: a .,, .jq. «nu: ,. .\ RIG. . , r s. L b u my" 3.; gnaw“ “ m at?“ ,. um,“ ' J 4 I J} 1;: .x‘ i... ' ~, ‘ -! r \’. .ifk- KUMQ-‘h L «human? 71.3; v .V. . $2.4”, ‘ _, . .u ti!“ '. aw «yr»?! ¢ . awn” n,-'.J... .. . ‘ ‘ , ‘ Xv}’==~ .1. s l s.“ _,_ ‘ , R... ".71 ’A'.‘:"..“} ‘ \ . " "1.;~X> “.6 1: 1,; WW}. 1-2. “4'1," -. .u‘qv WES“- 2336‘5’2 b 7 __ nanny " * |||l|ll||l|llllllllllmml||lll”llll”lllllllllllllilllllllll 3 7 3 1293 00611 4908 “Michigan State 1“ W University Thisistocertifythatthe dissertation entitled PSYCHOTHERAPY SUPERVISION: SUPERVISOR EXPERIENCE AND SUPERVISORY STYLE presented by Douglas Mark Hardy has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Psychology m m, \ Major professor Norman Abeles, Ph.D. Date November 3, 1989 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 was were u C a 3 1- PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PSYCHOTHERAPY SUPERVISION: SUPERVISOR EXPERIENCE AND SUPERVISORY STYLE BY Douglas Mark Hardy A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1989 e035333 ABSTRACT PSYCHOTHERAPY SUPERVISION: SUPERVISOR EXPERIENCE AND SUPERVISORY STYLE BY Douglas Mark Hardy Previous research has generally found that psychotherapy supervisors do not become more competent, and change little in other ways, as they gain experience. This research has been limited, however, in that "experience" has always been defined either as number of years of experience as a supervisor or in terms of supervisors' status. The 347 supervisors who participated in this study were selected from the population of all psychologists who were currently supervising individuals from agencies having APA-approved internship programs in professional psychology. These supervisors used the Supervisory Styles Inventory (SSI) to describe their supervisory style when supervising interns. The SSI measures three aspects of interpersonal supervisory style: attractiveness, interpersonal sensitivity, and task orientation. A factor analysis of several variables related to supervisors' experience yielded three factors: Douglas Mark Hardy amount of experience, informal study, and interest/ perceived effect of experience. A correlational analysis indicated that amount of experience, as well as amount of supervision of supervision, were not significantly related to supervisory style. However, for ABPP Diplomates, amount of experience was significantly related to interpersonal sensitivity (r = .55) indicating that experience may lead this select group of supervisors to become more interpersonally sensitive. For all supervisors, informal study was significantly related to interpersonal sensitivity (r = .26), while interest/perceived effect of experience was significantly related to both interpersonal sensitivity (r = .34) and to attractiveness (r = .23). For ABPP Diplomates, interest/perceived effect of experience was significantly related to both interpersonal sensitivity (r = .45) and to attractiveness (r = .63). Supervisors who thought that their experience had greatly influenced their supervisory style described themselves as being both more interpersonally sensitive and more attractive when supervising interns. However, even for these supervisors, there was no significant relationship between amount of experience and supervisory style. Perhaps the effect of experience is dependent upon the supervisor's stage of development, and/or Douglas Mark Hardy perhaps there are "critical incidents" in a supervisor's experience, and it is these isolated incidents which influence supervisory style. Participants were also asked to complete the Supervision Level Scale (SLS). No significant relationship was found between any aspect of supervisors' experience and the SL8. Copyright by DOUGLAS MARK HARDY 1989 DEDICATION To my father, Dr. J. W. Hardy, who has always loved me and wanted me to get a good education; to my wife, Janyce Collins; and to our son, Brian Winter Hardy, whose love, trust, and joy in living are a constant source of joy and inspiration for us. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to especially thank Dr. Norman Abeles, the chairman of my dissertation and guidance committees. I have great respect for Dr. Abeles, who is one of the most trustworthy people that I have ever known. He has been consistently fair, good-natured, patient, professional, and respectful in all of his interactions with me. It is one of my most important professional goals to use my influence over others in an equally worthy manner. I also wish to thank Dr. Robert Caldwell who was an excellent individual supervisor as well as a valued member of my dissertation committee. Dr. Ralph Levine's statistical suggestions greatly increased the clarity of my dissertation. It was also as a teaching assistant for Dr. Levine that learned how much I enjoy teaching. Finally I wish to thank Dr. Bertram Karon. Dr. Karon was a member of my dissertation committee and also taught me much about both the TAT and the use of psychotherapy with schizophrenic patients. I have always appreciated his intelligence, his love of life, and the honesty with which he expresses his always interesting opinions. iv My deepest love goes to my mother, Mary Winter Hardy, who always loved me so very much, and wanted me to be happy. I wish she was here to see her grandchildren. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Supervision. . . . . . . . . . . . . Supervisor Training. . . . . . . . . . . . Developmental Models of Supervision. . . . . . . . Assumptions Common to Developmental Models of Supervision. . . . . . . . . Beneficial Effects of Developmental Models of Supervision on Supervisory Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . Stoltenberg' s Counselor Complexity Model. . Research Supporting Stoltenberg' s Counselor Complexity Model . . . . . . . Research Generated by Developmental Models of Supervision. . . . . . . . Do Supervisee Characteristics Change as as They Gain Therapy Experience? . . . . . . Does Supervision Change as Supervisees Gain Therapy Experience? . . . . . . . . . . Do Experienced Supervisors Supervise Differently Than Inexperienced Supervisors?. Problems Inherent in the Empirical Study of the Effects of Supervisor Experience. . . Previous Research Investigating the Effects of Supervisor Experience . . . . . . . . . . METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instruments . . . . . . r . . . . Demographic Information Sheet. . . . . . . . Supervision Level Scale. . . . . . . . . . . Supervisory Styles Inventory . . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi \OMxl 10 11 12 16 20 22 23 24 25 Study 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instruments . . . . . . . Demographic Information Sheet. . . Holloway' s Adaptation of the Blumberg Interactional Analysis System . . . Procedure for Obtaining Subjects and Gathering Data . . . . . . . . . . Procedure for Training Raters and Rating Tapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study 1: Hyposhesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . . Ancillary Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . Evaluating Multiple Significance Tests. . Study 1: Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Analysis. . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Hypothesis 2. . . . . . . . Study 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Hypothesis 1. . . . . . . . DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study 1: Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . Amount of Experience. . . . . . . . . . . Informal Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . Interest/Perceived Effect of Experience . Limitations of Study 1. . . . . . . . . Next Steps for Research in this Area. . . Study 1: Hypothesis 2 . . . . . Next Steps for Research in this Area. . . Study 2. . . . . . . . . Next Steps for Research in this Area. . . 41 44 45 45 46 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Expected Counselor Characteristics and Appropriate Environments . . . . . . . . . . . 98 APPENDIX B Demographic Information Sheet (DIS). . . . . . . 101 APPENDIX C Supervision Level Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 APPENDIX D Supervision Level Scale Scoring Sheet. . . . . . 107 APPENDIX E An Elaboration of the Counselor Complexity Model: Supervisee Levels . . . . . 109 An Elaboration of the Counselor Complexity Model: Supervision Environments . . . . . . . 110 APPENDIX F Supervisory Styles Inventory . . . . . . . . . . 112 Supervisory Styles Inventory Scoring Sheet . . . 113 APPENDIX G Letter to Chief Psychologist/Psychology Directors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Response Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Follow-up Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 APPENDIX H Letter to Supervisors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Response Postcard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Follow-up Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 APPENDIX I Elaboration of Blumberg's Categories . . . . . . 123 APPENDIX J Letter to Supervisors Soliciting Their Participation in Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 129 APPENDIX K Consent Form for Supervisors and Supervisees Participating in Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . 131 viii APPENDIX L Table 17 . . . APPENDIX M Evaluating Multiple Significance APPENDIX N Table 18 . . . APPENDIX 0 Table 19 . . . LIST OF REFERENCES ix Tests 135 140 142 144 10 11 12 13 LIST OF TABLES Page Summary of Major Demographic Variables for Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Demographic Training Variables for Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANOVA of Task Orientation by Sex and Theoretical Orientation . . . . . . . . . ANOVA of Interpersonal Sensitivity by Sex and Theoretical Orientation . . . . . . . ANOVA of Attractiveness by Sex and Theoretical Orientation . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Inter- personal Sensitivity and Task Orientation Broken Down by Theoretical Orientation. . Rotated Factor Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix: Experience Factors by SSI Scales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix: Experience Factors by SSI Scales for ABPP Diplomates . . . . Correction of Per Comparison Error Rates for Study 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANOVA of P/E Match by Sex and Theoretical Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix: Experience Factors by P/E Match . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Major Demographic Variables for Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 48 50 51 52 53 56 59 61 65 68 70 71 Table Page 14 Summary of Demographic Training Variables for Study 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 15 Correction of Per Comparison Error Rates for Study 2. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 74 16 Significant Correlations Between Experience Factors and Supervisory Inter- ventions for Study 2. . . . . . . . . . . 76 17 Significant Correlations Between Nine Experience Variable and SSI Scales. . . .133 18 Correlation Matrix: Nine Experience Variables by P/E Match. . . . . . . . . .142 19 Means and Standard Deviations of Attractiveness and Interpersonal Sensitivity Broken Down by Perceived Effect of Experience. . . . . . . . . . .144 xi IHIBQQHQEIQE In 1957 Carl Rogers described the field of psychotherapy supervision as having generated little research. This description has continued to be accurate until quite recently, most notably because of the lack of comprehensive theoretical models on which to base research (Wiley & Ray, 1986). Each school of therapy gave rise to its own theories of supervision, each of which was assumed to be the best for all therapists at all times (Hess, 1980). The research studies generated from these theories have tended to be few in number, limited in scope, specific to one theoretical orientation, and often unrelated to previous research. Even studies done by a single researcher were seldom related to one another (Miars, Tracey, Ray, Cornfeld, O'Farrell, & Gelso, 1983b). Over the past 10 years, we have seen the rise of developmental models of supervision, of which at least 16 now exist (Worthington, 1987). These models are generally not tied to any specific school of therapy, yet are remarkably similar in their basic assumptions (Miars et al., 1983b; Worthington, 1984a); the most central of which is that psychotherapists progress through qualitatively different stages (with different motivations, needs, and potential resistances) and thus need a changing supervision environment over the course of training to facilitate their developmental movement into more advanced stages (Reising & Daniels, 1983; Stoltenberg, 1981). These models have had a heuristic effect on empirical supervision investigations, redefining old issues, focusing attention on new questions, and generally leading to results which have broad applicability across all formats and orientations to supervision (Miars et al., 1983). It has been found, for example, that many supervisee characteristics (expectations and preferences for supervision, problems experienced in supervision, satisfaction with supervision, etc.) do change with increased experience (Heppner & Roehlke, 1984; Wiley & Ray, 1986) and that supervisors provide qualitatively different (but not necessarily better) supervision to therapists in different stages of development (Zucker & Worthington, 1986b). Now that the answers to the above questions are becoming more clear, attention has begun to shift to the question of whether supervision changes as supervisors gain experience. In other words, "Do experienced supervisors supervise differently than inexperienced supervisors, and, if so, how?" This question has arisen partially from the desire to provide more adequate training for supervisors. Supervisors presently get little, if any, specific training in supervision, and they very clearly want more (Hardy, 1981/1982; McColley & Baker, 1982). If we knew how supervisors tend to change as they gain in super- visory experience, we might more effectively advise and train inexperienced supervisors. Comparing experienced and inexperienced supervisors is also of interest as most findings in this field are based upon the work of relatively inexperienced supervisors. If there are important differences between supervision as practiced by experienced and inexperienced supervisors, then many of these findings can be generalized to experienced supervisors only with a good deal of caution. Data for research investigating the effects of a supervisor's increasing experience on the way that person conducts individual supervision must be gathered from the supervisee, from the supervisor, or from an uninvolved third party who analyzes the performance of a supervisor who is either engaged in actual supervision or who has been placed into an experimental analogue of supervision. To date, eleven major studies investigating the effects of supervisor experience have been published, six using the supervisee or supervisor as the information source and five analogue studies. In none of these studies, however, have supervisors been - observed while engaged in actual supervision. Although there are many theoretical and common- sense reasons for assuming that supervision requires skills that are refined with experience and that supervisors might therefore pass through "stages" of development, almost no empirical evidence supports these assumptions (Zucker & Worthington, 1986b). Taken at face value, the above research generally indicates that supervisors do not change, develop, or improve as they gain in supervisory experience. If correct, this finding would have broad implications for supervision theory, training, and practice. There are, however, several other viable interpretations of the above results (Zucker & Worthington, 1986b). First, it is possible that the supervisors sampled to date have been too inexperienced to have significantly different supervisory styles and abilities. Second, the instruments and methods used may have been an ineffective means of detecting the differences that are there. Lastly, variables other than supervisory experience as usually defined (such as amount of supervised practice in supervision, priority assigned to supervision, etc.) may be responsible for changes in supervisory style and ability as supervisors mature. Previous research has generally gathered data on supervisor style from the supervisee or from observations of supervisors placed into an experimental analogue of supervision. These investigations have tended to use instruments that do not uniquely tap supervisor style (having been developed for other purposes), that combine items at several different levels of analysis (necessitating that the data be analyzed and interpreted item-by-item), and that are applicable to only a single level of supervisee development. The present study investigates the relationship between supervisor experience and supervisory style using subjects, formats, and instruments designed to minimize the limitations of previous research. Data will be collected both by observation of supervisors engaged in actual supervision, as well as through supervisor perceptions, using measures which have been shown (Friedlander & Ward, 1984; Wiley & Ray, 1986) to uniquely tap supervisor style at a single level of analysis, while being applicable to supervision of therapists at all levels of development. Finally, variables other than supervisory experience as usually defined which may be responsible for changes in supervisory style and ability as supervisors mature will be examined. The relevant literature is reviewed in the next chapter. LITERATURE REVIEW Definition of Supervision Supervision of the therapy conducted by psychotherapists-in-training is considered essential by practitioners of all existing approaches to psychotherapy (Lambert, 1980). In the words of Hester, Weitz, Robach, Anchor, and McKee, The supervisor-supervisee relationship is the cornerstone of psychotherapy training. . . . This relationship is. . . the medium through which the attributes, feelings, and behaviors necessary for effective psychotherapy are taught (1976, p. 671). Definitions of supervision are many and varied, primarily because they are usually specific to a particular theoretical orientation, but also because the term is used differently by various professions. For the purpose of this research project, supervision will be defined as: a process designed to increase the clinical competence of a psychotherapist within the context of an individual relationship between an experienced clinician and a practicing therapist. As thus defined, supervision is generally applicable to the major mental health professions (clinical and counseling psychology, psychiatry, and social work) but not to the fields of industrial/organizational psychology, business management, rehabilitation counseling, educational guidance and counseling, and pastoral counseling. It excludes any training a therapist receives before beginning to actually treat clients/patients, as well as all training that is not provided within the context of an individual relationship. This definition thus excludes group supervision, not because it is assumed to be ineffective or unimportant, but only because the process and mechanisms of group and individual supervision may be dissimilar. Supervisor Training Surveys conducted by Stanton, Sanchez, and Klesges (1981) and by McColley and Baker (1982) indicate that clinical psychology supervisors have generally received little formal training in supervision. In the opinion of McColley and Baker, It appears at times that one is considered qualified for supervision by nature of having been supervised and of having achieved doctoral status. . . . almost 80% of the respondents felt that more training in supervision would be helpful (1982, p. 290). Until recently, training in supervision has been largely limited to two basic methods (Loganbill & Hardy, 1983). First, transfer of therapy training, in which training in psychotherapy is considered sufficient training for supervision. And second, reciprocal role experience, in which having been supervised is assumed to give the supervisee the necessary skills to adequately function as a supervisor. This situation is changing, however, as 56% of relatively inexperienced supervisors supervising in APA-approved clinical psychology graduate programs and internships have received some supervised experience in conducting supervision (McColley & Baker, 1982). Developmental Models of Supervision Theoreticians have recently begun to conceptualize psychotherapy supervision as a developmental process in which the supervisee changes in ways other than simply acquiring certain skills and theoretical knowledge. According to Stoltenberg, The trainee is viewed not just as a counselor lacking specific skills, but as an individual who is embarking on a course of development that will culminate in the emergence of a counselor identity. The end point constitutes the integration of skills, theory, and a more complete awareness of oneself and others (1981, p. 59). At least 16 developmental models of supervision have been proposed to date (Worthington, 1987). These models are remarkably similar in their basic assumptions, indicating to Worthington (1984a) that (a) theoreticians have had similar experiences as supervisors; (b) there is an underlying implicit theory 10 leading supervisors to observe similar phenomena; and/or (c) supervision theorists are depending upon the same seminal theories, such as that developed by Hogan (1964). Assumptions Common to Developmental Models of Superv151on The basic assumptions underlying most developmental models of supervision are as follows: 1. Supervisees progress through simple or complex stages of development as they gain in experience and competence. (See Reising & Daniels, 1983 for a theoretical comparison of simple vs. complex stage models.) 