masxs

 

 

 

I \ i

‘ LIBRARY
Michigan State

1 University 1

 

fi

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

MUSIC THERAPY CLINICAL SUPERVISION:
THE EFFECT OF PLANNING AND EVALUATING SUPERVISION
SESSIONS ON SATISFACTION WITH SUPERVISOR SKILLS

presented by
Barbara Cobb Memory
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

PhD degree in Music Education/Therapy

 

 

Major professor

Dr. Melanie Stuart
Date July 25, 1984

 

MSU Ls an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

IVIESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LIBRARIES remove this checkout from
—_ your record. FINES wiH

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beiow.

 

 

 

 

MUSIC THERAPY CLINICAL SUPERVISION:
THE EFFECT OF PLANNING AND EVALUATING SUPERVISION

SESSIONS ON SATISFACTION WITH SUPERVISOR SKILLS

BY

Barbara Cobb Memory

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Music

1984

 
  
  
 
  
   
 
   
   
  
 
       
    
   
 
   
  

“I? N‘m < “"- ",

m1» hfifl'n;: .-. ‘-\-. my; ,r
3.00! v" a.» ~ ym .e»... . « ;.- _‘
,(f‘iu {-
nu music the: ~,; ~

I _m£‘tiv3 with ~', n,»

“:uug map
© Copyright by
you ”are Lmniv-m QQBB MEMORY
1984

'i I ”at-enter auu 5 Wm."
‘

r to planned t'h'
"Locum” and 2.31: -

O

u‘qfiir If IMim hit): tilt; a 3x3. * ~ .7. 1 '4

.; ,.. . .
chitin has ““63243‘1 “- ' t», '4‘ .~ .a‘

. « x. counselor, and Q um A air? v..-. f-

. «is 't'

' "‘ a “a W G‘Urefi’» ?<)l UQW'M‘H 3*. .4; 19"‘133 'r":'
..""" i~ »

{up-time. level). Matterhcx’i mum tax-ind-

”A. Pen-on Can-nurse. ca‘ltacuau. 1*th
. autistic-u. no 5.1th new in

  

”if”

   
   
  
  
  
     
     
     
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
   
   
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
   

. '. a?
I. a . .
( v.9; ABSTRACT
. r ‘b' MUSIC THERAPY CLINICAL SUPERVISION:

“N THE EFFECT OF PLANNING AND EVALUATING SUPERVISION
opox'eaESSIONS ON SATISFACTION WITH SUPERVISOR SKILLS

’b‘ttk;5” L. ‘ BY

é rand n1r1~ . .1 Barbara Cobb Memory
0 .. EC‘r Se; .'

- , Skill Int,"
9‘
.- y. '.
I' I!

U‘ Will music therapy students and clinical supervisors be

t ' . 811' u . ‘

’7 J lure satisfied with supervision as a result of planning and
4 the In

[evaluating supervision sessions? Supervisory pairs from the
' 8AL18f-”

4‘: ‘ Richigan State University Music Therapy Clinic were assigned

‘h hjaypt'

-:}to experimental and comparison groups. Experimental group

mpgrvisors planned the content and process of supervision
{le‘ . J: L

sicns: students and supervisors evaluated supervision

Satisfaction with the supervisor's use of specified

n' '

rvisory skills was measured for overall and subscale
“a v2 '3‘ ‘t

113 (teacher, counselor, and consultant skills). A trait

“ba_-“n 7- 1‘“
gel oo-variate was measured for students (skill level) and
' r09; w»

"x sore (experience level). Statistical analyses includ—
geway ANOVA, Pearson Correlation Coefficients, T-Tests,
Irriptive statistics. No significant differences in
.zftion were found for the experimental and comparison
V'apdtherefore an ANCOVA was eliminated. Supervisors
pg: were significantly more satisfied with all
ikiflgkill areas at posttest than at pretest when H
;tions were not considered. SuperViBotQ Ligézggégfiag
' , ,2 25:.-; '. .7 1

 

 

 

 

Barbara Cobb Memory

reported significant gains for student clinical skills at
posttest in the areas of session management, personal skills,
and musicianship, but students reported no significant gains
for self-evaluation of skills in any of the five subscale
skill areas.

High and low experience level supervisors reported no
significantly different satisfaction at posttest, although
the low experience level supervisors reported a higher mean
satisfaction and higher standard deviation than did the high
experience level supervisors.

No significant correlations were found for student skill
level and student satisfaction with supervision or for the
supervisors' and students' evaluations of student clinical
skills.

An interactive model of music therapy clinical supervi-
sion, a comprehensive review of supervision literature, a
discussion of findings, and recommendations for further

research were presented.

 

 

 

 

  
 
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
   
  
 
  
   

ACKNL-W.!'r;(MFIR'I ,1 '
".Ild Iike to express 9; ap reczaLlr' :. Jen; '» .2.

helped me an ' '29: my wear- 1’ 3"» ‘ _ I e. .2. 2r: .5.-

~ CI 0! this aft-=3] lTridjn'r. f_': 7' 1'15

the, Dr. "I: 1am -: '5. Pita; ; . 2‘: C --5 4,; J‘_i!.~:‘t

It. TheodoraTflOMABhCLINTONfCOBBY* A:I 'n : ~qd Wv
Ianua, to: {weir mnepeandzrr nz‘ a»:;:'as :.

"1‘ like L JELIBAIEEHSROGBRS 9033:. W . . l :‘as. :'£‘:':'31.,
Dyers, and Ms. W . \-..- ’40: ‘iz-J . :1;,,_ -,‘ '-.. A. r-u-c’t

3‘90! thF'lI inequity 'ss 2'," ‘~ ”FJ'W 3.35;, '..'.".L1q’u
spacial thanks go to Fri}. Path .-1!:'_ :32: ’r

6.1.: Gollseunc and ‘xliru; 'he "41)";1‘ :' an

it cooperation in pertzcipctih, :u ‘ 3: v‘v‘: .
~ts and BupfltVLdflti c; .S‘ :52 QuJVJ 71.14;;
Milflbcrt Unksfer, Hr. hogs! anohssiey. and an.

‘ lisflnsc-ospeeially helpful in [2V1ccikq the tent
in HM“ .. “may t. Mlmfis

2mm.“ hum «new In to: the

«at “3qu m. ms. at as. x

     

1“! .‘
I “

' \‘un, up . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
.,‘

 
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
   

£18&CX?

a haul would like to express my appreciation to many people
‘lfioihave helped me during my years of doctoral work and the
-p&lparation of this study. I thank the members of my doctor-
31 committee, Dr. Melanie H. Stuart, Professor Robert F.
flukafen, Dr. Theodore 0. Johnson, Dr. Dale Bartlett, and Mr.
dbleph Hanna, for their cooperation and assistance.

.‘ EemuxI would like to thank Mrs. Ruth Parry, Mrs. Fran Hebden,
‘ki:lae lusan Byers, and Ms. Alice Moreno, Music Department

- igicrataries, for their helpfulness in so many ways through

'7¢¢J~:xoars. -Special thanks go to Mrs. Ruth Parry for her
I ‘ ’3‘»;
if;z;_stance in collecting and coding the various tests used in
hilifrfltudY;*i‘,

A .v; y-

      
   
   
  

W1.
tgihetonfltheir cooperation in participating in this study, I
ln‘thecstudents and supervisors of the MSU Music Therapy

5: p £7 alt. Robert Unkefer, Mr. Roger Smeltekop, and Ms.
-I'TN

_,51168mithswere especially helpful in reviewing the test

”.;‘r-tlfiandoconducting the.experiment.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
  

‘ P IoasaMurphy, Dr. Louise Sause, Dr. Joyce Wunderlich, and
Wham .Erbes .
.loyaJSeveral people gave unstintingly of their time, exper-
gags, support, and encouragement. Dr. Melanie Stuart, my
. ff fdfiélortation advisor, encouraged me to pursue with vigor and
dihigh standard of scholarship my chosen topic. She clari-
Iied murky issues, gave extremely helpful suggestions, asked
"{ provocative questions, and allowed me to work in my own
' style. Ber professionalism, dedication, and good humor in
- advising me will not be forgotten.

Mrs. Virginia Cobb Bement and Mr. Michael Benjamin
75ement, my sister and brother-in-law, typed this manuscript
rpand all its revisions. They permitted me to meet every
.fgtdgadline through their patience, diligence, and painstaking
‘ :Vgttention to detail. Mike improved the model of the supervi-
‘J I1Qn system and made the final drawing for the dissertation.

o'-
, a;

iflgir contribution to this project, as well as their assis-

 

:1
4. figsuce and enthusiasm during our East Lansing years, made

EhIao times pleasant as well as productive.

. ‘_ My special thanks go to Professor Robert Unkefer, my
rt 30:, colleague, mentor, and friend. Mr. Unkefer's
jIl and professional qualities exemplify what is best
.t noble in higher education and music therapy. His
{fig teacher, supervisor, therapist, and administrator

.n‘
o f,‘

7i§ndard.for me and hundreds of his former students who
fit.

. r ,.;.t
{I-

 

And finally, my heartfelt thanks go to my parents,
Thomas Clinton Cobb and Elizabeth Rogers Cobb, whose love and
loyalty are steadfast. By their example, they taught me the
joys of learning and teaching, and to seek diligently worth-
while things. It is to them that I dedicate this

dissertation.

So! Bring on the music and push back the chairs!
Let every song be joyful and every breath a prayer-
We've got love running over and still more to share
This is the day, this is the day!

-Carol Johnson

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  

‘ v

  
  
  
  

_}-_u ~‘ Page
€pr“! 'CONTENTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V

v ‘0‘ h 7
[WT on; 'TABLES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I viii
I) '

.E'um OF FIGURES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ix
t -£‘¢nsPTER

4 r.

f‘ x . INTROD UCT I ON I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

T Background of the Study.
0

   

h‘H

   

Practicum
Internship
Supervision Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Supervision defined
Supervision model described .
Client variables affecting supervision
Clinical setting variables
f' Evaluating supervision effectiveness
_ Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
‘ "‘ Importance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Allied health fields
Music therapy profession

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  

4 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
‘1 Assumptions of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

, Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
.f4’ Experimental Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

*4 RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

OVerview of the Chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
SVL Supervision approaches

Supervisor variables
Music therapy student variables

2, Supervisory relationship variables
-_fSuperviSion Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Historical Overview of Supervision. 22

Dynamic theory

Facilitative theory
.-Behaviora1 theory
. , "Eclectic theory
3F turf: .Summary of supervision theories
"f jfisflpervision as Instruction, Counseling, or
p-iepeHConsultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
rimf‘ludels of Supervision . . . . . . . . . . 29

_\ Hu«ixC0unselor Complexity Model ‘ .

;'_Sa~% Multiple Model .‘ - , ‘iaifi

“w .1.:Pser supervision Model . . : ~ - 1'~ iif"[ 1. ‘

clinical Supervision Model | 7 1 “_.*

‘...L l‘.1--

  
  
 
 

    

 
 
 
  

‘xBup

    

first ,
p-- visor HILe)1unJu laden

 

V.” VHF
D

Page

Discrimination Model of Supervision. . . . . . . . 36
Choice of supervision content
Choice of supervision process

Role Relationships in Supervision. . . . . . . . . 40

Supervisor Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Supervisor Style. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Didactic and experiential styles
Individual style
Supervisor Experience Level . . . . . . . . . 58
Effect of supervisor experience
upon planning

Supervisor Skills . . . . . . . . . 62
Supervisor Music Therapy Clinical Super—
vision Skills . . . . . . . 67

Supervisor Perceptions of Behaviors

Music Therapy Student Variables. . . . . . . . . . 70
Student Cognitive Characteristics . . . . . . 70
Conceptual level of student
Stage of conceptual system functioning
Student Psychological Attributes. . . . . . 78
Psychological differentiation and
reaction to feedback
External and internal locus of control
Trainee anxiety about evaluation
Previous Experiences of the Student
Approaches to Trainee Evaluation. . . . . . . 86
Supervisor Evaluations and Self—
Evaluations
Clinical Skills of the Student. . . . . . . . 89

Supervisory Relationship Variables . . . . . . . . 94
Supervision Content and Process . . . . . . . 94
Process Variables
Supervision as an Interpersonal Influence
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Supervision Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . 101
Interpersonal Compatibility . . . . . . . . . 104

III. PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . 108
Design, Hypotheses, Related Questions, and
Statistical Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Independent and Dependent Variables. . . . . . . . 115
Treatment variable
> Music therapy student trait variable
Supervisor trait variable
Data Collection Instruments. . . . . . . . . . 115
Supervision Satisfaction Form (SSF)
Music Therapy Student Evaluation Form
(MTSEF)
.Supervisor Experience Index (SE1)

 

vi

 

Experimental Procedures Forms. . . . . . . . .
Supervision Planning Aid (SPA)
Supervision Session Evaluation Form (SSEF)

Instructions to Participants . . . . . .
Assignment to Experimental and Comparison Groups
Assurance of Confidentiality . . . . . . . .
Experimental Timetable . . . . . . . . . .
Computation of Scores and Variables. . . . . . .
IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . .
Findings of Statistical Analyses for Hypotheses
and Questions. . . . . .
Descriptive Statistics for Data Collection
Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SEI
SSF
MTSEF
V. SUMMARY OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES
A. Supervision Satisfaction Form (SSF) . . . .
B. Names of the variables measured by
the SSF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Music Therapy Student Evaluation Form (MTSEF)

D. Names of the variables measured by the MTSEF.

E. Supervisor Experience Index (SEI) . . . . .
F. Names of the variables measured by the SEI.
G. Scoring System for the SEI. . . . . . . . .
H. Supervision Planning Aid (SPA). . . . . . .
I. Supervision Session Evaluation Form (SSEF).
J. List of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . .
K. Assignment to Groups by Group . . . . . . .
L.z Assignment to Groups by Supervisor. . . . .
M. Assignment to Groups by Student . . . . . .

N. Names of Computed Variables . . . . . . . .

anmCE S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

 

vii

Page
119

121
123
124
125
126
128
128

153

183

194

198
200
204
207
208
209
211
213
214
215
216
217
218
219

 

 

Table

Table

Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

 

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Three Supervisory Role Relationships. . . . . 41

Supervisor Skills for Music Therapy Clinical
Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Music Therapy Student Clinical Skills . . . . 90
ANOVA Results for Hypothesis #1 . . . . . . . 130
ANOVA Results for Hypothesis #2 . . . . . . . 132
CONDESCRIPTIVE Results for Question #3. . . . 133
ANOVA Results for Question #3 . . . . . . . . 135

T-Test Results for Question #4 (a). 137

T-Test Results for Question #4 (b). . . . . . 139
T-Test Results for Question #5. . . . . . . . 141
T-Test Results for Question #6. . . . . . . . 144
T-Test Results for Question #7 (a). . . . . . 146
T-Test Results for Question #7 (b). . . . . . 148
ANOVA Results for Question #8 . . . . . . . . 150

PEARSON CORRELATION Results for
Question #9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

PEARSON CORRELATION Results for
Question #10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

PEARSON CORRELATION Results for
Question #11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

SEI Item Scores for Three Groups
of Supervisors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

SSF Descriptive Statistics
(by item number). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

MTSEF Descriptive Statistics
(by item number). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

viii

 

  
   
  
   
  
  
   
  
 
 
 
    
  
 
 
 
 
  

‘ ..... LIST or FIGURES

n Page

.34 (mi. MC?! :1"

15

I‘ ' ‘ .

‘.;"H.
' ;M1.ig_fithezmusic therapy supervision system. 5
‘0

' .1 \MILm is an “we. c‘ ,« t . *3»: K- ”car;-
..".
x‘ I'd 1.11. . SU'QY‘J .1‘.:(' -‘:‘.“."Al -_-'1'. STA. .
r i

“160d caparécnvs :1 swung: .12" c1 .‘11‘.\r-, ,1". ..
tn t“ Pr0w3' " LUV- ‘ ‘7 'I-‘JZI \[3' ill I);'(’_\‘i;:7.’l.q.v n; -
o«.c-.';.nt3nr.~ ‘. tr-r:‘;.f,. , 113,” f'-‘,r(,:_f.i.,. : ,
tmmotum $07.11.. T, -:z‘ ,. .-".-‘r_‘ . z‘o~:'.s»-Zorr, 53-5-3

, Irfiyt'hologir'Hn .‘slzgeiws‘um r»? ml.v31.' t.‘ {A}; :-L.-

:3 in two (Kudzu: -.t' ..'.;:.t.ca1 '.'J'.F.~1.'M,'. {-zacrirun

L $219. prion-sum 33 a Evan-arm! -Liri':a;

L fl ’jwcurrant '01 :1. calla ,~'. g" ., ”swam-r). . u: 5h.) L,
'7‘Sj‘-‘ .
' SOIIIIIItIr or 159». «endemic faculty may any,» xiv
‘J n.9,
.J .,
- .IJ‘h. .
amianta diroctly or may laeiague sup-1v.-.”
.-"-\ a; 4

1' NRCticfil vary new solsflqs to cello-.4.

gunman. the proximity of gram; sewage...
. ’ so: agency mum. aw! «Enfiw'cl

 

  

 

 

I. INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study

Supervision is an integral part of the education of
music therapists. Supervision during clinical training
provides guided experience in working with clients, and is
common in the preparation of most helping professionals,
including occupational therapists, dance therapists, thera-
peutic recreation workers, social workers, counselors, and
clinical psychologists. Supervision of music therapy stu-
dents occurs in two phases of clinical training: practicum
and internship.

Practicum. The practicum is a part-time clinical
assignment concurrent with college coursework, usually
lasting a semester or less. Academic faculty may supervise
practicum students directly or may delegate supervision to
other personnel; practices vary from college to college
depending upon the number of faculty and students in the
music therapy program, the proximity of clinical agencies,
the availability of agency supervisors, and the philosophy of
the academic program.

There are several approaches to supervision of prac-
ticum students. Perhaps the most common is the placement of

Itudents in area agencies under the supervision of an appro-

priate-professional agency employee, with periodic visits and

campus-based supervision by the music therapy faculty.
Another approach is the campus-based music therapy clinic,
where clients come to the clinic for music therapy services
which are provided by practicum students under the supervi-
sion of faculty and graduate student registered music thera-
pists (RMTs). A third approach is the use of advanced
undergraduates as "proctors" in agencies that have had
practicum programs for a period of time, supplemented by
group supervision on campus. A fourth approach is the reviewing
of videotaped agency-based sessions by the student and
faculty supervisor.

Internship. Supervision of interns is regulated by the
profession's two accrediting organizations, the National
Association for Music Therapy, Inc. (NAMT) (which grants the
Registration credential), and the American Association for
Music Therapy, Inc. (AAMT) (which grants the Certification
credential). These organizations have fundamentally differ-
ent views of the nature of internship.

The NAMT is the older and larger professional organiza-
tion, and its Clinical Training Committee is responsible for
Establishing guidelines for internships and supervision. A
fUIl-time placement in an approved health or education agency
which lasts six months or 1040 hours and which follows all
Coursework is required. The agency must meet stringent
requirements for NAMT approval, including the employment of a
full-time Registered Music Therapist (RMT). The RMT must

Pnfiavide a minimum of one hour a week of individual

 

 

A .

 

 

 

 

supervision which is based on direct observation of music

therapy sessions conducted by the student. The agency
supervisor and the college faculty member confer regarding
the student's progress, but the agency supervisor is respon-
sible for student evaluation and overall clinical training
(Clinical Training Guidelines, NAMT, 1983).

The AAMT was organized to meet the needs of urban music
therapists in the Northeast. The position of AAMT leaders on
clinical training is that individual schools should retain the
right to design internships according to the needs of individual
students, and that supervision should remain the responsibil-
ity of the academic music therapy faculty. As a result, AAMT
internships are of varying durations, may be concurrent with
college coursework, and may be in agencies which do not
employ music therapists (University Curriculum Guidelines,

AAMT, 1976).

Supgrvision Model

Supervision defined. A dictionary definition of super-
vision is "to direct and inspect the performance of workers
or work; to oversee; to superintend" (American Heritage
Pictionary, 1971, p. 1292). Supervision in the training of
fnture health professionals involves protection of both the
client's welfare and of the reputation of the profession, as
‘"311 as essential to the growth of the student's skills.

Supervision is a part of overall training where experi-

‘ufifles can be planned to meet the individual needs of

A

 

 

  

 

students. "Supervision is a complex process that involves

elements of modeling, counseling, teaching, reinforcement,
coaching, and empathy" (Wedeking & Scott, 1976, p. 259).
Supervision excludes primarily didactic classroom teaching
and excludes entirely personal discussions as would occur in
experiential groups and personal therapy (Lambert, in Hess,
1966, pp. 423-424).

Supervision may be regarded as "meta—helping", a helper
assisting a helper to be more effective in treatment of

clients.

Supervision in the current context refers to the
direct monitoring of counseling. . . the process of
supervision of counselors that is specifically
geared to enhancing the concurrent helping effec-
tiveness of the person supervised. . . those
face-to-face meetings between supervisor and
counselor that focus on the counselor's attitudes,
understandings, skills, and behavior. (Gurk &
Wicas, 1979, p. 402)

Supervision may occur in small groups, but most often is
conducted as a one-to-one, supervisor and student conversa—
‘tion. ‘The supervisor usually bases comments on observation
of the student's sessions with clients, and on the student's
Written work. Discussion may focus on issues pertaining to
the therapeutic process, the student's clinical experiences,
and/or the client's responses in therapy.

Supervision model described. Supervision involves
Peeple, relationships among people, and the enviromnent.
These components may be viewed as a seven-part interactive
sYStem, including the music therapy student who provides

‘leflic therapy services, the supervisor who oversees service
.1" *
->.1v- ..

I L -

 

 

delivery, the client or client group receiving music therapy
services, the supervisory relationship, the therapeutic
relationship, the relationship between the supervisor and the
client, and the environments in which therapy and supervision
occur (Memory, 1983). Figure 1 portrays the music therapy

supervision system.

   

  
    
   
    

THERAPEUTIC
RELATIONSHIP

 

 

   
    
  

 

      
 
   
 
   

  

MUSIC
THERAPY CLIENT(S)
SESSION
unmmnmmmmunm mummmmnmnumu CLINICAL
‘ ' SETTING
SUPERVISION SUPERVISORY
SESSION RELATIONSHIP RELATIONSHIP

observes

SUPERVISOR

Figure 1. Model of the music therapy supervision system. .

 

 

‘Each component of the seven-part interactive system is
unique in any clinical training situation, and each part
influences the other parts. The variables influencing
supervision effectiveness that arise from the client or
client group and from the clinical setting (environment) will
be summarized briefly here. The variables influencing
supervision effectiveness that arise from the music therapy
student, the supervisor, and the supervisory relationship are
the subject of this study and will be described in detail in
Chapter II, Related Literature.

Client variables affecting supervision. Clients receiv—
ing music therapy services vary greatly according to the
nature of the problem or handicapping condition. Handicap-
ping conditions for which the music therapist is trained to
design and provide treatment include mental impairments,
leerning disabilities, behavioral or emotional disorders,
hearing or vision impairment, physical or other chronic
hIIlth impairments, substance abuse, terminal illness,
psychiatric disorders, and problems of aging. The NAMT
rIguires that students have practicum experiences with at
lIIIttthree client populations prior to internship (NAMT
Education Committee Curriculum Requirements, 1980). The
ilpIctuof the handicapping condition of the client on super-
ttltelnneeds is considerable; for example, a client who

sofiutnessan'alternate communication system such as 51‘

   

 

language, a Bliss board, or Braille may be impossible to
treat without a supervisor with skills in that communication
system.

The goals and objectives of therapy, which usually
derive from the nature of the handicapping condition, are
also variables which influence the supervision process. The
acronym CAMEOS is used in the field of music therapy to
represent the six problem areas for which music offers
therapeutic benefits. CAMEOS stands for problems, needs,
goals, or objectives in the following six areas of function-
ing: communication, academic (or cognitive) skills, motor
functioning, emotions, on-task behaviors (concentration), and
social skills. The supervision needs of a student whose
treatment goals lie in the area of emotional growth may
differ considerably from the supervision needs of a student
whose goals lie in the area of motor functioning.

Organismic and acquired traits of the client also affect
the student's supervision needs. The client's personality,
age, gender, and cultural background often determine the
selection of music activities, materials, and interventions
used by the music therapist. The client's music skills,
interests, and preferences are also important considerations
in treatment planning and implementation. The supervisor's
task may vary greatly depending on the individual client's
unique personality and make-up.

