
TI
�M
yers
-Bri
ggs
Typ
eIn
dica
tor;
BL
RI
�B
arre
tt-L
enna
rdR
elat
ions
hip
Inve
ntor
y;I-
S�
Intu
ition
-Sen
sing
dim
ensi
on;
SPR
S�
Supe
rvis
orPe
rson
alR
eact
ion
Scal
e;T
PRS
�T
rain
eePe
rson
alR
eact
ion
Scal
e;A
NO
VA
�an
alys
isof
vari
ance
;IV
�in
depe
nden
tva
riab
le;
DV
�de
pend
ent
vari
able
;M
AN
OV
A�
mul
tivar
iate
anal
ysis
ofva
rian
ce;
API
C�
Ass
ocia
tion
ofPs
ycho
logy
Inte
rnsh
ipC
ente
rs;
LO
C�
locu
sof
cont
rol
scal
e;H
IM�
Hill
Inte
ract
ion
Mat
rix;
SQ�
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re.
throughout the United States differed. Threeself-report instruments have been used with reg-ularity: the Supervision Questionnaire (SQ) or amodification of it (Worthington & Roehlke,1979), a modification of the Counselor Re-sponse Form (CRF; Barak & LaCrosse, 1975),and the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory(Barrett-Lennard, 1962). Researchers in threestudies directly measured supervisor behavior(Holloway & Wampold, 1983; Lambert, 1974;Rickards, 1984). Two used the Blumberg Cod-ing System (Blumberg, 1980) to categorize re-sponses, and one used Carkhuff (1969) ratings.Six of the studies have been correlational andone phenomenological; in one the researchertested hypotheses by means of a quasi-experimental design.
For studies in which researchers examinedtrainees at various levels of development, themethodology has been more varied. In 6 of 12studies, researchers used multiple training sites,though in 11 of the 12 the researchers sampleduniversity counseling centers. The nationalsamples have ranged from 3 sites (M. L. Fried-lander & Snyder, 1983) to 35 sites (M. L. Fried-lander & Ward, 1984). Because of wide geo-graphical range of samples, only one study in-volved measurement of actual behavior duringsupervision (Raphael, 1982). In most (7 of 12)the researchers used the Supervision Question-naire, its revision (Worthington, 1984a), oritems taken from it. Two researchers used mod-ifications of the CRF. Wiley (1982) and Reisingand Daniels (1983) created their own instru-ments. M. L. Friedlander and Ward (1984) cre-ated the Supervisory Styles Inventory and per-formed five independent studies of its reliabilityand validity, which constitutes the best psycho-metric data on an instrument designed specifi-cally to measure supervision. In 8 of the 12studies, hypotheses were tested in a quasi-experimental design.
What Is Known
1. There is some support for general devel-opmental models as proposed by Hogan (1964)and others (e.g., Stoltenberg, 1981, and Logan-bill et al., 1982). However, Holloway (1987)critically evaluated the extent to which the as-sumptions of a developmental model have beenmet by the theories and research purporting to
take a developmental perspective, and she tookissue with this conclusion.
2. In general, perceptions of supervisors andsupervisees have been broadly consistent withdevelopmental theories. Reising and Daniels(1983) tested some of Hogan’s (1964) ideas andshowed that from anxiety, need for techniques,and an unwillingness to be confronted to lowneed for work validation, counselors develophigh independence but some ambivalence as totheir role as a counselor. Reising and Danielsalso found that counselors did not identify spe-cific needs for supervision but rather describedstereotypical ideas of a good supervisor. De-spite their level of counselor development, theirideal supervisors were stereotyped, which sug-gests that counselors do not know how goodsupervision might differ for them as they gaincounseling experience. An alternative interpre-tation of Reising and Daniels’s findings is that itdoes not matter to counselors whether their su-pervisor supervises differently across levels ofdevelopment; however, this interpretation is notsupported by ratings of actual supervision,which show that actual supervision behaviordiffers with level of counselor development andthat different supervisor behaviors are related toperceptions of supervisor effectiveness at dif-ferent levels of counselor development.
Wiley (1982) tested aspects of Stoltenberg’s(1981) theory. She operationalized Stolten-berg’s four levels of counselor development bydescribing each level in terms of phrases thatapplied to a counselor at that level. She thendescribed ideal environments for counselors ateach level. Throughout the United States, 71supervisors rated 107 of their supervisees on thelist of descriptive phrases. The supervisors alsodescribed the environment that they believedthey provided for each supervisee on a list ofdescriptive phrases. Wiley tested three mainhypotheses. She found that the level of super-visor-rated development of their superviseeswas related to the amount of supervised coun-seling experience of the counselor but not to thelevel of unsupervised counseling experience.She also found that the supervisors perceivedthemselves to be providing different levels ofsupervisory environment with supervisees ofdifferent levels of supervised counseling expe-rience but not with supervisees of different lev-els of unsupervised counseling experience.Last, in a crucial test of Stoltenberg’s theory,
149CHANGES IN SUPERVISION
she found that congruence of supervisee’s levelof experience and supervision environment wasunrelated to either supervisor’s or supervisee’ssatisfaction with supervision. Generally, whensupervisors did not match the supervision envi-ronment with the level of supervisee develop-ment, they differed by providing supervision ata level lower than the supervisee’s level ofdevelopment. There were few gross mis-matches, which suggests that supervisors mightintuitively match levels of counselor and super-vision environment. Wiley’s research is an ex-cellent test of a theoretical position—a too-rareoccurrence in the supervision literature—but itcan be criticized because supervisors rated boththe level of the supervisee and the level ofenvironment that they tried to provide. There isno assurance that they actually provided theenvironment that they believed they provided.In fact, the structure of the task, in which su-pervisors were asked to make the ratings ofsupervisee and supervision environment at thesame time, might have introduced demands forthe supervisors to think more along develop-mental lines than they might usually do.
Miars et al. (1983) also investigated the coun-selor complexity model (Stoltenberg, 1981).Experienced supervisors described their super-vision four times: for first-semester practicum,second-semester practicum, advanced practi-cum, and internship counselors (regardless ofwhether they had experience with supervisees atthat level). They described themselves as con-ducting supervision differently depending onthe level of the hypothetical student at thatlevel. The supervisors reported the most varia-tions across supervisee level in dimensions ofstructure, directiveness, instruction, and degreeof collegiality. Supervisors’ perceived supervi-sory environments paralleled Stoltenberg’s ex-pectations, though supervisors’ expectationswere less differentiated than Stoltenberg’s (cf.Yogev & Pion, 1984). Again, this study suf-fered from use of supervisors alone as partici-pants. Worthington and Roehlke (1979) andHeppner and Roehlke (1984) found that super-visors perceived supervision differently than su-pervisees. Furthermore, all supervisors weredrawn from a single university, in which there isgenerally a high consciousness of how counsel-ors change as they gain experience.