2. Supervisees in different stages of development have qualitatively different motivations, needs, and potential resistances in addition to, and not accounted for by, quantitative differences in skills and theoretical knowledge (Stoltenberg, 1981). 3. Supervisees in different stages of development thus need qualitatively different supervision environments over the course of their development to encourage their movement into more advanced stages. 4. Supervisees show many individual differences even though they go through similar stages. 5. Speed of a supervisee's progress through stages is highly variable and is a function of individual 11 differences in the supervisee and in the environments experienced during development. 6. Assessment of the developmental stage a particular supervisee is currently in is thus of great importance in determining how to best supervise that supervisee. Beneficial Effects of Developmental Models of Supervision on Supervisogy Theopy and Practice Developmental models represent the first unified focus or related set of theories in the supervision literature. Prior to their development, this literature was dominated by the "schools" approach to training (Hess, 1980) in which many theorists described their own approaches to supervision which were assumed to be the best for all supervisees at all times. These multiple, divergent theories of supervision gave rise to research dominated by isolated and seemingly unrelated investigations into aspects of supervision which were generally specific to a particular theoretical orientation (Miars et al., 1983b). Developmental models have integrated this literature and have lead to the study of broader questions of interest to supervisors of all orientations. These models have redefined and given a new perspective on long-standing research questions (such as the relative efficacy of didactic vs. experiential 12 supervision) while at the same time focusing attention on previously neglected issues, thus generating many new research questions. For example, it has become clear that research must move beyond a study of novice supervisees to study therapists at all levels of training and development. In addition, attention has been focused on the supervisor and the task of tailoring the supervision environment to the needs of the specific supervisee. This is in marked contrast to the earlier supervision literature which focused almost exclusively on the supervisee (Lambert, 1980). Developmental models, once sufficiently validated and accepted by the therapy professions, have the potential to greatly affect supervision practice. These models are becoming increasingly comprehensive (Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982), describing the normal course of therapist development, providing guidelines for determining what developmental stage a therapist is currently in, and giving specific recommendations as to how to supervise that therapist to help facilitate movement into a more advanced stage. Stoltenberg's Counselor Complexity Model Stoltenberg's (1981) Counselor Complexity Model will be discussed in some detail as it has been tested and validated by more empirical research than any other 13 specific developmental model, and because it forms the basis for the Supervision Level Scale (SLS) which will be used in Study 1 of this dissertation. It is also specific, comprehensive, and has been described by Worthington (1984a) as the most heuristic model to date. Stoltenberg based his developmental model on previous work by Hogan (1964) and Hunt (1971). Hogan created the first developmental model of supervision by identifying four levels of therapist development and by suggesting general supervisory methods for supervisees at each of these levels. Hunt's Conceptual Systems Theory describes four stages of conceptual development, the developmental work that must be done by the individual for advancement to the next highest stage, and the optimal environments for individuals at each level that will best facilitate that advancement. Appendix A (Stoltenberg, 1981, p. 60) outlines Stoltenberg's four levels of supervisee characteristics and the supervision environments that he considers most beneficial for supervisees at each level. The four stages of supervisee development focus on how supervisees struggle with issues of dependency vs. autonomy with their supervisors. According to Stoltenberg (1981), Level I supervisees are dependent on authority, insecure, and uninsightful of the impact they have on others. They 14 tend to think in categories, and are searching for the "right" way to do psychotherapy. They are thus prone to identify closely with either their supervisor or with some well-known theorist. Stoltenberg recommends that the supervisor of a Level I supervisee (a) provide didactic teaching; (b) allow the supervisee's imitation; (c) allow/request some autonomy (don't answer all questions in concrete terms, etc.); and (d) attend to the supervisee's behavior in supervision and in therapy, within a supportive relationship, in order to increase the supervisee's awareness of how the therapist, the client, and the supervisor affect one another. Level II supervisees are experiencing a dependency/autonomy conflict as they attempt to assert their own individuality while still having strong dependency needs. Their self-awareness is increasing, and they see that they tend to oscillate between feeling overconfident and feeling overwhelmed. Stoltenberg recommends that the supervisor of a Level II supervisee offer high autonomy with low normative pressure. The supervisee should be allowed more latitude in making decisions as the supervisor shifts from being a teacher to acting as a reference source. The supervisor must still be prepared to teach and to give advice when necessary, however. 15 At Level III, the dependency/autonomy conflict has evolved into supervisees seeing themselves as therapists and feeling a professional self—confidence. They now have substantial insight into their own dependency needs and neurotic motivations and feel an increased empathy toward others. They are dependent when appropriate, being neither counterdependent nor the unvarying disciples of any given technique. Stoltenberg recommends that supervision of a Level III supervisee become more of a peer interaction with an emphasis on sharing, in which both parties can gain insight and support from the experience. The supervisor can now share personal ideas, concerns, and weaknesses without losing the attention or respect of the supervisee. Level IV therapists are capable of independent practice due to an adequate awareness of their personal limitations. The counselor has a personal security based upon an awareness of insecurity; is insightful, with full awareness of the limitations of insight; and is able to function adequately, even with some occasional changes in degree of motivation (Stoltenberg, 1981, p. 63). They are willfully interdependent on others and have integrated the standards of the profession into their personal value systems. Such therapists have the insight to know when professional or personal 16 consultation is necessary. Some therapists will never reach this level of development. Research Supporting Stoltenberg's (1981) Counselor Complexity Model Many recent research studies have supported and confirmed the general assumptions and predictions of developmental models. This section will focus upon three studies which were specifically based upon, and designed to test, Stoltenberg's (1981) model. Miars, Tracey, Ray, Cornfield, O'Farrell, and Gelso (1983b) were the first researchers to use Stoltenberg's (1981) model as the basis for empirically investigating the supervision process. They constructed the Level of Supervision Survey (LSS) based upon the supervision environments postulated by Stoltenberg. Their purpose was to assess certain dimensions of the supervision process as they vary across supervisee training level. The participants were 37 Ph.D.-level supervisors (16 male, 21 female) with a mean of 8.2 years of postdoctoral supervision experience. Each supervisor was asked to respond to each LSS item four times, indicating how appropriate they thought each item was to the supervision of first semester practicum, second semester practicum, advanced practicum, and intern supervisees. Some supervisors did not have experience in supervising one or more of the supervisee training 17 levels but were instructed, "Even if you have not supervised at each level, please respond to all items as you think they apply to each level" (Miars, et al., 1983a, p. 1). They found that supervisors do perceive themselves as varying their supervision across supervisee training level, with the largest difference being between second semester practicum and advanced practicum. They also found that theoretical orientation was related to the extent to which supervisors reported that they varied supervision across supervisee training level, with psychodynamic supervisors reporting themselves as varying supervision more than humanistic or cognitive- behavioral supervisors. McNeill, Stoltenberg, and Pierce (1985) constructed the Supervisee Levels Questionnaire (SLQ) to assess supervisee developmental characteristics. The 24 items were based upon Stoltenberg's (1981) description of supervisees at different levels of development and were classified by four expert judges into three subscales (Self—Awareness, Dependency-Autonomy, and Theory/Skills Acquisition) with higher scores reflecting higher levels of supervisee development. The participants were 91 supervisees (41 male, 50 female) from eight geographically diverse training programs. They were classified into beginning, 18 intermediate, and advanced groups based upon a composite of their experience in graduate school, counseling, and received supervision. The subjects described themselves on each of the 24 SLQ items using a 7-point Likert scale with "never" and "always" as polar anchors. Significant differences in the predicted direction were found between all three groups on each of the SLQ subscales, with the Dependency-Autonomy subscale appearing to be the most sensitive. No significant differences were found between clinical and counseling psychology supervisees. Most recently, Wiley and Ray (1986) designed the Supervision Level Scale (SLS) based upon both the supervisee characteristics and the optimal supervision environment characteristics postulated by Stoltenberg (1981). In Part One of the SL8, supervisors (38 male, 33 female) described a specific supervisee, then in Part Two they described the supervision that they had provided to that supervisee. The two sections of the SL8 are scored so as to indicate the developmental level of the supervisee, the developmental level of the supervision provided, and the congruency of these levels. It was found that mean number of semesters of supervised (but not of unsupervised) therapy experience was significantly related both to supervisee l9 developmental level and to the level of supervision provided to that supervisee. There was, however, no significant relationship between supervision outcome and the congruence between supervisee level and the level of the supervision provided. Supervision outcome was assessed through supervisor and supervisee ratings of satisfaction and learning. Wiley and Ray (1986) note four possible explanations for this negative finding. First, satisfaction and learning ratings were high at all supervisee training levels resulting in a possible ceiling effect for these ratings. Second, large discrepancies between the level of the supervisee and the level of the supervision provided to that supervisee were rare. Third, person-environment congruency may be a relatively unimportant variable with respect to supervisee satisfaction and learning. And fourth, it is possible that supervisee learning and satisfaction is optimal not when the personal and environmental levels match, but when the environment provided is one step above the supervisee's developmental level. This study was an advance over previous research in that supervisees were categorized by developmental level as opposed to training level. Almost all previous studies have assumed that these two variables are interchangeable; however, Wiley and Ray's (1986) results 20 indicate that the two are quite different for many supervisees. Another strength of the SL8 is that it "did not implicitly suggest that supervision might be varied across level as does a survey that asks directly how they differ in behavior by supervisee training level" (Wiley & Ray, 1986, p. 444). I Taken together, the above three studies indicate that Stoltenberg's (1981) Counselor Complexity Model shows considerable predictive validity with supervisees and the supervision environments provided to them generally changing in the predicted ways as the supervisees develop. It must be noted, however, that in none of these studies have supervisors and supervisees been observed while engaged in actual supervision. Research Generated by Developmental Models of Supervision To date, three major lines of research have been derived from developmental models of supervision, each investigating a different question. These three lines of research will be discussed below. Do Supervisee Characteristics Change as They Gain Therapy Experience? Many empirical research studies have explored various aspects of this question (for example: Cross & Brown, 1983; Friedlander & Ward, 1984; Gysbers & 21 Johnston, 1965; Hansen, 1965; Heppner & Roehlke, 1984; Hill, Charles, & Reed, 1981; Kadushin, 1974; McNeill, Stoltenberg, & Pierce, 1985; Nelson, 1978; Reising & Daniels, 1983; Rabinowitz, Heppner, & Roehlke, 1986). These studies have tended to be fairly similar, varying along three basic dimensions (method, subject sampling, and specific supervisee characteristics focused upon). The methods used were generally either to survey or to interview supervisees about their characteristics. Subjects were followed longitudinally, or were sampled across either one or several training levels. Lastly, these studies have focused upon a great variety of supervisee characteristics, including: expectations for supervision, preferences for supervision, self—perceived supervision needs, satisfaction with supervision, perception of supervisor's role, perception of supervisor's attractiveness, expertise, and trustworthiness, problems experienced in supervision, concerns about supervision, locus of control, critical incidents in supervision, important supervision issues, important supervisor interventions, etc. The evidence from these studies clearly indicates that supervisee characteristics and preferences for supervision do change as they gain in therapy experience in ways generally consistent with the changes hypothesized by most developmental models of 22 supervision. These studies thus strongly validate developmental models in general; however, Little is known about how to supervise effectively or how supervisees systematically change over time other than what has been discerned through these exploratory, self-report surveys of supervisees' preferences (Wiley & Ray, 1986, p. 439). Does Supervision Change as Supervisees Gain Therapy Experience? This question has been explored through four related avenues of research, in which most of the studies have been cross-sectional in design (Zucker & Worthington, 1986b; Worthington, 1987). First, it has been shown that supervisees in different training levels perceive their supervisors as providing different supervision environments (Heppner & Roehlke, 1984; Reising & Daniels, 1983; Worthington, 1984a; Worthington & Stern, 1985). Second, supervisors perceive themselves as varying supervision according to supervisee ability and training level (Miars et al., 1983b; Wiley & Ray, 1986). Third, supervisors have been observed to behave differently during supervision with supervisees in different training levels (Raphael, 1981/1982). Lastly, Worthington and Stern (1985) found that supervisor and supervisee perceptions of their relationship differ at different supervisee training levels. The third line of research derived from developmental models of supervision forms the basis for 23 this dissertation. The remainder of this chapter is thus devoted to a detailed review of this research. Do Experienced Supervisors Supervise Differently Than Inexperienced Supervisors? Until recently, supervisors have received little, if any, specific training for supervision; they face many stresses and problems when they first begin to supervise; and an overwhelming majority of them want more supervision training (McColley & Baker, 1982). In the opinion of Ellis and Dell (1986, p. 290), "The areas of training supervisors and supervisor development represent a new frontier for researchers and theoreticians to explore." with the above question, we empirically enter that frontier, with the ultimate purpose of providing more adequate training and support for beginning supervisors. There are many theoretical and common-sense reasons for assuming that supervisors change and improve as they gain in supervisory experience (Auerbach & Johnson, 1977; Worthington & Stern, 1985). If we could understand the normal course of supervisor development (how they tend to change over the course of their training and experience), we could then use this understanding to provide feedback to supervisors and to direct their attention to critical aspects of the 24 supervisory process, so as to hopefully speed their development, ease their problems, and increase their effectiveness. As mentioned in the Introduction, this question is also of theoretical interest as most findings in this field are based upon the work of relatively inexperienced supervisors. The generalizations that have been based upon these findings will thus have to be limited if it is shown that there are important differences between supervision as practiced by experienced and inexperienced supervisors. Problems Inherent in the Empirical Study of the Effects of Supervisor Experience There are several problems inherent in the empirical study of the effects of supervisor experience. First, there are supervisor demographic characteristics other than experience level which might also affect supervision style (theoretical orientation, profession, and gender). These characteristics should be either controlled or monitored in any study investigating the effects of supervisor experience. Second, supervisor experience is a continuous variable; yet, for the purpose of research, supervisors are usually split into discrete groups. Various studies have done this in different ways. The experienced supervisors in one study may be quite similar to the 25 inexperienced supervisors in a different study. This problem is most clear in the analogue research, in which some "experienced" supervisors have had as little as one term of supervisory experience (Stone, 1980). Third, there is a group of variables, other than supervisor experience as usually defined, which may be responsible for changes in supervisory style and ability as supervisors mature. These include amount of supervised experience as a supervisor, number of supervisees supervised, classes/seminars in supervision, interest in supervision, informal reading, study, and consultation about supervision, etc. Variables such as these should be monitored in any study investigating the effects of supervisor experience. Lastly, experience level is sometimes quite different from developmental level, at least for supervisees (Wiley & Ray, 1986), and thus possibly for supervisors as well. At present, there is no way to classify supervisors by developmental level due to the lack of a sufficiently comprehensive theory of supervisor development. Previous Research Investigating the Effects of Supervisor Experience Analogue studies, which have placed supervisors of varying experience into an experimental analogue of supervision, will be described first, in chronological 26 order. The first analogue study investigating supervisor experience was that of Sunblad and Feinberg (1972). The participants were 55 rehabilitation counselor supervisors. Supervisors were mailed a Supervisee Introduction Statement designed to produce a positive, neutral, or negative set of expectations about an analogue supervisee. They were then asked to respond in writing to three vignettes (supervisee statements) exactly as if they were responding in a real supervisory session. These written responses were analyzed for the presence of the three Rogerian facilitative conditions by means of the Carkhuff Scales (1969). It was found that the experienced supervisors showed the highest level of facilitative functioning when their expectations were positive, and the lowest level of facilitative conditions when their expectations were negative. Smith (1975/1976) split 34 supervisors (counseling psychology faculty and doctoral students) into four groups on the basis of experience (high vs. low) and orientation to supervision (didactic vs. experiential). The supervisors listened to a 15 minute analogue therapy tape, then supervised the "therapist" for 30 minutes. Both client and therapist were trained actors. The tapes of these "supervision" sessions were analyzed with Troth's (1966/1967) Counselor Subrole Scale indicating 27 that supervisor experience was unrelated to supervisor behavior in the 30 minute "supervision" session. In addition, the more experienced supervisors described themselves as being more didactic in orientation to supervision on the Expectations About Supervision scale, while the inexperienced supervisors described themselves as being more experiential. Stone's (1980) inexperienced supervisors were 10 undergraduates who were trained in reflective communication. The 17 experienced supervisors were cognitive-behavioral in orientation and had at least one term of experience as supervisors. Subjects were asked to imagine that they were about to supervise a novice (whose only training was viewing a 10 minute videotape) in order to facilitate reflective communication. Participants were instructed to "think aloud" for 15 minutes as they planned how to supervise this novice. It was found that the experienced supervisors generated a greater number of planning statements and that more of these statements concerned the supervisee than did the planning statements of the inexperienced supervisors. Worthington (1984b) defined four levels of supervisor experience (untrained undergraduates, pre- M.A. clinical and counseling students, post-M.A. clinical and counseling students, and Ph.D.