Lastly, the provision of individual or group music

therapy, which results from the individual client's needs and

 

 

 

 

agency resources, affects the student's supervision needs.
The ability to observe and respond to multiple client behav—
iors and events may be the primary focus of supervision for
students who conduct group therapy rather than individual
therapy.

Clinical setting variables. Variables within the
clinical setting which affect supervision include scheduling
patterns, the case loads of supervisor and therapist, the
frequency and duration of therapy and supervision sessions,
the average length of client treatment, the relative stabili-
ty of treatment group membership, and the conditions of
follow-up care. The particular client population(s) served
by the health or education agency also determine supervision
needs; for example, bedside care of terminally ill or burn
patients requires music therapy approaches radically differ-

ent from classroom work with learning disabled children.

~Additionally, some settings require that the therapist

function entirely with portable music instruments; some
settings allow the therapist a room with piano, wall space
for visual aids, etc.

Music therapists have assumed responsibilities within
some clinical settings beyond the traditional direct services
role. rSeveral trends have supported this broadening of
duties: emphasis on professionalism, accountability, and
autonomy in professions which historically have been adjunc-
tive to physicians; the identification of huge numbers of

eligible and needy clients; and the decreasing per-client

 

funds available. Such responsibilities would fall to a
senior staff person, and, when assumed by music therapy
staff, that person would logically be the supervisor.
Additional responsibilities such as those listed above may
contribute to a student's learning, but may also interfere
with the supervisor's availability for supervision
activities.

Evaluating supervision effectiveness. Hess (1966)
stated that the myth of uniformity of supervision must be
debunked. He suggested that there is no one theory, model,
or approach to supervision, but rather diverse models,
changing concepts, and many correct practices. Supervision
must not be viewed as one unchanging process, but rather as
an interpersonal, situation-specific set of processes.
Supervision is "a heterogeneous set of conditions that are
distorted when treated as a unitary variable" (pp. 3-25).

The multi-variate nature of supervision, as reflected in
the number of factors influencing each component of the
seven-part interactive system of supervision, makes con-
trolled research into one isolated variable of dubious value
at this stage of research in supervision. To gain the
greatest amount of data, given the present state of knowl-
edge, supervision should then be studied from various
vantage-points, using various data-collection tools.

Just as there are many ways of teaching, there are many
ways of supervising. It appears that there can be no "pre-

scription' for "good" supervision because each situation

 

 

  

 

10

requires individualized supervision decisions. The individu—
al needs of each student, in combination with the treatment
needs of various clients and in combination with the supervi-
sion styles of individual supervisors preclude simple formu-
las for improving supervision.

One approach to evaluating the effectiveness of supervi-
sion is to determine to what degree it is judged helpful by
the student and supervisor in meeting the student's needs for
clinical training. Satisfaction with the supervisor's use of
supervisory skills in providing helpful supervision is the

variable of interest in this study.

Purpose of the Study

This study was designed to investigate satisfaction with
supervision as reported by students and supervisors engaged
in actual clinical training and supervision. A systematic
procedure of planning and evaluating supervision sessions was
developed which took into account the individualized and
flexible nature of effective supervision.

The primary purpose of the study was to determine
whether or not the experimental condition, planning and
evaluating supervision sessions, would result in significant-
ly greater satisfaction with supervision than would the
comparison condition, in which the planning and evaluation
procedure was not used.

The use of an actual clinical training and supervision

letting permitted the inherent complexities of the

 
 

.
Li».

 

A

 

11

supervision process to exert their appropriate role and
impact. The variable of satisfaction with supervision was
thus studied within a design that retained the individual
needs, strengths, and characteristics of each part of the
seven-part interactive supervisory system.

In addition to examining the efficacy of the treatment
condition, the study explored the impact of two other vari—
ables, the skill level of the music therapy student (MTS) and
the experience level of the supervisor (SUP).

The skill level of the MTS was identified as an impor-
tant variable affecting the content and process of supervi-
sion. The study explored possible relationships between
evaluation of skill level and satisfaction with supervision.

The experience level of the SUP was identified as an
important variable affecting content and process of supervi-
sion also. The study explored possible relationships between
amount of experience relevant to supervision (experience
level) and satisfaction with supervision.

Additionally, analyses of results from pretest to
posttest were conducted for satisfaction and evaluation of

student skills as reported by both students and supervisors.

Importance of the Study

Allied health fields. Supervision is a topic of great
concern in the helping professions, as evidenced by extensive
research employing descriptive, philosophical, historical,

(and experimental modes of inquiry.

 

 

 

12

Hansen, Pound, and Petro (1976) reviewed 29 supervision
articles published in a counseling journal and identified the
major focus of supervision research as the training of core
conditions of facilitative communication. They suggested
three categories of research interests and presented conclu-
sions drawn from articles in each category. (1) The role of
the supervisor was represented by articles concerning the
supervisory relationship and supervisor behaviors. They
concluded that didactic approaches have been more effective
than experiential approaches. (2) Training procedures used
in supervision were represented by articles on training in
communication and in the use of audio and video techniques.
They concluded that supervisors who directly or indirectly
modeled facilitative behavior were more effective than those
who did not model, and that audiotape procedures were as
effective as videotape. (3) Rating systems used in
practicum, including evaluation systems, were a frequent
topic of interest.

It was concluded that little information had been
generated about specific mechanisms involved in bringing
about change through supervision, and called for experimental
research (Hansen, Pound, & Petro, 1976).

Hansen and Warner (1971) published a 10-year review of
findings of practicum supervision research which covered 25
articles, and concluded that "what is needed is an end to
description and a move toward solid experimental investiga—

tion' (p. 271).

 

 

1‘ 13

Music therapy profession. Concern for improving super-

vision practices has been voiced by all constituencies within
music therapy: students, who complain of inadequate or
incompetent supervision; supervisors, who complain of lack of
training and resources; academic faculty, who mediate dis-
putes between interns and agency supervisors; and profession—
al leaders, who see supervision as a point of major
difference between the two professional organizations, NAMT
and AAMT.

Several NAMT conference workshops have focused on
supervision issues (Patti Doyle, Marcia Wunderlich, Roy
Grant, and Yvonne Soto have conducted workshop sessions for
supervisors). The 1982 National Conference in Baltimore
devoted two presentations to the Clinical Training Commit-
tee's discussions of new guidelines for internships. Dr.
Grant and Ms. Wunderlich, former Chairpersons of the Clinical
Training Committee, reported in telephone conversations and
personal correspondence (May,1982) that the following needs
are of highest priority to the Committee: (a) supervisor
competencies defined, (b) training and support services for
novice and experienced supervisors made available through
workshops and graduate courses, (c) a means of screening and
approving supervisors identified, (d) need for student
evaluations and on-site evaluations of clinical training
programs instituted to ensure quality control.

‘--Dr. Wanda Lathom, NAMT President in 1979-1980, proposed

that a taskforce for supervision concerns be established that

_A

 

   

 

14

would create a network of workshop leaders for training
supervisors.

A proposal that supervisors be certified and be required
to take courses in supervision-related topics on a continuing
basis in order to retain certification was made by a former
chairperson of the Clinical Training Committee, Dr. Roy
Grant, RMT (Clinical Training Committee Notes, 1978).
Regional representatives to the Committee responded to his
proposals with various alternative suggestions for screening
supervisors, citing the impracticality of course requirements
at the current time.

Differences in the philosophy of clinical training and
supervision of the two professional organizations, NAMT and
AAMT, is the subject of continued discussion and disagree-
ment. Panels of leaders from the two organizations at NAMT
conferences have stated that this difference is a major
obstacle in the merger of the two groups (New Orleans and
Baltimore Conferences, 1983 & 1982).

There is, also, evidence that music therapy students
lack understanding of the supervision process. Students who
complain of unfair evaluation practices frequently mention
poor supervisory relationships and inadequate supervision as
contributing to the poor evaluations they receive. The need
for training students in supervision issues appears to be an
outcome of students' awareness of a right to helpful

supervision.

 

 

 

 

15

Need for the Study

There is a paucity of theoretical and data-based re-
search in music therapy supervision; two studies represent
the scope and nature of inquiry.

Southard's (1973) description of a seminar series
concerning music therapy and occupational therapy practicum
student training programs is representative of early articles
calling for research. In the seminar series, clinical
administrators identified differences in philosophy between
the two professions in the areas of structuring trainees'
time, goals of training, role relationships, research tech-
niques, and evaluation of trainees.

The other type of inquiry in music therapy supervision
literature is represented by a controlled study of feedback
on practicum students' acquisition of competencies. Anderson
(1982) studied the effect of feedback versus no feedback on
three student skills: pacing, using directions and
prompts/cues, and providing the client an opportunity to
respond with the desired non-music behavior. She found no
significant differences between two groups of students based
on reception or timing of feedback.

The complexity of the supervision system requires a
research methodology that has validity for practice. The
current study contributes to an understanding of supervision
in several ways: (a) it lays a foundation for a research
lIthodology by using supervisor-student dyads as the unit of

atfldy; (b) it points the direction for future research by

 

r——_——'—‘

16

identifying in a comprehensive literature review the perti-
nent variables affecting the supervision process; (c) it uses
a treatment procedure which is pan-theoretical and applicable
to supervisor and student training needs; (d) it employs data
collection instruments that can be used in clinical and
research efforts; and (e) it focuses on three important
variables of the supervisor and student.

This study is exploratory in nature because no previous
published studies in music therapy used subjects participat-
ing in actual clinical training and supervision activities.
It establishes a method and a database for future, more
atomistic studies. The exploratory identification of rela-
tionships among the variables is needed before causative
links among variables can be studied in controlled laboratory
research. Any research using analogue studies would be
premature, and lack external validity. The experimental
isolation of variables of supervision content or process
would likely lead to so many unexamined factors and artifi-
cial experimental tasks that external validity would be
highly questionable (Goldman, 1976).

The present study was conducted in a "real-life" setting
in order to increase its validity in terms of understanding a
complex process. The findings and the data-gathering instru-

ments of this study addressed several needs in music therapy

 

.identified by professional leaders (Dr. Roy Grant 5 Ms.
"Murcia Wunderlich, Chairpersons of NAMT Clinical Training

Committee, 1983), particularly:

   

 

17

1. Student skills were categorized and stated as
positive behaviors in five areas: session management skills,
personal skills, conceptualization skills, musicianship
skills, and clinical procedures skills.

2. Supervisor skills were categorized and stated as
positive behaviors in three areas: supervisor—teacher
skills, supervisor-counselor skills, and
supervisor-consultant skills.

3. The treatment procedures were created for maximal
usefulness in training supervisors and students in supervi-
sion decision-making strategy which could be taught readily
in workshop or course format.

The student skills assessment tool is useful for both
practicum students and interns, and takes into account
varying philosophies and approaches in common practice among
music therapists.

The study contributes to improved communication between
agency-based and campus-based supervisors who need clear role
definition and mutual expectations in order to meet students'

clinical training needs.

Assumptions of the Study

It is assumed in this study that supervisors strive to
provide quality supervision and that they are motivated to
improve their skills. No measures were taken to compare
skill levels of supervisors apart from perceptions of overall

competence.

 

 

 

18

It is assumed that supervision skills are learned and
are capable of being improved through study, practice,
self-monitoring, experience, and feedback. These resources
are available to clinical supervisors for whom other profes-
sional colleagues or training courses may not be available.

Supervisors are assumed to vary in competency levels in
the three areas of skills, and it is assumed that the
self-report and student-report measures are sufficient and
valid for assessing the satisfaction variable. The measures
were confidential and intended to be as non-threatening as
possible to supervisors and students, increasing the likeli-
hood that reports were honest.

It is assumed that supervisors were capable of ignoring
the treatment procedures when they supervised in the compari-
son condition, that is, that they could block out any plan-
ning of role-relationships and content priorities when

supervising students in the comparison group.

Limitations of the Study

The study incorporated a small sample, due to the
researcher's decision to study supervisory pairs who had
established a supervisory relationship over a period of
months. Because of the sample size, findings must be inter-
preted cautiously.

This study addressed the supervisory relationship, which
can be influenced by factors other than those studied.

thraneous variables such as social influence, hidden

 

 

 

19

agendas, liking, and degree of commitment to the supervision

process could not be measured or controlled in this study.

Experimental Hypotheses

Two hypotheses were tested in the experimental aspect of

this study.

1. Did music therapy students (MTS) in the experimental
group report greater or lesser satisfaction with supervision
than MTS in the comparison group? It was hypothesized that
the experimental treatment would have a positive effect on
the dependent variable.
2. Did supervisors in the experimental condition report
significantly greater or lesser satisfaction with supervision
than when they supervised using the comparison conditions?
It was hypothesized that the experimentalotreatment would
have a positive effect on the dependent variable.

Additional questions related to the data collection
instruments and relationships among variables were also

addressed, as described in Chapter 3, Procedures.

 

 

 

 

II. RELATED LITERATURE
Overview of thnghapter

This chapter presents research findings related to three
parts of the seven—part interactive music therapy supervision
model: the supervisor, the music therapy student, and the
supervisory relationship. The literature suggests that many
factors within each part have importance in the supervision
process.

Therefore the related literature will be presented in
four sections in order to explicate these areas as fully as
possible: (a) literature pertaining to supervision approach-
es, including the theoretical model upon which the supervi-
sion treatment condition in this study was based; (b)
literature pertaining to the supervisor, including supervisor
experience level; (c) literature pertaining to the music
therapy student, including music therapy student skill level;
and (d) variables in the supervisory relationship, including
satisfaction with supervision.

Supervision approaches. Literature pertaining to
supervision approaches provided the rationale for the super-
vision planning and evaluation treatment in this experiment.
The findings of related studies will be presented in four
sections: (a) historical overview of supervision, including

dynamic theory, facilitative theory, behavioral theory, and

20

 

eclectic theory; (b) supervision as instruction, counseling,
or consultation; (c) models of supervision, including the
clinical supervision model, the peer supervision model, the
multiple supervision model, the counselor complexity model,
and the discrimination model; and (d) role relationships in
music therapy clinical supervision.

Supervisor variables. Literature pertaining to the

 

supervisor supports the choice of supervisor experience level
as a variable of interest for this study. The findings of
related studies will be presented in four sections: (a)
supervisor style, including didactic, experiential, and other
styles; (b) supervisor experience level; (c) supervisor
skills, and (d) supervisor music therapy clinical supervision
skills.

Music therapy student variables. Literature pertaining

 

to the music therapy student supports the choice of student
skill level as a variable of interest for this study. The
findings will be presented in four sections: (a) student
cognitive attributes, (b) student psychological attributes,
(c) approaches to student evaluation, and (d) clinical skills
of the student.

§ppervisory relatiquhip variablgg. Literature pertain-
ing to variables within the supervisory relationship (between
the supervisor and student) supports the choice of satisfac-
tion with the use of supervision skills as a variable for
this experiment. The literature review will be presented in

four sections: (a) supervision content and process, (b)

 

   

A

22

supervision as an interpersonal influence process, (c)
supervision satisfaction, and (d) interpersonal
compatibility.

Material in the literature review which is quoted
directly is indicated by either quotation marks or by inden-
tation and single—spacing. Material which is summarized or
paraphrased is indicated by page referencing within

parentheses.

Supervision Approaches

Historical Overview of Sgpervisiop

Leddick and Bernard (1980) reviewed the history of
supervision and described three major periods: (a) amorphous
beginnings in psychoanalytic practice (1925-1950); (b)
polarized period in which experiential, facilitative ap-
proaches co-existed with behavioral approaches (1960-1970);
and (c) an eclectic, collaborative, skills-training period
(1970 to the present).

An overview of Leddick and Bernard's history will
provide the foundation for understanding the diversity of
supervision approaches currently practiced in the helping
professions. Each of the major periods contributed theoreti-
cal positions which will be summarized briefly.

Dynamic theory. Supervision may be traced to amorphous
beginnings in the training of psychoanalysts, the first
'helping professionals." The novice analyst underwent a

personal analysis with a master therapist, in which personal,

 

 

A

 

 

23

affective issues were discussed. The trainee's supervisor
was a different master therapist, who oversaw the trainee's
work with clients in an authoritarian, directive, didactic
manner. The supervisor functioned as an instructor and
evaluator, leaving personal, affective issues for the train-
ee's analyst.

Leddick and Bernard reported that Eckstein and
Wallerstein (1959) had presented the first detailed model in
which supervision during the analytic period was compared to
the stages of a chess-game. The "opening" consisted of
supervisor and student "eyeing" each other for signs of
expertise and weakness. The "mid—game" consisted of working
through interpersonal conflicts. The "end—game" began when
the supervisor listened quietly, seeing that the student was
gaining a professional level of insight. Leddick and Bernard
concluded that this comparison with analytic therapy had
little impact on the future development of supervision.

Epsilitative theory. Leddick and Bernard stated that,
from the 19303 through the 19505, new theories were presented
for therapy that were in reaction against the authoritarian
nature of analytic theory and practice. New disciplines and
helping professions emerged and competed with psychoanalysis
for reputation and status, including psychology, counseling,
and social work. A polarized situation resulted in the field
of therapy, with facilitative and behavioral theories of
therapy co-existing. Supervision of Students in the new

helping professions was affected directly by the theory of

A

 

 

24

therapy that was used, and the supervisor was regarded
variously as teacher or as counselor, with contrasting
purposes, methods, and desired outcomes.

Facilitative theory is based on the client-centered,
experiential, non-directive therapy pioneered by Dr. Carl
Rogers, a counseling psychologist, and operationalized by
Carkhuff (1966). Rogers (1957) postulated that the necessary
and sufficient conditions for therapeutic growth were embod-
ied in the concepts of empathy, warmth, genuineness, con-
creteness, unconditional positive regard, and congruence.

Pierce and Schauble (1970) described the core of facili-
tative conditions, which are briefly summarized as follows.
Empathy is the ability to understand accurately another
person's deepest feelings. Genuineness is the quality of
being freely and deeply oneself in a nonexploitive relation-
ship. Concreteness is the ability to guide discussion
directly and completely to specific feelings and experiences.
Positive regard is the expression of caring deeply and
recognizing the potential of another person as a creative
human being.

Rogers' theory was operationalized by his followers
Carkhuff and Traux (1967) for the purpose of training coun-
selors competent to offer those necessary and sufficient
conditions for therapeutic growth to clients. The facilita-
tive conditions are crucial concepts in experiential or
counseling-type supervision, and present one end of the

supervision polarity.

 

 

25

The supervisory relationship was regarded as another
instance of the counseling relationship, with the student as
client and the supervisor as therapist. Supervision was
conducted in a student-centered, experiential manner. The
supervisor's task was similar to the therapist's--to model
effective therapist behaviors by offering the "core" condi—
tions (empathy, warmth, concreteness, genuineness, uncondi—
tional positive regard, and congruence). The supervisor was
supposed to be an excellent therapist, and the student was
supposed to be sensitive enough to perceive and acquire the
same qualities through a process of modeling the supervisor.

Behavioral theory. The other end of the polarized world
of therapy and supervision was behavioral theory, which
emerged concurrently with facilitative theory in reaction
against the unverifiable claims and limited applicability of
psychoanalysis. The supervisor inherited the instructive,
didactic, and evaluative position of the analytic supervisor,
but introduced the element of reinforcing desired trainee
behaviors and skills. The specific tasks of the supervisor
were ambiguous, but, through training modalities such as
apprenticeship, continuing seminar, and intensive institute,
the didactic supervision model was conducted.

The supervisor thus acted as trainer and instructor; the
student acted as apprentice and learner.

Eclectic theory. Leddick and Bernard (1980) stated tht

the current phase of supervision represents an eclectic,

 

26

collaborative resolution of the facilitative-behavioral
polarity.

By 1966, the field of supervision had three major

models: dynamic, facilitative, and behavioral.

With such rapid expansion, the field was chaotic,

highly competitive, and polarized. The growth of

the field of cognitive psychology provided an

impetus for the collaboration of the three models.

Behavioral in genesis, cognitive psychology focused

on internal processes which represented a shift

away from radical behaviorism (Mahoney, 1974).

Wachtel (1977) observed that dynamically oriented

therapists had begun to recognize the use of

behavioral techniques, and behavior therapists

became more attuned to dynamic factors. (Leddick &

Bernard, 1980, p. 190)

Leddick and Bernard (1980) described the current phase
of supervision as a period of models, rather than theories.
Skills training approaches were used which focused less on
theory than on student outcomes and training methods. An
eclectic mix of didactic and experiential training approaches
characterize several skills training approaches used in
supervision. Leddick and Bernard (1980) questioned whether
modern skills training approaches are new at all, or rather,
systematized paradigms of old, unquestioned assumptions about
supervision.

A particularly successful skills training approach is
Kagen's (1975) Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR), which uses
videotaped simulations of helping encounters to teach stu-
dents to become aware of feelings experienced during such
interactions: IPR courses are available to music therapy and
other students at Michigan State University, where the model

was pioneered, and are recognized nationally as models of

skill development for facilitative counselors.

 

 

A

 

27

 

Summary of supervision thgories. The research concern-
ing supervision derives from various positions on the super-
visor's role, purpose, competencies, and methods.
Controversies concerning modeling by the supervisor, didactic
methods, and personal growth as a desired student outcome
remain unsettled, and most models of supervision recognize
the value and necessity of drawing on several models of
supervision in meeting divergent needs of students. Thus the
supervisor may choose to function as teacher, as model
therapist, or as supportive colleague, as students' needs

require.

Sppervisiop as InstructioerCounseling, or Consultation

Gurk and Wicas (1979) described and compared various
approaches to supervision of counselors, including the
counseling model (derived from facilitative theory), the
instruction model (derived from analytic and behavioral
theories), and inclusive views (corresponding with eclectic
theory), and presented their own consultation "metamodel."

Gurk and Wicas (1979) suggested that the choice of a
model of supervision was influenced by six factors: (a) the
definition and goals of counseling (in this case, music
therapy); (b) the underlying theory of learning and change,
(c) the role of the counselor (music therapist), (d) the role
of the client, (e) the relationship of supervision to prac-
tice; and (f) the goals and definition of training. They

posited that, in order to be an effective supervisor, a

 

 

28

conceptual model of goals, roles, process, and values that
guide consistent practice is prerequisite (Gurk & Wicas,
1979, p. 402).

Gurk and Wicas (1979) suggested that reasons for choos-
ing one or another model of supervision were the supervisor's
style preferences and comfort and the requirements of the
organization.

They characterized the counseling and instruction models
as a dichotomy, with polarized positions on many issues.
Inclusive models which include both approaches offer a wider
scope and greater validity. Their consultation metamodel is
offered then as including the approaches of counseling,
instruction, and consultation. "An effective model should
also be useful to supervisors in identifying choice points
and decision-making criteria within the supervisory process"
(Gurk & Wicas, 1979, p. 404).

Gurk and Wicas (1979) identified the differences among
the instruction, counseling, and consultation approaches to
supervison on the following issues: (a) the roles and
relationship of supervisor and trainee, (b) the goals of
training, (c) the focus of supervision sessions, (d) the
theory of personal change, (e) applicable settings or situa—
tions, (f) philosophical roots, (9) evaluation and index of
learning, (h) training modalities and vehicles for supervi-
sion, (1) outcomes of supervision, (j) personality charac-

teristics of counselors as an outcome or goal of supervision;

 

29

(k) supervision climate; and (l) criticisms of both

approaches.

Mpggls of Supervision

The current phase of supervision was described as an age
of models, rather than theories (Leddick & Bernard, 1980).
Several models of supervision will be described briefly in
order to indicate the diversity of scope and format of
available models. The Discrimination Model of Supervision
(Bernard, 1979) will be explained in greater depth, because
it is the basis of the supervision planning and evaluation
procedure tested in this experiment.

Counselor Complexity Model of Supervisiqp. The Counsel-

 

or Complexity Model of supervision was proposed by
Stoltenberg (1981) for training counselors. This model views
the counselor training process as a sequence of identifiable
stages through which a trainee progresses; it is a develop-
mental approach to supervision. The Counselor Complexity
Model is an integration of two theories: Hogan's (1964) Four
Levels of Trainees and Hunt's (1971) Conceptual Systems
Theory.

Hogan's supervision approach defined four stages of
trainees ranging from the apprentice through the
master-of-the-trade. Each stage of counselor development was
accompanied by an appropriate learning environment and
recommended methods of supervision to optimize development at

each level.