Heppner and Roehlke (1984), using threestudies, examined beginning practicum, ad-
vanced practicum, and intern counselor train-ees. The supervision dyads were composed ofbeginning practicum counselors with intern su-pervisors, advanced practicum counselors withmostly doctoral-level supervisors, and interncounselors with doctoral-level supervisors. Inthe first study, Heppner and Roehlke (1984)found that before the beginning of supervision,supervisees at different levels of experience had(a) essentially the same expectations about su-pervisor expertness, attractiveness, and trust-worthiness and (b) the same locus of controlscores. At the beginning of supervision, super-visees also did not differ in their perceptions ofthe expertness, attractiveness, and trustworthi-ness of their supervisors. Neither superviseecharacteristics nor initial perceptions of super-visors were related to the actual impact of su-pervision or to each other. This was also foundby M. L. Friedlander and Snyder (1983), whoused similar methodology with 82 trainees atbeginning practicum, advanced practicum, andinternship levels in three states.
In their second study, Heppner and Roehlke(1984) used the SQ (Worthington & Roehlke,1979) and three additional items to compare thesupervision behaviors perceived by superviseesof different levels of experience. They corre-lated each supervisor behavior with supervis-ees’ ratings of satisfaction, supervisor compe-tence, and perceived impact of supervision oncounseling ability. Beginning practicum coun-selors were more satisfied with supervisors whofostered a positive relationship with the super-visee. Advanced practicum students were moresatisfied with supervisors who facilitated devel-opment of additional counseling skills. Internswere more satisfied with supervisors whohelped them to develop better counseling skillsand allowed them to deal with personal issues ordefensiveness that affect counseling. Resultsmight be attributable to the nature of the sam-ple: It was from one university counseling cen-ter. Worthington (1984a) surveyed 237 counsel-ors from ten counseling centers nationwide. Hetoo determined SQ behaviors that were relatedto perceptions of satisfaction with supervision,of competence of the supervisor, and of impacton counseling ability. Grouping items accordingto 12 factor-analytic clusters, he found that (a)his factors were similar to many of those foundby Reising and Daniels (1983), (b) support andencouragement were useful at first practicum
150 WORTHINGTON
level and at the internship level, times whenissues of identity were at the forefront, (c) skillsof intervention and conceptualization were builtthroughout all five levels of counselor experi-ence that were investigated, and (d) perceptionsof satisfaction and supervisor competence werepredicted by support and teaching (Heppner &Roehlke, 1984; Worthington & Roehlke, 1979),but perceptions of supervisor impact on thecounselor’s ability were also related to evalua-tion and teaching advanced skills (cf. Heppner& Roehlke, who reported that essentially thesame factors were predictive of all three mea-sures of supervision effectiveness). Taken to-gether, Heppner and Roehlke’s and Worthing-ton’s studies provide limited but reasonablycongruent support for developmental models ofsupervision. Worthington’s findings also sup-port Hess’s (1986) notion of spirals, in whichthe same issues are addressed at progressivelydeeper levels throughout training (see also Lo-ganbill et al., 1982).
In their third study, Heppner and Roehlke(1984) examined some of the critical incidentsin supervision. They found that support wasvalued across the three levels of experience.Emotional awareness, confrontation, and com-petency issues constituted critical incidents forpracticum students far more frequently than forinterns. Interns reported critical incidents in-volving parallel process and discussion of trans-ference and countertransference issues morefrequently than did practicum students. Theseresults too lent support for the general flavor ofdevelopmental theories.
One hole in the investigation of developmen-tal theories is in understanding the master coun-selor stage. Zucker and Worthington (1986) ex-amined differences between interns and post-doctoral applicants for licensure who werebeing supervised. They studied a national sam-ple of 34 interns and 25 psychologists. Fewdifferences were found between the two levelsof experience. Psychologists received supervi-sion that was generally less evaluative than in-terns’ supervision. Advanced supervision of in-terns and postdoctoral psychologists consistedof support and rapport, feedback, confrontationand evaluation, and negative feedback. Zuckerand Worthington concluded that investigationof supervision of master counselors requiredsampling counselors who had more experiencethan recent graduates so that the experienced
professional counselor could be clearly differ-entiated from advanced trainees.
Virtually all of these studies of how supervi-sion changes as counselors gain experiencehave supported the general tenets of develop-mental theories, though most of the details ofthe theories have not been investigated. Ideasabout how counselors develop (see Hill et al.,1981) are more in line with developmental the-ory than are the mechanics of matching super-vision to the different levels.
3. The behavior of supervisors changes ascounselors gain experience. Raphael (1982)compared supervision with trainees in eithertheir first or second practicum against thosewith four or more semesters of practicum. Hedeveloped a nine-category system for classify-ing verbal responses of supervisors. For exam-ple, supervisors could focus on the client, thetherapy relationship with the client, the therapyrelationship with the therapist, the therapy rela-tionship with both, feelings and thoughts of thetherapist about the therapy session, the therapistapart from the session, the supervisory relation-ship, the supervisor, or “other.” Supervisors’statements were sampled from tapes of actualsupervision. Supervisors did not differ in fre-quency of statements with counselors of differ-ent experience levels; however, the distributiondiffered across level of experience. Supervisorsof advanced trainees made higher proportions ofstatements that focused on (a) the client, (b) theclient in therapy, and (c) the supervisor. Super-visors of beginning trainees made higher pro-portion of statements that focused on (a) thecounselor’s behavior in therapy, (b) the coun-selor’s feelings and thoughts about therapy, and(c) the supervisory relationship.