-level 28 faculty supervisors). Each "supervisor" listened to a 10 minute therapy tape and was then asked to rate the degree to which both the therapist and the client could be accurately described by each of eight trait labels. Worthington found that the more experienced the "supervisor", the less likely that supervisor was to think that either the client or the therapist was accurately described by the each of these trait labels. Worthington concluded that inexperienced supervisors have a tendency to incorrectly attribute therapist behavior in therapy to the personal traits of that therapist. The most recent analogue study investigating supervisor experience is that of Marikis, Russell, and Dell (1985) who based their study on Stone's (1980) research. Supervisors of three experience levels (first year counseling students with no experience as supervisors (70% female), advanced counseling students who had functioned as supervisors for between 16 and 100 hours (60% female), and Ph.D.-level staff with 2 to 18 years of supervisory experience (60% female)) listened to a 30 minute analogue therapy tape (with an actor client and an M.S.W. therapist), then planned aloud for 30 minutes as to how they would supervise the therapist, then actually supervised the therapist for 30 minutes. No difference was found among the three groups in 29 planning statements. It was also found that during the supervision session the no experience supervisors made fewer total comments, made fewer supervisor-oriented comments, evoked less subject-matter statements from the supervisee, and produced less supervisee satisfaction when compared with both of the other groups. These results may indicate that the no experience supervisors were generally less active than the experienced supervisors. There were no significant differences between the medium and high experience supervisor groups. The validity and generalizability of analogue studies such as the above is a matter of controversy among researchers and clinicians. Studies investigating the effects of supervisor experience, through the use of self-report-type instruments will be discussed next, again in chronological order. Goodyear and Robyak (1982) assumed that clinical supervision has three central foci: (a) the person of the supervisee; (b) the supervisee's skills and techniques; and (c) the supervisee's conceptualization of the client's problems. They surveyed 84 counseling center supervisors regarding their theoretical orientation, years of professional experience, number of supervisees seen, and the percentage weight for each focus used in evaluating their supervisees. It was 30 found that more experienced supervisors shared similar emphases in evaluating their supervisees, while less experienced supervisors were more divergent in ways consistent with their theoretical orientation. These results are similar to those found by Fiedler (1950) in his classic investigation into the effects of therapist experience. Miars et al., (1983b) conducted a study to investigate whether supervisors perceive themselves as varying their supervision environment according to supervisee training level. In a secondary analysis of several supervisor demographic variables, it was found that number of years of post-Ph.D. supervision experience (1-5, 6-11, more than 11) was not related to the degree to which supervisors reported varying supervision across supervisee training level. Worthington (1984a) surveyed 237 supervisees at three levels of training (beginning practicum, advanced practicum, and internship) about the frequencies of various supervisor behaviors during the preceeding semester. Supervisors were classified into two groups depending on whether or not they had yet received their Ph.D. degrees. Worthington found that pre-Ph.D. supervisors were rated by their supervisees as producing equal satisfaction, being equally competent, and as having had an equal impact as the post-Ph.D. 31 supervisors. It was also found that the two supervisor groups did not differ in how frequently supervisees reported that they performed 47 of 48 supervisor behaviors. Worthington and Stern (1985) had 95 practicum student—supervisor pairs (from a master's level or non- APA-approved doctoral counseling program) rate their relationship three times during a semester. At the end of the semester, supervisees rated the frequency with which their supervisors had performed each of 48 behaviors. The primary purpose of the study was to investigate changes in the supervisory relationship over time. Data analysis showed no significant differences between pre and post-Ph.D. supervisors either in quality of supervisory relationship formed or in the supervisee- reported frequency of 48 supervisor behaviors. Zucker and Worthington (1986a) surveyed 34 predoctoral interns and 25 postdoctoral psychologist applicants for licensure, who were employed in university counseling centers, about the supervision they received. Supervisors were divided into groups by whether or not they were licensed. Since each state determines its own licensing standards, and since the supervisors in this study practiced in 17 different states, the difference in experience between the two groups of supervisors is difficult to ascertain. It was 32 found that supervisor license status was not important in determining either the supervisee—reported frequency of supervisor behaviors or how highly rated the supervisors were by their supervisees. Lastly, Ellis and Dell (1986) used a complex multidimensional scaling research design to assess the salient dimensions that supervisors rely on in their perceptions of supervisor roles. One of their findings was that supervisor experience (interns vs. counseling psychology faculty) did not affect supervisor perceptions of supervisor roles. This research (like that of Friedlander & Ward, 1984) also found that supervisory style seems to be composed of three relatively independent dimensions. The above 11 studies provide scant evidence that supervisors change, develop, or improve as they gain in supervisory experience. In the opinion of Worthington and Stern, This question deserves special attention of researchers. To study supervision as a science or teach it as a craft requires supervisors to be able to improve with proper experience. Presumably supervisors should refine their skills with experience, and this should show up in producing better counselors and better client outcomes. At present, no research supports this presumption (1985, p. 260). Given the minimal number and design problems of the above research, four interpretations of the results are possible (Zucker & Worthington, 1986b). First, 33 supervisors may not change, develop, or improve as they gain in supervisory experience. Second, the supervisors sampled to date may have been split into experienced and inexperienced groups in too unrefined a manner for the groups to have significantly different supervisory styles and abilities. Third, the methods and instruments used may have been an ineffective means of detecting the differences that are there. And lastly, variables other than supervisory experience as usually defined may be responsible for changes in supervisor style and ability as supervisors mature. The purpose of the present research is to investigate the relationship between supervisors' experience and supervisory style using subjects, methods, and instruments designed to minimize the limitations of the above studies. The hypotheses, subjects, methods, and instruments of the two studies comprising this research project are described in the next chapter. METHOD Two studies were performed. For the sake of clarity, these studies will be discussed individually. Study 1 Hypothesis 1: Supervisors' experience regarding supervision is significantly related to their supervisory style when supervising interns. Hypothesis 2: Supervisors' experience regarding supervision is significantly related to how closely the supervision provided to a particular psychotherapist matches that supervisee's stage of development. Subjects The participants of this study were 347 psychologists who were currently supervising individuals from agencies having American Psychological Association (APA) approved internship programs in professional psychology. Ipstruments Demographic Information Sheet (DIS). (Appendix B) The DIS was designed by the experimentor for use in this research project. See Appendix B for its content. 34 35 Supervision Level Scale (SLS). (Appendix C) The SLS was designed by Wiley and Ray (1986) and is based upon Stoltenberg's (1981) Counselor Complexity Model. This theory is specific and comprehensive (Wiley & Ray, 1986; Worthington, 1984a) specifying how both supervisees and their optimal supervisory environments change over the course of development. It has been empirically validated by several studies (McNeill et al., 1985; Miars et al., 1983b; Wiley & Ray, 1986). The SLS consists of two sections (Appendix C). In Section One, the supervisor describes a specific supervisee. In Section Two, the supervisor describes the supervision that has been provided to that supervisee. The SLS is then scored using the SL5 Scoring Sheet (Appendix D) resulting in three numbers representing the developmental level of the supervisee, the developmental level of the supervision provided to that supervisee, and the congruency between these levels. (See Appendix E for a description of the supervisee and supervision characteristics which the SL8 is designed to measure). Wiley and Ray (1986) found that the median test— retest reliability correlation over two weeks for the subscales of Section One of the SL8 was .86 and for Section Two was .87. The four subscales of Section One represent to what degree the supervisee is functioning 36 at each of Stoltenberg's (1981) four developmental levels. The four subscales of Section Two represent the degree to which the supervision provided meets the needs of these four levels of supervisees. Content validity was evaluated (Wiley & Ray, 1986) by having a group of four "experts" (personally identified by Stoltenberg) and a group of four experienced supervisors with at least three years of postdoctoral supervision experience, sort the 40 SLS items into one of four developmental levels. Each item was correctly classified by at least 50% of the combined groups. In addition, concurrent validity was shown by Wiley and Ray's finding that amount of supervised experience was significantly related both to the supervisee's developmental level and to the supervision environment provided to that supervisee. In this relatively unexplored area, and given the recent development of this instrument, no further validity studies have as yet been conducted with the SLS. Supervisopy Styles Inventomy (SSI). (Appendix F) The SSI was developed by Friedlander and Ward (1984) for the purpose of uniquely tapping supervisor style at a single level of analysis which would be applicable to all formats and theories of supervision. Many supervisors (N = 357) and supervisees (N = 316) 37 took part in the five studies whose purpose was to empirically identify the salient dimensions of supervisory style and to create an instrument that would accurately reflect both supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of that style. Supervisory style is defined by Friedlander and Ward (1984, p. 541) as "the supervisor's distinctive manner of approaching and responding to trainees and of implementing supervision." As thus defined, supervisory style emphasizes the interpersonal and relationship aspects of supervision, which may be one of the most important variables contributing to supervision outcome (Ekstein & Wallerstein, 1972; Loganbill et al., 1982). The SSI consists of 25 scored and 8 filler items, each of which describes a particular interpersonal approach to supervision. Two factor analytic studies were done by Friedlander and Ward (1984) with dissimilar populations of both supervisors and supervisees. These two studies found three factors that are clearly defined, interpretable, and remarkably similar, suggesting that a particular supervisor's interpersonal approach to supervision varies along three dimensions. These factors have been named Attractive, Interpersonally Sensitive, and Task Oriented. Reliability of the SSI was estimated in three ways (Friedlander & Ward, 1984). First, Cronbach's alpha was 38 used to estimate the internal consistency of each of the three scales and of the entire instrument. These estimates ranged from .76 to .93. Second, item-scale correlations ranged from .70 to .88 for the Attractive scale, from .38 to .76 for the Task Oriented scale, and from .51 to .82 for the Interpersonally Sensitive scale. Lastly, test-retest reliability for the combined scales was .92. Validity of the SSI was assessed in six ways by Friedlander and Ward (1984). First, all three scales and 24 of the 25 scored items within the scales were not significantly related to social desirability. Second, convergent validity was demonstrated by finding a strong relationship between the empirically derived SSI scales and an instrument designed to measure the supervisor roles postulated by Stenack and Dye (1982). Third, the Interpersonally Sensitive scale was shown to differentiate between supervisors who work in inpatient vs. outpatient settings, with the outpatient supervisors describing themselves as being more interpersonally sensitive during supervision. Fourth, supervisors of differing theoretical orientations (psychodynamic, humanistic, cognitive-behavioral, and eclectic) were shown to describe their supervisory styles differently on some of the SSI scales. Fifth, therapists' ratings of their supervisors' styles were found to be related to 39 their satisfaction with supervision and with their willingness to work with different model supervisors. Lastly, it was found that supervisory style as measured by the SSI was related to the supervisees' level of development: Procedure 1. A letter (Appendix G) was sent to the chief psychologist/psychology director of all agencies having APA-approved internship programs in professional psychology explaining the study and requesting permission to contact supervisors in the agency. The chief psychologist was also asked to provide a list of all psychologists who were currently supervising practicum students, interns, or postdoctoral psychotherapists on an individual basis in their agency. 2. A random sample of these supervisors was then individually contacted by letter (Appendix H) to solicit their participation. Enclosed with this letter was: a. a response postcard (Appendix H) b. a Demographic Information Sheet (DIS) (Appendix B) c. a Supervision Level Scale (SLS) (Appendix C) d. A Supervisory Styles Inventory (SSI) (Appendix F) e. a stamped, addressed envelope for returning the materials 4O 3. Supervisors who did not return the response postcard were contacted a second time by mail. Data Analysis For hypothesis 1, supervisors were asked to use a 7-point Likert scale to rate the extent to which each of the 33 SSI items generally describe their interpersonal style when supervising interns. Supervisor experience was then correlated with scores on the three SSI scales. For hypothesis 2, supervisor expience was correlated with the congruency (as measured by the SL8) between supervisee level of development and the level of supervision provided to that supervisee. Study 2 Hypothesis 1: Supervisors' experience regarding supervision is significantly related to the proportion of different supervisor interventions when supervising beginning practicum level psychotherapists. Study 1 relied upon supervisor perceptions as the data source. Study 2 is the first contemporary research project to explore the question of whether supervisors' experience is significantly related to their actual behavior in supervision. It must be considered exploratory, however, given the difficulty of obtaining an adequate number of participants with the desired characteristics. 41 Subjects Participants in this study were pairs of supervisors and beginning practicum-level psychotherapists from the Michigan State University (MSU) Counseling Center and the MSU Psychological Clinic. The supervisors ranged in experience from interns functioning as supervisors for the first time to senior staff with many years of supervisory experience. Instruments Demographic Information Sheet (DIS). (Appendix B) Holloway's Adaptation of the Blumberg Interactional Analysis System (BIA). (Appendix I) The following general information regarding tape rating systems is adapted from Raphael (1981/1982). All tape rating systems focus on at least one of three categories of information (content, intersubjective, or extralinguistic) and use one of two coding strategies (classical or pragmatic) (Russell & Stiles, 1979). Content categories describe the subject of the discussion and can be either specific (spouse, job, etc.) or general (depression, anxiety, etc.). This type of system is most often used to explore internal psychodynamic processes, motives, and traits. Intersubjective categories describe the syntax of verbal behavior independent of the subject of the conversation 42 (questions, interpretations, etc.) and are usually used to study relationships, process, and technique. The last category is extralinguistic and codes non-language vocal noises in an attempt to assess transitory emotional states (Russell & Stiles, 1979). Each of the above category types can be coded in a classical or pragmatic manner. Pragmatic coding systems describe characteristics of the parties involved that are not manifest in the record and must be inferred (feelings, intentions, motivations, etc.), while classical coding systems describe characteristics clearly manifest in the record (saying the word "sister", asking a question, etc.). Classical and pragmatic coding systems as described above define the end points of a continuum. Where a coding system falls along this continuum has a great effect on the amount of training and expertise the raters must have to effectively use the system. Russell and Stiles (1979) and Goodman and Dooley (1976) have defined certain criteria that a tape rating system should ideally meet. These criteria are listed below. The first three are general recommendations from Russell and Stiles for all rating systems, whereas the next five recommendations are from Goodman and Dooley's criteria for coding helper/helpee interactions. 43 1. The categories should be mutually exclusive. 2. The categories should be exhaustive. 3. The categories should represent a single classification principle. 4. The number of categories in the system should be small and should be applicable to both measurement and training. 5. Classification should be classical, not requiring vague inferences or knowledge of complex theory by the raters. 