 

   

.4":-

 

30

The apprentice was dependent on the supervisor, inse—
cure, and had little insight; the master-of-the-trade was
insightful, had personal autonomy, and was aware of his or
her own limitations. The trainee's development had a
timetable influenced by idiosyncratic characteristics of the
trainee and the training environment.

Hunt (1971) posited a conceptual systems theory of five
levels with optimum environments for each level.

The speed with which a trainee progresses through

these stages is largely dependent on the skills and

attributes of the trainee and the environments

provided through supervision. Two specific skill

areas are important for such effective supervision:

discrimination and creating environments.

(Stoltenberg, 1981, p. 63)

The five levels represent different cognitive and
personality stages of students. Stoltenberg (1981) wrote,
"this paints a picture of the developing individual as a
person who needs a changing environment over the course of
development to encourage movement toward more complex stages"
(p. 60).

The Counselor Complexity Model is described in four
levels from entry level counselor through the advanced master
counselor stage.

The trainee is viewed not just as a counselor

lacking specific skills but as an individual who is

embarking on a course of devleopment that will

culminate in the emergence of a counselor identity.

This end point constitutes the integration of

skills, theory, and a more complete awareness of

oneself and others. This process is placed in a

developmental framework that takes into account the

different motivations, needs, and potential resis-
tances of counselors at different levels or stages

of development. The premise is that there are
qualitative differences in addition to, and not

 

 

 

31

accounted for by, mere quantitative differences in

skill level and the knowledge of theories.

(Stoltenberg, 1981, p. 59)

Four stages of counselor development and their associat-
ed optimal supervision environments are described in terms of
counselor characteristics of the stage.

According to this model, the supervisor's task is
two—fold: to discriminate the developmental level of the
trainee and then to create the appropriate learning environ-
ment for maximum development at that level. The supervisor
must then be skilled in discriminating trainee needs and in
creating environments.

.Stoltenberg (1981) listed the following discrimination
abilities as important to supervision: (a) the ability to
discriminate among the possible environments that may be
created in supervision; (b) the ability to discriminate
between supervisee behaviors and recognize the needs as well
as the strengths of the trainee; (c) the ability to recognize
defensive behavior in the trainee as well as behaviors
marking a development from one level to another; (d) the
ability to recognize idiosyncratic style of a trainee's
counseling approach; (e) the ability to discriminate the type
of supervision that will be the most appropriate; and (f) the
ability to discriminate the type of clients that will be the
most appropriate (pp. 63-64).

An essential discrimination ability, according to
Stoltenberg (1981), is the ability to recognize the accessi-

bility characteristics of the trainee, which are listed in

 

 

M 32

four categories. (1) The trainee's cognitive orientation
(the conceptual level of the trainee). (2) The trainee's
motivational orientation, which determines the appropriate
type of feedback and rewards (i.e., an inner-directed trainee
would respond best to self—defined feedback; an other-
directed trainee would respond best to supervisor-defined
feedback.) (3) The trainee's value orientation, which
affects the types of objectives for training that the trainee
would support. (4) The trainee's sensory orientation, (i.e.,
whether the trainee learns best by seeing the counseling
process displayed or by hearing the supervisor's explanations
of the counseling process) (p. 64).

Stoltenberg (1981) defined two skills critical in
creating environments. (1) Since a variety of environments
is necessary to aid the trainee, the supervisor should be
able to work comfortably at creating the appropriate environ-
ment for the specific needs of the trainee. (2) Supervisors
should be able to alter their approach to suit the accessi-
bility characteristics of the trainee; skill in moving from
one environment to another as the needs of the trainee change
is necessary (p. 64).

Like most stage theories, the counselor complexity model
assumes that transitions exist between the stages.

Multiple Model. The multiple model of supervison (Dole,
1973) was proposed for the training of psychologists, and
rests on the observation that trainees are influenced by

people other than supervisors during clinical training, and

 

 

 

 

33

that each of three types of preparation has distinguishing
characteristics.

The multiple model discards the assumption of one

correct practice, one theory, one model. It

prepares the beginner to cope with the chaos and

disagreement he will face throughout his profes-

sional life. In the absence of much research

evidence about the supervisory function either in

psychology or in other professions, arguments

between exponents of different philosophies of

supervision frequently seem to represent little

more than arguments between experts with different

belief systems. (Dole, 1973, p. 7)

Dole identified sources of influence by situs in the
preparation of professional psychologists. In the field
placement (hospital, clinic, school, industry, etc.), Dole
identified the field supervisor, the administrator of the
agency, fellow interns and psychologists, and clients or
patients as valuable sources of influence on the trainee. On
the campus (classroom, library, and lab), sources of influ-
ence may be the thesis director, advisor, instructor, campus
supervisor, professor, department chairperson, and dean.
Other persons in the field and on campus also exert influence
in training, such as allied health professionals, the public,
and students in other disciplines.

Dole differentiated the types of preparation for clini-
cal practice that are afforded by practice, research, and
scholarship. (Dole supported the supervisor's encouragement
of trainee use of these additional human resources during
supervision times.

Peer Supervision Model. Another model which

de-empbasizes the primary importance of the ”expert

 

 

 

34

clinician" supervisor is the peer supervision model (Wagner
and Smith, 1979). Noting that "new professionals rarely
turned to colleagues for help, but returned to teachers,"
Wagner and Smith suggested that the peer supervision approach
was valuable in achieving several outcomes: (a) increasing
student responsibility for self-assessment and peer assess-
ment; (b) increasing independence and interdependence among
students for professional and personal growth; (c) developing
an emotional support system among the practitioner's col-
leagues rather than encouraging dependence upon the universi-
ty supervisor (p. 288). They stated that the peer
supervision model may be evaluated by examining students'
behaviors in relationship to goals of supervision, as summa-

rized below.

Primary goal 1 is basic skill building, including
attending behaviors, listening behaviors, respond-
ing behaviors, and action behaviors.

Primary goal 2 is intervention skill building,
including conceptualizing cases, defining priori-
ties for the working relationship, choosing tasks
that will help clients accomplish their priorities,
assessing therapeutic movement, identifying blocks
to progress, and developing a repertoire of change
strategies.

Primary goal 3 is developing a role that is consis-
tent with their person and functions as counselors,
including defining one's personality assets and
limitations, clarifying one's interpersonal style
of relating, selecting change strategies that can
be effectively implemented, and adopting or devel-
oping a theoretical orientation consistent with
personal beliefs and values.

Secondary goal 1 is helping students ask for and
use assistance from peers and authorities, includ-
ing assessing when a problem cannot be managed

 

 

 

independently, defining who can help, submitting
work for observation, and maintaining openness to
feedback and suggestions.

Secondary goal 2 is helping students give assis-
tance to peers and authorities who are experiencing
professional or personal problems, including
responding to a direct or indirect request for
assistance, recognizing and using oneself as
manager of the helping process, and using one's
professional armamentarium of skills and change
strategies.

Secondary goal 3 is helping students process
relationship issues that interfere with counseling
or supervisory sessions, including recognizing
interpersonal issues that interfere with progress,
initiating discussion about relationship issues,
and accepting responsibility for their contribution
to the problem, initiating behavior and thinking to
resolve interpersonal conflicts.

Secondary goal 4 is helping students seek therapy
when recurring personal problems interfere with
their work, including identifying specific issues
and, initiating therapy as a personal choice.
(Wagner & Smith, 1979, p. 290)

Clinical Sgpervision Model. The clinical supervision

 

model has generated extensive research and practice among
professional educators.

Clinical supervision may be distinguished from classical
(traditional or general) supervision practices in that it is
concerned not with administrative or evaluation tasks that
occur outside the classroom, but with issues of concern to
teachers in classroom work.

Clinical supervision is a model which uses a cooperative
effort between a teacher and a supervisor to improve teaching
performance through a series of six repeated steps: (a)

preconference, (b) planning, (c) observation, (d) analysis,

 

 

36

(e) planning for tomorrow, and (f) post-morten steps (Clap-
per, 1981, pp. 6-9). Clinical supervision was proposed as a
way to give non—normative, non-evaluative, observable data to
the teacher who is receiving supervision, and is closely akin
to the consultant model described earlier.

Reavis (1977) conducted an observational study of
clinical and traditional supervision and found that clinical
supervision generated more verbal exchanges that correlated
with teacher effectiveness and resulted in better teacher
attitudes toward supervision.

Clinical supervision is aimed at enhancing the develop-
ment of a democratic, participatory relationship between
supervisor and teacher.

Literature in supervision for over 20 years has

promoted the concept of a democratic,

non-threatening relationship between supervisor and

teacher. The professional literature notwithstand-

ing, research has revealed the prevailing teacher

image of a supervisor as either threatening and

authoritarian or a nonentity and out of touch with

classroom reality. (Reavis, 1977, p. 311)

Reavis (1977) found that clinical supervision was signifi-
cantly better on "Accepts or uses teacher's ideas" (p. 313).
No categories of observation favored traditional style
supervision. Teacher attitudes favored clinical supervision
in the areas of communication, teacher's self-perception,
helpfulness, conferences, observations, and suggestions.
Discrimination Model of Supervision

Dr. Janine Bernard's Discrimination Model of Supervision

(1979) provided the theoretical underpinnings of this re-

search study. The Discrimination Model provides an approach

u 3 'V _. , :I
IV:

 

A

37

to studying the cognitive processes of the supervisor as well
as a method of training supervisors in strategies and
problem-solving techniques of supervision. The Discrimina-
tion Model posits that the competent supervisor adapts the
content and process of supervision to meet the individual
needs of trainees. Each supervision contact reflects the
carefully planned selection of areas of discussion to be
approached from one of three defined role relationships. The
three role relationships are teacher-student, counselor-
client, and consultant-colleague. It is called the Discrimi-
nation Model because "a dominant characteristic is the
identification and action upon choice points in the process"
(p. 60).

The task of the supervisor is two—fold: to choose the
content of discussion and to choose the role relationship
appropriate for discussion of the content. The supervisor
discriminates the content of supervision based on comparison
of observed trainee performance with established trainee
competencies. Then the supervisor discriminates the process
(or role relationship) of supervision based on an assessment
of the trainee's learning style and preferences for
interactions.

Choice of supervision content. Bernard (1979) suggested

 

that the competencies of the helping professional be defined
in terms of skills and functions. For counselors, the skill
areas included process skills, conceptualization skills,

personalization skills, and self-organization skills. This

38

concept was adapted for the current study for use with music
therapy students, and skill areas included: session manage-
ment skills, personal skills, conceptualization skills,
musicianship skills, and clinic procedures skills.

Choice of supervision process. Bernard (1979) suggested

 

that supervisors must develop a repertoire of supervisory
behaviors from which to select systematically an appropriate
focus for a particular student in a particular situation and
a particular point in therapy with a client or client group.
Behaviors associated with each of the three role relation-
ships were identified, and each relationship was viewed as
valid and appropriate when chosen by a supervisor to achieve
a desired outcome.

The Discrimination Model contrasts with previous theo-
ries in which the supervisor operates from one predominating
role relationship or from one narrow view of the goal of
supervision. Previously polarized approaches of instruction
and counseling are here combined with consulting as a reper-
toire of choices available to supervisors. Selection based
on trainee needs rather than the habitual style of the
supervisor is suggested.

It is important that this approach or role be as

deliberate a choice made by the supervisor as is

the choice of instructional matter. It is equally

important that the supervisor be trained to recog-

nize and make these choices based on a sound

rationale rather than random selection of personal

preference. . .

With a discrimination model for supervision,

supervisors are asked to add to their idiosyncratic
strengths, becoming comfortable with contrasting

39

roles and using the data at hand to select the most
appropriate role for a supervision contact. . .

Supervision calls for a range of approaches
and attention to a range of counselor functions.
The particular counseling function and the counsel-
or's idiosyncratic difficulty with that function
should be the determining factors in selecting the
appropriate supervisory role. Given these premis-
es, it follows that the supervisor needs (a) a
range of role alternatives, (b) a framework in
which to fit counseling functions, and (c) guide—
lines for determining supervision goals and ap-
proaches. (Bernard, 1979, pp. 63-67)

Bernard presents four advantages of the Discrimination
Model. (1) There can be clearer communication when both
supervisor and trainee know the role relationships. Although
more time may be needed in teaching, less time will be needed
in consulting. (2) More apparent instructional agendas
result. (3) Greater ease in dealing with problematic rela-
tionships is possible. (4) The process can translate present
performance into a grade.

The Discrimination Model is situation-specific. There
are, in the counseling version, nine choices to be made in
each session, based on three role relationship possibilities
and the three areas of counselor competencies.

The Discrimination Model offers a method for training
supervisors. Bernard describes the use of vidotaped vi-
gnettes, role-playing, and group discussion of supervision
sessions.

The Discrimination Model spawned several research
studies in clarifying role-related behaviors. Stenack and

Dye (1982) sought to determine if a clear distinction existed

40

among the three supervision roles in order to validate
Bernard's Discrimination Model. They sought to establish
behavioral correlates for discriminating among supervisor
roles of teacher, counselor, and consultant. They found that
the teacher and counselor roles were clearly distinct, that
the consultant role overlapped with the other two roles in
several behavioral correlates, and that certain supervisor
behaviors were role-free. They concluded that "the roles
cannot be clearly defined in terms of specific behaviors
alone. Other descriptive elements include supervisor goals,
control, and focus of the interaction" (p. 303).

Table 1 presents Stenack and Dye's (1982) he descrip-

tions of the three roles on four dimensions.

Role Relationships in Music Therapy Clinical Supervision

 

The following comparisons of supervisor approaches are
highlighted according to various dimensions, and are adopted
from the work of previously cited researchers in supervision
(Bernard, 1979; Clapper, 1981; Gurk & Wicas, 1979: Stenack &
Dye, 1980). The comparisons are phrased in terms of supervi-
sor behaviors or intentions, for the purpose of highlighting
the differences of the three role relationships of
supervisor-teacher, supervisor-counselor, and supervisor-
consultant. These three role relationships are an integral
part of the treatment procedure of this experiment. The
statements may be interpreted as competencies of the

effective supervisor, in so far as the ability to meet

41

TABLE 1

Three Supervisory Role Relationships (Stenack & Dye, 1982, p. 302)

ROLE

A.

ROLE

A.

B.

C.

l: TEACHER

Focus of the interaction is on the supervisee as a
counselor.

Intention or goal of the supervisor is to instruct.
Specific activities in the teacher role include:

1. Evaluate observed counseling session interactions.

2. Identify appropriate interventions.

3. Teach, demonstrate and/or model intervention
techniques.

4. Explain the rationale behind specific strategies
and/or interventions.

5. Interpret significant events in the counseling
session.

In order to describe the appropriate style or method of
delivery for the teacher role, the concept of overt
control of the interaction can best be utilized. In
most supervision sessions, especially in situations
where a close supervision relationship has not yet been
established, covert control of the interaction rests
with the supervisor. In the case of the teacher role,
the supervisor also retains overt control of the inter-
action. The teacher-supervisor remains in charge,
determines the direction of interaction and functions as
advisor/expert.

2: COUNSELOR

Focus of the interaction is on the supervisee as a
person.

Intention or goal of the supervisor is to facilitate
supervisee self-growth as a counselor.

Specific activities involved in the counselor role
include:

1. Explore supervisee feelings during the counseling
and/or supervision session.

2. Explore supervisee feelings concerning specific
techniques and/or interventions.

3. Facilitate supervisee self-exploration of confi-
dences and/or worries in the counseling session.

4. Help the supervisee define personal competencies
and areas for growth.

5. Provide opportunities for supervisees to process

their own affect and/or defenses.

The counselor-supervisor functions in much the same
capacity as a counselor with a client. The same coun-
seling skills are involved. The major difference

ROLE

A.

42

Table 1 (cont'd.)

between a counselor-supervisor and a counselor is that
the goal of the supervision process is related to
supervisee functioning as a counselor. The supervisee
does not become a client. Within the limitations of
counseling specific limitations, however, the
counselor-supervisor does utilize many of the counseling
behaviors.

3: CONSULTANT

Focus of the interaction is on the client of the
supervisee.

Intention or goal of the supervisor is to generate data.
Specific activities involved in the consultant role
include:

1. Provide alternative interventions and/or conceptu-
alizations for supervisee use.

2. Encourage supervisee brainstorming of strategies
and/or interventions.

3. Encourage supervisee discussion of client problems,
motivations, etc.

4. Solicit and attempt to satisfy supervisee needs
during the supervision session.

5. Allow the supervisee to structure the supervision
session.

The appropriate style or method of delivery for the
consultant role can best be described by referring to
the concept of overt control of the interaction intro-
duced above. In the consultant role, the supervisor
allows the supervisee to exert overt control of the
interaction. The consultant-supervisor provides alter-
natives and options instead of answers as in the teacher
role. The consultant-supervisor also encourages
supervisee choice and responsibility.

43

different students' needs may require the supervisor to
function in all three role relationships at various times.

The supervisor - music therapy student role relationship.

 

The teacher-supervisor (SUP) offers a teacher-learner,
expert-apprentice relationship to the music therapy student
(MTS). The SUP is an authority figure in the relationship;
the MTS is a learner.

The counselor-supervisor (SUP) offers a warm, open,
helper-helpee relationship to the MTS. The SUP acts as a
facilitator of MTS personal growth; the MTS is a "client"
seeking personal growth.

The consultant-supervisor (SUP) offers a collegial,
task-oriented relationship to the MTS. The SUP and MTS are
colleagues in a democratic relationship.

The goals of supervision. The teacher-supervisor (SUP)

 

strives to develop a "good" music therapist by assisting the
MTS in acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills. The SUP
protects the profession and the public by screening out MTSs
who lack the necessary knowledge and skills.

The counselor-supervisor (SUP) strives to develop a
"confident" music therapist by assisting the MTS in acquiring
a self-concept as an effective helping professional. The SUP
assists the MTS in deciding whether music therapy is a wise
career choice.

The consultant-supervisor (SUP) strives to develOp a
"helpful" music therapist by assisting the MTS in making

clinical decisions resulting in therapeutic progress for the

44

MTS's client(s). The SUP models peer-support, networking,
and the continuing self-improvement that contribute to
satisfaction in a career choice (and avoidance of burn-out).

The focus of supervision. The teacher-supervisor

 

focuses supervision sessions on the MTS's performance
(skills) during the music therapy session.

The counselor-supervisor focuses supervision sessions on
the MTS's feelings, thoughts, and experiences related to
clinical or supervisory issues.

The consultant-supervisor focuses supervision sessions
on the MTS's client, especially the client's responses during
the music therapy session.

Evaluation. The teacher-supervisor evaluates the MTS's

 

skills in relation to professional norms and informs the MTS
of his/her status.

The counselor-supervisor functions without judging the
MTS, believing the evaluation of personal growth or
self-concept to be impractical, impossible, or unethical.
Evaluation may be suspended either to reduce MTS's anxiety or
to improve the supervisory relationship.

The consultant-supervisor encourages the MTS to evaluate
his/her own skills as far as necessary to identify his/her
own supervisory needs. The SUP may evaluate the MTS's
client's responses during music therapy sessions.

Feedback from supervisor. The teacher-supervisor gives

 

normative and evaluative feedback to the MTS, (i.e., gives

positive and negative feedback based on the SUP's perceptions

45

of the MTS's performance (skills) in relation to professional
standards of practice).

The counselor-supervisor (SUP) gives subjective feed-
back, (i.e., feedback in terms of the SUP's feeling-responses
to observations of the MTS in music therapy sessions). The
SUP gives feedback only when asked by the MTS, and strives to
make feedback congruent with the MTS's expectations for
feedback.

The consultant-supervisor (SUP) gives data-based,
non-normative, non-evaluative feedback, (i.e., objective
feedback). Target behaviors to be observed for supervisory
feedback are mutually determined in advance by MTS and SUP.

Approach to music therapy techniques. The teacher-

 

supervisor demonstrates techniques, role-plays interactions,
and instructs the MTS by explaining, reviewing, rewarding
successive approximations, and providing sequential program-
matic experiences for the MTS.

The counselor-supervisor supports the MTS's efforts when
trying new techniques by reassuring the MTS that new behav-
iors often feel awkward at first, by encouraging the MTS to
develop his/her own style, and by reflecting the MTS's
feelings when assessing personal strengths and weaknesses.

The consultant-supervisor (SUP) acts as an expert in
problem-solving rather than as an expert in music therapy
techniques. The SUP assists the MTS by using a

problem-solving strategy including problem identification,

46

prioritizing needs, brain-storming solutions, Viewing
consequences, and selecting strategies.

Area of supervisor's expertise. The teacher-supervisor

 

acts as an expert music therapy clinician.

The counselor-supervisor acts as an expert counselor,
using facilitative verbal interactions.

The consultant-supervisor acts as an expert problem-
solver, and needs only entry-level clinical music therapy
skills.

Supervision assignments. The teacher—supervisor assigns

 

readings, observations, or projects for the MTS according to
a pre-planned curriculum or as needed by the individual MTS.

The counselor-supervisor makes no extra-clinical assign-
ments, but does refer the MTS to research literature or
materials upon request. Such concurrent experiences as
individual therapy, group growth workshops, and values
clarification exercises may be suggested.

The consultant-supervisor makes no extra-clinical
assignments.

Approach to MTS personal problems. The teacher-

 

supervisor encourages the MTS to seek therapy when recurrent
personal problems interfere with work.

The counselor-supervisor assists the MTS with personal
problems that interfere with work.

The consultant-supervisor describes ways in which the
client and/or the SUP is affected by the MTS personal

problem.

47

Frame of reference in supervision. The teacher-

 

supervisor uses professional vocabulary, discusses issues
from his or her own "professional" frame of reference, and
strives to inculcate in the MTS a professional identity
based on norms and expectations.

The counselor-supervisor uses the MTS's vocabulary,
discusses issues from the MTS's point of View (frame of
reference) as learned by interacting with the MTS, and
strives to have the MTS integrate his/her personal experi-
ences with a professional identity.

The consultant-supervisor attempts to suspend profes-
sional and personal frame of reference by focusing on the
client. The task at hand during supervision is the client's
present problem rather than the MTS's needs.

Approach to case conceptualization. The teacher-

 

supervisor gives his/her own case conceptualization directly.
The counselor-supervisor witholds his/her case conceptu-
alization and indirectly draws out the MTS's case conceptual-
ization through open-ended questioning.
The consultant-supervisor either shares or witholds
personal case conceptualization, based on the MTS's expressed
needs.

Self-disclosure during supervision. The teacher-

 

supervisor avoids disclosing personal feelings, values, and
experiences except for the purpose of illustrating an

instructional point.

48

The counselor-supervisor shares personal feelings,
values, and experiences in an effort to improve the supervi-
sory relationship and to decrease MTS anxiety which inter-
feres with work.

The consultant-supervisor may or may not self-disclose
as needed by the task at hand.

Verbal interaction pattern. The teacher-supervisor

 

engages in direct, one-way communication that is character-
ized by personal opinions, suggestions, advice, praise,
criticism, interruptions, and information-giving.

The counselor-supervisor engages in indirect, facilita-
tive communication characterized by listening, reflecting the
MTS's communications, clarifying MTS's statements, and
support-inducing communications (self-disclosure, identifica-
tion with the MTS, etc.)

The consultant-supervisor engages in direct and indirect
two-way conversation with the MTS. The task at hand deter-
mines the type and frequency of verbal patterns.

Compliance with clinical procedures. The teacher-

 

supervisor monitors MTS compliance with clinical
procedures by keeping records of MTS work, receiving and
processing MTS-generated written work, making corrections,
and giving feedback to the MTS regarding compliance.

The counselor-supervisor avoids monitoring MTS compli-
ance with clinical procedures unless asked to by the MTS.
Corrections to written work are given only when requested.

The SUP signs MTS written work with minimal changes.

49

The consultant-supervisor is disinterested in monitoring
MTS compliance with clinical procedures because, as an equal,
the responsibility and consequences for failure to comply
rest entirely with the MTS. The SUP provides guidelines for
MTS to improve own work when asked.

Relationship of theory to practice in clinical training.
The teacher-supervisor assumes that a cause—and-effect
relationship exists between therapist intervention and client
change. The MTS as strategist and initiator thus must
practice interventions prior to much theoretical preparation
or adherence.

The counselor-supervisor assumes that outcomes are
intangible, and that theoretical preparation and commitment
must precede clinical contact.

The consultant-supervisor works from an atheoretical
point of View; theoretical positions are considered irrele-
vant to client progress in therapy.