These findings are consistent with researchon perceptions of supervisors and superviseesabout supervisor behavior during supervision.For instance, in most studies of both supervis-ees’ and supervisors’ perceptions of their be-havior, researchers have found that supervisorsteach specific behaviors about therapy to begin-ning-level counselors (see studies reviewed inPoint 2). Beginning counselors are also usuallyinsecure and lack self-confidence (Heppner &Roehlke, 1984; Reising & Daniels, 1983;Worthington, 1984a), which suggests that su-pervision might focus on the counselor’sthoughts and feelings about therapy. However,most supervisors and beginning supervisees
151CHANGES IN SUPERVISION
perceive little focus on the supervisory relation-ship during supervision. Focus on the supervi-sory relationship usually is perceived to occur atinternship-level supervision. Focus on the clientand the therapist during therapy are often per-ceived to occur at the practicum level. However,focus explicitly on the supervisor is usuallycharacteristic of supervision of more advancedcounselors (intern and beyond) who share mu-tuality and collegiality.
In other studies researchers have examinedsupervisor behavior at only one level of coun-selor experience. Rickards (1984) examined 28beginning counselors, excerpting 20-min seg-ments from supervision sessions and scoringthem with the Blumberg System for AnalyzingSupervisor-Teacher Interactions (Blumberg,1980). The Blumberg system comprises 15 cat-egories: 10 supervisor and 5 supervisee behav-iors. Rickards (1984) found that perceptions ofsupervisor expertness, attractiveness, and trust-worthiness were moderately related to coun-selor supervision behavior. Criticisms and opin-ions given by supervisors were negatively re-lated to counselor perceptions of positivesupervisor qualities. Counselors who expressednegative social-emotional behavior and whofailed to ask for information were also per-ceived negatively by their supervisors. Hollo-way and Wampold (1983) used the Blumbergsystem with supervision dyads involving begin-ning counselors and found the same results.Their outcome measures, though, were not rat-ings of supervisor expertness, attractiveness,and trustworthiness but were self-report mea-sures of satisfaction with supervision by bothsupervisors and supervisees. Again, critical su-pervisor responses spoiled what were ordinarilyhigh ratings of satisfactions with supervision bysupervisees. Supervisors did not like periods ofsilence and did not like counselors to supportthem for giving opinions. When the supervisorfollowed the trainees’ expression of ideas withrequests for more ideas, satisfaction with super-vision was high for both supervisors and super-visees. However, use of supportive communi-cation produced mixed reactions from supervi-sors and supervisees. One might surmise thatboth parties liked to be shown that their ideaswere appreciated but did not necessarily like theother party to verbalize that appreciation.
4. The supervision relationship changes ascounselors gain experience. The relationship
between supervisor and supervisee is influencedby the supervisee’s perceptions of his or hersupervisor. Heppner and Handley (1981) foundthat counselors’ perceptions of their supervisorsas expert, attractive, and trustworthy were con-sistently correlated with a positive supervisoryrelationship and with satisfaction with supervi-sion. Dodenhoff (1981) also found that whencounselors liked their supervisors, supervisorsliked them and thought them to be more effec-tive. Client ratings of the counselors’ effective-ness did not substantiate the ratings of thesupervisors.
In only one paper did the authors investigatethe effect of experience level of counselors onthe supervision relationship. Worthington andStern (1985) studied supervision relationshipsof pre- and post-master’s-level counselors withpre- and postdoctoral-level supervisors at oneuniversity. Supervisees perceived their relation-ships with their supervisors to change through-out the semester. Generally, supervisees ratedtheir relationship with their supervisors lowestafter 5 weeks of the semester and higher after 10and 15 weeks into the semester. Supervisors didnot perceive a difference in their relationshipswith their supervisees at the three times duringthe semester. Supervisee experience affectedperceptions of the development of the relation-ships. Supervisors perceived that their relation-ships with master’s students were more helpfulat 15 weeks than at 5 weeks into the semester.Supervisors did not perceive their helpfulness todoctoral students to differ at any of the threemeasurement times. Counselors at the master’slevel perceived their relationships to be morepositive with their supervisors than counselorsat the doctoral level. In general, master’s-levelcounselors rated their supervisory relationshipsas steadily improving. Worthington and Sternspeculated that supervisors get to know for-merly unknown master’s students during super-vision but have ongoing relationships with doc-toral students. They also offered a second hy-pothesis that master’s-level counselors might bemore responsive to their supervisors’ sugges-tions, thus causing their supervisors to like themmore (see Dodenhoff, 1981). A final hypothesiswas that doctoral counselors are more likely tobe in the stage of orthodoxy (Hill et al., 1981)and thus are less likely to be open to suggestionsfrom supervisors who differ in theoreticalstance from them.
152 WORTHINGTON
Results from a variety of studies with a va-riety of methodologies are clear. Superviseesperceive that their supervisors give differenttypes of supervision to them when they are atdifferent levels of training. As counselors ad-vance, they perceive supervisors to confront,deal with personal issues, tackle client resis-tance and transference/countertransference is-sues, give negative feedback, and treat them likepeers more often. Furthermore, supervisors areperceived to give less instruction, provide lessstructure, monitor the behavior of the super-visee less, and be less directive.
What Is Missing
Although these findings are consistent withthe various developmental models—which areremarkably consistent with each other—research has failed to answer a number of im-portant questions.
1. Do changes in supervision as counselorsgain experience promote growth and improve-ment of the supervisee, or do they merely sat-isfy the supervisee? Few studies of supervisionhave included measures of clients’ improve-ment (cf. Dodenhoff, 1981; Lambert, 1974) orclients’ perception of the counselor.
2. Within specific theoretical approaches tocounseling, how do supervisor behaviors relateto counselor development over time?
3. Until now, researchers have been con-cerned with identifying good supervisor behav-iors: those that contribute to supervisee satisfac-tion, those that show supervisor competence,and those that affect the supervisee’s counsel-ing. A good theory of lousy supervisor behav-iors is missing. What can the supervisor do toprohibit movement from one stage of counsel-ing to another? What can the supervisor do tocontribute to dissatisfaction with supervision?How can poor counseling outcomes be engen-dered? Although this sounds somewhat face-tious, the need is real. We need to spend morecreative thought in identifying the things thatwe do to contaminate supervision (see Hutt,Scott, & King, 1983; C. D. Miller & Oetting,1966; Rickards, 1984; Rose, 1965; Rosenblatt& Mayer, 1975).
4. Most theories of development of the coun-selor focus on the stages through which thecounselor passes. Little attention has been givento how the counselor makes the transition from
one stage to the next and, specifically, to howthe supervisor can accelerate (or retard, if thatseems appropriate) the counselor’s progressfrom each stage to the next.