6. Categories should describe behavior at the response level while allowing units to be added in order to describe longer interactions. 7. The system should be applicable to all theories of supervision. 8. The system should use intersubjective categories emphasizing the process or style of communication rather than the content or topic. This increases the generalizability of the findings. The instrument chosen for rating supervision tapes in this study is an adaptation of the Blumberg Interactional Analysis System (BIA) (Blumberg, 1970). This system was designed for analyzing supervisor- teacher interactions, but was adapted by Holloway for analyzing psychotherapy supervision sessions (Holloway, 44 1982; Holloway & Wampold, 1983; Holloway & Wolleat, 1981). Holloway's adaptation of the BIA meets the criteria listed above reasonably well. See Appendix I for a description of the categories into which the BIA codes all supervisor comments. This system can be scored so as to yield one number per category (the proportion of comments falling into each category). The interrater reliability of this system has been found to be .85 by Cryan (1972), .90 by Reavis (1977), .75 and .78 by Holloway and Wolleat (1981), and .72 by Holloway and Wampold (1983). Procedure for Obtaining Subjects and Gathering Data 1. Pairs of supervisors and beginning practicum- level therapists at the MSU Counseling Center and the MSU Psychological Clinic were contacted by the experimentor, first by letter (Appendix J) and then by phone, to explain the study and to obtain their informed consent to participate in this research. 2. The supervisors and supervisees were asked to fill out a consent form (Appendix K), and the supervisors also filled out the Demographic Information Sheet (DIS). 3. One supervision session was taped in its entirety. Subjects were assured that both their 45 identities as well as the contents of the tapes would remain confidential. The tapes were erased after being coded. Procedure for Training Raters and Rating Tapes Two persons, one with a bachelor's degree in psychology and the other a high school graduate, served as tape raters. They first studied the coding manual (Appendix I) and discussed any questions that they had with the experimentor. The raters then.rated practice tapes. When discrepancies arose, these were discussed with the experimentor and the resolution was noted in the training manual. This process continued until the interrater reliability between the two raters had reached an acceptable level. The two raters then rated each experimental tape together. If a discrepancy arose, they resolved it between themselves and noted the resolution in the coding manual. Data Analysis Data was analyzed so as to determine the relationship between supervisor experience and the proportion of supervisor comments falling into each of the BIA categories. RESULTS Study 1: Hypothesis 1 M The individuals asked to participate in this study were selected from the population of all psychologists who were currently supervising individuals from agencies having American Psychological Association (APA) approved internship programs in professional psychology. Of this group, 347 supervisors chose to participate, which represents a response rate of 52%. Table 1 summarizes some of the characteristics of these participants as revealed by their responses on the Demographic Information Sheet (DIS). Table 2 summarizes the participants' training in supervision. Preliminamy Analysis The preliminary question asked in this study was, "Is supervisory style related to supervisor gender and/or theoretical orientation?" The answer depends upon which aspect of supervisory style is being examined. Friedlander and Ward (1984) empirically determined that supervisors' interpersonal approaches to supervision vary along three relatively independent 46 47 Table 1 Summary of Major Demographic Variables for Study 1. Mean/ Standard Variable Percentage Deviation Age 42 years 9 years Gender 63% male License status 93% state licensed or certified ABPP Diplomates 9% Theoretical orientation - psychodynamic 32% - eclectic 28% - cognitive and/or behavioral 20% - other 20% Degree - Ph.D. 91% - Psy.D. 4% - Ed.D. 2% - M.A. 3% Degree field - Clinical Psychology 68% - Counseling Psychology 16% - Psychology 13% - Educational Psychology 1% - other 2% Experience - as a psychotherapist 15 years 8 years - as a supervisor 11 years 8 years Number of therapists supervised 49 79 Proportion of professional activity devoted to supervision 16% 11% 48 Table 2 Summary of Demographic Training Variables for Study 1. Mean hours of Percentage training who (excluding received those who this received no type of training of Variable training this type) Formal supervision of supervision - individual 41% 56 hours - group 22% 45 hours - total 51% 67 hours Other formal training regarding supervision - seminars 18% 14 hours - classes 6% 35 hours - workshops/ presentations 2% 15 hours - meet with consultant 1% 10 hours - total . 27% 28 hours 49 dimensions which they named Attractive, Interpersonally Sensitive, and Task Oriented. These dimensions, as measured by the Supervisory Styles Inventory (SSI) are the dependent variables in this experiment. The Attractive scale of the SSI (SSI.A) is composed of 7 items with an alpha reliability, in this study, of .82. The Interpersonally Sensitive scale (SSI.IPS) is composed of 8 items with a reliability of .77; and the 10-item Task Orientation scale (SSI.TO) was found to have a reliability of .80 in this study. A 2-way ANOVA showed that theoretical orientation was significantly related to both Task Orientation F (3,318) = 6.34, p < .0005 (Table 3), and to Interpersonal Sensitivity £(3,323) = 11.22, p < .0005 (Table 4), but not to Attractiveness (Table 5). The Scheffe procedure and Table 6 indicate that the cognitive and/or behavioral group is less interpersonally sensitive by 0.74 standard deviation units and more task oriented by 0.59 standard deviation units than the other theoretical orientations, which are not significantly different from one another. As will be discussed in the section entitled "Evaluating Multiple Significance Tests," any significance test associated with hypothesis 1 must have an error rate per comparison no greater than .0167 to be considered significant. Tables 3, 4, and 5 thus 50 mom. H~.H mm. m mm.a snooze an xwm ooo. em.e ~m.m m mm.m snooze emo. em.e mm.m H mm.m xmm mm. Ham se.mea mHHmo canvas m M m: mo mm coaumwum> Mo wouaom .coflumpcofluo Hwofluonoone can xom an coflumucofluo meB MO ¢>Oz< msuamma 51 eaw. mm. ma. m me. apogee an xom coo. NN.HH ma.m m mm.mH kHOOSB oom. mm.a mm. H mm. xwm we. can we.¢¢a mHHmU manna: m M m: mm mm cowuowuo> mo mouaom .coflumpcoflno Hmofluouoosa can xow an mua>wuwmcom chomummumusH Ho ¢>Oz< la. 3nt 52 mom. mm.a mm. m mm.a mucosa >2 xmm ewe. em. Sm. m HH.H mucosa mmm. mm. ma. H ma. xmm ee. mam Ho.oea mHHoO Canvas m M m: we mm cowuowuo> no mousom .coflumucofluo Hmofluouoona can xmm we mmocm>fiuoouuu< mo <>oz¢ lllm 632. Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations of Interpersonal Sensitivity 53 and Task Orientation Broken Down by Theoretical Orientation. Standard Variable Group Mean Deviation SSI.IPS cog-beh 4.88 .77 SSI.IPS others 5.40 .66 SSI.IPS total 5.30 .71 SSI.TO cog-beh 4.82 .67 SSI.TO others 4.38 .74 SSI.TO total 4.47 .75 54 indicate that supervisor gender was not significantly related to any aspect of supervisory style and that there was also no significant interaction between gender and theoretical orientation for any aspect of supervisory style. Factor Analysis Since the correlation matrix for the experience variables showed some high inter-correlations, a factor analysis was performed on the 8 major experience variables. A ninth experience variable (DIS28, number of hours of supervision of supervision received) was not included in this factor analysis because its largest correlation with any of the other experience variables was only .16. Bartlett's test of sphericity showed that the correlation matrix was not an identity matrix (417.90, p < .000005); and the Kaiser - Meyer - Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .64, an acceptable' level for proceeding with the factor analysis (Kaiser, 1974). A principal components analysis was used to transform the 8 experience variables into 8 initial factors. When all 8 of these factors are included in the solution, all of the variance of each variable is accounted for; and the communality of each variable 55 (proportion of variance accounted for by the common factors) is therefore 1.0. Since three of the initial factors had eigenvalues of more than 1.0, and since a plot of the total variance associated with each factor (scree plot) showed a clear break between the first three factors and the gradual trailing off of the rest of the factors; it was decided that three factors were needed to represent the data. These three factors together accounted for 64.3% of the total variance. An orthogonal rotation was performed by the varimax method. The rotated factor matrix (Table 7) shows that each experience variable is heavily loaded on only one factor. An oblique rotation was also performed by the oblimin method. The resulting factors shared a maximum of 4% of their variance in common and resulted in the same grouping of variables as did the orthogonal rotation. The interpretation of the factors is the same for either rotation method. Following are the defining items for each factor. Factor 1 was labelled Informal Study and is defined by three items (alpha reliability = .72): frequency of informal consultation with other supervisors regarding supervision issues (DIS40), frequency of reading and study regarding supervision (01839), and how much effect supervisors think that such informal study has had upon 56 IQQLQIZ Rotated Factor Matrix Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 DIS 42 .81 .20 -.05 DIS 39 .79 -.04 .23 DIS 40 .79 .16 -.19 DIS 24 -.10 .77 .00 DIS 43 .15 .73 .12 DIS 19 .30 .62 .03 DIS 7 -.08 .09 .87 DIS 18 .06 .05 .83 57 their supervisory styles (DIS42). Factor 2 was labelled Interestherceived Effect of Experience and is defined by three items (alpha reliability = .51): interest in supervision (DIS19), and how much effect supervisors think their experience as psychotherapists (DISZ4) and as supervisors (DIS43) have had upon their supervisory styles. Factor 3 was labelled Amount of Experience and is defined by two items (alpha reliability = .73): number of years of experience as a supervisor (DIS7), and total number of supervisees ever supervised (D1818). The first of these items is the way in which supervisory experience has usually been defined in previous experiments. Evaluation of Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1: Supervisors' experience regarding supervision is significantly related to their supervisory style when supervising interns. The primary question of this research was, "Is supervisor experience related to supervisory style?“ The answer is "yes" for some aspects of supervisor experience and "no" for others. We will first examine the correlation matrix between the three experience factors and the three aspects of supervisory style measured by the SSI 58 (Table 8). Since the hypothesis is nondirectional, all significance tests are 2-tai1ed. The preliminary analysis (previously discussed) showed that supervisors' theoretical orientation is significantly related to their self-perceived levels of both interpersonal sensitivity and task orientation when supervising interns. To compensate for this, first- order partial correlations adjusting for the effect of theoretical orientation will be used whenever experience factors or variables are correlated with SSI.IPS or with SSI.TO. The Attractive scale (SSI.A) was related to neither supervisor gender nor theoretical orientation and so uses zero-order correlations. Table 8 shows that Amount of Experience (Factor 3) is not significantly related to any measured aspect of supervisory style.' Informal Study (Factor 1) is significantly related to Interpersonal Sensitivity (x = .26, p < .0005); while Interest/Perceived Effect of Experience (Factor 2) is related to both Attractiveness (x = .23, p < .0005) and to Interpersonal Sensitivity (x = .34, p < .0005). The 95% confidence limits for each significant correlation are given in Table 8. A multiple regression analysis was conducted with SSI.IPS being the dependent variable and Factors 1 and 2 being the independent variables. The Beta weights of these two factors were .18 and .30, respectively. The 59 Table 8 Correlation Matrix: Experience Factors by SSI Scales Factor SSI.A SSI.IPS** SSI.TO** Factor 1 .07 .26 .04 p = .226 (.15-.37)* p = .549 = .000 Factor 2 .23 .34 .06 (.12-.34)* (.24-.45)* p = .307 p = .000 p = .000 Factor 3 .01 .11 .05 p = .925 p = .064 p = .375 *95% confidence interval. **These columns contain first—order partial correlations controlling for the effect of theoretical orientation. 60 multiple R was .39 indicating that both factors together can predict SSI.IPS better than either one of them can alone. Appendix L lists the significant correlations between the individual experience variables and the three SSI scales. All significance tests are 2-tailed. These are 27 correlations in the complete matrix. Ancillaxy Analyses A small proportion of the participants (9.2%, m = 32) are Diplomates (members) of the American Board of Professional Psychology (ABPP). This is a voluntary board set up along similar lines and for similar purposes, as the American Board of Medical Specialties. Both organizations intend that their memberships have higher levels of experience, training, and competence than is found in the general population of physicians and professional psychologists; and they attempt to achieve this goal by examining applicants and by setting standards which applicants' training and experience must meet. It therefore seemed potentially valuable to analyze the responses of the 32 ABPP Diplomates as a group. Table 9 gives the correlation matrix between the three experience factors and the three SSI scales for the subgroup of ABPP Diplomates. There are three 61 Table 9 Correlation Matrix: Experience Factors by SSI Scales for ABPP Diplomates. Factor SSI.A SSI.IPS** SSI.TO** Factor 1 -.12 .12 -.07 p = .516 p = .525 p = .727 Factor 2 .63 .45 .05 (.35-.91)* (.11-.79)* p = .807 p = .000 p = .013 ‘ Factor 3 .12 .55 .30 p = .526 (.21-.88)* p = .123 p = .003 *95% confidence interval. **These columns contain first-order partial correlations controlling for the effect of theoretical orientation. 62 significant results in this table. First, Amount of Experience (Factor 3) is significantly related to interpersonal sensitivity (x = .55, p = .003) for Diplomates, but not for all supervisors. The relationship between these variables is significantly stronger for the Diplomates than it is for all supervisors (30.3 vs. 1.2 percent of variance accounted for). Next, Interest/Perceived Effect of Experience (Factor 2) is significantly related to both interpersonal sensitivity (r = .45, p = .013) and to attractiveness (; = .63, p < .0005), as it was for all supervisors. The second of these relationships is stronger for the Diplomates. Evaluating Multiple Significance Tests This is a complex issue that can only be discussed briefly here. See Appendix M for additional information. Whenever several significance tests are conducted as part of one study, the question arises as to how to choose an appropriate type I error rate. This issue has been debated for many years and, as yet, researchers have not reached a consensus as to its solution. Some researchers believe that the same error rate per comparison (PC error rate) should be used, no matter how many significance tests are performed in each study, 63 while others believe that studies containing a greater number of significance tests should use a lower PC error rate so as to hold the error rate experimentwise (EW error rate) at a constant level. Neither method is clearly superior as the first increases the number of type I errors, while the second results in no additional type I errors, but at the cost of a reduction in the power of the analyses and a consequent increase in the number of type II errors. This problem is compounded by the fact that the relative seriousness of type I and type II errors is different in different research areas. There is general agreement, for example, that type II errors are particularly dangerous in a new and developing research field. In such an area a type I error will result in more research being done which will eventually correct the error. A type II error will, however, discourage other researchers from investigating this variable and thus inhibit future investigation. Proponents of even the most conservative methods for controlling the EW error rate thus often advocate the use of the uncorrected PC error rate in the early stages of problem investigation (Petrinovich & Hardych, 1969). Since research regarding the relationship between supervisors' experience and their supervisory styles is clearly in the early stages of problem investigation, 64 and since the evaluation of hypothesis 1 contains 60 significance tests; it was decided that setting a specific EW error rate would decrease the power of the analyses so much as to run too great a risk of committing type II errors, while using a PC error rate of .05 would run too great a risk of committing type I errors. Accordingly, an appropriate error rate was determined by another method which will be discussed below (Wilkinson, 1951; Brozek & Tiede; 1952; Sakoda, Cohen, & Beall, 1954). Column 1 of Table 10 lists the PC error rates 5 .05 at which individual significance tests were found to be significant. Column 2 contains the number of significance tests performed. Column 3 is the number of type I errors expected, on average, experimentwise = (col. 1)(col. 2). Column 4 is the number of significant results found. Column 5 is the PC error rate adjusted for the number of significance tests performed. It estaimtes the probability that any given significant result actually represents a type I error = (col. 3/col. 4). Since the significance tests are not all independent of one another (as is assumed by this model), the probabilities given in column 5 may be higher or lower than the actual probabilities and so represent an estimate rather than an exact calculation (Block, 1960). Column 6 is the EW error rate. Only 65 mono. omoH. on ooo.m oo «no. v omem. Haoo. ma oos. oo Mao. w thv. oomo. wH ovm. om moo. W Hmon. wHNo. SH own. om woo. W omam. omHo. oH ooN. oo ooo. w msoa. omflo. ma ooH. oo moo. w NMHH. Nooo. ma oNH. oo moo. w mwmo. omoo. NH ooo. om Hoo. W oomo. omoo. oH omo. oo mooo. w ovum owEhomuwm wumoe ccsom cmuommxm omfiuowuom oumm Houum wocoofluHcme muHsmom muouum wumwB uouum on so no nonsoz on» unmououconm H moss oocoouoacoum you ooumsflc4 mo umnfisz Mo Honfizz mo nonfisz oumm “chum om .H meonuom>m How moumm uouum conflumofioo mom Mo COHuoouuoo OH OHQMB 66 findings having an adjusted PC error rate of g .05 will be considered to be significant. This method of adjusting the PC error rates is more conservative than using unadjusted PC error rates, but less rigid than holding the EW error rate at some specific level. It is thus quite useful in studies such as this (large studies, exploring new areas) where type II errors need to be particularly avoided. A weakness of this method is that one good predictor variable tested along with many nondiscriminating variables will tend to be discounted as due to chance fluctuations. A related strength of this method is that large studies are not proscribed as long as a sufficiently high proportion of the test results are highly significant. Study 1: Hypothesis 2 In addition to the DIS and SSI, all of the participants in study 1 also completed the Supervision Level Scale (SLS). The SLS measures how closely the supervision provided to a particular psychotherapist matches that supervisee's stage of development (the person/environment match or P/E match). As you may recall, developmental models assume that therapists pass through stages of development as they gain experience. Since therapists in different stages have different motivations, needs, and potential 67 resistances, they need a changing supervision environment as they gain experience. To be maximally effective, supervision must be appropriate to the stage of development of the therapist being supervised. It was thus hypothesized that more experienced supervisors would be found to provide a level of supervision more closely corresponding to the supervisee's stage of development than would less experienced supervisors. Stated in more exact terms this becomes Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2: Supervisors' experience regarding supervision is significantly related to how closely the supervision provided to a particular psychotherapist matches that supervisee's stage of development. Preliminary Analysis A preliminary analysis showed that there is no significant relationship (at an error rate per comparison of .05) between either supervisor gender or theoretical orientation and P/E match. There was also no significant interaction