Source of structure during supervision. The teacher—
supervisor initiates supervision content and assumes
responsibility for structuring the supervision session.
Periods of silence are uncommon.

The counselor-supervisor responds to MTS-initiated
supervision content and avoids structuring the supervision
session. Periods of silence are not avoided.

The consultant-supervisor regards supervision sessions

as goal-oriented (to solve a mutually-agreed-upon task), and

50

shares responsibility for structuring the supervision session
equally with the MTS.

Scheduling supervision. The teacher-supervisor encour-

 

ages regularly scheduled supervision meetings which last a
predetermined amount of time.

The counselor-supervisor encourages regularly scheduled
supervision meetings which last the amount of time needed to
process the MTS's feelings, thoughts, and questions.

The consultant-supervisor encourages supervision meet-
ings to be requested by the MTS when and if needed to accom-
plish the MTS's objectives and lasting the amount of time
needed.

The importance of MTS personality characteristics. The

 

teacher-supervisor presumes that music therapy competencies
are acquired through pedagogy, programmatic methods (curricu-
lum), and reinforcement within a supportive environment.
Personality characteristics are considered off-limits to
supervision.

The counselor-supervisor presumes that certain personal—
ity characteristics affect the acquisition of music therapy
competencies, and strives to acquaint the MTS with the
personality correlates of effective therapists (tolerance of
ambiguity, a moderate amount of anxiety, sensitivity to the
expectations of others, patience, non-aggressive interperson-
al relationships, open-mindedness, and a perspective about

the prognosis for change in others).

51

The consultant-supervisor assumes that the MTS has made
optimum adaptation of personality characteristics in relation
to the requirements of his/her clinical responsibilities.
Discussion of personality characteristics is considered
unproductive in that supervision serves to accomplish

client-centered gains.

Supervisor Variables

 

The variables within the supervisor that will be re-
viewed in this section include: (a) supervisor style, (b)
supervisor experience level, (c) supervisor skills, and (d)
supervisor music therapy clinical supervision skills.

The purposes of this section are to identify the vari-
ables within supervisors that might affect supervision
effectiveness, to list supervisor skills, and to suggest a

method for evaluating supervision.

Supervisor Style

Didactic and experiential supervisor styles. A number

 

of studies investigated didactic and experiential supervisor
style on various measures of trainee outcomes.

Payne and Gralinski (1968) studied counselor trainees'
perceptions of supervisor style in simulated supervision
sessions using two supervisory conditions--counseling type
and techniques type supervision (experiential and didactic)

p. 559). Didactic style was described as stressing feedback,

52

evaluation, and techniques even though those aspects aroused
anxiety in trainees.

Experiential style was described as a counseling ap-
proach that stressed the importance of a feeling of security,
freedom from threat, and an opportunity for self-development.

Payne and Gralinski found that:

Although subjects supervised by an emphasis on

techniques rated themselves less relaxed and less

confident about the meaning of empathy than those

with an emphasis on counseling, their performance

on the criterion of empathy was higher. . . No

differences were found for reactions to supervi-

sion. . . Counselors did not perceive (techniques

condition supervisors) as more critical, less

empathic, nor more tension-inducing. . ." Empathy

of supervisors did not appreciably affect counsel-

ing perception. (Payne & Gralinski, 1968, pp.

557-561)

The counseling type of supervision style was described
as modeled after a non-directive counseling relationship,
characterized by: (a) an attempt to establish an empathic
relationship in order to model empathic behavior; (b) a focus
on the trainee's frame of reference; (0) responding to the
counselor trainee's feelings about the task, feelings toward
the client, and reactions and assessment of own performance;
(d) avoidance of negative evaluation; and (e) avoidance of
direct suggestions for improvement.

The techniques type of supervision style was described
as (a) also offering a high level of empathy, and working for
a positive interpersonal relationship; (b) discussing the

trainee's effectiveness in offering empathy; (c) discussing

the trainee's techniques in counseling; (d) giving examples

53

of responses which would have been more empathic than the
ones given by their counselors (Payne & Gralinski, 1968, p.
559).

The Empathy Scale used by Payne and Gralinski (1968) was
based on earlier scales of rapport by Traux (1961) and
Barrett-Lennard (1962), and asked for a response on a
seven-point Likert Scale ranging from lowest (this person is
usually unaware of what you are feeling), middle position
(this person is aware of your feelings but not entirely
"with" you) to highest position (this person is completely
attuned to you and reflects your feelings in words or ac-
tions)" (Payne & Gralinski, 1968, p. 559).

Birk (1972) compared the effects of experiential and
didactic supervision styles on student counselors' acquisi-
tion of empathic responding skills. She questioned whether
trainees' preference for a supervision method would affect
learning.

Birk's (1972) didactic supervisors (a) provided a
structured approach; (b) specified those remarks of the
trainee which appropriately communicated empathic understand-
ing; (c) suggested responses that could have been more
effective; (d) questioned the trainee to test the trainee's

reucognition of appropriate and inappropriate responses made
<iuring the counseling session and positively reinforced
‘verioally the trainee's accurate responses; and (e) suggested

tecfllniques that facilitate empathy (e.g., voice modulation

54

(matching client tone, volume, and rate of speech), use of
specific gestures, etc.) (p. 544).

Birk's (1972) experiential supervisors (a) maintained an
informal discussion atmosphere; (b) asked trainees for
relevant personal life experiences in the present or past
that may be similar to that of the client; (c) explored
through their empathic behavior, the trainee's dominant
emotional quality while interviewing the client; (d) used the
supervisory relationship as a living emotional experience
wherein the trainee could sense himself or herself in rela-
tion to the client; (e) placed emphasis on the parallelism
between the supervisory and the counseling relationship; and
(f) used his or her behavior as a model for the trainee (p.
544).

Birk found that:

didactic training produced higher levels of

empathic understanding regardless of whether it was

the preferred method of supervision by the counsel-

or. Learning empathy was not contingent upon

receiving the preferred supervision. Interaction

effect between supervision and supervision method

was significant. . . An effective tool, in this

case didactic supervision, is more effective for

some supervisors than for others. Exploring the

fit of several supervisory strategies may maximize

the learning potential during supervision. (Birk,

1972, pp. 542-545)

Birk pointed out a problem with much supervision re-
search: it is conducted with extremely inexperienced under-
graduate students, whose learning needs may be different from

those of more experienced students: "Had the subjects been

advanced student with prior practica, then the didactic

55

method with its techniques orientation may not have been as
effective" (p. 545).

Goldfarb (1976, 1978) studied four combinations of
supervisor style on counselor effectiveness and facilitative
responding. Rather than viewing experiential and didactic
strategies as mutually exclusive, or two opposite ends of a
continuum, Goldfarb tried combinations of both and then
measured the effects as reported by the counselor trainee's
client. Three supervisory styles were significantly higher
on the client-completed Counselor Effectiveness Inventory
than the fourth supervisory style and control condition.

When an overall measure of counseling effectiveness
from the VieWpoint of the client is used to deter-
mine differences in the effects of supervision
differing levels of the didactic and experiential
components of supervision do not produce a differ-
ence in the ratings given to counselors. Either
type of supervision or a mixture of the two produc-
es significantly greater effects than either an
attention or no-treatment control.

The high-didactic low-experiential group
always ranked slightly above the high didactic,
high-experiential group. This may indicate that in
short-term supervision with relatively inexperi-
enced counselors, the time spent in experiential
aspects of supervision might better be spent in
didactic didactic activities when specific skills
are to be learned. On the other hand, the slight
insignificant differences in skill attainment may
be a desireable trade for possible increases in
rapport and a better supervisor-supervisee rela-
tionship that may be enhanced by the inclusion of
some experiential aspects in supervision.
(Goldfarb, 1978, p. 459)

Wasserman (1975) studied the effects of three supervi-
sory styles on counselor trainee's level of functioning and
his findings supported the superiority of the didactic style

of supervision.

56

Wasserman (1975) compared three styles of supervision:
didactic with positive focus, didactic with negative focus,
and experiential in a pretest, posttest control group design.
It was found that only trainees who received the didactic
approach with negative emphasis showed significant improve-
ment on empathy, specificity, affect, and understanding, and
that this treatment was significantly different from the

control group only on the variable of specificity.

Individual style. Supervision has been described as a

 

process of "meta-helping" that occurs in face-to-face discus-
sions between a supervisor and a therapist-in-training. Just
as a music therapy clinician uses both music and personal
skills in therapy sessions, the supervisor uses supervisory
skills and personal attributes in supervision. Those person-
al attributes, or physical, emotional, psychological, and
cognitive traits of the supervisor, may be thought of as
"influence potential" according to Strong's Interpersonal
Influence Theory(l968). Strong's theory suggests that
supervisors with enhanced influence potential are capable of
more effective supervision than supervisors with diminished
influence potential. The supervisor's amount of experience
is a component of influence potential.

Holloway and Wolleat (1981) investigated the
interactional process or style of beginning supervisors and
found that "beginning supervisors have individual predilec-

tions for supervisory behaviors that are stable across

57

interviews with different trainees" (p. 373). Supervisors
and trainees viewed a 10.5 minute videotape of five segments
of a counseling interaction. Each supervisor was then
randomly assigned two trainees for 45—minute, individual
supervision sessions in which the task was to act as if the
client had been referred to the trainee and would see the
trainee the next week for counseling. They were instructed
to behave as if trainee and supervisor would meet again the
following week, and to focus supervision discussion on the
client in the videotape. The supervision session was
audiotaped using the Blumberg System for Analyzing
Supervisor-Teacher Interaction (BIA) (1970) (adapted from
Flander's system for analyzing teacher-student classroom
interactions).

Holloway and Wolleat (1981) found that:

Supervisors differed significantly from one another
on the ratio of supportive behavior and adapting to
the trainee's frame of reference: on giving infor-
mation, opinion, or suggestions; on negative value
judgments and defensiveness; on the ratio of
indirect to direct responses; and on the ratio of
supervisor talk time to trainee talk time. Super-
visors also differed significantly across inter-
views on giving information, opinions, and
suggestions and on the ratio of indirect to direct
responses. . .

Trainee's behavior differed significantly in
frequency of questions asked and in the amount of
information, opinions, and suggestions given to
supervisor. . .

They concluded that a primary goal of educat-
ing teachers, counselors, or supervisors is to
enlarge their capacity to control their instruc-
tional behavior. The successful supervisor can
create a climate for learning that is appropriate
for the particular trainee being supervised. . .

Clearly, any style differences that might be
present have implications for the content and

58

method of subsequent instruction in skill develop-
ment. Second, instrumentation that is chosen to
describe supervisory interactions should reflect
the range of behaviors that are included in the
definition of supervisory style and should ulti-
mately relate to a systematic approach to instruc-
tion in supervision. . .

Recognition of beginning supervisor "styles"
is a first step in the development of an individu-
alized instructional methodology that systematical-
ly broadens the supervisor's skills and thus in
turn allows him/her to individualize the trainee's
learning program (Holloway & Wolleat, 1981, pp.
375-376).

Supervisor Experience Level

 

The experience level of the supervisor is an important
variable affecting competence in supervisory skills for two
reasons: amount of experience can increase the "influence
potential" according to social influence theory, and experi-
ences can lead to self-confidence and handling of situations
that novice supervisors may never have encountered.

Smith (1975) studied the relationship between supervisor
experience level and behaviors in simulated supervision
sessions. Smith computed a Supervisor Experience Index for
supervisors based on years of experience in four supervisory-
related roles: supervisor, counselor, practicum instructor,
and supervisee. Using a self-report measure of expectations
of supervision, Smith classified supervisors as didactic or
experiential, and asked them to listen to a lS-minute
audiotape of a counseling session and then supervise the
trainee. The trainee was a trained actor playing the train-

ee's role consistently for each supervisor-subject.

59

Smith found that the more experienced supervisors scored
as more didactic; the less experienced supervisors scored as
more experiential.

Smith suggested that the terms didactic and experiential
are of limited usefulness for classifying supervisors'
expectations and behaviors. The terms seem to obscure the
actual differences between and within groups.

Effect of supervisor experience upon planning. Stone
(1980) extended the suggestions of research in teacher
planning to an investigation of supervisor planning. He
distinguished two kinds of thinking in a study of supervisor
cognitive process: thinking "on one's feet" during supervi-
sion, and thinking before supervision, or planning. The
model of teacher planning upon which his research was based
included (a) setting educational goals, (b) assessing learner
characteristics, (c) selecting appropriate materials and
subject matter, and (d) choosing from alternative instruc-
tional strategies. Planning was thus a process of
decision-making; Stone cited research using the planning
categories that revealed relationships between teacher
planning, teacher behavior, and student outcomes.

Supervisor planning categories were used to code
audiotapes of supervisors using a "thinking-aloud" technique
to plan supervision sessions. The coding system employed the

following categories of supervisor planning statements:

60

"Supervision goals" included statements about the
intended supervisee outcomes toward which the supervisor was
working.

"Lower order subject matter" included statements dealing
with facts and information about the skill that was not
related to counseling theory.

"Higher order subject matter" included statements
dealing with information about the skill that was related to
principles and concepts derived from counseling theory.

"Supervision process" included statements that described
an activity or strategy that the supervisor intended to use
during supervision.

"Materials" included statements about materials and
aspects of the physical environment and their instructional
use.

"Supervisee" included statements that accounted for one
or more aspects of the supervisee's level of counseling skill
development and ability to respond in a helping mode.

"Supervisor" included statements that concerned the
supervisor's self-confidence, competence, anxiety, and
doubts.

"Miscellaneous" included statements that did not fit
into any of the above categories.

"Productivity” included the total number of statements
coded (Stone, 1980, p. 85). Stone (1980) used a coding
system modified from Peterson et a1, 1978, and used Auld &

White's (1956) system for dividing interviews into sentences.

61

He formed three groups of supervisors: inexperienced super-
visors, graduate student supervisors, and experienced
supervisors.

Stone (1980) found experienced supervisors generated
more planning statements and that more of these statements
concerned the supervisee than did statements generated by
inexperienced or graduate student supervisors. He reported
that the supervisory process was the focus of most statements
for all groups, with no significant differences among groups.
After process statements, the focus of statements depended on
experience level: (a) experienced supervisors focused on the
supervisee, (b) inexperienced supervisors focused on facts
about the subject, and (c) graduate student supervisors
focused on both topics equally. No significant differences
emerged between experience levels for other data. Stone
concluded that:

Increasing experience enriches models of supervi-
sion by providing more information and choices,
whereas inexperience tends to impoverish supervi-
sion models and restrict choices. . .

Experience was not only associated with higher
productivity, but a specific focus on the
supervisee. This finding suggests that as supervi-
sors become more familiar with the counseling
process and apparently settle in a comfortable
style, more time is available for focusing on the
supervisee. On the other hand, supervisors,
including inexperienced undergraduates and advanced
graduate students, may use up their energy master-
ing unfamiliar content and in deciding on the
apprOpriate strategy. Such a situation for the
supervisor leaves little time for the supervisee.
(Stone, 1980, p. 87)

62

Supervisor Skills

 

The NAMT has provided no guidance regarding supervisor
skills. The AAMT has published a list of competencies for
music therapists (entry level clinicians), but none for
supervisor competencies. Many professions have adopted
competency-based curriculums in training programs, and it
appears that a list of supervisor competencies would enhance
supervisor training and support.

Kunstler (1980) surveyed 58 agencies used as field sites
for therapeutic recreation students and asked agency employ—
ees to rate the competencies needed to supervise students.
The competencies ranked "most needed" were: (a) recognizing
the educational value of fieldwork for the student, (b)
analyzing the student's ability to employ the therapeutic
recreation process, and (c) demonstrating the ability to work
closely with another adult without feeling threatened by
their questions, criticisms, ideas, or suggestions. The area
of competency ranked highest in importance was "Interpersonal
Relationship".

Pierce and Schauble (1970) investigated the effect of
the level of a supervisor's skill in empathy on the growth of
counselors. They tested Carkhuff's (1969) model of predict-
ing growth of interpersonal functioning in facilitative
dimensions of empathy, regard, genuineness, and concreteness.

Carkhuff's (1969) model states that the supervisor's
level of functioning on these therapeutic dimensions influ-
ences the development of the supervisee on these same dimen-

sions. Each dimension is measured on a five-level scale,

63

with level one as lowest, level three as minimal for thera—
peutic effectiveness, and level five as the highest.

At the highest levels, the counselor comprehensive-

ly and accurately understands the other person's

deepest feelings (empathy); cares deeply and

recognizes the potential of the other person

(regard); is freely and deeply himself in a

nonexploitive relationship (genuiness); and is

helpful in guiding the discussion directly and

completely to specific feelings and experiences

(concreteness).

In contrast, the low-functioning counselor,
appears to be completely unaware of even the most
apparent feelings of the other person; does not see
the other person's potential as a creative human
being; is not able to verbalize his true experience
(or when he does so is not able to use them effec-
tively); and, discusses everything at an abstract
and intellectualized level. (Pierce & Schauble,

1970, pp. 210-211)

Carkhuff's (1969) model postulates that a lower-level
functioning trainee will require a long-term relationship
with a facilitative supervisor (Level Three or above) to
reach a minimum level of facilitative functioning. A trainee
who is already minimally facilitative, who sees the surface
world but is lacking in deep perceptions of it, will require
only brief training by a high-level supervisor in order to
become a high-level facilitator himself.

The model states that if a supervisor is functioning
below Level Three, he can influence growth only in those
below him, and he could not influence growth in this trainee
beyond his own functioning level, except when the student is
already at minimal Level Three and so is self-sustaining or

the interaction is modified by contextual variables, (e.g.,

the student might get outside help).

64

The model states that if there is no significant differ-
ence between a low-level supervisor and his or her supervisee
on the core conditions, the former will be able to effect no
change or positive growth in the trainee's behavior on those
conditions.

Pierce and Schauble (1970) found that trainee levels of
facilitative conditions shift in the direction of supervisor
levels of facilitative conditions.

The interns having supervisors who themselves were

functioning at high levels of empathy, regard,

genuineness, and concreteness changed significantly

and positively. The interns who had supervisors

functioning at low levels on these dimensions did

not change, and in fact tended to decline slightly.

The individual supervisor is a highly critical

and significant variable (in influencing therapeu-

tic growth in graduate students). Only supervisees

of high-level supervisors showed positive

change. . . This implies that a modeling effect

could be sufficient for learning. (Pierce &

Schauble, 1970, pp. 210-214)

Worthington and Roehlke (1979) suggested that good
supervision consisted of both experiential and didactic
elements. They asked supervisors of beginning counselors-
in-training to rate the importance to good supervision of 42
supervisor behaviors, and asked the trainees to rate the
frequency with which the supervisor actually performed each
behavior. Their purpose was to identify those specific
supervisor behaviors that are perceived as most effective by
supervisees.

The trainees rated the effectiveness of the supervisor

along three dimensions: (a) satisfaction with supervision,

65

(b) supervisor competence, and (c) contribution of supervison
to improved counseling ability.

Worthington and Roehlke (1979) found that supervisors
and trainees differed in their definitions of good supervi-
sion. Supervisors considered giving accurate feedback the
cornerstone of good supervision, and confrontation was
considered important. Supervisors did not perceive some of
the didactic-instructional behaviors as being vital.

The trainees' satisfaction with supervision, on the
other hand, was predicted best by a good relationship with
the supervisor and receiving direct help with skills.

Supervisors thought the following behaviors were more
important than the trainees' thought they were: (a) giving
negative feedback, (b) confronting supervisees, (c) being
available during emergencies, (d) observing supervisee's
sessions, (e) not missing supervision sessions.

Supervisors thought the following behaviors were less
important than the trainee's thought they were: (a) modeling
task-oriented behavior, (b) sharing own experiences, (c)
providing literature in assessment and treatment, (d) provid-
ing structure during initial supervision sessions.

The trainees' perception of supervisor competence was
best predicted by (a) greater experience, skill, and self-as-
surance of supervisor, (b) supervisor encouraging trainee to
develop own counseling skills.

Supervisors perceived supervision as primarily

providing feedback to supervisees. . . Beginning

counselors rated their supervision as good, howev-
er, if: (a) a personal and pleasant

66

supervisor-supervisee relationship existed, (b)
supervisor provided relatively structured supervi-
sion sessions, especially during early sessions;
and (c) supervisors directly taught beginning
counselors how to counsel (by example, by using
literature, and by didactic instruction) and then
encouraged the new counselor to try out their new
skills. The controversy over the effectiveness of
experiential and didactic training methods has
existed for over ten years. Experiential training
has focused on supervision as an interpersonal
process. On the other hand, skills training has
focused on supervision as resembling a
student-teacher relationship. In this study, good
supervision of beginning counselors-in-training
consisted of both elements. (Worthington &

Roehlke, 1979, pp. 64-71)

Worthington and Roehlke suggested several reasons for
the discrepancies in ideas about supervision.

What beginning practicum counselors seem to need
most is for their supervisors to blend direct
teaching with good relationship enhancement

skills. . . Beginning practicum students often do
not want feedback (especially negative feedback)
about their counseling behaviors; they want to
learn how effective counselors behave and how to
behave as effective counselors. Counselors who are
already self-confident about their counseling
ability and who have a repertoire of assessment and
intervention strategies usually do not like to be
"taught". . . As counselors become more experi-
enced, they may come to value more highly receiving
feedback about their counseling behavior within an
unstructured relationship. They may also come to
value less being taught new counseling behaviors
within a structured relationship. (Worthington &
Roelke, 1979, p. 71)

Worthington and Roelke (1979) suggested that (a) most
Supervisors were trained as counselors, and often generalized
good relationship enhancement skills to the supervisory
Isfilationship, whereas trainees need direct teaching plus a

SOCNi relationship; (b) supervisors often supervised as they

67

would like to have been supervised, (i.e., they wouldn't like
to be "taught"); (c) relatively inexperienced supervisors
acted differently from experienced supervisors, perhaps
accounting for their reluctance to be observed or to
role-play; and (d) experienced supervisors are more didactic
than inexperienced supervisors.

On the basis of these studies, the variable of supervi-
sor experience level was selected for this experiment.

Supervisor Music Therapy Clinical Supervision Skills.

 

Aspects of the individual supervisor which are likely to
affect the supervisory process include the organismic vari-
ables of personality traits, conceptual level, and psycho-
logical attributes. Additional sources of influence are the
supervisor's expectations and preferences for supervision
style based on past experiences as a supervisee and
supervisor.

Supervisors may ascribe to a particular "school" of
therapy, such as behavior modification, analytic therapy,
transactional analysis, or developmental therapy, or may
espouse an eclectic approach. Such variations among supervi-
sors may enhance supervision, especially in cases where a
student receives supervision from several supervisors, each
of whom specializes in a different approach to treatment.
Supervisor specialization may hinder student growth, though,
especially in cases where the student and supervisor hold
opposing points of view and there are no objective third

parties available to balance an unyielding supervisor's bias.

68

In a similar vein, supervisors may be skilled in a wide
variety of music therapy techniques or may use a narrow range
of techniques. Some approaches have gained popularity to the

extent of making "converts,"

that is, practitioners who use
only the techniques of certain individuals such as Orff,
Helen Bonney, or Nordoff and Robbins. Again, such variations
in approach to technique may enhance or detract from a
particular supervisory relationship depending on the people
and needs involved.

Supervisors also vary in music therapy clinical compe-
tencies, which can influence supervision decisions. For
example, supervisors often complain that a student lacks
prerequisite piano, guitar, or vocal skills; one subsequently
finds that the supervisor was a piano major, a string spe-
cialist, or a vocalist in college. Such biases stemming from
differences in skills can again serve supervision in a
positive or negative way, depending on how the bias is
employed in relation to a given student's clinical needs.

Supervisors vary in their Verbal facilitative skills,
which is of particular importance for novice supervisors who
attempt to transfer therapy expertise to supervision tasks.
Whereas music therapy may be a primarily nonverbal form of
interpersonal interaction, supervision is primarily a conver-
sation between people. Music therapists who work with
nonverbal populations may be especially needful of acquiring
verbal skills for supervision that were not required for

therapy. In any case, music therapists are not routinely

69

trained in verbal interaction skills as are counselors,
social workers, and psychologists. Verbal facilitation
skills involve responding empathically, reflecting feelings,
communicating with warmth and genuineness, and providing
various types of feedback.