5. What is the supervision relationship like?Most studies have focused on the supervisionbehaviors or styles but not on the characteristicsof the relationship (cf. Hutt et al., 1983; Worth-ington & Stern, 1985).
6. What kinds of influence strategies are usedby supervisors, and how do they work on thesupervisee who becomes increasingly psycho-logically sophisticated as experience is ac-crued? Studies on influence strategies to datehave been concerned with applying Strong’s(1968) interpersonal influence model, whichspecified source characteristics of the influ-encer, to supervision. The support for thismodel has been weak ( Heppner & Handley,1981, 1982; Heppner & Roehlke, 1984; Rick-ards, 1984). More sophisticated influence strat-egies, developed in counseling (e.g., Kiesler,1986; Strong, 1986), should be applied to su-pervision and investigated. Theories are neededto describe the influence strategies of supervi-sion, comparing and contrasting them withpsychotherapy.
7. Gender matching has been found to affectthe supervision relationship; matching accord-ing to cognitive style has not influenced therelationship. Would matching on other variablesaffect the process and outcomes of supervision?One variable of potential importance is theoret-ical orientation. One would expect that duringthe early years of counselor training, matchingsupervisors and supervisees according to theorywould be of little importance because of thetheoretical flexibility of the neophyte counselor.By advanced practicum or internship, though,most trainees adhere to a counseling theory(Hill et al., 1981). Having a theoretical mis-match between counselor and supervisor mightproduce dissatisfaction with supervision, espe-cially if the supervisor is also strongly commit-ted to a theoretical stance. At the advanced ormaster counselor stages, matching according totheoretical persuasion might again have littleimpact on supervision.
8. Exactly what is it about supervised expe-rience in counseling that helps a counselor tobecome more proficient? Wiley’s (1982) find-ing that counselors get better with supervisedcounseling experience but not just counseling
153CHANGES IN SUPERVISION
Tab
le3
Stud
ies
ofSu
perv
isor
sas
The
yG
ain
Exp
erie
nce
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
orSu
perv
isee
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ents
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Ston
e(1
980)
Uni
vers
ityac
adem
icpr
ogra
mfo
rm
ost,
vari
ous
setti
ngs
for
expe
rien
ced
supe
rvis
ors
(all
cogn
itive
-beh
avio
ral)
10un
derg
radu
ates
,6
inte
rns,
11ex
peri
ence
dsu
perv
isor
s(2
orm
ore
year
s’ex
peri
ence
;8
PhD
,3
AB
D)
Non
eA
nalo
gue
AN
OV
AS:
IV�
supe
rvis
orex
peri
ence
,D
V�
plan
ning
stat
emen
ts
Plan
ning
stat
emen
tsco
ded
onSu
perv
isor
Plan
ning
Cod
ing
Syst
em
Cog
nitiv
e1.
Exp
erie
nced
supe
rvis
ordi
ffer
edfr
omun
derg
radu
ates
on2
of9
plan
ning
cate
gori
es;
prod
uctiv
ityan
dco
ncer
nw
ithsu
perv
isee
2.L
ittle
atte
ntio
nto
goal
s,su
perv
isor
need
s,or
high
eror
der
thin
king
Goo
dyea
r&
Rob
yak
(198
2)
Uni
vers
ityco
unse
ling
cent
erst
aff
67(2
0w
ithbe
havi
oral
orco
gniti
ve-
beha
vior
al,
40ec
lect
ic,
7ps
ycho
anal
ytic
)
Non
eA
NO
VA
s:IV
�su
perv
isor
theo
ry,
theo
ry�
no.
supe
rvis
ees;
DV
�fo
cus
onpe
rson
,sk
ills,
orco
ncep
tual
izat
ion
Self
-rep
ort
ofem
phas
ison
each
ofth
ree
foci
ofsu
perv
isio
n
Pre-
and
post
-PhD
supe
rvis
ors
did
not
diff
erin
any
of12
fact
orgr
oupi
ngs
onth
eSu
perv
isio
nQ
uest
ionn
aire
(rev
ised
)
Mia
rset
al.
(198
3)U
nive
rsity
facu
ltyor
coun
selin
gce
nter
staf
f
37(1
6m
ale,
21fe
mal
e)Ph
Dco
unse
ling
orcl
inic
alps
ycho
logi
sts
with
supe
rvis
ion
expe
rien
ce(M
�8.
2ye
ars)
Firs
t-se
mes
ter,
seco
nd-s
emes
ter
adva
nced
prac
ticum
stud
ents
;in
tern
s
MA
NO
VA
:IV
�su
perv
isor
post
-Ph
Dex
peri
ence
;D
V�
supe
rvis
ordi
ffer
entia
tion
acro
ssle
vels
ofco
unse
lor
expe
rien
ce
Lev
elof
Supe
rvis
ion
Surv
ey(6
5ite
ms
from
Stol
tenb
erg’
s(1
981)
theo
ryan
dSu
perv
isio
nQ
uest
ionn
aire
Cou
nsel
orco
mpl
exity
Supe
rvis
ors
ofdi
ffer
ent
coun
selin
gor
supe
rvis
ion
expe
rien
cedi
dno
tm
ake
diff
eren
tial
disc
rim
inat
ions
acco
rdin
gto
leve
lof
supe
rvis
ee
Wor
thin
gton
(198
4a)
10un
iver
sity
coun
selin
gce
nter
sfr
omsi
xge
ogra
phic
alre
gion
sw
ithin
cont
inen
tal
U.S
.