between gender and theoretical orientation. Table 11 gives the details of this analysis. Evaluation of Hypothesis 2 The experimental hypothesis was not confirmed. The three experience factors, as well as each individual item composing these factors, were not significantly 68 mam. oH. ma. m 44. xwm so mucosa oom. oo. om. m Ho.a xmm ooo. oH. ma. a ma. snooze om. son 64.5mm mHHmo ensues m M m2 mm— mm COflflwflHMNV HO OOHSOm .couuoucmuuo Hooaumuomne one xmm ma moses m\m no ¢>oza HH OHQMB 69 related to P/E match, either for all subjects or for .ABPP Diplomates, when the error rate per comparison was set at .05. Table 12 and Appendix N give the detailed results of these analyses. Study 2 Subjects The participants of Study 2 were 11 pairs of supervisors and beginning practicum-level psychotherapists from the MSU Counseling Center and the MSU Psychological Clinic. Table 13 summarizes some of the characteristics of these supervisors as revealed by their responses on the DIS. Table 14 summarizes their training in supervision. Reliability The 11 supervision tapes were scored by two raters working together. After the raters had completed 23 hours of training, and before rating any experimental tapes, they independently rated a "test tape". Their level of agreement in rating this tape was measured by Kappa (Cohen, 1960) which equals the proportion of judgements in which there is agreement, after chance agreement is excluded. Kappa is a conservative estimate of agreement as all disagreements are given equal weight. The mean Kappa between the two judges was .72, 70 Table 12 Correlation Matrix: Experience Factors by P/E Match P/E Match Factor All Subjects ABPP Diplomates Factor 1 .08 -.09 p = .163 p = .632 Factor 2 .07 .22 p = .235 p = .254 Factor 3 .01 -.17 p = .851 p_ = .409 71 Table 13 Summary of Major Demographic Variables for Study 2. Standard Variable Mean/Percentage Deviation Age 46 years 11 years Gender 55% male License Status 64% state licensed or certified ABPP Diplomates 27% Theoretical orientation - psychodynamic 46% — eclectic 27% - cognitive and/or behavioral 9% - other 18% Degree - Ph.D. 64% - Psy.D. 0% - Ed.D. 9% - M.A. 9% - M.S.W. 9% - BOAO/BOS. 9% Degree field - Clinical Psychology 36% - Counseling Psychology 27% - Psychology 27% - Social Work 9% Experience - As a Psychotherapist 17 years 10 years - As a supervisor \ 13 years 11 years Number of therapists supervised 59 121 Proportion of professional activity devoted to supervision 17% 18% 72 Table 14 Summary of Demographic Training Variables for Study 2. Mean hours of training (excluding those Percentage who who received no received this training of this type of training type) Formal supervision of supervision - individual 36% 36 hours - group 18% 33 hours - total 36% 53 hours Other formal training regarding supervision 0% 73 which represents an acceptable level of reliability for the system. Preliminary Analysis A preliminary analysis showed that there was no significant relationship (at an error rate per comparison of .05) between either supervisor gender or theoretical orientation and any of the dependent variables. There was also no significant interaction between gender and theoretical orientation for these variables. Evaluation of Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1: Supervisors' experience regarding supervision is significantly related to the proportion of different supervisor interventions when supervising beginning practicum-level psychotherapists. Table 15 lists the data and calculations that relate to the choice of an appropriate error rate for Study 2. It is clear from Table 15 that none of the results can be considered to be significant once the PC error rate is adjusted for the number of significance tests performed. This is not unexpected as a correlational analysis with only 11 subjects lacks sufficient power to significantly detect relationships between variables unless those relationships are much 74 swan ooo.H m mm.m wOH emo. v mmh. ooo.H H om.H moH NHo. W oumm coEMOMHmm mumoa canon ooooomxm coauouuom muom uouum cocoOHuHcon mqumom muouum mumoa uouum om 3m Mo Honfidz on» unonMHcon H ooze mucoOHuHcon you coumsncd no Honfisz mo Honesz mo Honfisz oumm Houum um m wosum you mouom Houum somHmefioo Mom mo coHuoouuoo MH OHQMB 75 stronger than what is usually found in the study of human behavior. Table 16 lists the correlations that were significant at an unadjusted PC error rate of .05 or less. As noted above, these results can not be considered to be significant; however, they do constitute trends in the data which might reach significance in an experiment having an adequate number of subjects. Table 16 76 Significant Correlations Between Experience Factors and Supervisory Interventions for Study 2. Variable A Variable B M m Informal Study Amount of Experience accept/use trainee's ideas accept/use trainee's ideas .72 .012 (.27-1.00)* .70 .024 (.21-1.00)* *95% confidence interval. DISCUSSION Study 1: Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 explored the question of whether supervisors' interpersonal style in supervision changes as they gain experience. Previous research has generally found that supervisors do not become more competent and change little in other ways as they gain experience (Worthington, 1987). This research has been limited, however, in that "experience" has always been defined either in terms of time (number of years of experience as a supervisor) or of status (degree level, licensure status, or student vs. faculty status). Hypothesis 1: Supervisors' experience regarding supervision is significantly related to their supervisory style when supervising interns. Study 1 examined several different variables related to supervisors' experience. A factor analysis of these variables yielded three dimensions of experience. Since Hypothesis 1 was confirmed for certain of these dimensions, but not for others, each will be discussed separately. 77 78 Amount of Experience The first aspect of experience to be discussed is Amount of Experience (number of years of experience as a supervisor, number of therapists supervised). For all supervisors, amount of experience was not significantly related to any aspect of supervisory style. However, for ABPP Diplomates there was a significant correlation of .55 between amount of experience and interpersonal sensitivity. It is therefore possible that experience causes this select group of supervisors to become more interpersonally sensitive. Due to the correlational, self-report, cross- sectional design of Study 1, many other interpretations of this result can not be ruled out, however. For example, more experienced supervisors, because of the era in which they were trained, may more highly value interpersonal sensitivity and thus may tend to describe themselves in this manner. Another possibility is that more interpersonally sensitive supervisors may succeed better at supervision, be more valued by their supervisees, enjoy supervision more, and thus tend to gain more experience. Several other such interpretations could be devised. It will require further research, of different design, to confirm that this group of supervisors does become more interpersonally sensitive as they gain in 79 experience and to identify what it is about this group that allows experience to have this effect. The finding that amount of experience is unrelated to supervisory style for all subjects is in accord with previous research, which has shown that supervisors generally do not become more competent, or change in other ways, as they gain experience (Worthington, 1987). It appears that more time spent supervising does not affect the supervisory style, competence, or other attributes of most supervisors. Why might this be so? We know that psychotherapists change and improve with experience (Worthington, 1987); and it is generally assumed in our culture that practice and effort in almost any endeavor will result in increased skill and ability. Why should the development of supervisory ability be any different? A major factor which can reduce or eliminate the effect of experience on skill development in many areas is lack of feedback, or inaccurate feedback. One possible explanation for these results is thus that supervisors may not generally get accurate feedback from their supervisees, especially concerning their mistakes and weaknesses as supervisors. Learning to become a psychotherapist is considered by many to be a very anxiety-producing task. Liddle (1986) has identified five potential sources of threat 80 and anxiety in supervision to which supervisees tend to respond with a variety of strategies designed to protect themselves. Foremost among these is the threat of a poor evaluation from their supervisor. This threat is quite real, at least for interns, and possibly for practicum students as well. Tedesco (1982) found, in a survey of internship programs, that 2% of all interns were prematurely terminated and that this step was considered for an additional 3%. Similarly Boxley, Drew, and Rangel (1986) found that two-thirds of APA-approved internship programs had had at least one "impaired" intern within the past five years, with a 4.6% annual impairment rate. The reasons given by training directors for these poor performances were primarily emotional: personality disorders (35%), depression (31%), emotional problems (31%), and marital concerns (27%). Lack of clinical skills or academic preparation was noted only 19% of the time. Two-thirds of these programs do not adequately describe the right of due process for interns prematurely terminated or deferred from continuing, and 86% lack any appeal procedure. Since a poor evaluation may, especially for interns, have a ". . . direct and powerful influence on their future professional livelihood" (Holloway & Roehlke, 1987, p. 225), it is not surprising that some supervisees adopt a variety of strategies to reduce the 81 threat of receiving a poor evaluation from their supervisor. Kadushin (1976), in his classic book regarding supervision, discussed in some detail the games that supervisees play to protect themselves. He defined a game as a series of interactions with hidden payoffs for both parties. The most effective games either tap into the supervisor's own needs, thus inducing the supervisor to play along (Kadushin, 1968; Kadushin, 1976) or present a front of apparent cooperation and involvement on the part of the supervisee (Dodge, 1982). Flattery is an example of a game possessing both of these qualities. Subtle flattery, at least to the extent of appearing to cooperate with the supervisor without being openly critical, may occur frequently in supervision and may keep most supervisors from hearing about their weaknesses and mistakes. In summary, a psychotherapist who is not doing a good job often has a client who does not improve; while a supervisor who is not doing a good job may often have a supervisee who feels highly motivated to make the supervisor think that supervision is proceeding quite well. The above explanation assumes that supervisors are dependent primarily upon their supervisees' feedback to know how well they are performing. How else might 82 supervisors evaluate their work? Three other major sources of evaluation seem clear: comparison with existing theories/descriptions of how to conduct supervision, comparison with descriptions of bad supervision, and evaluation of whether or not the supervisee is "developing" and changing in a proper direction and at a satisfactory rate. As will be discussed below, each of these methods is seriously flawed for most supervisors, leaving them prone to be highly influenced by their supervisees' feedback. The literature is almost completely devoid of descriptions of bad supervision (Worthington, 1987); and, until about 10 years ago, there were only few and scattered materials regarding how to supervise well (Hess, 1987). More materials have since become available, but our theories and descriptions of how to conduct supervision are still inadequate for many supervisors. Supervision theories that are specific to a single theoretical orientation vary widely in quality and usefulness. For example, several authors have devoted considerable time and effort to creating a theory of psychodynamic/psychoanalytic supervision, and supervisors of this orientation are often relatively satisfied with the material available to them. In contrast, supervisors of other orientations, especially 83 those of recent origin or with few adherents, may find little in the way of theory to help guide their supervision. Supervision theories which are based upon models of therapist development are not associated with any particular theoretical orientation, but are limited in other ways (Worthington, 1987). These theories have been developed only during the past 10 years and thus are not yet sufficiently detailed and complete to provide either a comprehensive theory of how to conduct supervision or of how to evaluate the development of a specific supervisee. Supervisors generally receive little training in how to conduct supervision (Hess & Hess, 1983; McColley & Baker, 1982; Stanton, Sanchez, & Klesges, 1981), and some researchers believe that the reason most supervisors do not change or improve with experience may be that they have not received sufficient supervision of their work as supervisors (Worthington, 1987). This position is supported by the finding that psychotherapists improve or change only with supervised experience and not with unsupervised experience (Hill, Charles, & Reed, 1981; Reising & Daniels, 1982; Wiley & Ray, 1986). Perhaps supervisors also need supervision in order to view their own work objectively or from a 84 different perspective and so to learn from their experience. Study 1 is the first to examine this variable and found that hours of formal supervision of supervision is not significantly related to supervisory style, nor is it significantly related to any other measured variable (interest in supervision, frequency of reading/study regarding supervision, frequency of consultation with other supervisors, etc.). Supervision of supervision may, of course, be related to some unmeasured aspect of the subjects' work as supervisors, however, such as techniques used, areas focused upon, etc. Another possible explanation for these results is that supervision of supervision may have been available for too short a period of time to have had much effect on the participants' interpersonal style as supervisors. Supervision of supervision is generally provided only during the internship (Hess & Hess, 1983) and may need to be extended for a longer period as supervisors gradually develop their skills. Also, the participants in Study 1 have a mean of 11 years of experience as supervisors; therefore, on average, any supervision of their work as supervisors occurred some time ago. The influence of that supervision may thus have been diluted by time and intervening experiences. 85 Lastly, it is possible that supervision of supervision, as practiced with this sample of supervisors, was simply not very effective. Supervision for supervisors has generally been neglected, both in the literature and in practice (Hess & Hess, 1983); and we presently know very little about how to aid a supervisor in becoming more effective. Informal Study The second aspect of supervisors' experience to be discussed is Informal Study (frequency of reading and study regarding supervision, frequency of informal consultation with other supervisors regarding supervisory issues). For all subjects, informal study was significantly related to interpersonal sensitivity (x = .26). It is therefore possible that informal study leads supervisors to become more interpersonally sensitive. This interpretation of the results seems reasonable as informal study is voluntary, carried on over the course of one's career, and implies that the supervisor is trying to improve his or her skills regarding supervision. of course, as previously mentioned, the design of this study means that several other interpretations of this result can not be ruled out. For example, supervisors who are more interpersonally sensitive may 86 more accurately perceive their lack of effectiveness in supervision and thus may engage in more informal study in an attempt to improve their performance. More research is clearly needed to investigate such alternative interpretations and to specify what specific aspects of informal study are helpful to supervisors at different stages of development. InterestxPerceived Effect of Experience The last aspect of supervisors' experience to be discussed is Interest/Perceived Effect of Experience (interest in supervision, perceived effect of psychotherapy experience on supervisory style, perceived effect of experience as a supervisor on supervisory style). For all participants, this factor (as well as each of its three components) was significantly related to both interpersonal sensitivity (3 = .34) and to attractiveness (x = .23). Supervisors who thought that their experience had greatly influenced their supervisory style described themselves as being both more interpersonally sensitive F(1,299) = 9.47, p = .002, and more attractive [(1,299) = 8.95, p = .003, when supervising interns. (Appendix 0 gives the means and standard deviations of SSI.IPS and SSI.A broken down by perceived effect of experience.) This indicates that experience may lead 87 supervisors to become more interpersonally sensitive and attractive. However, even for these supervisors, there was no significant relationship between amount of experience and supervisory style. It seems that amount of experience was unimportant even for those supervisors who reported that they had been highly influenced by it. Perhaps the effect of experience is dependent upon the supervisor's stage of development, with inexperienced supervisors being strongly influenced by their first experiences as supervisors. Another possibility is that there are "critical incidents" in a supervisor's experience, and it is these isolated incidents which influence supervisory style. Supervisors who were interested in supervision described themselves as being both more attractive and more interpersonally sensitive when supervising interns. It is unknown whether interest in supervision leads a supervisor to become more attractive and more interpersonally sensitive as a supervisor or whether supervisors with these traits tend to become more interested in supervision. For ABPP Diplomates, Interest/Perceived Effect of Experience was significantly related to both interpersonal sensitivity (x = .45) and to attractiveness (x = .63), as it was for all supervisors. 88 The reason why this factor was more strongly related to supervisory style for Diplomates is unknown. Limitations of Study 1 One limitation of this study concerns its generalizability. All subjects were psychologists supervising in agencies having APA-approved internship training programs who were willing to fill out and return the questionnaires. There are thus at least three potential problems in generalizing the results. First, since willingness to complete the materials may be related to one's characteristics as a supervisor, these results may not accurately represent the 48% of supervisors who declined to participate in the study. Second, since profession (psychiatry, social work, etc.) may be related to one's characteristics as a supervisor, these results can only be generalized to other professions with a good deal of caution. Lastly, agencies with APA-approved internship programs are usually interested in training and professional excellence; they may thus tend to seek out and to attract well—trained psychologists who are interested in training and supervision. The results of Study 1 may thus not be entirely characteristic of supervision as practiced in agencies without such training programs. 89 In addition, Hess and Hess (1983), in a survey of the same agencies sampled by Study 1, found that highly experienced clinicians are underrepresented as supervisors, indicating to them that the more experienced clinicians may be working in private practice or in administration and/or that there may be a great many inexperienced clinicians available due to the growth of Ph.D. graduates reported by Korchin (1976). Highly experienced supervisors may thus be underrepresented by these results. A restriction in the range of supervisor experience would also tend to reduce the size of the correlations between supervisor experience and supervisory style. A second potential limitation involves the use of self-report measures. Subjects described their supervisory style, and these descriptions are subject to the inaccuracy associated with self-perception. This type of inaccuracy is often, but not always, caused by subjects' desire to perceive and/or to represent themselves in a favorable light. The SSI minimizes the possibility of this type of distortion since 24 of its 25 scored items are not significantly related to social desirability (Friedlander & Ward, 1984). A third limitation is that Study 1 is subject to the problems encountered whenever a cross-sectional design is used to study a developmental phenomenon. 