Supervisor_perceptions of behaviors. Supervisor percep-

 

tions of personal competencies and behaviors are important,
because they contribute to motivation for seeking profession-
al and personal growth, and because they contribute to the
level of personal insight needed for effective communication
in the supervisory relationship.

Finally, supervisors vary in levels of supervisory
skills. Supervisory competencies, and the satisfaction of
the supervisor and the student with the use of skills in
providing helpful supervison, comprise the dependent variable
in this study. The foregoing literature concerning supervi-
sor skills was used in the preparation of a data-collection
instrument for this experiment. In order to test supervision
satisfaction of students and supervisors, a listing of
supervisor skills was developed. Supervisor skills in the
three role relationships of supervisor-teacher skills,
supervisor-counselor skills, and supervisor-consultant skills
were formulated. Appendix A represents the conversion of
these skills into the Supervision Satisfaction Form.

Teacher skills include the abilities to assess accurate-
ly the student's abilities and needs and to convey informa-

tion; counselor skills refer to abilities in the facilitative

70
dimensions of personal skills; consultant skills refer to
abilities to influence others and to solve problems.

Table 2 lists the supervisor skills by areas.

Music Therapy Student Variables

 

The personal attributes of the student affect the
student's supervision needs, therapeutic relationships with
clients, and supervisory relationships. The findings perti-
nent to the music therapy student will be presented in five
sections: (a) student cognitive characteristics, (b) student
psychological attributes, (c) previous experiences of the
student, (d) approaches to student evaluation, and (e)

clinical skills of the student.

Student Cognitive Characteristics

 

Neufeldt (1978) studied the preference for behavioral or
insight counseling of clients who were labeled formal or
concrete thinkers. She predicted that subjects with higher
capacity for formal thought would choose insight counseling,
and that clients with more concrete thinking would prefer
behavioral counseling.

Her hypothesis was based on the developmental psychology
of Piaget. Formal thinkers were described as:

being able to (1) consider problems at an entirely

verbal level; (2) think about several problems and

solutions at once; (3) make hypotheses to test; and

(4) think about their own thinking. Concrete

thinkers lack many of these abilities, which are

usually taken for granted in insight counseling.
(Neufeldt, 1978, pp. 184-185)

71

TABLE 2

Supervisor Skills for Music Therapy Clinical Supervision

Supervisor "teacher" skills include the abilities to:

 

1. Focus the content of supervision sessions on the
student's skills and behaviors which are observed
during music therapy sessions.

2. Demonstrate techniques, role-play interactions, and
instruct student in music therapy techniques.

3. Refer student to research, assigned readings or
observations related to clinical work.

4. Share own case conceptualization and make direct
suggestions for the student's use in therapy.

5. Structure the supervision session by initiating
discussion topics and refocusing discussion.

6. Give positive and negative feedback to student based on
observation of student during therapy sessions and on
professional standards.

7. Use professional vocabulary and frame of reference.

8. Monitor student compliance with clinical procedures and
keep accurate records of student's work.

9. Make suggestions and/or corrections on student's
written work.

10. Evaluate student skills fairly and according to clinic
procedures.

Supervisor "counselor" skills include the abilities to:

 

11. Focus the content of supervision sessions on the
student's feelings, thoughts, and experiences relating
to clinical issues.

12. Function without judging the student's performance in
order to facilitate the student's personal growth.
Offer an open, helping relationship.

13. Support the student's efforts, reassure and encourage
the student, and use facilitative communication
techniques in supervision.

14.

15.

72

Table 2 (cont'd.)

Use questioning, clarification of student
communication, and self-disclosure as supervision
techniques.

Communicate caring, respect for the student's
potential, and respect for the student's viewpoints.

Supervisor "consultant" skills include the abilities to:

 

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

Focus the content of supervision sessions on the
client's needs and responses in therapy sessions.

Give student maximum freedom and autonomy by offering a
collegial, democratic relationship.

Give data-based feedback on client or student target
behaviors when requested.

Respond to student concerns and questions directly;
encourage student to express supervision preferences.

Use problem-solving techniques (problem identification,
prioritizing, brain-storming, viewing consequences, and
strategy selection) in supervision.

Negotiate content and approach to supervision with
student on a flexible, on-going basis.

Deal with administrative problems promptly and
effectively.

Be available and dependable for supervision sessions.

Supervisor overall skills include the abilities to:

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

Meet the student's individual needs for supervision.

Develop a positive supervisory relationship with the
student.

Use supervision time wisely.

Influence the student's personal and professional
growth in a positive manner.

Provide good or helpful supervision. (Memory, 1983)

73

Concrete thinkers (1) rely on concrete experience, (2)
proceed in an inductive fashion to solve one problem at a
time, and (3) reflect little on their own mental processes
(Neufeldt, 1978).

Neufeldt (1978) further suggested that insight counsel-
ing is based on more abstract thought and interpretation and
that behavioral counseling is based on concrete experience.

Neufeldt (1978) and her staff observed subjects perform-
ing nine tasks developed by Piaget and his followers (Sund,
1976) to assess the level of cognitive development, and then
classified subjects as formal or concrete thinkers. (Tasks
were designed to display proportional thought, logical
reasoning, verbal-deductive reasoning, combinatory logic,
systematic memory, and conservation of volume.)

Neufeldt's hypothesis was based on the following obser-
vations. (1) Clients of high intelligence, as measured by IQ
tests, have been more successful in psychotherapy than their
less intelligent counterparts. (2) A high level of educa-
tional attainment is correlated with a positive therapeutic
outcome, as is student status. (3) High intelligence is
correlated with success in traditional psychotherapy but not
with success in behavior therapy (Neufeldt, 1978). Neufeldt
found that:

Clients' cognitive characteristics are indicative

of their expectations and preferences in counsel—

ing. Behavioral counseling, with its reliance on

concrete experience and step-by-step behavior

changes, allows concrete thinkers to approach

emotional problems in the same manner in which they

approach intellectual problems. Insight counsel-

ing, on the other hand, encourages formal thinkers
to use their skills in verbal, abstract thought; in

74

hypothesis-making; and in reflection on their own

thinking processes. In other words, if individuals

are accustomed to solving problems in particular

ways, then they will be more comfortable in contin-

uing to do so. It makes sense for counselors to

try to assess Clients' usual problem-solving

strategies before determining a method of treat-

ment. (Neufeldt, 1978, pp. 186-187)

Neufeldt (1978) found that subjects who chose the
insight counselor had a significantly higher capacity for
formal thought than subjects who chose the behavioral
counselor.

Subjects were asked to read one of two scripts and then
respond to two semantic-differentials.

The Behavioral counseling script was characterized by
(a) counselor statements of descriptions of behaviors in-
volved in the problem, (b) counselor suggestions for new
target behaviors, (c) counselor references to previously
learned deep muscle relaxation, and (d) counselor requests
for practice of both the deep muscle relaxation and the new
behaviors.

The insight counseling script contained (a) reflections
of client feeling, (b) analysis of a dream, (c) use of a
metaphor, and (d) several interpretations.

Neufeldt cited research showing that high cognitive
level clients made more statements about themselves under
behavioral counseling conditions. Because Clients' initial
expectations for success in therapy predicted psychotherapy

outcome, it was recommended that the therapy approach match

client expectations to as great an extent as possible.

75

Conceptual level of student. Berg (1977) and Berg and

 

Stone (1980) reported on the relationship of conceptual level
and degree of structure of supervision on counseling train-
ee's skill in reflection-of-feeling and satisfaction. Their
work was based on Hunt's (1971) Conceptual Level Matching
Model, which coordinates the learner's characteristics with
instructional methods to maximize performance. Hunt (1971)
suggested that there tends to be an inverse relationship
between conceptual level and the degree of structure needed.

Hunt's low conceptual level learners (a) were more
concrete, cognitively simple; (b) were externally oriented,
and (c) asked for more repetition of instructions, for more
suggestions, and for extended practice time. High conceptual
level learners were (a) more abstract and cognitively com-
plex, and (b) more independent. High-structured approaches
were more teacher-controlled with pre-organized materials.
Low-structured approaches were more learner-controlled with
little or no pre-organization of materials. Low conceptual
level learners were said to tend to profit more from high-
structured approaches. High conceptual level learners were
said to tend to profit more from low-structured approaches or
were relatively unaffected by the degree of structure in the
approach.

Berg (1977) used a microtraining situation with intro-
ductory psychology students in which videotape training and
didactic training were used. The high-structure supervision

was supervisor-controlled, and consisted of normative

76

feedback and external reinforcement. The low-structure
supervision was trainee-controlled in that students were
required to ask questions in order to receive feedback.

Berg (1977) found that the low conceptual level, high-
structure group reported more satisfaction, perceived their
supervisor as more helpful, and felt they had learned more
than the low conceptual level, low-structure group. Low
conceptual level trainees indicated greater preference for
high structure; high conceptual level trainees were less
affected by the degree of structure. Berg (1977) used a
self-report measure of satisfaction and a behavioral measure
for reflection-of-feeling skills. Helpfulness and anxiety
during supervision were affected significantly by supervisor
behavior (Berg, 1977). Berg and Stone (1980) found that
self-report measures supported the Matching Model predictions
for low conceptual level learners and that behavioral mea-
sures yielded minimal support.

In light of the different preferences for supervi-

sory treatment and initial verbal differences among

conceptual level groups, it appears important to

continue an Aptitude X Treatment interactions

approach to counseling research rather than to rely

only on investigations examining variations in

method. . . Qualitative performance of novice

counselors can be improved through supervision.
(Berg & Stone, 1980, p. 508)

Stage of conceptual system functioning. Lutwak and

 

Hennessy (1982) investigated the relationship of conceptual
systems functioning to the development of skill in empathic

responding of counselor trainees.

77

They defined four stages of conceptual functioning that
are hierarchical and structurally different; the counselor
trainee would progress developmentally through each stage.

People respond to ego-involving situations through

stable perceptual structures that serve to organize

and integrate perceptions. This conceptual struc-

ture is a set of predispositions that an individual

uses to construe and interpret events. Each of

four stages has distinctive modes of processing

information and interacting with the environment.

(Lutwak & Hennessy, 1982, p. 257)

Lutwak and Hennessy (1982) predicted that individuals at
lower stages of conceptual functioning would not be as
effective in responding empathically as individuals at higher
levels of conceptual functioning after experiencing similar
training programs. Their findings confirmed that significant
differences existed between and among the conceptual stages.

Stage One was characterized as a concrete level of
thinking, with (a) dependence on external authority, (b)
reliance on cultural standards and rules, (c) dogmatic and
categorical judgments, (d) rigid belief systems, and (e)
intolerance of ambiguity.

Stage Two was characterized by (a) a high degree of
negativism; (b) strong resistance to dependency on external
authority and control; and (c) rigid and categorical beliefs
and judgments, but in opposition to authority.

Stage Three represented a more complex and abstract
level of conceptual functioning, characterized by (a) rela-

tionships that are based on mutuality rather than authority;

(b) use of social skills as the outstanding mode of adjust-

78

ment; and (c) concern for understanding the interactions,
wishes, and VieWpoints of other people ("as if" functioning).

Stage Four was described as the most abstract and
integrated mode of perception, with (a) an open relationship
with the environment; (b) the ability to receive and evaluate
feedback; and (c) a better ability to consider events simul-
taneously from several viewpoints.

Lutwak and Hennessy concluded that:

The results of both analyses clearly indicate that
differences in assessed empathy are related to
differences in stage of conceptual functioning even
after systematic training. . .

The lower stage trainee's tendency to prefer
concrete nonambiguous problems may alter the
direction of the counseling. . .

By responding from a narrow and perhaps
dogmatic conceptual framework, Stage One and Two
counselors may fail to communicate understanding of
the client and thus be unable to form a genuine
relationship. (Lutwak & Hennessy, 1982, pp.
257—259)

Student Psychological Attributes

 

Theories in personality development and psychological
attributes applied to supervision research suggest that the
following variables may be important in supervision research:
(a) the level of maturity and self-understanding of the
student, (b) anxiety level and responses to stress, (c)
ability to tolerate criticism and benefit from evaluation,
(d) degree of commitment or ambivalence to a career choice,
(e) extroverted or introverted personality and patterns of
interpersonal relating, (f) needs for control, and (g)

psychological differentiation.

79

While theories and research findings concerned with
these issues may never by discussed in supervision or specif-
ically considered by the supervisor, problems in these areas
may present a major obstacle to the student's success as a

therapist.

Psychological differentiation (field—dependence) of

 

student and reaction to feedback. Bernstein and Lecomte

 

(1979) studied the effect of different types of feedback on
the immediate responses of counseling trainees who had been
categorized as field-dependent or field-independent. Their
purpose was to suggest a more intentional, systematic ap-
proach to counseling supervision by providing "data regarding
the basic question of which types of supervisory feedback
produce which immediate responses in which kinds of trainees"
(p.297).

Bernstein and Lecomte (1979) selected the cognitive
style variable of field dependence-independence because of
its particular importance for helping professionals. They
mentioned the importance of other personality and individual
difference variables such as sex, anxiety, self-esteem,
social desirability, andintelligence in affecting the
individual's reactions to feedback from supervisors.

Field-dependent persons were described as higher than
field-independent persons in social sensitivity, social
skills, and need for approval. Field-independent persons

were described as higher than field-dependent persons in

80

cognitive restructuring, personal autonomy, and need for
intellectual consistency. Field-dependent persons tend to
agree more with others' attitudes than field-independent
persons, and are less able to separate emotion from content
(Bernstein & Lecomte, 1979).

Field-dependent persons were described as (a) more
socially oriented in that they prefer interpersonal over
impersonal situations, (b) more attentive to social cues and
able to get along better with others, (c) more likely to
select human service professions, (d) more likely to seek
approval and use external referents in defining their atti-
tudes, and (e) more likely to use global defenses such as
denial and repression (Bernstein & Lecomte, 1979).

Field-independent persons were described as (a) less
socially oriented, (b) less attentive to social cues, (c)
more concerned with ideas and abstract principles than
emotions, (d) likely to perform better with criticism than
field-dependent persons, (e) less likely to seek approval and
more likely to use internal referents in defining their
attitudes, and (f) more likely to use specialized defenses
such as intellectualization and isolation (Bernstein &
Lecomte, 1979).

Bernstein and Lecomte (1979) used four types of feedback
in a simulated counseling training situation: moderate
positive feedback, feedback that was congruent with the
trainee's expectations, moderated negative feedback, and

extremely negative feedback.

81

Field-independent trainees agreed more and evaluat-
ed the feedback content more positively than
field-dependent trainees. . . Significantly greater
agreement, more positive content evaluation, and
more accurate recall were elicited by positive and
congruent feedback than by moderate and extreme
negative feedback.

Less desirable outcomes, from a counselor
training point of view, such as greater distortion,
more negative content evaluation, and disagreement
with supervisor feedback, may occur more as feed-
back becomes increasingly negative from the train-
ee's expectancies regarding feedback from a
particular supervisor.

The finding that field-independents value
personal characteristics and skills more highly
after receiving congruent feedback and that
field-dependents value feedback content more after
self-enhancing feedback may suggest that counselor
educators may eventually be able to formulate
feedback mechanisms most appropriate for a particu-
lar counselor trainee.

The greatest amount of agreement appeared when
the feedback corresponded highly with the counselor
trainee's expectancies for feedback, whereas less
agreement occurred in response to moderate discrep-
ant feedback, even when self-enhancing. This
finding points toward the effectiveness of congru-
ent feedback in eliciting trainee agreement and
underscores the importance of determining a coun-
selor trainee's expectancies for feedback from a
particular supervisor. (Bernstein & Lecomte, 1979,
pp. 301-302)

External and internal locus of control. Heyden (1977)

 

studied the relationship of two methods of supervision
(dynamic and behavioral) and progress in supervision in terms
of locus of control theory and reactance theory.

Locus of control theory postulates that students with an
internal locus of control perceive events as contingent upon
their own behavior, operate from an internal frame of refer-
ence and provide much of their own reinforcement. Students

with an external locus of control perceive events as outside

82

their control and are thus significantly dependent upon
others for reinforcement.

Reactance theory concerns the phenomenon of resistance
in supervision, where an antagonistic or adversarial rela-
tionship is present.

Heyden (1977) described dynamic supervision as (a)
directed at interpersonal and intrapersonal awareness, and
(b) geared toward the counselor's perceptions, attitudes,
thoughts, and feelings in the counseling relationship.

Heyden (1977) described behavioral supervision as
focused on the acquisition of counseling skills through a
process of reinforcement, instruction, and modeling. Heyden
hypothesized that student counselors with an internal locus
of control should respond best to dynamic supervision, and
that student counselors with an external locus of control
should progress better with behavioral supervision.

Heyden predicted that internal counselors would experi-
ence more resistance in behavioral supervision and that
external counselors would experience more resistance in
dynamic supervision.

Although Heyden (1977) found that neither resistance nor
progress in supervision were significantly related to super-
vision method or locus of control, he found a positive
relationship between ratings of counselor progress and
resistance. He suggested that locus of control may be

situationally determined, and that counselors may move toward

83

an internal frame of reference as a function of effective

supervision.

Trainee anxiety about evaluation. Two aspects of

 

trainee evaluation can influence adversely the supervisory
relationship and the benefits of clinical experience. The
trainee's anxiety about evaluation can lessen the benefits of
training, restrict openness to influence by the supervisor
and prevent the trainee from learning by the discovery
method, which involves experimentation and taking risks.
Secondly, if the criteria of evaluation, nature of the
evaluation procedure, and standards of performance are
unknown or unclear, the trainee may not know the goals of the
training or may be working at cross-purposes with the
supervisor.

Explicit evaluation policies thus serve important
purposes. They can (a) reduce unproductive trainee anxiety,
(b) clarify roles and expectations, (c) increase the confi-
dence in the fairness and expertise of the supervisor, (d)
teach standards of performance for the profession, and (e)
improve the supervisory relationship (Borman & Ramirez, 1975;
Myrick & Kelly, 1971).

Kirchner (1974) studied expectations about supervision
of counselors categorized according to five levels of experi-
ence, and found that:

As experience level decreased, concerns of evaluation

in a negative sense of dealing with trainee mistakes
in counseling, and a need for more support, instruction,

84

and assistance became stronger. Practicum trainees with

one semester of experience seemed to express these concerns

more strongly than any other level of experience.

(Kirchner, 1974, p. 445-8)

Goralski (1978) identified aspects of supervision that
often caused problems in the supervisory relationship. Those
aspects were: trust, autonomy, adequacy needs, disclosure of
feelings, termination, and evaluation. Goralski (1978)
developed simulation materials to train students to deal with
problematic aspects of the supervisory relationship and to
teach students how to engage productively in supervision.

The materials dealt with (a) awareness of crucial issues, (b)
feelings and responses to these issues, (c) implications of
those responses, and (d) possible alternative facilitative
responses.

Smrekar (1979) conducted a study in which supervisees
were instructed in the supervisee role; it was suggested that
role-training could (a) reduce first-year counseling stu-
dents' anxiety; (b) increase verbal behavior in supervision
(e.g., self-evaluative and advice-seeking statements of the
supervisee); and (c) improve counseling skill development.
Although no significant differences were found between
experimental and control groups, the hypotheses of this study

support the observation that aspects of the supervisee role

can be taught and learned.

Previous experiences of the student. The student's

 

previous experiences may have a positive or negative impact

on supervision needs and supervisory relationships, depending

85

upon the attitudes and styles of both student and supervisor.
Experiences such as having earned a degree in a related
field, raising a family, being married, travelling exten-
sively, having had work experience, and having family,
friends, or acquaintances who are handicapped are potentially
potent influencers of supervision needs.

Research studies support the conclusion that the stu-
dent's "stage of development" as a therapist requires specif-
ic supervision approaches. Jamieson (1978) concluded that
distinct levels of training exist which require certain forms
of supervision in order to meet unique needs. Jamieson's
(1978) study concerned two desired student outcomes (thera-
pist self-disclosure and therapist-client interaction ratio)
in relation to supervisory styles.

Reising (1981) attempted to validate Hogan's stage model
of therapist development and supervision by a factor analysis
of developmental issues of trainees and supervisor behaviors
of 141 counselors, graduate students, and professional staff.

Results generally validated issues within Hogan's

model . . . demonstrating Hogan's levels are not

discrete, but overlapping. . . Model conformed to

complex, not simple stage model criteria. . . The
empirical validation of a developmental model for
therapist trainees suggests that training programs

and supervisors should respond differentially to

developmental issues in their trainees. (Reising,

1981, p. 4208-8)

Reising (1981) found that the following developmental issues
of trainees were related directly to experience: anxiety,

independence, method, work validation and commitment, and

ambivalence.

86

Approaches to Trainee Evaluation

 

It has been suggested that, to the extent that the goal
of supervision is increased self-awareness, evaluation seems
unethical (Gurk & Wicas, 1979). For the experiential,
counseling-based model of supervision, evaluation may be
inappropriate and explicitly excluded from the supervisory
relationship.

Most practicums, however, are subject to either pass-
fail or graded evaluation systems. There are various dimen-
sions to evaluation, including (a) what person does the
evaluation, (b) what knowledge, skills, or attitudes are

evaluated, and (c) the method or instrument of evaluation.

Supervisor evaluations and self-evaluations. Borman and

 

Ramirez (1975) studied the responses of counseling students,
practicum assistants and graduate assistants (doctoral
candidates), and faculty supervisors on the Counselor Evalua-
tion Rating System (CERS). They found significant differ-
ences among the three categories of evaluators when rating
the same practicum student. Differences were attributed to
students' higher self-ratings and to differences in ratings
between students and practicum assistants, who graded lower
than students or faculty.

The CERS (Myrick and Kelly, 1971) was designed to be
used by supervisors and peers in evaluating counselor train-
ees. In the CERS, the evaluator judges performance in four

areas: (a) understanding of a counseling rationale (the way

87

the counselor conceptualized work, seven items); (b) counsel-
ing practice with clients (the way the counselor approached
clients and the techniques and behaviors used, 11 items); (c)
exploration of self and counseling relationships (the coun-
selor's amenity to personal growth and professional develop-
ment, eight items), and (d) whether or not the trainee could
be recommended for a counseling position (one item) (Borman &
Ramirez, 1975).

The difference among categories of raters brings into
question the purposes to which the evaluation results may be
put, and the reliability of findings. The fact that train-
ees, inexperienced supervisors, and experienced supervisors
evaluated significantly differently brings the validity and
objectivity of the items into question, as well as qualifi—
cations for supervisors.

Bernstein and Lecomte (1979) described a self-critique
training program within a competency-based practicum. They
noted that an important outcome of supervision is the devel-
opment of counselor trainee self-reliance, promoting the
ability to function as his or her own supervisor.

Bernstein and Lecomte (1979) described a competency-
based training program that included evaluation of predeter-
mined competencies. Self-critique training consisted of
three components: (a) an initial self-evaluation, (b) a
presentation by the student of a response rationale for

self-selected videotaped excerpts of counseling sessions, and

88

(c) a comparison of the student's self-evaluation with
focused critiques of the excerpts by the supervision group.

Bernstein & Lecomte (1979) offered a format that applied
videotape and competency-based training and evaluation
appropriate to practicum group supervision, promoting
self-critique skills.

Students were to select two excerpts from counseling
sessions to illustrate effective and ineffective responses
for each identified competency. The rationale for

self-evaluation consisted of nine questions:

1. What was I hearing my client say and/or observing
my client do?

2. What was I thinking about my observations?

3. What were my alternatives to say or do at this
point?

4. How did I choose from among my alternatives?

5. How did I intend to proceed with my selected
response(s)?
6. What did I actually say or do?

7. What effect(s) did my response have on my client?
8. How, then, would I evaluate the effectiveness of my
response?

9. What would I do differently now? (Bernstein &
Lecomte, 1979, pp. 71-73)

The competency areas included the following process
skills: (a) beginning an interview, (b) goal-setting: (c)
using role-playing strategies; and (d) responding to incon—
sistent messages, personal questions, and overtalkativeness.

Bernstein and Lecomte (1979) concluded that "the crucial
step of developing and adapting sets of competencies to
program stages such as practicum remains a challenge for

counselor educators" (pp. 69-70).

89

Clinical Skills of the Student

 

The differential skill levels of students have a direct
bearing on the content and process of supervision; a student
with weaknesses in many areas of clinical skills would
require supervision much different than a student who is
strong in all areas of clinical skills. During supervision,
students are asked to reflect on their strengths and needs as
clinicians throughout their clinical training, and to develop
a realistic View of their capabilities and potentials.