155
post
-PhD
and
82pr
e-Ph
Dsu
perv
isor
s23
7(6
7in
first
sem
este
r,31
inse
cond
sem
este
r,53
inth
ird
sem
este
r,47
info
urth
sem
este
r;37
inte
rns)
MA
NO
VA
:IV
�pr
e-vs
.po
st-P
hDsu
perv
isor
s;D
V�
12fa
ctor
grou
ping
sof
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed)
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed)
Em
piri
cal
anal
ysis
ofpe
rcei
ved
supe
rvis
orbe
havi
ors
1.Pr
e-an
dpo
st-P
hDsu
perv
isor
sdi
dno
tdi
ffer
inan
yof
12fa
ctor
grou
ping
son
the
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed)
Wor
thin
gton
(198
4b)
Lar
geur
ban
univ
ersi
ty82
(12
post
-PhD
,19
post
-MS,
29pr
e-M
S,22
unde
rgra
duat
es),
facu
lty,
staf
fof
coun
selin
gce
nter
,st
uden
ts
Aud
iota
ped
coun
selin
gse
ssio
nA
nalo
gue
4�
2(c
ouns
elin
gex
peri
ence
ofsu
perv
isor
�co
unse
lor
leve
l)M
AN
OV
A
Eig
httr
ait
labe
lsA
ttrib
utio
nth
eory
1.A
ttrib
utio
nof
caus
eof
supe
rvis
eetr
aits
decr
ease
dw
ithex
peri
ence
ofsu
perv
isor
,bu
tpo
st-P
hDsu
perv
isor
diff
ered
from
pre-
PhD
supe
rvis
oron
only
1of
16ad
ject
ives
2.N
oef
fect
for
perc
eive
dex
peri
ence
ofsu
perv
isee
Tab
le3
(con
tinu
ed)
Aut
hors
Sam
ple
Supe
rvis
orSu
perv
isee
Des
ign
Inst
rum
ents
The
ory
Sele
cted
findi
ngs
Mar
ikis
,R
usse
ll,&
Del
l(1
985)
Cou
nsel
ing
psyc
holo
gypr
ogra
mat
larg
em
idw
este
rnun
iver
sity
30(1
0fir
st-y
ear
grad
uate
stud
ents
,10
adva
nced
grad
uate
stud
ents
,10
PhD
sw
ith2–
18ye
ars’
supe
rvis
ion
expe
rien
ce)
Aud
iota
ped
coun
selin
gse
ssio
nof
begi
nnin
gco
unse
lor
One
-way
MA
NO
VA
S(e
xper
ienc
eof
supe
rvis
or)
Supe
rvis
ion
sess
ion
code
dvi
aSu
perv
isor
yPl
anni
ngC
odin
gSy
stem
1.N
odi
ffer
ence
acro
ssle
vels
inpl
anni
ngst
atem
ents
2.L
ow-
and
high
-exp
erie
nced
supe
rvis
ors
mad
em
ore
stat
emen
tsan
dev
oked
mor
esu
perv
isee
stat
emen
tsth
atdi
dno
nexp
erie
nced
supe
rvis
ors
3.Pl
anni
ngw
asno
tre
late
dto
inse
ssio
nve
rbal
beha
vior
4.Su
perv
isor
view
edsu
perv
isee
the
sam
ere
gard
less
ofle
vel
5.Su
perv
isor
with
expe
rien
cera
ted
high
erth
ansu
perv
isor
with
noex
peri
ence
Wor
thin
gton
&St
em(1
985)
Stud
ents
inM
San
dPh
Dpr
ogra
ms
ata
larg
em
idw
este
rnun
iver
sity
92(1
⁄2po
st-P
hD,
2⁄3
pre-
PhD
;3⁄4
mal
e,1⁄4
fem
ale)
86(2
⁄3pr
e-M
S,1⁄3
post
-MS;
1⁄2
mal
e,1⁄2
fem
ale)
MA
NO
VA
s:IV
�su
perv
isee
degr
eele
vel,
supe
rvis
orst
atus
,sup
ervi
see
sex,
supe
rvis
orse
x,ge
nder
mat
chin
g(e
ach
cros
sed
with
time)
;D
V�
(for
supe
rvis
or)
four
mea
sure
sof
rela
tions
hip
stre
ngth
,on
esa
tisfa
ctio
n,on
esu
perv
isee
com
pete
nce;
(for
supe
rvis
ee)
thre
em
easu
res
ofre
latio
nshi
pqu
ality
,th
ree
ofev
alua
tion
ofsu
perv
isor
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed):
6ite
ms,
Lik
ert
scal
es,
onsu
perv
isio
nre
latio
nshi
p
Em
piri
cal
exam
inat
ion
ofsu
perv
isio
nbe
havi
oran
dre
latio
nshi
ps;
sex
diff
eren
ces
1.Su
perv
isor
sra
tepr
e-M
Ssu
perv
isio
nre
latio
nshi
psto
chan
geov
ertim
e;po
st-M
Sre
latio
nshi
psdo
not
2.Su
perv
isor
stat
usas
facu
ltym
embe
ror
doct
oral
stud
ent
mad
eno
diff
eren
cein
rela
tions
hip
Zuc
ker
&W
orth
ingt
on(1
986)
25un
iver
sity
coun
selin
gce
nter
sth
roug
hout
U.S
.
59po
st-P
hDsu
perv
isor
s,84
%lic
ense
d,67
%w
ith6
orm
ore
year
s’ex
peri
ence
atsu
perv
isio
n
25po
st-P
hDps
ycho
logi
sts
bein
gsu
perv
ised
for
licen
sure
and
34in
tern
s
Five
MA
NO
VA
S:IV
�lic
ensu
rest
atus
ofsu
perv
isor
;D
V�
perc
eptio
nsof
supe
rvis
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
s,12
fact
orgr
oupi
ngs
ofSu
perv
isio
nQ
uest
ionn
aire
(rev
ised
),ra
tings
ofho
wtim
eis
used
insu
perv
isio
n
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
re(r
evis
ed);
open
-en
ded
Supe
rvis
ion
Que
stio
nnai
reco
ncer
ning
time
insu
perv
isio
n
Em
piri
cal
anal
ysis
ofpe
rcei
ved
supe
rvis
orbe
havi
or
Lic
ensu
rest
atus
ofsu
perv
isor
mad
eno
diff
eren
cein
perc
eptio
nsof
effe
ctiv
enes
sof
supe
rvis
ion,
inw
hat
was
done
duri
ngsu
perv
isio
n,an
din
how
time
was
used
insu
perv
isio
n
Not
e.A
NO
VA
�an
alys
isof
vari
ance
;M
AN
OV
A�
mul
tivar
iate
anal
ysis
ofva
rian
ce;
IV�
inde
pend
ent
vari
able
;D
V�
depe
nden
tva
riab
le.
experience is provocative. It could suggest aparallel to Freud’s notion that one cannot knowone’s own unconscious but needs an objectiveanalyst to help. Perhaps counselors find it dif-ficult to know their own counseling and im-prove it. Counselors create cognitive maps oftheir experience (theories and models) thatguide their perceptions of their own behavior,goals, and understanding of how they counsel.Without supervision to challenge their cognitivemaps, few counselors will systematically audio-tape or videotape to inject an impartial view oftheir counseling. Few will allow their work tobe viewed by others. Clients’ comments aboutcounseling style are often dismissed as beingfrom a naive source. Counselors believe thatthey are actually counseling the way they saythey are, but, as most supervisors know, the wayin which a counselor talks about his or hercounseling is not perfectly correlated with theway in which he or she counsels. It is thesystematic analysis of a counselor’s behaviorfrom a different viewpoint than one’s own thathelps a counselor to change self-perception andbehavior.