90 What appears to be change over time may actually represent differences in subpopulations. A longitudinal study, in contrast, could assess change in supervision as the same group of supervisors gains experience. Finally, a correlational design shows the relationship between variables but can not prove causality. Study 1 thus can not show that experience causes change in supervisory style, but only that the two variables are related. Next Steps for Research in this Area The measurement of experience in research investigating changes in supervision as supervisors gain experience must move beyond the definitions that have been used in the past to include other aspects of supervisors' experience. While Study 1 has identified some variables and dimensions of supervisor experience which are related to supervisory style, we do not yet know what other important variables and dimensions of experience there may be. The SSI focuses on the interpersonal and relationship aspects of supervision. While these are clearly very important, other aspects of supervisors' functioning (such as focus/goals of supervision, techniques used, etc.) remain largely unexplored. 91 Since it now seems likely that supervisory style changes as supervisors gain certain types of experience, the question arises of whether these supervisors are also becoming more competent. We need to study how a variety of experience measures are related to supervisor performance. Lastly, the results concerning ABPP Diplomates show that we may learn much by studying selected subgroups of supervisors. Are Diplomates exceptionally competent supervisors; and, if so, how did they achieve this? Study 1: Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 explored the question of whether experienced supervisors provide a supervision environment more congruent with a supervisee's stage of development than do inexperienced supervisors. No published studies have as yet addressed this issue. The Supervision Level Scale (SLS) (Wiley & Ray, 1986) was used to measure the congruence of supervisee developmental level with the supervision environment provided to that supervisee. In the first part of the SL8, the supervisor described a specific supervisee using a 7-point Likert—type scale and 20 items representing Stoltenberg's (1981) four levels of therapist development. These items are scored so as to place that supervisee in one of Stoltenberg's four 92 levels of therapist development (Level 1, 2, 3, or 4). In the second part of the SLS, the supervisor described the supervision that had been provided to that supervisee using 20 items describing the ideal environments for therapists at each level. These items are scored so as to classify the supervision provided as being most appropriate to a therapist in one of Stoltenberg's 4 levels of therapist development (Level 1, 2, 3, or 4). Congruency of therapist and supervision environment was then determined by subtracting the environment level from the therapist level and taking the absolute value. Four scores were thus possible (0, 1, 2, 3) with a score of 0 representing the highest congruency. This final score was named the person/environment match or P/E Match. Hypothesis 2: Supervisors' experience regarding supervision is significantly related to how closely the supervision provided to a particular psychotherapist matches that supervisee's stage of development. The hypothesis was not confirmed. The three experience factors, as well as each individual item composing these factors, were not significantly related to P/E match, either for all subjects or for ABPP Diplomates. In addition, P/E match was not 93 significantly related to supervisor gender, theoretical orientation, or any other measured variable. This result may indicate that, contrary to Stoltenberg's (1981) theory, congruence of supervision environment with supervisee's developmental level is relatively unimportant for effective supervision. As you may recall, Stoltenberg assumed that the characteristics of the supervision provided must be appropriate to the characteristics (developmental level) of the supervisee for supervision to be most effective. This interpretation is supported by Wiley and Ray's (1986) finding that P/E match is not significantly related to either supervisors' or supervisees' ratings of satisfaction with supervision. On the other hand, it is possible that Stoltenberg's (1981) Counselor Complexity Model contains large errors regarding either the levels of therapist development and/or the ideal supervisory environments postulated for therapists at each level. The SLS is so closely derived from Stoltenberg's theory that such theoretical errors could make it appear that the congruency of supervision environment with supervisees' developmental level is unimportant for effective supervision. 94 Next Steps for Research in this Area It would be useful to operationalize both supervisee developmental level and the level of the supervision environment in a way which is not dependent upon the detailed accuracy of Stoltenberg's (1981) Counselor Complexity Model. In addition, several different aspects of supervisor experience should be measured whenever this variable is of interest. Study 2 Study 2 explored the question of whether supervisor experience is related to supervisors' actual behavior in supervision. No published studies have as yet addressed this issue. Hypothesis 1: Supervisors' experience regarding supervision is significantly related to the proportion of different supervisor interventions when supervising beginning practicum-level psychotherapists. The hypothesis was not confirmed. Table 16 shows that none of the results can be considered to be significant once the error rate per comparison is adjusted for the number of significance tests performed. This result is not unexpected as Study 2 has too few subjects (m = 11) to significantly detect relationships between variables unless those relationships are much 95 stronger than what is usually found in the study of human behavior. One trend of interest is that both of the correlations significant at an unadjusted error rate per comparison of g .05 were between experience factors and the proportion of supervisor statements which fall into the category of accepting and/or using the supervisee's preceeding idea. The proportion of supervisor statements falling into this category may thus be particularly prone to increase as supervisors gain experience. Next Steps for Research in this Area Research investigating the effects of supervisor experience must eventually move beyond the use of self- report measures and analogue studies to examine the actual behavior of supervisors engaged in supervision. 96 APPENDICES NOTE: 97 APPENDIX A Expected Counselor Characteristics and Appropriate Environments Taken from "Approaching Supervision from a Developmental Perspective: The Counselor Complexity Model", by C. Stoltenberg, 1981, Journal of Counselin Ps cholo , 28(1), p. 60. Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission; 98 Expected Counselor Characteristics and Appropriate Environments Counselor Counselor Optimal level characteristics environments 1 Dependent on supervisor Encourage autonomy Imitative, neurosis bound, lacking self- awareness and other awareness, categorical thinking with knowledge of theories and skills, but minimal experience Dependency-autonomy confl1ct Increasing self- awareness, fluctuating motivation, striving for independence, becoming more self- assertive and less imitative Conditional dependency Personal counselor identity is developing with increased insight, more consistent motivation, increased empathy, and more differentiated interpersonal orientation within normative structure. Supervisor uses instruction, interpretation, support, awareness, training, and exemplification; structure is needed Highly autonomous with low normative structure. Supervisor uses support, ambivalence clarification, exemplification, and less instruction; less structure is necessary Autonomous with structure provided by the counselor. Supervisor treats counselor more as a peer with more sharing, mutual exemplification, and confrontation 99 Counselor Counselor Optimal level characteristics environments 4 Master counselor Counselor can Adequate self— and others function awareness, insightful adequately in of own strengths and most weaknesses, willfully environments. interdependent with Supervision now others, and has becomes collegial integrated standards of if continued the profession with personal counselor identity 100 APPENDIX B Demographic Information Sheet (DIS) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 101 " L’c Information Sheet Age Sex Highest degree attained Field Yea Institution State certified or licensed? yes no Field ABPP diplomate? yes no Which of the following best describes your theoretical orientation to therapy? psychodynamic behavioral cognitive humanistic eclectic other (please specify ) Do you ever use a theoretical orientation other than the one you checked in question 5? yes no Number of years of experience as a therapist. years of predoctoral experience years of postdoctoral experience Number of years supervising individuals 0 " o r , L L r,/counseling cases. years of predoctoral experience years of postdoctoral experience Approximate number of supervisees you have individually supervised at each of the following training levels beginning practicum advanced practicum intern postdoctoral other (please specify ) Interest in supervision (circle appropriate number). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very low moderate very high What percentage of your current work is devoted to: conducting individual supervision conducting group supervision Z If the task of supervision were not required by your position, would you continue to include it in your professional activities7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 definitely undecided definitely no yes (PLEASE CONTINUE ON OTHER SIDE) 102 How much has your own personal experience as a therapist influenced your l3. practice when supervising individuals? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no moderate very great effect effect effect 14. Have you ever received any formal supervision of your work supervising individuals? yes no 14a. If yes, approximately how many hours of this type of supervision did you receive? individual supervision of supervision group supervision of supervision 14b. If yes. how much has this supervision influenced your practice when supervising individuals? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no moderate very great effect effect effect 15. Have you ever received any other formal training in J “ O individual no supervision? yes If yes, please note the type and approximate number of hours of such 15a. training below. seminars classes other (please specify ) 15b. If yes, how much has this other formal training influenced your practice when supervising individuals? 1 2 3 4 5 6 no moderate very great effect effect effect To what extent have you engaged in informal study/consultation regarding 16. your work supervising individuals? never seldom monthly weekly reading/study ..... . l 2 5 7 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 consultation with .. other supervisors 16a. How much has this informal study/consultation influenced your practice when supervising individuals? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no moderate very great effect effect effect How much has your own personal experience as an individual supervisor 17. influenced your practice when supervising individuals? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 no moderate very great effect effect effect 103 APPENDIX C Supervision Level Scale 104 SUPERVISION LEVEL SCALE Please choose a specific supervisee to describe below. The following items are to be rated on a scale from 1 to 7 in response to the stem "My supervisee..." Please respond keeping ONLY the supervisee chosen in mind. 1 2 3 4 5 O 7 Absolutely Usually or Ian untrue A mix of lore Inn Usually or Absolutely untrue for the most than true both or than untrue the most we pert untrue can't decide pert true Supervisee's training level (choose one): beginning practicum advanced practicum intern postdoctoral MY SUPERVISEE . has a consistent and firm sense of confidence about his/her counseling skills even when challenged by clients. supervisors. and colleagues. usually has a firm sense of confidence about his/her counseling skills. although he/she is shaken when challenged by clients. supervisors. and/or colleagues. _e .'° (0 . is inconsistently aware of his/her strengths. weaknesses. motivations. neurotic needs. etc. and their impact on clients. . nearly always looks to others for ideas about how helshe should behave as a counselor. 01b . is consistently aware of his/her strengths. weaknesses. motivations. neurotic needs. etc. and is able to use them as resources during counseling sessions. 0) . usually lacks confidence in present counseling skills and is overwhelmed by own weaknesses. . clearly understands a broad range of limitations of counseling. including the limits of counseling as a treatment per se. and has essentially completed integrating this knowledge into a firm sense of professional identity. \I (D . is clearly aware of a broad range of limitations of counseling. including the limits of counseling as a treatment per se. and is struggling to integrate this with his/her sense of self as a professional. to . has very little awareness of his/her strengths. weaknesses. motivations. neurotic needs. etc. and their impact on clients. 10. is developing an inner sense of self as a counselor but frequently looks to others for ideas about how he/she should behave as a counselor. 11. is prone to readily identify with a theoretical school or individual practitioner without thorough consideration. 1 2. has essentially completed his/her sense of self as a counselor and integrated it with his/her sense of self as a person. 13. sees counseling as a very powerful instrument but is becoming vaguely aware and uneasy about a few limitations of counseling. such as the inappropriateness of counseling for some clients and/or problems. 14. has a well developed sense of self as a counselor. but is only beginning to integrate it with his/her sense of self as a person. 15. is consistently aware of his/her strengths, weaknesses. motivations. neurotic needs. etc. and their impact on clients. but is only beginning to develop the capacity to use them as resources during the counseling session. _16. tends to regard counseling as all-powerful. _17. views clients from a variety of rather thoroughly examined perspectives and is testing out the goodness of fit of an internalized theoretical framework. 18. is committed to a theoretical framework or composite which is internalized. integrated with his/her counseling behavior. and can be articulated. 19. characteristically fluctuates between feeling confident and feeling very inadequate about present counseling skills. _20. is beginning to view clients from a variety of perspectives and is becoming aware of a need to develop an internalized theoretical framework. _21. is enjoyable to work with. (PLEASE CONTINUE ON OTHER SIDE) 105 The following items are to be rated on a scale from 1 to 7 in response to the stem "In our supervision sessions..." Please respond keeping ONLY supervision sessions with the same supervisee just described in mind. 1 2 3 4 5 O 7 Abeolutely Ueuelly or lore untrue A mix of More true Ueuelly or Abeolutely untrue for the amt the true both or then untrue fer the meet true pert untrue een't decide pert true IN OUR SUPERVISION SESSIONS: . my role is that of a mentor dealing with resolution of the personal and professional dilemmas of my supervisee. and an instructor on rare occasions. _a _ 2. I focus on establishing my supervisee‘s sense of confidence and dealing with the feelings sur- rounding the development ol a professional style and/or identity. to . I focus on my supervisee's applying skills and techniques learned in a classroom to a counseling situation. A . my role is moving away from that of a directive instructor. encouraging my supervisee to try out and expand the skills he/she has already developed. _ 5. I am merging confrontative behaviors with a primarily supportive style. _ 6. i use relatively equal amounts of support and confrontation. _ 7. i help my supervisee deal with the feelings involved in integrating and consolidating his/her already developed personal and professional identities. __ 8. I most often serve as a directive instructor and model. providing readings. examples. oppor- tunities for observation. and didactic instruction. _ 9. lfocus heavily on helping my supervisee to clarify and deal with his/her inner feelings and/or am- bivalence toward both clients and me. ___10. my supervisee is essentially a fully independent professional. _a _a . developing my supervisee's basic skills in strategizing and independent decision making is one of my major objectives. 12. my supervisee is almost always dependent on me for structure. advice. direction. and rules. _13. my supervisee is unaware of many of the feelings he/she has in counseling and supervision and l focus on raising his/her awareness of them. 14. my supervisee is almost always completely independent. but on rare occasions such as emergencies he/she falls back into dependence on me. _15. the much subtler aspects of counseling such as timing and orchestrating receive much attention. _16. my supervisee consistently fluctuates between being dependent on and independent of me. 17. l serve primarily as a collegial consultant. 18. my supervisee is unable to handle much confrontation. hence I draw almost solely on Supportive behaviors. _19. I emphasize my supervisee's conceptualization of cases in relation to each other. __20. there is rarely a need for me to support or confront my supervisee. _21. I sense that my supervisee and l have a good working relationship. 106 APPENDIX D Supervision Level Scale Scoring Sheet SUPERVISION LEVEL SCALE SCORING SHEET 107 SURVEY CODE NUMBER Supervieee Level Row A Degree of Confidence in Present Counseling Skill 6. InSight about Impact on Clients 9. Row C Approach to a Theoretical Framework Row D Sense of Professorial identity 4 Row E Awareness of Limitations of COunseling 16 20 F-Level 2* — Scars Supervision Environment Level Row A Rove of Superwsor 8 Row B Affective Focus of Superwsion 13 ow C Cognitive/Skills FOCUS of SuperViSion Row D Dependency in Supervrsmn 12. Row E Role of Suppon and Confrontation 18 E-Level 21 Sums PIE MATCH (P Level Predominant P Level FJVJ - E Level) = I l l J Predominant E Level 108 APPENDIX E Elaboration of the Counselor Complexity Model: Supervisee Levels and Optimal Supervision Environments NOTE: Taken from "Counseling Supervision by Developmental Level", by M. O. Wiley and P. Ray, 1986, Journal of Counseling Psychology, ;;(4), p. 441-442. Copyright 1986 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission. 109 5285.0: b... 8: 0:— .:o=:_008< 30329.08: :u0t05< 0.: 3 :3— : 5:300 .8 .0 .mm . . SS 5.35.36 .0 .3 L202 bio—9:00 0285.00 2E. ”02.00.35. _S:0E:o_o>0n 0 50....— :o_m_>._0:=m 920:2: 20:0 ma— :=85..0U :0 _uann . so: as... :8: 2:. as 2 85.82 :3 "0.82 Amy .9503 _528305 :0 8:8 Etc : 25 0500—305. :5 5:050. 5 00.03500 3.55880 an: 0:: .8 :0: 50:500.: 0 w: m:=8:=00 :0 8:5: 05 m:=020:_ $585.00 :0 8:05:25: :0 0&5: :02: a 5:08.005. 3.30.0 Amy :80: 0 a: =8 :0 8:8 350...: £5 : 02:50.5 0:: :28550 a n: _8 :0 8:8 .252 030— _.:00 55:83 as: 08:: 0?: 3 :00 E: act's—0: 2:358 .22.. 55 030.525 6050:0005 3 £023 0:80... -500 :0 0203050.: _8_ $2005 0 8 08.5500 n— @ 8:288 m:=8::oo ME -56 800580: a: 505 8: o. 030 n_ 0:: .80 £000: 0:050: £:0=:>:cE 88805—003 £5208 :0.— E: :0 8:3: 5:028:00 n— 6 388:8 0:: 683.008 £30=0 3 vows—.50 5:3 :26 8:07. 5:85.00 0058:— 50:: 00:03:00 :0 8:8 5:: 0:: E83500 : nu: 1:280:05 a m: =8 :0 8:8 :0 2 .53 8:: 20.335 0. c: .58 z 0:: .8 :0: 505.08. a m: w:=8:=00 co 55:: 0.: 5:505 £58500 :0 50:05:: 0 once 000.5 a :0 2:3: too—0 n— 6 :80: a m: =8 :0 8:8 0058:. 55 a 0.2» .25 0. 55:33 12:0 5 :5 £285.00 2 :8 :0 8:8 mono—9'0... :03 e as: 5 {03058: $050.50.: cod—050.5 :0 0 E ._o 80:30» 05 50 583 5 0:: 803.0080: 005583 A2955... cos—E mo 30.: .:> a 58.. 55:0 53> 8:288 5:8 -580 2: :56 800.58 -0: ma E2: 8: 0. $0058 05 @230: 0. :55» 3:0 5 :5 £533 :0 an“ -E_ :05 0:0 .20 £000: 0:050: £55552: £835.00? £552.». :0; 2: :0 8:30 5:88:00 8— 8.0an— -_00 320:: 583008 55:0 .3 pogo—.20 :05; .5me 50:: 00:03:00 :0 8:8 5:: a 0.5. 3.08: 850— 03 8%:- 35:0 058 com :_ 8:000 co 80: .85.. 0:: :5 05 n: :08 65.8550 :0 20:55: 30.. 0 E u #00:: 0:0 8030 be a> m5: e :5 E05585 5E0? b2, 0 m: w:=8:=8 80m @ 028560 30: been: 8002 00.. E050 0. 5.00— 35259: :5 :8 -8560 a no _8 :0 8:8 :0::_ :0 5:20.30 8— Amy 0203050.: 1052005 pond—«ESE :0 0230—0 0. 000: a :0 2:30 55:000.“ mm :5. 80>: .0080: :0 but: a 50:: 3:0:0 33> o. 5:533 "— 6 50:0 :0 80:5 .505 0:0 .30 £000: 0:050: £:oa:>uoE £88053? £59.28 00:}: ._o 80: -2030 :_ 50:88:85 m— 6 8:38 5:85.00 580:: 50:: 8:200:05 b0> 5:00.. 0:: 500::00 w:=0£ 5050: 80.05 0:: 388130530 Amy _=t030:-=0 a: w:_ 185.00 Howe 3 3:3. Amy .8—8550 0 a: 30:0: 2:05 0.30: 30: 50:: 0.00 :8 £050 0. 