The skill level of the student may influence or be
related to satisfaction with supervision.

Music therapy clinical skills may be grouped in five
categories: (a) music therapy session management, (b)
therapeutic use of self, or personal skills; (c) case concep-
tualization; (d) musicianship and music methods, and (e)
clinic procedures.

Table 3 indicates clinical skills for music therapy
students, and Appendix B represents the compilation of these
skills in a data collection instrument designed for supervi-
sor evaluation and student self-evaluation of these skills
(Memory, 1983).

Clinical skills are phrased in terms of abilities in
order to maximize their usefulness in clarifying expectations
of students and in discussions of student progress.

This section of Related Literature has served to support

the choice of music therapy clinical skills as a variable in

90

TABLE 3

Music Therapy Student Clinical Skills

Music therapy student "session management" skills include the
abilities to:

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

l7.

Begin and end sessions on time.

Arrange people, furniture and instruments to suit the
needs of participants and activities.

Sequence activities logically and make smooth transi-
tions between activities.

Present activities at the pace needed by the client(s)
to remain interested and challenged.

Adapt activities flexibly and spontaneously to meet the
ongoing needs of the client(s).

Assist client(s) in assessing client(s) strengths and
progress toward objectives.

Communicate the purpose of activities in terms the
client(s) can understand.

Explain and demonstrate activities clearly.
Review past experiences and work adequately.
Use effective questioning and elicitation.

Use verbal and nonverbal positive reinforcement to
increase the frequency of desired responses.

Use ignoring and time-out from positive reinforcement to
discourage undesired responses.

Set firm limits when necessary.

Model, shape, and cue desired responses, and reward
successive approximations toward the goal.

Generalize clinic experiences to other situations by
assigning relevant homework to client.

Prepare client(s) for separation or termination.

Respond to unexpected client behaviors in a resourceful
and creative manner.

18.

19.

20

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

91

Table 3 (cont'd.)

Use a consistent and appropriate style of interacting
with client(s); avoid using authoritarian style as
primary role relationship.

Develop a positive relationship with client(s).

Communicate caring, respect for client(s)' potential,
and appropriate warmth to client(s).

Exchange appropriate personal information with
client(s); use self—disclosure to enhance the therapeu-
tic relationship.

Use humor and/or enthusiasm to engage the client(s)
and/or to enhance rapport.

Use own personal style to advantage; act genuinely, not
mechanically, during sessions.

Give clear and consistent messages, verbal and nonver-
bal, regarding expectations of client(s).

Model behaviors and feelings appropriate to the music
therapy session; behave professionally.

Music thera y student "conceptualization" skills include
P

 

the abilities to:

 

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Write goals based on assessment of client(s)' function-
ing in one or more areas appropriate to music therapy.

Write objectives that are attainable within the avail-
able treatment time.

Write assessment criteria that are observable,
measureable, specific, relevant, and stated in positive
terms.

Update client(s)' goals and objectives as required by
ongoing assessment.

Plan activities which elicit desired responses directly
related to client(s)' objectives.

Plan activities suited to the age, interests, and skills
of client(s).

Plan activities that are adaptable to varied levels of
client responses and part of a long-range plan.

33.

92

Table 3 (cont'd.)

Write evaluation statements that are based on observed
behavior which is directly related to client(s)'
objectives; clearly indicate subjective impressions and
interpretations.

Music therapy student "musicianship skills" include the

 

abilities to:

 

34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.

43.

Use effectively the following modalities as activities
and/or accompaniments:

Piano

Vocal

Guitar or autoharp
Percussion

Mallet instruments
Recordings or tapes
Movement and dance
Echo structure
Improvisation

Instrumental arrangements

Music therapy student "clinic procedures" skills include

 

the abilities to:

 

44.
45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

Submit written work at the agreed-upon time.
Use the prescribed format for written work.

Submit work that is free from grammatical, spelling, or
typing errors.

Keep accurate records of clinical work.

Maintain client(s)' charts according to clinic
procedures.

Contact appropriate persons immediately when sessions
must be postponed or client fails to appear; follow
through with revised plans.

50.

51.

52.

53.

93

Table 3 (cont'd.)
Leave therapy room(s) in proper order when done.

Schedule, attend, and actively participate in individual
supervision sessions.

Attend and actively participate in group supervision.
Assess own clinical skills, set personal goals, and

use own initiative and suggestions of others to improve
clinical work.

94

this experiment, and to present the specific clinical skills

which will be measured.

Supervisory Relationship Variables

 

The supervisory relationship is the third and final part
of the seven-part interactive supervision system that will be
studied in this experiment. Literature pertaining to the
supervisory relationship will be presented in four sections:
(a) supervision content and process, (b) supervision as an
interpersonal influence process, (c) supervision satisfac-
tion, and (d) interpersonal compatibility. The purpose of
this section of Related Literature is to explain the nature
of the content and process decisions that the supervisors in
this experiment were asked to make when supervising in the

treatment condition.

Supervision Content and Process

 

The supervisory relationship may be considered in terms
of the content of discussion (what is said) and the process
of discussion (how it is said).

Content refers to the actual task to be performed, the
problem to be solved, or the subject matter of discussion.
The content comprises the agenda of a supervision session,
the ideas presented, topics discussed, solutions offered,
decisions reached, and future agendas led.

Process, on the other hand, refers to how the agenda is

reached and the manner in which the problem or topic is

95

approached, defined, discussed, and ultimately solved.
Process involves communication patterns: which party struc-
tures discussion by making assertions, refocusing, asking
questions and terminating discussion, and which party re-
sponds to those activities in various ways. The sequential
give and take of communication and the range of behaviors of
each party are aspects of the process of supervision.

Content and process behaviors of supervisors and stu-
dents have been observed and quantified with the aid of
interaction analysis systems in which duration of time spent
in various categories of behaviors is recorded and analyzed
(Blumberg, 1968; Blumberg, 1979; Flanders, 1976; Holloway and
Wolleat, 1981; Holton, 1975; Kozisek, 1975; Wedeking & Scott,
1976; Wittmer, 1971).

Rapport or perceived relationship of members of a
supervisory pair has been the focus of much research in the
field of counselor training, and has been found to be related
to trainee growth and client outcome (Bibbo, 1974; Kunstler,
1980; Lemons & Lanning, 1979; Lutwak & Hennessy, 1976;
Newton, 1976).

Several representative studies will be summarized in
order to illustrate the relationship of supervision content
and process issues and satisfaction with supervision.

Process variables. Condon (1977) studied therapeutic

 

conditions and feedback as variables of the supervisory
relationship with counselors in training. The study was

based on the hypothesis that certain therapeutic conditions

96

(e.g., level of regard, empathy, congruence, unconditionality
of regard, and willingness to be known) and certain modes of
feedback (e.g., verbal, nonverbal, strong, weak, here and
now, there and then, supported, nonsupported, owned, not
owned, positive, negative, directed non-directed, non-
evaluative, evaluative, spontaneous, solicited, specific,
general, and goal-related) would be related to levels of
counselor effectiveness (Condon, 1977).

Twenty counselors and their supervisors were studied
using the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory and the
Counselor Effectiveness Rating Scale in order to identify
variables that were components of effective supervision in
counselor education.

Discussion of feedback and relationship processes were
suggested as appropriate activities for supervisory sessions
and for group consultation among supervisors.

Condon (1977) found that level of regard and willingness
to be known were therapeutic conditions that were related
positively to counselor effectiveness. Modes of feedback
that were related positively to counselor effectiveness were
supported feedback and owned feedback. Nonsupported and
not-owned feedback were negatively related to counselor
effectiveness (Condon, 1977).

Turow (1981) studied graduate psychotherapists' percep-
tions of supervision process and outcomes in one of the few
studies of trainees who were more advanced than the novice

stage.

97

Turow (1981) examined the perceived supervision process
and found that the process of supervision varied as a func-
tion of both supervisee skill level and stage of the supervi-
sory relationship.

Supervision process was examined via a list of supervi-
sor behaviors. Subjects rated the frequency of
occurence of each behavior in their present psychothera-
py supervision.

Predictors common to two or more outcome variables
were: (1) positive interaction between supervisor and
supervisee; (2) feedback and assessment; (3) lack of
opposition to the supervisor; (4) committed focus on
supervision; (5) supervisor's suggestions of alternative
case conceptualizations; (6) a structured approach to
supervision, e.g., goal setting; (7) supervisor's use of
role play, and (8) provision of literature or referenc-
es. (Turow, 1981, p. 4215-B)

Fitzmaurice (1978) suggested that humanistic psychology,
developmental theories of Piaget, and systems theory were
valid for developing an individualized, systemic approach to
supervising student teachers. Fitzmaurice (1978) recommended
that supervisors use various types of feedback in order to

attempt to facilitate the students' discovery of

their teaching selves--their beliefs, attitudes,

values, ideals, and goals as a teacher (sic). In

this role, the supervisor is geared more toward the

liberation of a student's own unique teaching style

rather than toward his or her indoctrination into
pre-established norms and standards. (Fitzmaurice,

1978, p. 1487-A)

Deming (1977) and Cuff (1978) studied perceptions of
supervision process using Maslow's theory of needs as a
theoretical framework.

Maslow's theory of needs posits that human needs are
hierarchical, and that people tend to progress up the needs

scale. Any need at a lower level would prohibit

need-fulfillment at a higher level. When gratified at a

98

needs level, people activate the next higher level, growing
motivationally. Thus a trainee's needs would affect the type
of supervision required for maximum growth and
need-fulfillment.

Deming (1977) used a measure of self-actualization as a
predictor of supervision effectiveness, based on the paral-
lels between qualities of self-actualized persons and quali-
ties of effective supervisors. Those qualities were empathy,
warmth, genuineness, likeableness, trustworthiness, compe-
tence, and helpfulness. Deming reasoned that the role of the
supervisor in counselor growth is considerable, and that
self-actualization is related to counselor effectiveness.
Therefore, the self-actualization level of the supervisor
would have to be greater than the self-actualization level of
the counselor-trainee, which in turn would have to be greater
than that of the client in order for growth to occur in the
client and in the counselor-trainee. Although the theory
could not be supported by the findings, it was found that
high self-actualizing counselors perceived their supervisor's
style as experiential, whereas low self-actualizing counsel-
ors perceived their supervisor's style as didactic. Addi-
tionally, male supervisors were perceived as warmer and as
higher in perceived effectiveness than female supervisors.

Cuff (1978) studied indirect influence versus direct
influence in supervisory conferences in relation to student
teacher gains. It was hypothesized that direct influence

style of the supervisor would imply evaluation, arousing

99

needs for safety, belonging, and esteem. Indirect influence
style would imply confidence in the trainee, thus satisfying
those same needs. It was predicted that those student
teachers whose supervisors used indirect influence would gain
more than trainees whose supervisors stressed direct influ-
ence. The hypothosis was confirmed more for the cooperating

teacher (supervisor) than for the college supervisor.

Supervision as an Interpersonal Influence Process

 

Strong (1968) applied social influence theory to coun-
seling and the sources of counselors' influences on clients.
The theory since has been applied to supervision (Corrigan et
a1, 1980). The theory suggests that the influence process
between people operates in two stages: (1) The supervisor
first increases his or her influence potential through the
enhancement of key variables, including perceived expertness,
attractiveness, and trustworthiness. (2) The supervisor
then uses that influence to bring about changes in trainees.
An extensive review of the literature on counseling as a
social influence process was published in 1980 (Corrigan et
a1).

Social influence variables that are under the supervi-
sor's direct control are called performance variables, (i.e.,
what the supervisor specifically does and how well it is
done). Variables of social influence that are not under the
supervisor's control include demographic or descriptive

aspects such as age, gender, group membership, title,

100

training, experience, adjudged physical attractiveness, and
other ascriptions arising from social norms or stereotypes.

Dodenhoff (1981) applied Strong's interpersonal influ-
ence theory in a study of interpersonal attraction and
direct-indirect supervisor influence as predictors of coun-
selor trainee effectiveness. He noted that regardless of
supervisor philosophical positon or method, all approaches to
supervision share the common goal of influencing trainee
behavior.

Dodenhoff (1981) used three measures of trainee effec-
tiveness as measured by the Counselor Effectiveness Rating
Scale, and used two types of supervisor influence: direct
and indirect methods of influence.

The direct influence method was characterized by super-
visor initiation of information or opinion, corrective
feedback, requests and directions, criticism, response to
student questions, and praise and reward.

The indirect influence method was characterized by
supervisor use of affective clarification and acceptance,
cognitive and skill clarification and acceptance, and
questions.

Dodenhoff found that:

Trainees who were attracted to their supervisors

(ratings of supervisor's expertness, trustworthi-

ness, and attractiveness) were rated as more

effective by supervisors on two measures, although

attraction was not related to Clients' perceptions

of outcome. A direct style of supervision was

related to trainee effectiveness, but on only one

of three measures of the dependent variable. . . It

is speculated that the apparent effect of supervi-
sor style is due to direct style supervisors

101

projecting more client improvement than indirect
style supervisors. (Dodenhoff, 1981, pp. 47-52)

Dodenhoff (1981) found a main effect for attraction. An
alternate explanation was that improved trainee performance
was not due to increased acceptance of supervisor influence,
but rather due to the supervisor's attraction to the trainee,
reflected in the supervisor's evaluation of the trainee and
rating of client outcome for the trainee's clients. Perhaps
supervisors are more attracted to trainees who are attracted
to them, and, due to a halo effect, rate those trainees
higher.

LaCrosse (1980) studied the validity of the Counselor
Effectiveness Rating Form by examining perceived counselor
social influence and counseling outcomes. His findings
concurred with Strong's theory; initial perceptions of helper
expertness were the single most powerful predictor of out-
come. LaCrosse (1980) concluded that "positive therapeutic
outcomes require, among other things, preexisting helpee
perceptions of helper credibility, prestige, status, and

possession of special, expert knowlege" (p. 325).

Supervision Satisfaction

 

Lemons and Lanning (1979) studied value system similari-
ty and the supervisory relationship. They used the Rokeach
Value Survey (1967) and found no significant relationship
between similarity of value systems (either held or antici-

pated) for supervisor or supervisee and either level of

102

communication in the supervisory relationship or overall
satisfaction with the relationship.

They did find a strong relationship between the
supervisee's satisfaction with the supervision relationship
and the level of communication that was developed in supervi-
sion. They concluded that effective communication is a
fundamental part of the supervisory relationship, and super-
visors should focus on developing communication with train-
ees. They found that supervisors and supervisees evaluated
the relationship in a similar manner and direction (Lemons &
Lanning, 1979).

Lanning (1971) studied the relation between group and
individual supervision of counselor trainees and three in-
terrelated measures: (a) trainee perceptions of the supervi-
sory relationship, (b) trainee expectations of their own
counseling relationships, and (c) client perceptions of the
trainee's counseling relationships.

Lanning (1971) found no support for the idea that the
two methods of supervision were significantly different. He
found:

a "crossover" effect between types (i.e., individu-

al or group) with one supervisor scoring higher

with group treatment and the other two scoring

higher with individual treatment. . . The results

indicate differences among supervisors between each

of the methods of supervision. . . In addition,

more than half of the variance in how a trainee

expected to be perceived by his clients was ac-

counted for by knowing how he perceived his super-

visor. (Lanning, 1971, pp. 404-405)

Holton (1975) also studied the degree of directness in

supervision sessions in relation to satisfaction with

103

student teachers and their supervising teachers. Holton
(1975) analyzed the interactions of conferences (which
followed lessons taught by the student teachers) and studied
the relationship of the supervisor's directness or indirect-
ness with the student's satisfaction with the supervisory
conference and satisfaction with student teaching.

Degree of indirectness of supervisory behavior

styles affects the satisfaction experienced by the

student teacher. . . A positive relationship exists

between the indirect ratio and satisfaction with

the conference on the part of the student teacher

and that there is a positive relationship between

safisfaction with the supervision conference and

safisfaction with the student teaching experience

on the part of the supervising teacher (Holton,

1975, pp. 86-87).

Holton (1975) recommended that supervising teachers be
indirect in approach to conference behaviors.

Newton (1976) found that there is a positive relation-
ship between counselors' satisfaction with supervision and
their perceptions of the supervisory relationship. Newton
(1976) studied the effects of consistent and inconsistent
supervisory pairings (same or different expectations of
supervisor behavior) on (a) satisfaction with supervision,
(b) perceptions of the supervisory relationship, and (c)
rated counselor competency. Newton (1976) assessed supervi-
sor and counselor expectations about supervision using the
Supervisory Role Analysis Form (Gysber & Johnson, 1965,
adapted by Smith, (1975) and then divided supervisors and

counselors into two groups based on didactic or experiential

expectations about supervision. Supervision sessions were

104

audiotaped at weeks one and six, and then counselors rated
satisfaction and perceptions in the sixth week.

Counselors receiving supervision either consistent

or inconsistent with expectations do not differ

significantly on perceptions of supervisory rela-

tionships, rated couselor competency, or satisfac-

tion with supervision.

There is a positive relationship between

counselor satisfaction with supervision and their

perceptions of the supervisory relationship.

(Newton, 1976, pp. 9llB-9128)

Heppner and Handley (1981) studied perceived influence
sources, trainee ratings of satisfaction with supervision,
and trainee perceptions of the therapeutic relationship
(between the trainee and client). They found no relationship
between perceived influence sources and satisfaction ratings,
but did find a positive correlation between the trainee's
perceptions of the supervisor's character (influence poten-
tial, e.g., perceived expertness, attractiveness, and trust-
worthiness) and (a) the trainee's satisfaction with
supervision, and (b) the trainee's perception of the thera-
peutic relationship with clients. Heppner and Handley (1981)
concluded that Strong's simple two-stage model of the social
influence process was not supported. A possible confounding
variable was the legitimate power which is attributed to the

influencer by virtue of the role within society accorded him

or her.

Interpersonal Compatibility
Stern (1978) studied interpersonal compatibility and

counseling supervision using measurements of interpersonal

105

need compatibility (FIRO-B), counselor effectiveness (CERS),
and relationship (BLRI).

It was concluded that a high degree of supervisor-
trainee compatibility may have an adverse effect on
the supervisory process. . . Three compatibility
variables, operating jointly, were significantly
related to trainee satisfaction with the supervisor
relationship as measured by the BLRI. These
variables were interchange affection
imncompatibility, reciprocal affection compatibili-
ty, and reciprocal control compatibility. . .
Supervisors' satisfaction with the supervisory
relationship was significantly related to supervi-
sors' ratings of trainee counseling competence.
Trainee's satisfaction was not associated with
supervisor's ratings of competence. . .
Supervisor-trainee compatibility as measured by the
FIRO-B scale was not significantly related to
supervisor rating of trainee counseling competence
as measured by the CERS. (Stern, 1978, p. 6040-A)

Handley (1981) studied the relationship of the degree
personality similarity of supervisors and trainees to coun-
selor satisfaction using the Barrett-Lennard Relationship
Inventory, the CERS, and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator yields four scales: (a)
extroversion-introversion; (b) sensing-intuition; (c)
thinking-feeling; and (d) judgment—perception.

Trainee personality characteristics are related to

and may influence supervisor satisfaction with

trainee performance and the interpersonal relation-
ship between supervisors and trainees. On the

other hand, supervisor personality characteristics

do not appear to affect trainee satisfaction with

supervision or trainee perceptions of the supervi-

sory relationship. (Handley, 1981, p. 549-A)

Bibbo (1975) studied the relationship of supervisor-

supervisee personality factors and the quality of the super-

visory relationship. He studied 24 masters level counseling

106

trainees and seven doctoral level supervisors using the
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire to assess personal-
ity factors. The Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale (CERS)
was completed by the supervisor and the student counselor
after each of eight weeks of supervision; the Barrett-Lennard
Relationship Inventory was also completed by both at the end
of eight weeks. The Flanders Interaction Analysis System was
used to compare verbal interactions of supervisors and
student counselors in supervision.

Bibbo (1975) compared the supervisor's evaluation of the
student counselor's effectiveness with a faculty member's
evaluation to ensure that the supervisor was making an
objective evaluation of the student counselor.

A significant correlation was found between student

counselor's perception of his supervisory relation-

ship and his self-evaluation of his counseling
effectiveness in the practicum. . . Matching
supervisors and student counselors according to

their personality factor profiles was of question-

able value in terms of enhancing either the super-

visory relationship or the student's effectiveness. . .

No findings suggested that similarity or
dissimilarity of personality factors are signifi-
cantly related to perceptions of the quality of
supervisory relationship or to evaluations of the

student's effectiveness. (Bibbo, 1975, p. 5008-A)

Detry (1975) suggested that similar perception of the
supervisory role seems to increase facilitative self-
disclosure between practicum students and supervisors. In a
study of supervisory role expectations and their effect on
the practicum student-supervisor relationship and on the

practicum student-client relationship, Detry (1975) concluded

'that similar perception of the supervisory role does not

107

appear to have an impact on facilitative communication
between practicum student and supervisor or between practicum

student and client.

Summary. Based on this review, the four variables
selected for this experiment are (a) the treatment procedure
of planning and evaluating supervisory sessions, (b) the
supervisor's experience level, (c) the music therapy stu-
dent's skill level, and (d) the satisfaction of both supervi-
sor and student with the supervisor's use of supervision

skills in providing helpful supervision.

III. PROCEDURES

Design, Hypotheses, Related Questions, and Statistical Analyses

 

The design of the study combined elements of experimen-
tal and trait-treatment interaction research methodology.
Repeated measures (pretest, posttest) analyses of differences
between experimental and comparison groups were conducted to
test the hypotheses concerning the treatment.

Hypothesis #1. Music therapy students in the experi-

 

mental group will report significantly greater satisfaction
with supervision (as measured by the Supervision Satisfaction
Form-MTS at posttest) than music therapy students in the
comparison group.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the pretest
and posttest scores of the treatment and comparison groups
was used to test this hypothesis.

If a significant difference is found between the two
groups, a one-way ANCOVA using the music therapy student's
overall skill level as a co-variate will be conducted to test
for main effects and interactions of that variable.

If a significant difference is found between the two
groups, and if students may be divided into high and low
skill level groups on the basis of scores on the MTSEF-SUP, a
one-way ANOVA using high and low skill level groups will be

conducted. If skill levels are too homogeneous within either

108

A [—1.

 

109

group to be meaningfully divided into two groups, descriptive
analyses will be undertaken.

Hypothesis #2. Supervisors in the experimental group

 

will report significantly greater safisfaction with supervi-
sion (as measured by the Supervision Satisfaction Form - SUP
at posttest) than when they supervised students using the
comparison conditions.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the
posttest scores of the treatment and comparison groups was
used to test this hypothesis.

If a significant difference between the groups is found,
then, a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using the
supervisor's experience level (as measured by the SEI) as a
co-variate will be conducted to test for interactions and
main effects of that trait variable.

If experience level of supervisors is too homogeneous to
be effectively divided into two groups, descriptive analysis
will be undertaken.

Question #3. Did supervisors as a group (i.e., supervi-

 

sors reporting both experimental and comparison condition
responses) report significantly greater or lesser satisfac-
tion with supervision at the posttest than at the pretest (as
measured by the SSF-SUP)? This question was studied using
two approaches to data analysis: (a) a condescriptive SSPS
program; and (b) a one-way analysis of variance.

Question #4. Did supervisors report significantly

 

greater or lesser satisfaction with supervision subscale

110

skills at the posttest than at the pretest? Two approaches
was used: (a) using supervisor reports of both conditions
combined and considered as a group; and (b) using supervisors
as individuals.

A series of four t-tests was conducted for each of these
two approaches.

Question #5. Did music therapy students report signifi-

 

cantly greater or lesser satisfaction with supervision
subscale skills (as measured by the SSF-MTS) at the posttest
than at the pretest when MTS reports in both groups were
combined and considered as a group?

A series of four t-tests was conducted for each of the
four supervisor subscale skills.

Question #6. Did music therapy students report signifi-

 

cantly greater or lesser skill level on the subscale skills
at the posttest than at the pretest using all students'
responses as one group?

A series of five t-tests was conducted to determine
differences for each of the five music therapy student
subscale skills.

Question #7. Did supervisors report significantly

 

greater or lesser skill level evaluations for music therapy
students on the five subscale skills at the posttest than at
the pretest? Two approaches was used to study this question:
(a) using supervisor reports from both groups combined and
considered as one group; and (b) using supervisors as

individuals.