The Developing Supervisor: EmpiricalResearch
What Is Known
1. There are differences in skillfulness insupervision across supervisors. In several inves-tigations of the effectiveness of supervision,researchers have found a variety of levels ofsupervisor competence and impact (see Cross &Brown, 1983; Heppner & Handley, 1981;Worthington, 1984a; Worthington & Roehlke,1979; Worthington & Stern, 1985; Zucker &Worthington, 1986). Furthermore, Hester,Weitz, Anchor, and Roback (1976) found thatperceived differences in supervisor skillfulnessare related to attraction of supervisees to super-visors (see Table 3).
2. Supervisors do not become more compe-tent as they gain experience. Once supervisorsreach the advanced practicum level of experi-ence, they can apparently supervise with effec-tiveness equal to that of post-PhD supervisors.Marikis, Russell, and Dell (1985) studied stu-dents in their first practicum, students in theiradvanced practica, and post-PhD counselors.
All acted as supervisors during a 30-min super-vision interview with a counselor. Post-master’sstudents were rated as effective as post-PhDsupervisors, though both groups were rated asmore effective supervisors than beginningpracticum counselors. Marikis et al. (1985)found that the two groups of experienced super-visors addressed counseling skills of the coun-selor and talked about themselves as supervisorsmore than did beginning practicum students.Overall, the more experienced supervisorstalked less than beginning counselors. In noneof the three comparisons did post-master’scounselors differ from post-PhD counselors.Worthington (1984a) surveyed 237 superviseesnationwide and also found that pre- and post-PhD supervisors in actual supervision of coun-selors from first practicum to internship werenot rated as differentially effective in terms oftheir competence, their impact on the super-visee, or satisfaction of the supervisee withsupervision.
Zucker and Worthington (1986) wonderedwhether licensure status of the supervisors ofinterns and postdoctoral candidates for licen-sure affected the quality of supervision. Theysurveyed 59 psychologists and interns nation-wide. The supervisors were generally very ex-perienced. (Only one third had less than 6 yearsof experience.) When years of post-PhD expe-rience was used as a covariate, licensure statusof the supervisor did not affect supervisees’ratings of the effectiveness of supervision. Also,in no case was the covariate (years of experi-ence) significant.
Worthington and Stern (1985) surveyed 92supervisors and 86 supervisees at one univer-sity. They found that neither supervisors norsupervisees rated supervisors as more effectivedepending on their status as either faculty (orsenior staff) or students (interns or advancedpracticum students). There were also no per-ceived differences in the quality or strength ofthe supervision relationships that were attribut-able to faculty or student status of thesupervisor.
In sum, whether supervision experience isconceptualized as degree level, licensure status,or student-faculty status, supervisors beyond themaster’s level do not appear to differ in effec-tiveness of supervision.
3. Supervisors change little in other ways as
156 WORTHINGTON
they gain experience. Miars et al. (1983) di-vided supervisors into those with low (1–5years), medium (6–11 years), and high (12years and beyond) levels both of post-PhDcounseling experience and of supervision expe-rience. They found that supervisors did notmake differential discrimination of counselorneeds as counselors gained experience.
Goodyear and Robyak (1982) divided super-visors into those with 0–8 years of post-PhDexperience versus those with 9 or more years ofexperience. They found no difference acrosslevels of experience in focus of the supervisoron the person of the supervisee, in the skills ofthe counselor, or in the conceptualization of theclient’s problems. Goodyear and Robyak thendivided supervisors into those who had super-vised fewer than 25 supervisees and thosewith 25 or more. Again, no main effects werefound for supervision experience. One interac-tion was found between supervisor theory andsupervisor experience. Behavioral counselorswith fewer supervisees focused more on coun-seling skills than either behavioral counselorswith more supervisees or eclectic supervisorswith fewer supervisees.
Worthington (1984b) had “supervisors” atthe undergraduate, pre-master’s, post-master’s,and post-PhD levels rate a counselor on thebasis of hearing 10 min of excerpts from anaudiotaped counseling session. There were cleardifferences across all levels of supervisor expe-rience in the attributions made to the counselor;however, most of the differences occurred be-tween the undergraduates and the other threelevels of experience. Only one of eight compar-isons showed differences between post-PhDand post-master’s supervisors.
Stone (1980) and Marikis et al. (1985) inves-tigated whether supervisors at different levels ofexperience made different planning statementsbefore supervision. Stone (1980) found that un-dergraduate students differed from post-PhDsupervisors in only two of nine categories ofplanning statements: focus on the superviseeand number of statements. Marikis et al. (1985)found that pre- and post-PhD supervisors didnot differ on any category of planning state-ments, but beginning practicum students diddiffer from the more experienced supervisors onthree of nine categories.
What Is Missing
1. Although evidence to date shows littleindication that supervisors improve with expe-rience, this does not mean that they do notchange with experience. The inexperienced su-pervisor might contribute different benefits tothe supervisee. For example, the new supervisormight promote identification with himself orherself because he or she is or has recently beena student. The new supervisor might be awareof the issues that the trainee is dealing with to agreater extent than the seasoned veteran super-visor is. The new supervisor might be enthusi-astic, energetic, and willing to devote extra ses-sion time to the supervisee more readily than theexperienced supervisor is. On the other hand,the experienced supervisor might have moretechnical expertise than the fledgling, beingmore facile with client assessment, counselinginterventions, or technical skills. Although eachsupervisor is perceived to be effective and com-petent by the supervisee, each might clearlyoffer different resources to the supervisee andcontribute to the counseling effectiveness of thesupervisee in different ways.