8.00— 8 E2: 2:002 as sea. -228 5:82: :85? 0:05:08: 1:03:05 .6 30:8 $050.80.: a 5:» >552 $000: 2 0:8: n— Amv 35:0 :0 0000:: :05 0:: .80 £000: 0:0: -00: £50550:— £800: -3003 £550.58 00:2: :0 80:29.: 05: b3 an: a 88805—003 :30 .3 “BE—0:205 fl :0 was.” 9:85.00 E80: 5 00:02.58 £00. 30st 9:85:00 :0 5:55: :0 80:803< been: _Eomnnouoa a :0 85¢ 0103050.: W00 58005 0 0. £008: < 3:0:0 :0 .0055 Son: 258:— =Iu 5:85:00 E82: 5 00:00::00 :0 09—mon— v m N ego—AG _0>0_ 005E005 bowocao m_0>0\~ 08:30.5 ”—0.00: 5503500 :28500 05 :0 50:80:05 :< 110 50.8050: x: 08D .0 .30. .93:0:0:m .0 .3 L000: bio—5:00 3.85.00 0::. ”05.. 5000.083. 3030.058:— :00.:0::< 0:: h: :3. $55300 .8 d .mN . £0...— .:::0E..0.0>0D 0 50:..— :0.n_>:0::w 52009:: <- 0.0:0 mm 5.8::00 :0 .0500». so: :95 :8: 2E: a: a 3:052 :00 ":82 08? L058 58.500 :0 :05...» 0: 000: : .280: a. 0:0:.—. 6. :56.» 80:05. 50050005 x 0.. 0 2.0.5800 n. 08?: am 5.50:: :05: 9:00 -0: 50:80:80 0:: w5 -E: n: :08 5:85.00 ..0 3008: :038 :05: 0:... 3.5500: 1:580:05. 0:: .5022. 0000.300 >000: .1 :20: 5.33:8 0:: 50:50.5 5 0030.5. n:58: 5:3 :30 8» 532.8 a .0: :8.>:0:=w Aw: ::0:.8:00 .050. 00 : 3:055: a. :8.>:L=m v 5:050:53 0:: :0: 8 :0 35.05: .500 20:50.»: m8: :8.>:0..=w Am. :8.>:0..8 :0 00:00:0000 0:5 :00: 8:0: 0:30: 80.055050 n: :08 50.00000 0::: :0 5: 3:00 09.00:. 30.0.0500 0:03 -.0 805.0 m. 08.>:0..=w :050 :000 0: 5:50: 5 8800 :0 :00 -05—05:00:00 8.08:5... - 8 00585050 :8_>:0:=w 8: 0:52 80.: 2.8 3:580:05. 0 :0 ::0..: -:.0.0>00 0:: 5.05058 55:8: 2:. 55 05:30 0:: 00:00. :00 :0 8:8 0.8.3: 8 5.8. :5 -00 :0 88:00.. :83: am a: 50.80000 0::: :0 8:008 .5 :0 0:0 68.3508 :0 “0550.0 1:580:05. 0:: .::8:0: 0:. :0 :55. -80: :53 5:00.: 5.55 :0 .05 m. 0.9: 018.3003 0.5.: 05:05.8 3.555. :53 w:0.>::0: 053:8: :00 0590:: :8.>:0:=w Am. »=:88_m:00 :8.>:0:8 ..0 5052.005 0:: 5005000 :50: :003: -0: 3.0300: 08.2095 330030 :0_.:E 0:. :0 0:0 8. 050.05 :0.n.000 ::00:0a.005 0:: 53:80.8 5 8:0.» 0.0:: 8.08.an8 w5:0.0>0D 8. 58.3008 0:: 3:0..0 50: 0:030: 00:2: ->.:::: 80:: 35.00.: :0: -5 :53 .000 0 310.0 0. 8.3008 50.0: :0 .2. $00: 8:00.. :8.>:R.=m a. 330%.. 38:. 8:0.“ 0:: 0:: :0 0:: :00 .0: 0: 83:88 550500 -:0 £500.85 05:00.: -.0 0 :0 :05 50:: :33: w:. $05 8. 0.0: 018.2096 8. 0:00:50: 05:05.8 :0 .20—8 805.: 830:0 :8.>:0..8 00:0: 60.: 0:55:00 :85 20:0: 0: 0505: :. 005E056 a: Ea 2.. £80050 .0030: .05: -008 :0: 500:0:00 0:03 .0 805.: 0.. 08.3655 8. 5:02: 0:: .8550 0 0:=:.:::088:.0 0 5 00500. :0 5:00. 0:: 5.0.8 05:25:: 0.08.30: -8 :0 88:00.. :8.>:2.:m Am. 50:: -.0 80: -8030 w5m.:: :0 88:00.. :8.>:0..8 0:: :0_n.>:0..8 0:: 5:85:00 5 n 08 \0: $5.00.: 0:: :0 :05 :0 20305: 8. 08.3603 :0 5:: -0085 00000.0 0:: £00 -:>:8:0 :0: 80:50:05.0 £03505 £5.03: w50_> -05. ..000:: 0:: 05:00.8 -:. 02:00.50 0 :: 3E8 :0...0 80:: :8_>:0..=m 50050:: -:00 0:0 95:08 :0 0.3— :0.» -308 5 5:005:09 5.8.89.8 :0 500.. 5.0335500 :58? L008 :0 8:00.. 02:08.2 :8.>:0a8 :0 0.3— v m N 93073 5055550 :0.m.>:0:=m 3:09:00 3:055:35. :0.m.>:0::m ”.0002 5.5.0500 8.85.00 0:: :0 8:60:05 :< 111 APPENDIX F Supervisory Styles Inventory, and Supervisory Styles Inventory Scoring Sheet 112 Supervisory Styles Inventory Please indicate your perception of your style as a supervisor when individually supervising interns regarding their psychotherapy/counseling cases. or ach of the following descriptors, circle the number on the scale, from 1 to 7, which best reflects your view of yourself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 nut very very 1. goal-oriented 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. perceptive l 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. concrete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. explicit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S. committed l 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. affirming 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. practical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. sensitive I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. collaborative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. intuitive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 reflective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12 responsive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 structured l 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 evaluative ] 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 friendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 flexible I 2 3 4 5 6 7 l7. prescriptive l 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. didactic l 2 3 4 5 6 7 l9. thorough l 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. focused l 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. creative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. supportive l 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. open 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. realistic l 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. resourceful l 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. invested l 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. facilitative l 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. therapeutic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. positive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. trusting 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 3]. informative l 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. humorous l 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. warm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 113 SUPERVISORY STYLES INVENTORY SCORING SHEET SURVEY CODE NUMBER FACTORS Interpersonally Attractive Sensitive Task Oriented 15. 2. l. 16. 5. 3. 22. 10. 4. 23. 11. 7. 29. 21. 13. 30. 25. 14. 33. 26. 17. /7 28. 18. /8 19. 20. /10 A- IPS= To— 114 APPENDIX G Letter to Chief Psychologist/Psychology Directors, Response Form, and Follow-up Letter 115 We are writing to solicit the participation of your agency in a research project being undertaken in the area of psychotherapy/counseling supervision. research investigates the developmental process that supervisors go through as they mature, for the purpose of enabling our profession to effectively support, advise, and train supervisors. We are asking your permission to contact the supervisors in your agency. Your consent only allows us to contact your staff. It does not obligate them to participate in this research project. If you consent, we will individually contact supervisors by letter to solicit their participation. A response postcard will be enclosed with which each may agree to participate, decline to participate, or ask for more information. Also enclosed will be a demographic information sheet and two instruments which measure supervisory style. These questionnaires take about 30 minutes to complete. To assure the anonymity of your staff and agency, the response postcard will be returned separately from the other materials. There will be no identifying names or numbers on the demographic information sheet or on the instruments. All responses and results will be treated with strict confidence. Please use the enclosed response form and return envelope to give us your decision. If you consent, we also ask that you attach a list of the names and addresses (if different from the agency address) of all psychologists who are currently supervising practicum students, interns, or postdoctoral therapists on an individual basis in your agency. If you would like more information before deciding, note this on the response form, return it, and you will be contacted by phone. You will receive an abstract of the results, if desired, even if your agency does not participate in this research. We thank you for your time and interest in considering our request. It would be most helpful if you could return the response form Sincerely, Douglas Mark Hardy, M.A. Norman Abeles, Ph.D. Graduate Student in Professor Clinical Psychology 116 Chief Psychologist/Psychology Director Response Form Name (please print) Would you like an abstract of the results of this research? 1. yes no 2. Please check one I permit you to contact psychology supervisors working in our agency to request their participation in your research project. I would like more information before making a decision. Please contact me. Our participation in this research project is not possible at this time. 3. If you have agreed, please list or attach a list of the names and addresses (if different from the agency address) of all psychologists who are currently supervising practicum students, interns, or postdoctoral therapists on an individual basis in your agency. Name Mailing address (attach additional sheets if necessary) 117 We recently sent you a letter and response form regarding our research project investigating the developmental process that supervisors go through as they mature. We have not yet heard from you. In case you have misplaced the original materials, copies are enclosed. Please return the enclosed response form to us before December 7 so that we can proceed with our project. If you have already mailed your response form, you may disregard this notice. Sincerely, Douglas Mark Hardy, M.A. Graduate Student in Clinical Psychology Norman Abeles, Ph.D. Professor 118 APPENDIX H Letter to Supervisors, Response Postcard, and Follow-up Letter 119 We are writing to solicit your participation in a research project being undertaken in the area of psychotherapy/counseling supervision. This research investigates the developmental process that supervisors go through as they mature, for the purpose of enabling our profession to effectively support, advise, and train supervisors. Enclosed are: A response postcard. A demographic information sheet. Two instruments which measure both general and specific supervisory style. A return envelope. These materials take about 30 minutes to complete and will stimulate you to think about your supervisory style as well as your attitudes toward supervision. To assure your anonymity, the response postcard will be returned separately from the other materials. There will be no identifying names or numbers on the demographic information sheet or on the instruments. All responses and results will be treated with strict confidence. Your participation is voluntary. You may decline to participate or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty. Your return of the completed materials constitutes your informed consent to participate in this research. If you wish to particinate, check the appropriate line on the response postcard and mail the card to us, under separate cover, at the same time as you return the completed materials. The instruments are self-explanatory or have directions attached. Please feel free to contact Mark Hardy at 517-487-5231 (collect) if you have any questions. If you would like more information, check the appropriate line on the response postcard, return it, and you will be contacted by phone. If you do not wish to participate, or if you have never provided supervision to individuals, check the appropriate line on the response postcard and return it. Discard the other materials. You will receive an abstract of the results, if requested, even if you do not participate in this research. We thank you for your time and interest in considering our request. It would be most helpful if you could return the postcard and materials by March 28, Sincerely, Douglas Mark Hardy. M.A. norm’an Abeles, Ph.D. Graduate Student in Professor Clinical Psychology 120 Name (please print) 1. Would you like an abstract of the results of this research? yes no 2. Please check one. Thank you! I agree to participate in this research and am mailing the completed materials to you under separate cover. I would like more information before making a decision. Please contact me. I have never provided psychotherapy/counseling supervision to individuals ans so can not participate. . I am not able to participate in this research at this time. 121 We recently sent you a letter, three instruments, and a response postcard soliciting your participation in our research project, which investigates the developmental process that supervisors go through as theym tur e. We have not yet heard from you. In case you have misplaced the aoriginal materials, copies are enclosed. Please return the instruments and/or response postcard to us by April 18 0 that we can proceed with our project. If you have already mailed your materials, you may disregard this notice. Sincerely, Douglas Mark Hardy, M.A. Norman Abeles, Ph.D. Graduate Student in Professor Clinical Psychology 122 APPENDIX I Elaboration of Blumberg's Categories PLEASE NOTE: Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library. These consist of pages: 123—127 U-M-I 123 Elaboration of Blumberg's Categories Supervisor Categories: 1. Support Inducing Communication A. B. D. Encouragement (e.g. good, fine, OK, continue, I'm interested) Acceptance and/or clarification of feelings or emotional attitude (e.g. bored, excited, pleased) in a nonthreatening way. May refer to a feeling in the immediate encounter, as a recollection or as a prediction. May be stated as a reflection or as a inquiry. RULE: THE SUPERVISOR MUST LITERALLY NAME OR OTHERWISE DESIGNATE (e.g. pronoun) THE FEELING FOR IT TO BE CODED l. Self-disclosure of a feeling or attitude or an event of a personal nature in order to promote the relationship. Tension-releasing behavior (e.g. laughter, playful satire, joke, humor in general). was A. Direct statement of praise for trainee action, thought, or behavior. Genuine praise is distinguished from superficial verbal habits (e.g. um hm, right, etc. as they occur while the trainee is speaking or as a perfunctory comment at the beginning of a statement) the latter are NOT scored. Generally genuine praise takes longer and will demand more than one code i.e. 2,2, etc. A rule of thumb is the supervisor will include an extension of the praise which explains what the trainee did well, e.g. . . . because. . . 124 Accents or Uses Trainee's Ideas A. Acknowledging or clarifying trainee's ideas by repeating the nouns and logical connectives just expressed. B. Modifying the idea, rephrasing it, or conceptualizing it in the supervisor's own words. C. Applying the idea, using it to reach an inference or taking the next step in a logical analysis of a problem. D. Comparing the idea, drawing a parallel between the trainee's idea and another idea which may or may not be the trainee's idea. E. Summarizing several ideas the trainee has presented. These forms of accepting and using the trainee's ideas may take the form of questions i.e. a supervisor's question based on a trainee's idea. Problems arise in determining when the supervisor stops using the trainee's idea and begins to introduce his/her own ideas i.e. distinguishing between categories 3 and 5, 8 and 9. A criterion to use is if you think that the trainee could no longer recognize the idea as the one they presented then score as 5, 8, or 9. You therefore may begin to score 3,3,3, and then shift to 8,8, as the supervisor begins to present his/her own ideas. Asks for Information A. Factual not concerned with opinion or suggestions. B. Asks for clarification of content or procedure, with the intent that the trainee respond. Therefore this would NOT include rhetorical questions or questions which serve to criticize (e.g. Do you really want to approach it that way? Category 10). 125 C. May not take the form of a grammatical question statement and still be coded as 4, (e.g. Pardon?) A common informational question in the exp'tal data is inquiring about the content of the videotaped counseling session (e.g. Did she say that she was angry with her boyfriend in the tape?) Gives Information A. Factual not concerned with opinions or suggestions. B. Gives clarification about content of supervision session, or client videotape or a particular procedure to be followed (e.g. you are expected to see the client next seek since she has been referred to you). Asks for Opinions A. Asks the trainee to analyze or evaluate something that has occurred, is occurring or may occur in the counseling session, the client videotape or the supervision interaction. B. Includes general reference to "feelings or attitudes" i. e. speculation of how the trainee might feel in a particular situation or how they felt in a particular situation. Note: if the supervisor then refers to a specific feeling after the general reference the interchange is coded 6, 1. Asks for Suggestions A. Action orientation past, present or future. Supervisor asks the trainee to think about ways of doing things or ways of doing things differently in the counseling situation or in the supervision interaction. B. Asks how the supervisor and trainee might work together. C. Supervisor role-playing as the client is asking the trainee to suggest a response i. e. this is a implicit suggestion. 8. 126 Gives Opinions A. Supervisor evaluates or analyzes a situation in the counseling session or the supervision interaction that did, is or may occur. Difficulty arises in shifting between 3 and 8, or between 3 and 6. i. e. the supervisor may start with the trainee' 5 ideas and then shift to injecting his/her own ideas while building on the trainee's ideas (code 3,8); or the supervisor may start to ask the trainee for his/her opinion and in the middle of the discourse give their own opinion and then finish up the question (code 6 only if it is clear that the supervisor is only providing the premises or logical conditions for the question); or if the supervisor begins with asking for opinion and then shifts to giving an opinion (code 6 and then 8 since the question was never completed). There will be a period of doubt for the rater during these shifts. Continue to code your first category until it becomes clear to you that in fact the supervisor has made a shift in category, then continue with this category until the next shift is clear to you. It is suggested that these lags in categorization will eventually compensate for each other. Gives Suggestions A. Action orientation past, present or future. Supervisor tells the trainee how to do things in the counseling situation or the supervision interview. Giving directions, commands or orders to which the trainee is expected to comply (e.g. setting up a role without considering if the trainee wants to do it i.e. let's role-play this situation, I'll be the client. Note: If the supervisor were to say "Would you like to role- play this situation? (Code 4). Supervisor role-playing as the counselor is suggesting to the trainee a response in a counseling situation. 10. 11. 12. 127 Criticism A. All negative value judgements about the trainee as a person, his/her behavior in the supervision interview, or his/her approach to counseling. Any situation in which recrimination is present, when it is clear that the supervisor is pointing out that the trainee should have done something and didn't. Justifying authority as a supervisor with extreme self-reference (e.g. "I really have a better way of doing this since I've had considerably more experience" Code 10). Defensive behavior, justifying or defending personal behavior or ideas unnecessarily. Tension—producing behavior, putting the trainee on the spot in an aggressive manner (e.g. I think you better consider the problem more thoroughly before giving me your answer. . .) (e.g. Certainly you can think of something better than that response.) Therapist Comments Silence or Confusion A. B. Inaudible. Unintelligible (e.g. both speakers talking at the same time.) Silence, non-defensive (e.g. meaningful silence). Only score if the silence lasts at least 5 seconds. 128 APPENDIX J Letter to Supervisors Soliciting Their Participation in Study 2 129 As part of my dissertation research, we are audiotaping psychotherapy/counseling supervision sessions. Our purpose is to describe different styles of supervision and to relate these styles to various supervisor demographic characteristics. Since this is a relatively unexplored area, we are concerned with describing supervisor style, not with evaluating it. No evaluation of the quality of the supervision will be made. We ask that you allow us to audiotape one of your supervision sessions with a beginning practicum student. (Since supervisory style probably varies with the training level of the supervisee, we are holding this variable constant.) Supervisors will also be asked to complete 3 Demographic Information Sheet (DIS), which takes about 5 minutes. Nothing else, beyond the taping of a single supervision session and the supervisor-completed DIS will be required. This research has been approved by Mark‘s doctoral research committee, by UCRIHS, by Dr. Abeles (Director of the MSU Psychological Clinic), and by Dr. June (Director of the MSU Counseling Center). The tapes will be kept strictly confidential and will be erased after being coded. You will remain anonymous, as will the content of both the tape and the DIS. All responses and results will be treated with strict confidence. You are free to decline to participate or to discontinue your participation at any time without recrimination. In order to protect client confidentiality, the supervision tape should contain no material which would specifically identify any client. If the supervisor believes that a tape contains such material. 