111

A series of five t-tests was conducted to determine
differences from pretest to posttest for each of the five
music therapy student subscale skills.

Question #8. Did the high-experience level supervisors

 

report significantly greater or lesser safisfaction with
supervision at the posttest than the low-experience supervi-
sors, irrespective of supervision conditions?

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted.

Question #9. Was music therapy student skill level (as

 

measured by the supervisor at pretest) correlated with the
music therapy students' satisfaction with supervision (as
measured by the SSF-MTS at pretest)?

A Pearson Correlation Coefficient was computed to
determine whether a significant correlation exists.

Question #10. Was music therapy student skill level (as

 

measured by the student's self-evaluation on the MTSEF at
pretest) correlated with music therapy student satisfaction
with supervision (as measured by the SSF-MTS at pretest)?

A Pearson Correlation Coefficient was computed to
determine whether a significant correlation existed.

Question #11. Was music therapy student skill level as

 

reported by the supervisor (measured by the MTSEF at pretest)
correlated with the student's skill level as self-evaluated
(on the MTSEF at pretest)?

A Pearson Correlation Coefficient was calculated to

study a possible relationship.

112

Descriptive Statistics. An SPSS Frequency Program was

 

conducted, and the following descriptive statistics were
presented for pertinent variables: mean, median, mode,
standard deviation, range, maximum, and minimum.

Analyses of sources of variance by level of traits
(i.e., supervisor experience level and student skill level)
were performed to test the hypotheses concerning differential
effects on participants.

The unit of analysis for the treatment effect was the
supervisory dyad (music therapy student - supervisor pair).
In order to examine issues pertinent to participants irre-
spective of the treatment condition, subjects were regrouped
and were considered as individuals for other statistical
analyses.

In addition to the experimental subjects, additional
supervisory dyads, for whom complete data and assignment to
groups were impossible, were tested in order to examine
aspects of the test instruments and response patterns.

There were eight supervisors (six of whom participated
in the experiment), 20 music therapy students (15 of whom
participated in the experiment), and 63 clients or client
groups (24 of whom participated in the experiment). Students
were assigned more than one client and more than one supervi-
sor to fulfill practicum requirements. Students were as-
signed to supervisors at the beginning of the academic year
according to schedule needs, and additional assignments were

made according to (a) need for contrasting type of client,

113

(b) need for different supervisor, and (c) need for different
day of music therapy session. Therefore, there was no bias
operating in the assignment of students to supervisors that
was related to the experimental variables.

The design required that students be placed in either
the experimental or the comparison group, and that supervi-
sors be placed in both groups equally in order to study the
differential effect of the trait variable of the supervisor
when the supervisor used the treatment and in the comparison
conditions. The analysis of the effect of the level of each
supervisor's experience in relation to supervision satisfac-
tion under the two conditions was more important in this
study than the complete independence of the groups. The
limited number of available supervisors also influenced that
decision.

The trait variables for students and supervisors (i.e.,
supervisor experience level and student skill level) were
measured for use as co-variates if significant differences
between groups were detected. The trait variables also were
measured to study relationships with the satisfaction
variable.

Subjects

The subjects in this study were the music therapy
students and supervisors working in the Michigan State
University (MSU) Music Therapy Clinic in the 1982-1983
academic year. Subjects had been working in supervisory

pairs for two terms prior to the implementation of this

114

study, and thus had established ongoing patterns of
supervision.

The eight supervisors (five female, three male) were all
Registered Music Therapists, and ranged in experience from
one supervisor with over 27 years in the profession to two
supervisors who had completed recent internships. Supervi-
sors included two music therapy members of the MSU Music
Department faculty, two doctoral students in music therapy
who were also graduate assistants, and four masters students
in music therapy, three of whom were full-time students and
one of whom was a part-time student while working full-time
as a music therapist. The author participated in the experi-
ment as a supervisor.

The 20 music therapy students (17 female, three male)
were all music therapy majors enrolled in the senior level
music therapy professional courses in which the practicum
requirement was satisfied by providing music therapy services
to one or more clients in the Music Therapy Clinic under the
supervision of one or more of the supervisors described
above.

All music therapy sessions were observed in their
entirety by the supervisor, usually through a one-way mirror.
Supervision sessions were held in either Clinic offices or
the office of the supervisor, at times determined by the

dyad.

115

Independent and Dependent Variables

 

Treatment variable. The treatment variable of the study

 

was "satisfaction with the use of the supervisor's skills in
providing helpful supervision." Satisfaction was measured
using the Supervision Satisfaction Form (SSF) (Appendix A).

Music therapy student trait variable. The trait vari-

 

able of the music therapy student was "level of clinical
skills" as measured by the Music Therapy Student Evaluation
Form (MTSEF) (Appendix C). The supervisors' responses were
used because they were assumed to be more valid than the
novice students' self-evaluation. Use of the supervisors'
responses also permitted the supervisor to serve as his or
her own control.

Supervisor trait variable. The trait variable of the

 

supervisor was "experience level" in music therapy-related
activities as measured by the Supervisor Experience Index
(SEI) (Appendix E).

The trait variables were used as co-variates and also as
a means of dividing supervisors into high-experience and
low-experience groups. If trait levels resulted in homoge-
neous scores, that aspect of the design would be omitted.

Data Collection Instruments

 

Three data collection instruments were designed by the
author in consultation with Michigan State University music
therapy faculty (Professor Robert F. Unkefer and Mr. Roger

Smeltekop).

116

Each was designed in accordance with the principles of
measurement and testing, and with the following considera-
tions: (a) content validity, (b) usefulness as a teaching
tool to clarify clinical and supervisory expectations, (c)
possible use in other clinical training situations that the
students and supervisors might encounter, and (d) ease of
administration.

The pretests were distributed to supervisors and stu-
dents in separate groups (a staff meeting and a class meet-
ing) and were handed in individually to the research
assistant. The SEI was distributed to supervisors at the
same meeting.

The posttests were distributed in class and staff
meetings and handed in individually in the same manner.

Supervision Satisfaction Form. The Supervision Satis-

 

faction Form (SSF) (Appendix A) was designed by the research—
er to measure the amount of satisfaction with the super-
visors' use of each of 28 supervisory skills in providing
helpful supervision for the students' particular client
assignment.

The SSF consisted of 28 statements of supervisor skills
phrased as positive behaviors. These skills were organized
in four "areas of competency": (a) supervisor teacher
skills, (b) supervisor counselor skills, (c) supervisor
consultant skills, and (d) overall supervisor skills.
Likert-scale response options and corresponding point values

were as follows:

117

(e)
(f)

Not at all satisfied;
Not applicable, not observed.

(a) 9 - 10 Exceeded all expectations;
(b) 7 - 8 Completely satisfied;
(c) 5 - 6 Generally satisfied;
(d) 3 - 4 Somewhat satisfied;
1 2
0

The areas of supervisor competencies were arranged
according to progressively more advanced supervision methods,
(e.g., methods useful for advanced or experienced super-
visees). Thus teacher skills were first, and consultant
skills and overall supervisor skills were last.

Respondents were instructed to rate how satisfied they
were with the supervisor's use of each skill in providing
helpful supervision. The SSF was administered at four times:
(a) satisfaction reported by the supervisor, (b) posttest
satisfaction reported by the supervisor, (c) pretest satis-
faction reported by the music therapy student, and (d)
posttest satisfaction reported by the music therapy student.

Appendix B indicates the names of each of the variables
measured by the SSF.

Music Therapy Student Evaluation Form. The Music

 

Therapy Student Evaluation Form (MTSEF) (Appendix C) was
designed by the researcher in collaboration with the MSU
Music Therapy Clinic staff for evaluation of music therapy
student practicum skills. It was used in this study to
determine a skill level to be used as a co-variate in statis-
tical analyses and as a variable of importance in supervision
decision-making.

The MTSEF consists of 53 items, each describing a

clinical skill in positive behavioral terms. The 53 skills

118

were organized into five skill areas: music therapy session
management skills, personal skills, conceptualization skills,
musical skills, and clinic procedures. Likert scale response

options were:

(a) 9 - 10 Excellent;

(b) 7 - 8 Good;

(c) 5 - 6 Satisfactory;

(d) 3 - 4 Needs improvement;

(e) 1 - 2 Unsatisfactory;

(f) 0 Not applicable, not observed.

The areas of clinical competency measured by the MTSEF
were arranged according to relative importance in initial
clinical training, with session management skills first and
clinic procedures last.

The MTSEF was developed and used at four times: (a) the
pretest evaluation of the student by the supervisor, (b) the
posttest evaluation of the student by the supervisor, (c) the
pretest self-evaluation by the student, and (d) the posttest
self-evaluation by the student.

The content validity of the MTSEF was piloted in the MSU
Music Therapy Clinic.

Appendix D indicates the names of the variables measured
by the MTSEF.

Supervisor Experience Index. The Supervisor Experience

 

Index (SEI) (Appendix E) was designed by the researcher to
measure the amount of experience each supervisor had accumu-
lated in areas pertinent to music therapy clinical training
supervision. This evaluation of supervisors was used to

create two groups for analysis: high-experience supervisors

119

and low-experience supervisors. It was designed to be used
as a co-variate in the experimental analyses.

The SEI consisted of seven open-ended items to be filled
in by each supervisor prior to the implementation of the
experimental conditions.

Appendix F indicates the names of the variables measured
by the SEI. (Variables one through nine were in fact not
variable numbers, but were used for purposes of identifica-
tion and coding.)

Each item was scored by the researcher according to
amount of experience reported in the particular area, ranging
from zero, for no experience, to five, for extensive experi-
ence in that area. Appendix G contains the scoring system

for the SEI.

Experimental Procedures Forms

 

The Supervision Planning Aid (SPA) (Appendix H) and the
Supervision Session Evaluation Form (SSEF) (Appendix I) were
designed by the researcher to implement the experimental
conditions of planning and evaluating supervision sessions.

Supervision Planning Aid. The Supervision Planning Aid

 

(SPA) (Appendix H) was based on Bernard's Discrimination
Model (1979), in which the supervisor chooses discussion
content and role relationships for supervision according to
the student's individual needs.

The content issues pertinent to music therapy supervi-

sion were listed in a column on the left, and included these

120

choices: (a) therapeutic interventions, (b) musicianship/
tech-niques, (c) activities/pacing, (d) client needs/
responses, (e) verbal interactions, (f) relationship with
client, (9) feelings/reactions, (h) goals/objectives, (i)
session evaluations/client chart, (j) clinic procedures,

(k) scheduling concerns, (1) supervision needs/goals, and (m)
other (specify).

The role relationships and brief descriptions of each
were listed in a line across the top of the form, and includ-
ed: (a) teacher-student (instructing, explaining, evaluat-
ing); (b) counselor-client (encouragement, reassurance,
empathic response); and (c) consultant-colleague
(problem-solving, responding to student-initiated structure).

Supervisors were instructed to choose three or more
topics of discussion for their next supervision session with
the student therapist, and then to select a role relationship
for each topic. They were to place a number from one to
three and a letter from "A" to "C" in each box corresponding
to the topic and role relationship. The sequence of topics
for discussion was indicated by "one" for the first topic,
"three" for last topic, etc. Importance was indicated by "A"
for highest priority, "C" for lowest priority topic, etc.

The supervisor was instructed to fill in the blanks
indicating names and date of supervision session, to ask the
student to look briefly at the planning aid form prior to
supervision and to initial the form to indicate that the

procedure had been followed.

121

Supervision Session Evaluation Form. The Supervision

 

Session Evaluation Form (SSEF) (Appendix I) was designed by
the researcher to implement the evaluation part of the
experimental procedure. The SSEF comprised four questions to
be answered immediately following the supervision session.
Two formats were used; one form was to be completed by the
student and one form was to be completed by the supervisor.
Each was to complete the form confidentially and hand it in
to the research assistant; neither student nor supervisor had
access to the information on the other forms.

The four questions concerned the supervision session
just conducted, and included questions on overall helpful-
ness, use of time, topics of discussion, and the personal
approach or role relationship taken by the supervisor.

Likert scale response options were:

(a) exceeded all expectations (coded as five

points); (b) completely satisfied (coded as four

points); (c) generally satisfied (three points);

(d) somewhat satisfied (two points); and (e) not at
all satisfied (one point).

Instructions to Participants

 

Music therapy students were requested to participate in
a study of supervision at the time of the pretest of the
Supervision Satisfaction Form, which was administered during
a class meeting of the course relating to practicum. Their
permission to participate was requested on the cover page of
the SSF, which they signed. Students were given no further

instructions by the researcher until the posttest of the SSF,

122

at which time the research procedures were explained
completely.

Supervisors also were asked to participate in the
experiment at the time of the pretest, and to cooperate as
subjects in both the treatment and comparison groups. They
were given complete information regarding the study so as to
increase their ability and willingness to supervise according
to two independent approaches. They were informed which of
their supervisees would be supervised in their traditional,
habitual manner (comparison group), and which supervisees
would be supervised using the experimental supervision
approach. Supervisors were cautioned about the importance of
maintaining existing supervisor approaches with comparison
group supervisees.

Comparison group. Supervisory pairs in the comparison

 

group were to continue supervision exactly as they had been
doing. Supervisors were cautioned against using the treat-
ment aids in comparison group pairs. All supervisory func-
tions other than the planning and evaluation were available
to the comparison group; no services that had been provided
were withheld.

Experimental group. Supervisory pairs in the experi-

 

mental group were asked to use the planning and evaluating
procedures. Two forms were to be used for each of the three
supervision sessions of the experiment--the SPA by the

supervisor prior to supervision, the SSEF by both supervisor

and student immediately following each supervision session.

123

The forms were to be turned in as soon as completed in order
for the researcher to document that the procedures were
followed.

Assignment to Experimental and Comparison Groups

 

Supervisory pairs were assigned in a random manner to
the two groups, and then the composition of each group was
adjusted according to the following criteria: (a) supervi-
sors, who had varying numbers of supervisees, were assigned
so that half their supervisees were in each group; (b)
students, who had varying numbers of clients or client
groups, were assigned so that all their supervisory assign-
ments were in either one group or the other; (c) occurrences
of supervising group versus individual therapy were distrib-
uted randomly across both groups.

Appendix K indicates the composition of the groups by
group.

Appendix L indicates the composition of the groups by
supervisor.

Appendix M indicates the composition of the groups by
student.

Supervisory pairs were selected for the experiment from
the available pairs of the MSU Music Therapy Clinic according
to these criteria: (a) the student-supervisor-client(s) unit
had been working as a unit for the previous two terms and
were likely to remain together until the end of the experi-

ment; and (b) the student and supervisor were engaged in

124

one-to-one supervision sessions, rather than group
supervision sessions.

Of 63 supervisory pairs, 24 met the above two criteria,
and were assigned to experimental or comparison groups on a
random basis. The researcher adjusted the assignments to
account for equal representation of supervisors in both
groups, while keeping student members of pairs in either one
or the other group. Appendix K indicates the composition of
the pairs and the groups.

There were 12 cases in the experimental group, 12 cases
in the comparison group, and 39 cases in a third group (due
to participation in either pretest only, posttest only, or

group supervision).

Assurance of Confidentiality

 

All participants were assured that all responses would
be treated as confidential by the researcher and the research
assistant. Test instruments were assigned a dyad number that
corresponded to the supervisory pair, and all responses were
recorded by dyad numbers.

The researcher participated in the experiment as a
supervisor, and the assurance of confidentiality was crucial
in obtaining valid responses.

Dyad numbers were assigned by the research assistant in
random fashion. The researcher thus knew which responses

referred to individual supervisors.

125

Experimental Timetable

 

The experimental conditions were in effect for four
weeks during the 1983 Spring Term at MSU. The pretests were
explained, distributed, and collected within a two-week
period prior to implementation of the treatment conditions.
The posttests were explained, distributed, and collected
within a four-week period following the completion of the
experimental conditions. All pretest data were stored for
coding and analysis at the time when all data from the
experiment had been collected.

The pretests of the SSF were explained and distributed
to supervisors as a group during a staff meeting. They were
completed and returned by each supervisor individually; the
research assistant collected each pretest and assigned a dyad
number to it.

The pretests of the SSF were explained and distributed
to students during a class meeting of the senior level
therapy course in which the practicum was required. Individ-
ual students then completed and returned the tests to the
research assistant.

The pretests of the MTSEF were conducted as term-end
evaluations of the student practicums for the preceding
winter term.

The supervisors were informed of which supervisees were
to be supervised using the experimental procedures of plan-
ning and evaluation, and requested to conduct the next three

supervision sessions in that manner, after which the

126

posttests would be administered. The experimental conditions
were in effect for four weeks, until approximately the middle
of the term. The posttests were then administered.

The posttests were similarly explained, distributed, and
individually completed and returned to the research assistant

who wrote the identifying dyad number on each form.

Computation of Scores and Variables.

Raw scores for each item of the three data-collection
instruments were entered as data for computerized scoring of
overall and subscale scores for each member of each supervi-
sory pair. Subscale scores for the areas of competency for
each test instrument were calculated using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program named "Com—
pute." Overall scores were computed by summing the total
points and dividing by the number of items answered, exclud-
ing "not applicable, not observed" answers and items omitted.

This computation technique took into account the differ-
ent number of scale items in the subgroups of items, as well
as the instances of responses that could not be used (e.g.,
not applicable/not observed and omitted responses).

The researcher scored the SEI by summing the total
points from all questions, which were scored from zero to
five points each. Individual supervisor scores could assume
values from one to 30; a zero score was not possible because

all respondents were active supervisors.

127

Appendix N indicates names of computed variables for the

deata collection instruments.

IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

The purposes of this chapter are to present the findings
of the statistical analyses for each of the hypotheses and
research questions and to present descriptive statistics from
each of the data collection instruments. When the term
”significance" is used in reference to data analysis, "sta-
tistical significance at the .10 level" is indicated. The
statistics were computed using SPSS programs Frequencies,
Condescriptive, Compute, Anova, T-Test, and Pearson Correla-

tion, which are available on the MSU Computer.

Findings of Statistical Analyses for Hypotheses and Questions

 

Hypothesis #1. Hypothesis #1 was that music therapy

 

students in the experimental group would report significantly
greater satisfaction with supervision (as measured by the
SSF-MTS at posttest) than music therapy students in the
comparison group. The hypothesis was not confirmed.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted
using the pretest and posttest scores of the treatment and
comparison groups (V175 and v17sp). In order to eliminate
duplication of music therapy students in each of the groups,

to eliminate MTS #16 (whose supervisor was not represented in

128

129

the comparison group), and to balance the cells, the group
size was reduced to seven in each group.

The average total score for student satisfaction was
computed by excluding missing and non-applicable items from
the total number of items used as the denominator. The
satisfaction by group ANOVA was performed using a signifi-
cance level of .10. Table 4 indicates results for the ANOVA.

An F probability of .8447 and an F ratio of .04 revealed
no statistically significant difference between the groups.
The mean of the experimental group students was slightly
lower than the mean of the comparison group students (7.0010
to 7.2012). The minimum reported score of the experimental
group students was substantially lower than that of the
comparison gorup students (2.8889 to 5.1786). The standard
deviation of the experimental group students was also much
larger (2.0810 to 1.6333).

Because no significant difference between groups was
found, the statistical analysis using the co-variate was
omitted.

Hypothesis #2. Hypothesis #2 was that supervisors in

 

the experimental group would report significantly greater
satisfaction with supervision (as measured by the SSF—SUP at
posttest) than when they supervised students using the
comparison conditions. The hypothesis was not confirmed.

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of posttest
satisfaction of supervisors by group was conducted using a

sample size of 10. Five supervisors were used in each group

130

mO¢H.m ou mHmo.® Hawo. Noom.H ”<B<Q ommaomoza

 

 

mmmm.m mmmw.m HHOH.5 ea a<eoa
naan.m on comm.m mmmm.m wmna.m mnao. mmmm.~ mHo~.n h consumesou
mmmm.m 0» coho.m nmwm.m mmmm.m moms. ono.m oHoo.n n Hmucwsauodxm

a a 3 a (ma. Idldll Twill «a 95.6

.ucH .wcou cumocmum

oOMH.m¢ ma q<eoa
~mm¢.m somm.sa NH museum asses:
seem. oeo. mowa. mowa. H mdsouu coosumm

am am a a sld 830m

m m coo: mo sum

“comaucdsoo one Houswsauoaxmv macho am

Admna>v umouumom um coauommmaumm unoccum hammock cams: cancaum>

2 2858? you 338m §oz<

¢ mqmds

131

because SUP #4 participated only in the experimental group
and thus was excluded from this analysis. Table 5 indicates
the results of this statistical analysis.

An F ratio of .142 and an F probability of .7157 indi-
cate no significant differences between groups at the .10
level. The experimental group supervisors had a slightly
lower mean (6.8982 to 7.0459) and notably higher standard
deviation (.6924 to .5358) than the comparison group supervi-
sors. Minimum and maximum reported scores for each group
were similar (minimum reported scores were 6.3214 and 6.2679;
maximum reported scores were 7.7857 and 7.5897 for experi-
mental group and comparison group respectively).

Question #3. Question #3 asked whether supervisors as a

 

group, (i.e., irrespective of treatment condition), reported
significantly greater or lesser satisfaction with supervision
at the posttest than at the pretest (as measured by the
SSF-SUP).

This question was studied using two different statisti-
cal approaches: (a) a condescriptive analysis of means and
variances, and (b) a one-way ANOVA.

The SPSS Condescriptive Program was used to analyze
differences in pretest and posttest scores of supervisors'
satisfaction. Table 6 indicates the findings of this
analysis.

The researcher calculated the average satisfaction score
for each supervisor at pretest and at posttest and entered

these data for analysis. A sample size of 10 was used, with

132

mmmm.h ou

HHHa.a on
mama.n on

some new

.ucH .uaoo

momm.w

nomM.o

mmmo.m

.uUm mm

 

 

moma. mmmm. "<eco ammbomoz=
nmms.n m~o~.o o-m.o OH 44909
nomm.n mmom.o comm. mmmm. mmeo.n m commandsou
nmmn.n vamm.o «mom. ammo. mmmm.o m Hmucosauodxm
ammmmmm mmmmmmm ummmmm: numqmuu ummmmu mmmmm (muons
oumocwum
mONH.m m A4908
«mam. mmoo.m m masons cases:
nman. med. memo. memo. H museum cmosuom
«mmmm mmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmm «mam. muusom
m m now: we saw
Acomfiuodsou use Housesauoaxm. nacho mm

Admmm>. uncommon um coauomLmHumm soma>uwd=m cancfium>

ms mammnsodsm not msssmmm <>oz<

m mamda

133

TABLE 6

Condescriptive Results for Question #3

Variable:

mean:
variance:
minimum:
C.V. pct:
std. err.:
kurtosis
maximum:
.95 C.I:
std. dev.:
skewness

sum

to

valid cases:

missing cases:

Supervisors

Pretest

Supervisors

Posttest

Satisfaction Satisfaction

(v225)

5.870
.416
4.889
10.986
.204
-l.585
6.625
5.408
.645
-.192
58.697

6.331

10

(v225p)

6.972
.347
6.268
8.446
.186
-1.964
7.786
6.551
.589
.029
69.720

7.393

10

134

five in each group. (SUP #4 was not represented in the
comparison condition and therefore the score in the treatment
group was eliminated.)

There were differences in the means, standard devia-
tions, and minimum and maximum reported scores for satisfac-
tion of supervisors at the posttest as compared with the
pretest. The mean increased from a pretest level of 5.870 to
a posttest level of 6.972. The standard deviation decreased
from .645 on the pretest to .589 at posttest. The minimum
reported score increased substantially (4.889 at pretest and
6.268 at posttest), as did the maximum score (6.625 at
pretest and 7.786 at posttest).

Question #3 (b) was answered similarly when analyzed
using the one-way ANOVA procedure. Ten pretest and 10
posttest cases were used (the five supervisors' scores from
both treatment conditions were combined and considered as one
group; SUP #4 again was excluded). Table 7 indicates the
complete results of this analysis.

Supervisors reported significantly greater satisfaction
at the posttest than at the pretest when treatment condition
was not considered. An F ratio of 15.936 yielded an F
probability of .0009 which was statistically significant well
beyond the .10 level.

Question #4. Question #4 asked whether supervisors

 

would report significantly greater or lesser satisfaction
with supervision subscale skills at the posttest than at the

pretest. This question was studied with the use of two

1L35

anom.o on

mmmm.h ou
onm.w ou
some new
.saa .ucoo

homo.m

momm.m

«m0¢.m

.uom mm

nmmn.n

nmmh.n

ommo.m

assess:

mmwm.¢

mnom.o

mmmm.¢

essa2flz

mooo.