Unwilling as we might be to accept it, mostsupervisors simply might not improve with ex-perience. One reason for this might be thatsupervisors have little training in how to super-vise effectively and thus may perpetuate themistakes of their own supervisors. Wiley (1982)showed that with counselors, mere counselingexperience was insufficient to produce changein counseling ability. The same might be truewith mere supervision experience or mere lon-gevity as a post-PhD professional. Mere expe-rience might be insufficient to enable one toview one’s work objectively or to take differentperspectives on one’s work. Perhaps a supervi-sor of one’s supervision would promote im-provement. There are few mechanisms for pro-viding this supervision beyond the internshiplevel, when supervised practice of supervisionis even part of the internship. Hess and Hess(1983) found that in only about 40% of theinternship training sites is there any ongoingtraining of supervisors. In only one third of theplaces in which interns were allowed to super-vise, one-to-one supervision of supervision wasgiven. McColley and Baker (1982) found that
157CHANGES IN SUPERVISION
only about 50% of new supervisors had had anytraining in supervision. Only 20% had had acourse or seminar in supervision.
2. The empirical investigation of how super-visors change with experience is at a rudimen-tary level. Few researchers have taken thatquestion as a primary focus of research. This isprobably because there have been few theoret-ical works about supervisors’ development untilrecently.
3. Theories are still imprecise and general.The important variables affecting improvementin or even change in supervision must still beidentified. For example, no one has yet investi-gated the amount of supervised experience insupervision, the amount of involvement inthinking about supervision (through writing pa-pers, giving workshops, conducting classes, andso on), attendance at supervision-related con-tinuing education functions, or involvement inpeer consultation about one’s supervision asthey relate to changes in supervision practicesor outcomes.
4. There is little specification of what makesa supervisor effective and thus of how onebuilds the skills necessary to become effective.
5. There is little understanding about how asupervisor might change in conceptual ability orin cognitive style as the supervisor gainsexperience.
Conclusion
In reference to the opening metaphor, if gain-ing experience at counseling and supervision islike the aging of wines, then this review uncov-ered two types of wines: counselors and super-visors. One type of wine, the counselor, changesand improves with age. Counselor trainers andsupervisors pay attention to the counselor’s ag-ing and aid his or her development. The othertype of wine, the supervisor, does not clearlyimprove with age. Supervisors appear to beneglected or given minimal attention by mostprofessional environments, yet are expected tochange with age and to age with quality. Theyare like a fine wine, bottled wholly in sterileglass without a cork that allows the wine todevelop robustness. More attention is neededwithin the profession to the maturing of thiswine into fullness.
References
Alonso, A. (1983). A developmental theory of psy-chodynamic supervision. The Clinical Supervisor,1(3), 23–36.
Ard, B. N. (1973). Providing clinical supervision formarriage counselors: A model for supervisor andsupervisee. The Family Coordinator, 22, 91–97.
Barak, A., & LaCrosse, M. B. (1975). Multidimen-sional perception of counselor behavior. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 22, 471–476.
Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962). Dimensions of thera-pist responses as a causal factor in therapeuticchanges. Psychological Monographs, 76 (43,Whole No. 562).
Bartlett, W. E., Goodyear, R. K., & Bradley, F. O.(Eds.) (1983). Special issue: Supervision in coun-seling II. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(1),7–79.
Bernard, J. M. (1979). Supervisor training: A dis-crimination model. Counselor Education and Su-pervision, 19, 60–68.
Bernard, J. M. (1981). Inservice training for clinicalsupervisors. Professional Psychology, 12, 740–748.
Bernard, J. M. (1982). Laboratory training for clin-ical supervisors: An update. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Psychological As-sociation, Washington, DC.
Blount, C. M. (1982). A developmental model ofsupervision: Implications for practice and re-search. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Psychological Association, Wash-ington, DC.
Blumberg, A. (1980). Supervision of teachers (2nded.) Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Carkhuff, R. R. (1969). Helping and human rela-tions. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cross, D. G., & Brown, D. (1983). Counselor super-vision as a function of trainee experience: Analysisof specific behaviors. Counselor Education andSupervision, 22, 333–341.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approvalmotive. New York: Wiley.
Dodenhoff, J. T. (1981). Interpersonal attraction anddirect-indirect supervisor influence as predictors ofcounselor trainee effectiveness. Journal of Coun-seling Psychology, 28, 47–52.
Fleming, J. (1953). The role of supervision in psy-chiatric training. Bulletin of the MenningerClinic, 17, 157–159.
Forsyth, D. R., & Ivey, A. E. (1980). Microtraining:An approach to differential supervision. In A. K.Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory,research, and practice (pp. 242–261). New York:Wiley.
Friedlander, M. L., & Snyder, J. (1983). Trainees’expectations for the supervisory process: Testing a
158 WORTHINGTON
developmental model. Counselor Education andSupervision, 22, 342–348.
Friedlander, M. L., & Ward, L. G. (1984). Develop-ment and validation of the Supervisory Styles In-ventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31,541–557.
Friedlander, S. R., Dye, N. W., Costello, R. M., &Kobos, J. C. (1984). A developmental model forteaching and learning in psychotherapy supervi-sion. Psychotherapy, 21, 189–196.
Gaoni, B., & Neumann, M. (1974). Supervision fromthe point of view of the supervisee. AmericanJournal of Psychotherapy, 24, 108–114.
Goodyear, R. K., & Robyak, J. E. (1982). Supervi-sors’ theory and experience in supervisory focus.Psychological Reports, 51, 978.
Grotjahn, M. (1955). Problems and techniques ofsupervision. Psychiatry, 18, 9–15.
Handley, P. (1982). Relationship between supervi-sors’ and trainees’ cognitive styles and the super-vision process. Journal of Counseling Psychol-ogy, 29, 508–515.
Hart, G. M. (1982). The process of clinical supervi-sion. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Heppner, P. P., & Handley, P. G. (1981). A study ofthe interpersonal influence process in supervision.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 437–444.
Heppner, P. P., & Handley, P. (1982). The relation-ship between supervisory behaviors and perceivedsupervisor expertness, attractiveness, or trustwor-thiness. Counselor Education and Supervision, 22,37–46.
Heppner, P. P., & Roehlke, H. J. (1984). Differencesamong supervisees at different levels of training:Implications for a developmental model of super-vision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 76–90.
Hess, A. K. (Ed.) (1980). Psychotherapy supervision:Theory, research, and practice. New York: Wiley.
Hess, A. K. (1986). Growth in supervision: Stages ofsupervisee and supervisor development. The Clin-ical Supervisor, 4, 51–67.
Hess, A. K., & Hess, K. A. (1983). Psychotherapysupervision: A survey of internship training prac-tices. Professional Psychology: Research andPractice, 14, 504–513.