3 options are available: 1. The supervisor or supervisee may listen to the tape and erase the segment(s) in question. 2. The tape will be erased, and the next session between that supervisor and supervisee will be recorded. 3. The tape will be erased, and that supervisor/supervisee pair may withdraw from the study. Mark will call you in a few days to answer any questions that you may have and to make further arrangements should you choose to participate. You will receive a summary of the results, if desired, even if you do not participate in this research. Sincerely, Mark Hardy, M.A. Norman Abeles, Ph.D. Graduate Student in Committee Chairperson Clinical Psychology 130 APPENDIX K Consent Form for Supervisors and Supervisees Participating in Study 2 Research Consent Form As part of my dissertation research, we are audiotaping psychotherapy/counseling supervision sessions. Our purpose is to describe different styles of supervision and to relate these styles to various supervisor demographic characteristics. Since this is a relatively unexplored area, we are concerned with describing supervisor style, not with evaluating it. No evaluation of the quality of the supervision or of the supervisee will be made. We ask that you allow us to audiotape one of your supervision session Supervisors will also be asked to complete a Demographic Information Sheet (DIS), which takes about 5 minutes. Nothing else, beyond the taping of a single supervision session and the supervisor-completed DIS will be required. This research has been approved by Mark's doctoral research committee, by UCRIHS, by Dr. Abeles (Director of the MSU Psychological Clinic), and by Dr. June (Director of the MSU Counseling Center). The tapes will be kept strictly confidential and will be erased after being coded. You will remain anonymous, as will the content of both the tape and the DIS. All responses and results will be treated with strict confidence. You are free to decline to participate or to discontinue your participation at any time without recrimination. In order to protect client confidentiality, the supervision tape should contain no material which would specifically identify any client. If the supervisor believes that a tape contains such material, 3 options are available: The supervisor or supervisee may listen to the tape and erase the segment(s) in question. 2. The tape will be erased, and the next session between that supervisor and supervisee will be recorded. 3. The tape will be erased, and that supervisor/supervisee pair may withdraw from the study. Your signature below indicated that the experiment has been explained to you, that you understand it including any inherent risks, and that you freely consent to participate. You will receive a summary of the results, if desired, even if you do not participate in this research. Sincerely, Mark Hardy, M.A. Graduate Student in Clinical Psychology Signature Date 132 APPENDIX L Table 17. Significant Correlations Between Nine Experience Variables and SSI Scales 133 .cofluoucmfluo Hmofluouoocu mo wommuo map you oCMHHouusoo mGOMHMHwHHoo Hmfluumm HwUHOIumHHmss .Hm>uoucfi mocoowmcoo wmms «Amm.laa.v AH uouommv xosuw Hofihowcfl ooo. seam. mmH.Hmw Mo uoouuw pw>flmonmm I «v mHa AH uouoomv mommww whomfi>ummsw «Rem.lma.v .ou mnomw>uomsm umnuo spas ooo. camw. mmH.Hmm :ofluopasmcoo mo wocwskuu I ow mHQ eaom.|¢o.v AH uouommv coflmfl>ummdm .wu >ooum moo. sema. mmH.Hmm \oeflommu no socwsuouu u an mHo .Ame.:m~.v ooo. ssmm. mmH.Hmw «mom.-vo.c Am uouommv moo. ms. <.Hmm conmfi>ummsm an ummumuen u as mHo *Amm.uso.v Hoo. «ewa. mmH.Hmm Am uouoomv «Abm.lmo.v Homfi>uwmdm o no oocofiummxm eoo. ma. «.Hmm mo powwow ow>aouumn n ma mHo *Amm.nma.c ooo. «*NN. mmH.Hmm AN Houoomv *Amm.lno.v umwmouocu o no wocmfluomxo Hoo. ms. a.Hmm no powwow om>nmoumn : an mHa m M m wanofino> < wanmflum> .moaoom Hmm one moanwfluo> monofluomxm ocflz cwo3umm mcofluoaouuoo ucooflMHGoflm ha OHQMB 134 APPENDIX M Evaluating Multiple Significance Tests 135 Evaluating Multiple Significance Tests Whenever several significance tests are conducted as part of one study, the question arises of how to choose an appropriate type I error rate. This question has been debated for many years and, as yet, researchers have not reached a consensus as to its selection. The following terms need to be defined. * Error rate per comparison (PC error rate) = the probability of making a type I error in any given significance test. * Error rate experimentwise (EW error rate) = the probability that one or more type I errors will be made in a set of significance tests. = 1-(1-PC)C, where C is the number of significance tests performed. This approximately equals C(PC) for small values of C and PC. The probability that the set of tests contains pp type I errors thus equals 1-EW. 3!- Number of errors experimentwise = the number of type I errors expected to be found, on average, in a set of significance tests = C(PC). Where C and PC are both small, the number of 136 errors experimentwise is thus approximately equal to the EW error rate. Whenever significance tests are conducted, a certain number of "significant" findings will emerge due solely to chance fluctuations (type I errors). For any one test the probability of making such an error equals the PC error rate. The number of type I errors made in a set of tests (number of errors experimentwise) will, on average, equal C(PC) and so is cumulative. For example, there will be 0.5 type I errors in 10 tests conducted at a PC error rate of .05 and 2.5 errors in 50 tests. The probability that there is one or more type I errors in a set of tests (the EW error rate) equals 1-(1-PC)C so that for 10 such tests EW = .40, and for 50 tests EW = .92. There is a long-standing controversy among researchers as to whether or not this situation constitutes a problem, and, if so, what should be done about it. An argument from one end of the continuum states that if we make five significance tests in one study or five tests in a series of five studies, the cumulative type I error rate will be the same, approximately .25. Thus whether the five tests are made in one study or in five studies, they should be treated the same and use the same PC error rate. Researchers need only report the number of significance tests performed in each study. 137 At the other extreme are researchers who believe that the EW error rate should be strictly controlled by being set at the same level for all studies, no matter how many significance tests are performed in each. . . . We want a criterion for significance such that the [EW error rate] is constant regardless of the number of treatment groups. Only in this way can we adequately compare the results of the same comparison in different experiments (Myers, 1966, p. 333). Researchers who agree on this point have not, however, been able to reach a consensus on what EW error rate to use. Some authors (Petrinovich & Hardyck, 1969) advocate the use of an EW error rate equal to the PC error rate (usually .05). Others, such as Keppel (1973), do not agree, "There is no justification for this procedure, except an appeal to a principle of symmetry" (p. 156). Another major problem with setting a uniform EW error rate for all studies is that larger studies will then tend to have an unacceptably high number of type II errors. For example, consider two studies, one with 5 significance tests and one with 100 tests. If EW is set at .10, there will be a .90 probability that the results of each experiment will be completely free of type I errors. Since EW=1-(1-PC)C, the larger study must have a much lower PC error rate to have the same .90 probability of being completely free of type I errors, its power will 138 be much lower, and its type II error rate will be correspondingly much higher. This problem is compounded by the fact that the relative seriousness of type I and type II errors is different in different research areas. There is general agreement, for example, that type II errors are particularly dangerous in a new and developing research field. In such an area a type I error will result in more research being done which will eventually correct the error. A type II error will, however, discourage other researchers from investigating this variable and thus inhibit future investigation. Block (1960) states that, . . . in the early stages of problem investigation, research strategy may call for a "shotgun approach" in order to scan empirically for predictive relevance in new and strange variables. The consolidation of findings can come later in the course of a systematic research program. It is most important early in the research sequence not to overlook potential research leads (p. 373). Proponents of even the most conservative methods for controlling the EW error rate thus often advocate the use of the uncorrected PC error rate in the early stages of problem investigation (Petrinovich & Hardyck, 1969). 139 APPENDIX N Table 18. Correlation Matrix: Nine Experience Variables by P/E Match 140 Table 18 Correlation Matrix: Nine Experience Variables by P/E Match. P/E Match Variable All Subjects ABPP Diplomates DIS 24 .08 .15 p = .149 = .431 DIS 7 -.01 -.20 p = .927 = .324 DIS 43 .01 .20 p = .830 = .300 DIS 18 .11 .06 p = .082 = .759 DIS 19 .05 .16 p = .423 = .415 DIS 39 .07 .12 p = .222 = .538 DIS 4O .11 .05 p .060 = .820 DIS 42 .03 -.29 p = .616 = .138 DIS 28 .03 .16 E = .537 = .434 Table 19. 141 APPENDIX 0 Means and Standard Deviations of Attractiveness and Interpersonal Sensitivity Broken Down by Perceived Effect of Experience 142 Table 19 Means and Standard Deviations of Attractiveness and Interpersonal Sensitivity Broken Down by Perceived Effect of Experience. Perceived Effect of Experience 5 Median 3 Median Variable Mean SD Mean SD SSI.A 5.46 .71 5.70 .64 SSI.IPS 5.13 .71 5.37 .70 143 LIST OF REFERENCES REFERENCES Auerbach, A. H., & Johnson, M. (1977). Research on the therapist's level of experience. In A. S. Gurman & A. M. Razin (Eds.), Effective psychotherapy: A handbook of research (pp. 84-102). New York: Pergamon Press. Block, J. (1960). On the number of significant findings to be expected by chance. Psychometrika, g§(4), 369-380. Blumberg, A. (1970). A system for analyzing supervisor-teacher interaction. In A. Simon & G. Boyer (Eds.), Mirrors for Behavior (Vol. 3). Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools. Boxley, R., Drew, C., & Rangel, D. (1986). Clinical trainee impairment in APA approved internship programs. The Clinical Ps cholo ist, ;g(2), 49-52. Brozek, J., & Tiede, K. (1952). Reliable and questionable significance in a series of statistical tests. Psychological Bulletin, Ag, 339-341. Carkhuff, R. R. (1969). Helping and human relations (Vol. 1). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29(1), 37-46. Cross, D. G., & Brown, D. (1983). Counselor supervision as a function of trainee experience: Analysis of specific behaviors. Counselor Education and Supervision, pp, 333-341. Cryan, J. R. (1972, April). Sgpervisor verbal style as related to the gpality of inteppersonal relations. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Dodge, J. (1982). Reducing supervisee anxiety: A cognitive-behavioral approach. Counselor Education and Supervision, pg, 55-60. 144 145 Ekstein, R., & Wallerstein, R. S. (1972). The teaching and learning of psychotherapy (2nd ed.). New York: International Universities Press, Inc. Ellis, M. W., & Dell, D. M. (1986). Dimensionality of supervisor roles: Supervisors' perceptions of supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3;, 282-291. Fielder, F. E. (1950). The concept of an ideal therapeutic relationship. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 14, 239-245. Friedlander, M. L., & Ward, L. G. (1984). Development and validation of the Supervisory Styles Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, g1, 541-557. Goodman, G., & Dooley, D. (1976). A framework for help-intended communication. Psychotherapy: Theory. Research and Practice, 1;, 106-117. Goodyear, R. K., & Robyak, J. E. (1982). Supervisors' theory and experience in supervisory focus. Psychological Reports, pl, 978. Gysbers, N. C., & Johnston, J. A. (1965). Expectations of a practicum supervisor's role. Counselor Education and Supervision, A, 68-74. Hansen, J. C. (1965). Trainees' expectations of supervision in the counseling practicum. Counselor Education and Su ervision, A, 75-80. Hardy, E. V. (1982). The impact of brief training upon psychotherapeutic attractive and supervisor's level of functioning: An analogue study (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 3;, 3822B. Heppner, P. P., & Roehlke, H. J. (1984). Differences among supervisees at different levels of training: Implications for a developmental model of supervision. Journal of Counseling Psycholpgy, pg, 76-90. Hess, A. K. (1980). Summing up and moving forward in psychotherapy supervision. In A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theopy, research and practice (pp. 525-530). New York: Wiley. 146 Hess, A. K. (1987). Advances in psychotherapy supervision: Introduction. Professional Ps cholo : Research and Practice, 1;(3), 187-188. Hess, A. K., & Hess, K. A. (1983). Psychotherapy supervision: A survey of internship training practices. Professional Psychology: Researgh and Epactice, 11(4), 504-513. Hester, L., Weitz, L., Robach, H., Anchor, K., & McKee, E. (1976). The supervisor-supervisee relationship in psychotherapy training from the perspective of interpersonal attraction. Comprehensive Psychiatgy, 11, 671-681. Hill, C. E., Charles, D., & Reed, K. G. (1981). A longitudinal analysis of changes in counseling skills during doctoral training in counseling psychology, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 2;, 428-436. Hogan, R. A. (1964). Issues and approaches in supervision. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1, 139-141. Holloway, E. L. (1982). Interactional structure of the supervision interview. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1;, 309-317. Holloway, E. L., & Roehlke, H. J. (1987). Internship. The applied training of a counseling psychologist. The Counselin Ps cholo ist, 1§(2), 205-260. Holloway, E. L., & Wampold, B. E. (1983). Patterns of verbal behavior and judgements of satisfaction in the supervision interview. Jougnal of Counseling Psychology, ;9, 227-234. Holloway, E. L., & Wolleat, P. L. (1981). Sex differences of beginning supervisors: An interactional analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1;, 373-376. Hunt, D. E. (1971). Matching models in education: The coordination of teachipg methods w1th stpdent characteristics. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Kadushin, A. (1968). Games people play in supervision. Social Work, 1;, 23-32. 147 Kadushin, A. (1974). Supervisor-supervisee: A survey. Social Work, 12, 288-297. Kadushin, A. (1976). Supervision in social wopk. New York: Columbia University Press. Keppel, G. (1973). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Korchin, S. J. (1976). Modern clinical psychology: Principles of intervention in the clinic and community. New York: Basic Books. Lambert, M. J. (1980). Research and the supervisory process. In A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theopy, research and practice (pp. 423-450). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Liddle, B. J. (1986). Resistance in supervision: A response to perceived threat. Counselor Education and Supervision, pp, 117-127. Loganbill, C., & Hardy, E. (1983). Developing training programs for clinical supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 1(3), 15-21. Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model. The Counseling Psychologist, 1Q(1), 3-42. Marikis, D. A., Russell, R. K., & Dell, D. M. (1985). Effects of supervisor experience level on planning and in-session supervisor verbal behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, ;;, 410-416. McColley, S. H., & Baker, E. L. (1982). Training activities and styles of beginning supervisors: A survey. Professional Psychology, 1;, 283-292. McNeill, B. W., Stoltenberg, C. D., & Pierce, R. A. (1985). Supervisees' perception of their development: A test of the Counselor Complexity Model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, ;;, 630- 633. Miars, R. D., Tracey, T. J., Ray, P. B., Cornfeld, J. L., O'Farrell, M., & Gelso, C. J. (1983a). Supervision Survey. Unpublished manuscript. 148 Miars, R. D., Tracey, T. J., Ray, P. B., Cornfeld, J. L., O'Farrell, M., & Gelso, C. J. (1983b). Variation in supervision process across trainee experience levels. Journal of Counseling Ps cholo , ;9, 403-412. Myers, J. L. (1966). Eundamentals of experimental design. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Nelson, G. L. (1978). Psychotherapy supervision from the trainee's point of view: A survey of preferences. Professional Psychology, 2, 539-550. Petrinovich, L. F., & Hardyck, C. D. (1969). Error rates for multiple comparison methods: Some evidence concerning the frequency of erroneous conclusions. Ps cholo ical Bulletin, 11(1), 43-54. Rabinowitz, F. E., Heppner, P. P., & Roehlke, H. J. (1986). Descriptive study of process and outcome variables of supervision over time. Journal of Counseling Psychology, ;;, 292-300. Raphael, R. D. (1982). The development of a supervisor response category system (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1981). Dissertation Apgtracts International, 43, 261B. Reavis, C. A. (1977). A test of the clinical supervision model. Journal of Educational Research, 19, 311-315. Reising, G. N., & Daniels, M. H. (1983). A study of Hogan's model of counselor development and supervision. Journal of Counselin Ps cholo , ;Q, 235-244. Rogers, C. R. (1957). Training individuals to engage in the therapeutic process. In C. C. Strother (Ed.), Psychology and mental health (pp. 76-92). Washington: American Psychological Association. Russell, R. L., & Stiles, W. B. (1979). Categories for classifying language in psychotherapy. Psychological Bulletin, ;é, 404-419. Sakoda, J. M., Cohen, B. H., & Beall, G. (1954). Test of significance for a series of statistical tests. Psychological Bulletin, ;1, 172-175. 149 Smith, J. P., Jr. (1976). Supervisor behavior and supervisor expectations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International, ;p, 6489A-6490A. Stanton, A. L., Sanchez, V. C., & Klesges, R. C. (1981, August). Supervision skills: Do APA-approved clinical programs teach them? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles. Stenack, R. J., & Dye, H. A. (1982). Behavioral descriptions of counseling supervision roles. Counselor Education and Supervision, ;1, 295-304. Stoltenberg, C. (1981). Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective: The Counselor Complexity Model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, ;;, 59-65. Stone, G. L. (1980). Effects of experience on supervisor planning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, ;1, 84-88. Sunblad, L. M., & Feinberg, L. B. (1972). The relationship of interpersonal attraction, experience, and supervisor's level of functioning in dyadic counseling supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 11, 187-193. Tedesco, J. (1982). Premature termination of psychology interns. Professional Psychology, 1;, 695-698. Troth, W. A. (1967). The nature and range of school counselor subroles in the counseling interview (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1966). Dissertation Abstracts International, 27, 2079A. Wiley, M. O., & Ray, P. B. (1986). Counseling supervision by developmental level. Journal of Counseling Psychology, ;;, 439-445. Wilkinson, B. (1951). A statistical consideration in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 4g, 156-158. 150 Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1984a). Empirical investigation of supervision of counselors as they gain experience. Journal of Counselin Ps cholo , ;1, 63-75. Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1984b). Use of trait labels in counseling supervision by experienced and inexperienced supervisors. Professional ngcholoqv: Research and Practice, 1;, 457-461. Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1987). Changes in supervision as counselors and supervisors gain experience: A review. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1;(3), 189-208. Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Stern, A. (1985). Effects of supervisor and supervisee degree level and gender on the supervisory relationship. Journal of Counseling Psychology, ;;, 252-262. Zucker, P. J., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1986a). Supervision of interns and postdoctoral applicants for licensure in university counseling centers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, ;;, 87-89. Zucker, P. J., & Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1986b). Supervision of interns and postdoctoral applicants for licensure in university counseling centers (expanded version). Unpublished manuscript. IF- m‘lWillH/IllHll“HUI/HIfflllllUllllllWWI/WI f