Hester, L. R., Weitz, L. J., Anchor, K. N., & Roback,H. B. (1976). Supervisor attraction as a function oflevel of supervisor skillfulness and supervisees’perceived similarity. Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 23, 254–258.
Hill, C. E., Charles, D., & Reed, K. G. (1981). Alongitudinal analysis of changes in counselingskills during doctoral training in counseling psy-chology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28,428–436.
Hogan, R. A. (1964). Issues and approaches in su-pervision. Psychotherapy: Theory Research andPractice, 1, 139–141.
Holloway, E. L. (1987). Developmental models ofsupervision: Is it development? Professional Psy-chology: Research and Practice, 18, 209–216.
Holloway, E. L., & Wampold, B. E. (1983). Patternsof verbal behavior and judgments of satisfaction inthe supervision interview. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 30, 227–234.
Hutt, C. H., Scott, J., & King, M. (1983). A phenom-enological study of supervisees’ positive and neg-ative experiences in supervision. Psychotherapy:Theory, Research and Practice, 20, 118–123.
Kagan, N. (1980). Influencing human interaction—Eighteen years with IPR. In A. K. Hess (Ed.),Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, andpractice (pp. 262–283). New York: Wiley.
Kiesler, D. J. (1986). Interpersonal methods of diag-nosis and treatment. In J. O. Cavenar (Ed.), Psy-chiatry (Vol. 1, pp. 1–23). Philadelphia: Lippin-cott.
Kirchner, K. R. (1975). Expectations about individ-ual counseling supervision. Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 36, 445B. (University MicrofilmsNo. 75–16, 012)
Kurtz, P. D., Marshall, E. K., & Banspach, S. W.(1985). Interpersonal skill-training research: A 12-year review and analysis. Counselor Educationand Supervision, 24, 249–263.
Lambert, M. J. (1974). Supervisory and counselingprocess: A comparative study. Counselor Educa-tion and Supervision, 14, 54–60.
Leddick, G. R., & Bernard, J. M. (1980). The historyof supervision: A critical review. Counselor Edu-cation and Supervision, 19, 186–196.
Littrell, J. M., Lee-Borden, N., & Lorenz, J. A.(1979). A developmental framework for counsel-ing supervision. Counselor Education and Super-vision, 19, 129–136.
Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982).Supervision: A conceptual model. The CounselingPsychologist, 10(1), 3–42.
Marikis, D. A., Russell, R. K., & Dell, D. M. (1985).Effects of supervisor experience level on planningand in-session supervisor verbal behavior. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 32, 410–416.
McColley, S. H., & Baker, E. L. (1982). Trainingactivities and styles of beginning supervisors: Asurvey. Professional Psychology, 13, 283–292.
Miars, R. D., Tracey, T. J., Ray, P. B., Cornfeld, J. L.,O’Farrell, M., & Gelso, C. J. (1983). Variation insupervision process across trainee experience lev-els. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 403–412.
Miller, C. D., & Oetting, E. R. (1966). Students reactto supervision. Counselor Education and Supervi-sion, 6, 73–74.
159CHANGES IN SUPERVISION
Miller, R. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model.The Counseling Psychologist, 10(1), 47–48.
Phillips, S. D. (Ed.) (1984). Special issue: Computersin counselor training. Counselor Education andSupervision, 24, 130–221.
Raphael, R. D. (1982). Supervisee experience: Theeffect on supervisor verbal responses. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, Washington, DC.
Reising, G. N., & Daniels, M. H. (1983). A study ofHogan’s model of counselor development and su-pervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30,235–244.
Rickards, L. D. (1984). Verbal interaction and super-visor perception in counselor supervision. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 31, 262–265.
Rose, S. D. (1965). Students view their supervision:A scale analysis. Social Work, 10, 90–96.
Rosenblatt, A., & Mayer, J. E. (1975). Objectionablesupervisor styles: Students’ views. SocialWork, 20, 184–188.
Sansbury, D. L. (1982). Developmental supervisionfrom a skills perspective. The Counseling Psychol-ogist, 10(1), 53–57.
Stoltenberg, C. (1981). Approaching supervisionfrom a developmental perspective: The counselorcomplexity model. Journal of Counseling Psychol-ogy, 28, 59–65.
Stone, G. L. (1980). Effects of experience on super-visor planning. Journal of Counseling Psychol-ogy, 27, 84–88.
Strong, S. R. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonalinfluence process. Journal of Counseling Psychol-ogy, 15, 215–224.
Strong, S. R. (1986). Interpersonal influence theoryand therapeutic interactions. In F. J. Dorn (Ed.),Social influence processes in counseling and psy-chotherapy, (pp. 17–30). Springfield, IL: CharlesC Thomas.
Tyler, J. D., & Weaver, S. H. (1981). Evaluating theclinical supervisee: A survey of practices in grad-
uate training programs. Professional Psychol-ogy, 12, 424–437.
Wiley, M. O’L. (1982). Developmental counselingsupervision: Person-environment congruency, sat-isfaction, and learning. Paper presented at the an-nual meeting of the American Psychological As-sociation, Washington, DC.
Worthington, E. L. Jr. (1984a). An empirical inves-tigation of supervision of counselors as they gainexperience. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31,63–75.
Worthington, E. L. Jr. (1984b). Supervisors as em-pathic observers of counselor behavior. Profes-sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15,457–461.
Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Roehlke, H. J. (1979).Effective supervision as perceived by beginningcounselors-in-training. Journal of Counseling Psy-chology, 26, 64–73.
Worthington, E. L. Jr., & Stern, A. (1985). Theeffects of supervisor and supervisee degree leveland gender on the supervisory relationship. Jour-nal of Counseling Psychology, 32, 252–262.
Yogev, S. (1982). An eclectic model of supervision:A developmental sequence for beginning psycho-therapy students. Professional Psychology, 13,236–243.
Yogev, S., & Pion, G. M. (1984). Do supervisorsmodify psychotherapy supervision according tosupervisees’ levels of experience? Psychother-apy, 21, 206–208.
Zucker, P. J., & Worthington, E. L. Jr. (1986). Su-pervision of interns and postdoctoral applicants forlicensure in university counseling centers. Journalof Counseling Psychology, 33, 87–89.
Originally published inProfessional Psychology:
Research and Practice,1987, 18, 189–208. �
160 WORTHINGTON