.nosm

mcma.

Noma.

mMON.

uouum

unoccmum

mmm.mH

chasm
a

«mam.

mmmm.

meow.

mamm.

unno.o

moummmm
com:

me cosummso not mussmwm «>024

n mqmde

m0m¢.®
Omnm.w
nmmm.m

com:

«mmm.ma
hmmw.0

unho.m

moummmm

to sum

lemmaamom can amassed. macho
AQm->V umwuumom um cofiuocmmaumm .muoma>umd:m

Om

OH

OH

ucsou

0H

ma

"<B<o ommaomozs

A4808

smousmoa

umououm

 

macho

Adsoa

masons sands:

museum coozuom

 

wousom

am
msnwsum>

136

statistical techniques: (a) supervisor reports of both
conditions combined and considered as a group (N = 24), and
(b) supervisors considered as individuals (N = 6).

Subscale scores were calculated by the use of the SPSS
"Compute" facility, which accounted for not applicable/not
observed and missing responses (which resulted in differing
numbers of items answered). Variables used were V183 and
v18sp (teacher skills); V195 and v19sp (counselor skills);
VZOS and V20sp (consultant skills); and v21s and V21sp
(supervisor overall competence).

A sample size of 24 was used, with six supervisors
represented in both conditions, each with 12 average scores
at pretest, and 12 average scores at posttest. The average
pretest and average posttest scores were calculated for each
supervisor in each condition and then a series of four
T-Tests was performed for the pre-post pairs. Table 8
indicates the results of these analyses.

The correlation of pretest and posttest scores was
positive for each of the four subscales (.409, .400, .396,
and .645), which indicated that the paired T-Test procedure
was appropriate. A two-tailed test of probability was used
because a direction of inequality of means was not predicted.

Supervisors' satisfaction subscale scores were statisti-
cally significantly different from pretest to posttest when
scores from the experimental and comparison conditions were
combined and treated as one group. The T values of all four

subscales were statistically significantly different at

137

 

mam. ~¢o.a mmoH.h QmHN>

 

 

 

 

 

000. mm mo.¢- Hoo. mam. em
mam. omH.H swam.o msm>
wocmuodsou Hamuo>o
mms. mam. mmmo.a amo~>

Hoo. mm om.m- mmo. mam. am
amm. ooH.H omoa.o mo~>
msasxm snmssamcou
Hon. mam. mmom.a dmms>

Hoe. mm mm.m- mmo. cos. an
mmm. ass.a asam.o mms>
ma adv—m HOHOmGSOU
was. 4mm. omma.m dams»

ooo. mm 44.4- 540. mos. am
mam. amo.s omma.m mms>
msasxm umnomoa
.DOhnH EOUOOHL dem> . Doum .HMOU HOHHM coHuwH>0Q com: mwmwu ngz
Hams-” a Hama-~ numoamnm osmecmsm to uwnasz maansso>

moouooa

m mqm<9

ummuumom ou umouwum scum COALUMLmHumm .mHOmH>uodsm "as. an cOAumoso now muHsmom undone

138

posttest at well beyond the .10 level (two-tailed probabili-
ties for the subscales were .000, .001, .001, and .000).

The means increased from pretest to posttest for all
four subscales (5.7690 to 6.7250; 6.5417 to 7.5083; 6.1626 to
7.0923; and 6.3167 to 7.1083). The standard deviations
decreased from pretest to posttest for all four subscales
(1.037 to .894; 1.167 to .983; 1.160 to .896; and 1.190 to
1.042). These findings indicate that supervisors were more
satisfied with supervision at the posttest for all four
subscales.

The second statistical approach to Question #4 involved
the use of supervisors as individuals (N = 6) to discover
whether supervisors as individuals reported significantly
greater or lesser satisfaction with supervision subscale
skills at the posttest than at the pretest.

Each supervisor's pretest scores from both conditions
were averaged and then compared for significant differences
using a T-Test for each of the four supervisor subscale
skills. The variables used were the same as for the analysis
in Question #4 (a). Table 9 indicates the complete findings
for the subscale T-Tests.

Again, the correlation of pretest and posttest scores
was positive for each of the four subscales (.793, .724,
.714, and .650), which indicated that the paired T-Test
procedure was appropriate.

Results were somewhat similar to the previous analysis.

The T value of only the first subscale, supervisor-teacher

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mam. moo. oom~.a amsm>

amm. m mm.s- mos. one. o
awn. om~.H «was.o ma~>
mucouoqsou HHmuw>o
mma. mmo.H oama.a amo~>

has. n HS.H- Has. «an. o
mam. was.” mamm.m mo~>
msssxm ucmussmaoo
ohm. som. Homa.a amma>

mms. m om.H- mod. «me. s
has. Ham.s mmoo.a mma>
mHHHXm HOHOdeOU
ems. moo.H «Hmo.a Emma»

mac. n ~m.m- coo. mas. 8
mos. ~m¢.H oama.o was»
msasxm sarcoma
. noun Eovmwhh ODHM> . noum .HHOU MOHHm Gofiumdwma G602 QOQU MOS—52
Hams-~ so a Hame-m osmoamum unmeasum to Lorenz manusuu>

moouooo

ummuumom ou amoumum scum coHuomLmHumm .muomfi>umdsm

m mqmdh

"lac as cosumwso you mussmmm ammu-a

140

skill, was statistically significantly different at posttest
(two-tailed probability of .068). The three other subscale
probabilities did not reach the .10 significance level (.132,
.167, and .227).

The means and standard deviations, however, yielded
results quite similar to the previous approach to analysis.
The means of all four subscales increased from pretest to
posttest (6.1940 to 7.0614; 7.0089 to 7.7861; 6.6349 to
7.4246; and 6.7144 to 7.2806). Likewise, the standard
deviations for all four subscales decreased from pretest to
posttest (1.492 to 1.069; 1.511 to .907; 1.698 to 1.059; and
1.290 to .608). This supports the conclusion that supervi—
sors' satisfaction increased from pretest to posttest for the
four subscale skill areas.

Question #5. Question #5 asked whether music therapy

 

students reported significantly greater or lesser satisfac-
tion with supervision subscale skills (as measured by the
SSF-MTS) at the posttest than at the pretest. Student
reports from both groups were combined and considered as one
group (N = 24). A series of four T-Tests was conducted for
each of the four supervisor subscale areas.

Twelve students from the experimental group and 12
students from the comparison group were combined to create a
group of 24, and pretest and posttest subscale scores were
compared for significant differences. Table 10 indicates
complete findings of this analysis. Variables used were v135

and v13sp (teacher skills), v14s and v14sp (counselor

141

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«as. mmm.H mamm.a amms>

amo. Na Ho.~- mos. «em. mm
mam. mmv.H «omn.o mma>
wocwuwdsou Hamuw>o
mum. ems.” Hm¢H.s amma>

«mo. mm Hm.H- was. saw. «m
mom. mam.H mmo¢.o mms>
msssxm unanssmaoo
mos. Ham.s oomo.a amaa>

oHo. mm om.~- mac. was. ¢~
mos. mmm.~ swam.m m¢H>
mHHfiu—m HOHOmGfiOU
mam. aam.s swam.o dwma»

mmo. mm ~o.~- sac. has. am
mom. oom.H «vam.o mma>
massxm sarcoma

. Doum Eocwwhh m: Hm> . Doug . MHOU MOHHN GOHHMH>OQ now: no mMU Hons—92
Hama-m so a Hsma-~ osmosmsm eumocmsm to umnsuz manosum>
mwoumoo

unmanned cu umwumnm scum cowuomLmHucm .mucocsum anemone cams:

0H mqm<a

"ma coHumoso LOL muasmom ghouls

142

skills), V155 and v15sp (consultant skills), and v16s and
v16sp (supervisor overall competence).

The correlation of pretest and posttest scores was
positive for each of the four subscales (.497, .498, .297,
and .344), which indicated that the paired T-Test procedure
was appropriate. The correlations were markedly lower than
those of the supervisors, however.

Results indicated significantly greater student satis-
faction at posttest on all four subscales than at pretest.
The T values of the subscales reached two-tailed probability
levels of .055, .010, .084, and .057. The supervisor-
counselor scale (.010) yielded the most change. The means of
all four scales increased from pretest to posttest (6.2444 to
6.8481; 5.9167 to 7.0500; 6.4695 to 7.1451; and 6.5304 to
7.3826). The counselor skills scale yielded the lowest mean
at pretest and the greatest amount of increase at posttest.

The standard deviations yielded results different than
those for the supervisors' satisfaction. Three of the four
standard deviations increased from pretest to posttest (1.300
to 1.577; 1.989 to 1.971; 1.313 to 1.728; and 1.496 to
1.983). The counselor skills scale began with and retained
the most scattered scores. The students' standard deviations
at posttest were in all scales greater than those for the
supervisors at posttest.

destion #6. Question #6 asked whether music therapy

 

students would report significantly greater or lesser skill

143

level on the five subscale skills at the posttest than at the
pretest. All students' responses were combined and consid-
ered as one group, which would have resulted in N = 24 if all
students had submitted complete self-evaluation forms. A
series of five T—Tests was conducted using the scores of
twelve students from each group at pretest and 12 from each
group at posttest to determine differences for each of the
student subscale clinical skills.

Variables used were: vls and vlsp (session management
skills); v25 and VZSp (personal skills); v3s and V3sp (con-
ceptualization skills); V4s and V4sp (musicianship skills);
and v53 and VSSp (clinic procedures skills). Subscale skill
scores were computed using the SPSS "Compute" facility.

Table 11 indicates complete findings for this question.

A positive correlation was found for pretest and
posttest scores for the five subscales (.337, .365, .036,
.702, and .569), which indicated that the paired T-Test
procedure was appropriate.

None of the T values reached the .10 significance level
(.598, .421, .636, .755, and .569); thus no statistically
significant differences for pretest to posttest subscale
skills were found. Four out of the five subscale means for
student self-evaluations decreased slightly from pretest to
posttest; only the conceptualization scale mean showed a
minute increase. The means of the subscales from pretest to
posttest were: 7.4824 to 7.3617; 7.8816 to 7.6951; 7.3750 to

7.4830; 7.3493 to 7.2867; and 8.1255 to 8.0052. The standard

.144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

now. «am. ”moo.o amm>

mom. «N on. moo. mom. mm
amm. oms.H mmaa.o mm>
mwusomuoum UHGHHU
oos. ooo. soo~.s goo»

mos. NN mm. ooo. Nos. mm
mam. mmm.a mmom.a mo>
ossmcmsosmoz
oms. moo. omoo.a omm>

omo. om oo.- oao. omo. Hm
was. mos. omsm.a mm>
soHuouHHosudoocou
mos. one. ammo.s am~>

Hmo. oN No. cos. mom. HN
omm. moo.H osoo.s mm»
msssxm Hoaomuom
mos. mos. asom.a am~>

ooo. mm om. odd. amm. mm
was. moo.a o~o4.a ma»
maaaxm ucoswomsmz scammwm

.QOMA Eocwwuh OSHM> .Qoum .HHOU uouum GOHHMLSOQ G602 mmmflu uwnfidz
Hame-~ so a Hamanm osmoaMSm osmoaosm so umnazz manosuo>
mowuooo

umouumom cu amououm scum maaaxm oamomnsm we ceaucsam>ouwaom ucoosum xdmuons vamp:

Ha mgm<h

"on mcofiumoso How muasmmm unease

145

deviations decreased consistently from pretest to posttest
(1.065 to .763; 1.043 to .756; .789 to .689; 1.333 to .909;
and 1.138 to .992).

Question #7. Question #7 asked whether supervisors

 

reported significantly greater or lesser skill level evalua-
tions for music therapy students on the five subscale skills
at the posttest than at the pretest. Two approaches were
used to study this question: (a) supervisor reports from
both groups combined (12 experimental; 12 comparison) and
considered as one group (N = 24); and (b) supervisors as
individuals (N = 6, thus four scores from each supervisor).

A series of five T-Tests was conducted to determine
differences from pretest to posttest for each of the five
music therapy student subscale skills with the use of super-
visor reports from both groups combined and considered as one
group (N = 24). Subscale scores were computed using the SPSS
"Compute" facility. Variables used were: v7s and v7sp
(session management skills), v85 and v85p (personal skills),
v9s and v9sp (conceptualization skills), V108 and lesp
(musicianship skills), and vlls and vllsp (clinic procedures
skills). Table 12 indicates complete findings of these
analyses.

Correlations of pretest and posttest scores were posi-
tive for the five subscales (.784, .590, .208, .661, and
.189), indicating that the paired T-Test procedure was

appropriate.

.146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hos. son. msao.o omss>

mam. mm oo.- ohm. mos. om
mos. omo. Hama.o was»
msssxm Hamum>o
oms. ohm. omoo.o omos>

ooo. mm om.o- ooo. Hoo. on
man. mam. ooao.o moss
anomooHuHmzz
ooo. oaH.H momm.o omo>

ooo. mm 55.- omm. mom. om
ooo. ooo.” mamo.a mm>
coHuoNHHmsudoocou
mom. H-.H moo~.o moo»

moo. mm o~.m- moo. ooo. om
omm. omH.H amoo.s no»
msasxm Hmoomswm
mom. mH~.H msmo.o ama>

ooo. mm mo.m- ooo. ooa. om
omm. aHH.H omms.a ms>
mHHHo—m uchwOMCMZ Godmmwm
. noum Eocwmhh wzam> . DORA . HHOU HOHHM no.“ uwH>wQ G002 mm mMU Mme—52
Hmoa-~ a Hamanm unmeasum osmocmum do umossz manmsuo>

mwouooo

amouumom o» amououm souw maafixm mamomnsw ucmcsum summons cams: mo coHuosam>m .muoma>uoasm

\

NH mqm<8

"Amy he sofiuwwso now muflsmom bumble

147

Significant differences at the .10 level were found for
T values of three of the subscales using a two-tailed proba-
bility (session management, .000; personal skills, .003; and
musicianship, .000). The two other scales did not approach
the .10 significance level (conceptualization, .450 and
overall skills, .528).

The means improved for all subscales from pretest to
posttest (7.1934 to 8.0513; 7.4897 to 8.2083; 7.9315 to
8.3542; 6.9760 to 8.0455; and 8.7371 to 8.8773). The stan-
dard deviations were inconsistent across subscales: two
scales showed slight increases (session management, .228 to
.249; and personal skills, .236 to .249). Three scales
showed decreases in standard deviations from pretest to
posttest (conceptualization, .548 to .240; musicianship, .975
to .970; and overall skills, .890 to .787).

The second approach (#7 b) to data analysis involved the
use of the supervisor's responses when taken as individuals,
(i.e., where an average subscale score was calculated by the
researcher for each supervisor pretest and each supervisor
posttest). A T-Test then was performed on each pre-post pair
(N = 6) with the use of the same variables as in Question #7
(a). Table 13 indicates the complete findings of these
analyses.

Again, the correlations for pretest and posttest scores
were positive for all five subscales (.916, .773, .569, .892,
and .278), indicating that the paired T-Test procedure was

appropriate.

1x48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mom. son. osoo.m amss>

one. m mm.- ooo. ohm. o
omm. mmo. o-m.o mHH>
msssxm snoum>o
moo. ooH.H ooam.o omos>

moo. m ms.o- ado. moo. o
on. oo~.H oaom.a mos>
assmamsosmsz
moo. aoH.H mmom.o omo>

mod. n oa.H- mmm. ooo. o
omm. osm.H oosa.a mm>
coflumNHHmsudoucou
omm. oaH.H omoo.o amo>

ooa. m ma.H- «so. mas. o
oam. oom.H ommo.~ mo>
ma 3.3m Hmcomumm
mmm. mom.s oomm.o dms>

Hmo. m Nm.m- oso. oao. o
ooo. ~om.~ soon.» ma»
mHHme ucmsoomcoz coammwm

. noum EOUOOHM ODHM> . Doum .HHOU Nahum QOHumM>OQ now: mOmMU HOB—52
same.” so a Hama-m osmoomum osmoqoum oo umaasz manusum>
moouooo

uncommon ou amououm soum maafixm mamomnsm accosum summons cams: mo soHuc=Hm>m .muomfi>uod=m

Ma mqm<H

"any at coaumoso now muasmom umwuua

149

The T values of two subscales were significantly differ-
ent at posttest: session management (probability = .021) and
musicianship (.009). Two subscales approached significance
at the .10 level: personal skills (.140) and conceptualiza-
tion (.143). Overall skills did not approach significance
(.759).

The means of the subscales consistently increased and
standard deviations consistently decreased from pretest to
posttest for all five subscales.

Question #8. Question #8 asked whether high-experience

 

level supervisors reported significantly greater or lesser
satisfaction with supervision than low-experience level
supervisors at the posttest, irrespective of supervision
conditions.

A one-way ANOVA was performed for satisfaction by group
(high-experience level and low-experience level supervisors)
using an N = 6. A satisfaction score for each supervisor at
posttest was calculated by the researcher. The median SEI
score was used to divide the six supervisors into two groups
of three persons each; the distinction of high and low levels
was quite dramatic. Table 14 indicates the results of this
analysis.

An F probability of .3291 revealed no significant
difference between the satisfaction of high-experience and
low-experience level supervisors as evidenced by their scores
on the posttest. The mean of the high-experience level

supervisors was lower than the mean of the loWeexperience

150

mmmH.m ou mmmn.m ammo. HNMH.H «<B¢Q numnomoz:

 

 

mmoH.m mmoH.m moom.w w H4909
mmom.HH 0» moHo.m mmvH.m mmoH.o omwm. mmmm.H o~¢¢.n m mocoHquxm 30H
NNMH.~ ou van.m Homh.o ~mmm.m mHoH. mmnm. nmm¢.o m mocoHuodxm 50H:
3 fl malswmlz Edam 4% ldfll (Equal aslo 95.5
.ucH .mcoo oumcccum
mnoo.o m H4909
22 .H oomoé o 838 55E
Hmmm. mmm.H mmom.H mmom.H H mdsouu coosuwm
fl flmm a “ham flJm 838m
h m new: no Edm
HmuomH>uodsm oocmHuodxm 30H can cocoHumdxm nono macaw mm

umouumom um coHuomLmHumm .muomH>uodsm anmHuc>

umwuumom um Ho>oq cocoHquxm mm coHuomLmHumm .muomH>qu=m "ma cOHumoso now muHsmom «>024

«H MHm<B

151

level supervisors (6.4387 to 7.4420). The standard deviation
of the high-experience level supervisors was radically lower
(.2792 to 1.5398). While the minimum reported scores were
similar (6.2232 and 6.1429), the maximum reported score of
the high-experience level supervisors was almost three points
lower than the maximum reported score of the low-experience
level supervisors (6.7541 to 9.1429).

Question #9. Question #9 asked whether music therapy

 

student skill level (as measured by the supervisor on the
MTSEF at pretest) was correlated with the students' satisfac-
tion with supervision (as measured by the SSF-MTS at
pretest).

A Pearson Correlation Coefficient was computed with the
use of v12s (MTSEF-SUP) and v17s (SSF-MTS), which are the
overall skills scores for those variables. A sample size of
38 included all students except those in group supervision
and omitted dyads that participated only in the posttests.
Table 15 indicates the complete findings for this analysis.

The probability of the correlation coefficient (R =
.2662) was .106, which almost reached the determined signifi-
cance level of .10.

Question #10. Question #10 asked whether music therapy

 

student skill level (as measured by the students' self-
evaluation on the MTSEF at pretest) was correlated with
the students' satisfaction with supervision (as measured by

the SSF-MTS at pretest).

152

TABLE 15
Pearson Correlation Results for Question #9:

Supervisor Evaluation of Music Therapy Student Overall Skills
(V125) with Student Satisfaction (v17s)

2-tailed test of significance

 

Variable Cases Mean S.D.
v12s 38 7.9521 .9663
v17s 43 6.5397 1.3039

Pearson Correlation

 

v17s
v12s .2662 (Coefficient)
(38) (Cases)

P = .106 (Significance)

153

A Pearson Correlation Coefficient was computed for all
students except those in group supervision (N = 42). Vari-
ables correlated were v6s (MTSEF-MTS overall skills pretest)
and v17s (SSF-MTS overall satisfaction pretest). Table 16
indicates the complete findings of this analysis.

Students' self-evaluation of their clinical skills was
not significantly correlated with their satisfaction with
supervision at pretest. The coefficient of correlation (R =
.2085) was significant only at the .185 level.

Question #11. Question #11 asked whether music therapy

 

student overall skill level as reported by the supervisor
(v6s, MTSEF-SUP at pretest) was correlated with the students'
overall clinical skill level as self-evaluated (V128, MTSEF-
MTS at pretest).

A Pearson Correlation Coefficient was calculated with
the use of the scores of all students not in group supervi-
sion (N = 37). Table 17 indicates the complete findings of
this analysis.

Students' self-evaluation of clinical skills did not
come close to a significant correlation with supervisors'
evaluations of students' clinical skills. The coefficient of
correlation (R = .0632) was significant at only the .714

level.

Descriptive Statistics for Data Collection Instruments

 

The Supervisor Experience Index (SEI). The SEI provided

 

data which separated clearly the supervisors into high

154

TABLE 16

Pearson Correlation Results for Question #10
Self-evaluation of Music Therapy Student Overall Skills
(v6s) with Student Satisfaction (v17s)

 

Variable Cases Mean S. D.
v65 42 7.5368 .9225
v17s 43 6.5397 1.3039

Pearson Correlation

 

v17s
V68 .2085 (Coefficient)
(42) (Cases)

P = .185 (Significance)

155

TABLE 17

Pearson Correlation Results for Question #11
Music Therapy Student Self-evaluation of Overall Skills
(v6s) with Supervisor Evaluation of Student Overall
Skills (v12s)

2-tailed test of significance

 

Variable Cases Mean S.D.
v65 42 7.5368 .9225
les 38 7.9521 .9663

Pearson Correlation

 

v12s
V65 .0632 (Coefficient)
(37) (Cases)

P = .714 (Significance)

156

experience and low experience groups. Of the original eight
supervisors, only six participated in the experiment to its
completion, but these six were also clearly divisible into
two groups. Table 18 indicates complete raw data of the SEI
by item for the three groups of supervisors (the high experi—
ence group, the two supervisors for whom only pretest data
were available, and the low experience group).

The raw data from Table 18 were used to assign an
experience level score according to the scoring system in
Appendix G. The scoring system assured that all categories
of experience had equal weight in calculation of the overall
experience score. Several observations may be made from the
raw data.

1. Male and female supervisors were present in both
high and low experience level groups (two male, one female in
the high experience group, and one male, two female in the
low experience level group).

2. Low experience level supervisors reported no years
of full-time employment as registered music therapists, no
years of college teaching, and no interns supervised. All
high experience level supervisors reported experience in all
categories.

3. The mean experience level score of the high group
was 28 (out of 30 possible); the mean experience level score
of the low group was 8. The ranges of the scores in the high

and low groups were almost the same: 7 and 8 respectively.

157

 

 

 

H o m o H m o m m
m o om o m m o «H o 30H
H o «H o n o m «H m
dsouo
H o «H o m H w «H n nmcuo
H H mm o m n m mm H
m 0H mm o m m 0 mm m
a 3 3H 2 m 8 m om m 83
T, or, or, m? N? H? o? mm.» 8932
Monaco oomH>uodsm oomH>Lodsm ochomma mosum ucosondsm ucossoHdsm ouoom nomH>uod=m
mam mcuwusH mucoosum oHEHHOU comatose osHuuuumm Ham Ham
ssoHuomum osHunHHsm HHmuo>o

muomH>umdsm mo mdsouu cough sow mwuoom ewuH Hmm

mH mqmda

158

The minimum and maximum reported scores were: high group, 23
- 30; low group, 4 - 12.

The Supervision Satisfaction Form (SSF). Both the SSF

 

and the MTSEF were analyzed by item in order to gain addi-
tional understanding of the evaluation tools and results.
Various descriptive statistics were assessed to gain data
with which to make recommendations and to shed light on the
subscales and individual items.

An SPSS Frequencies program for categorical variables
was run for the 28 items of the SSF and for the 53 items of
the MTSEF to assess the means, medians, modes, standard
deviations, ranges, minimum and maximum reported scores, and
the number of respondents who answered or omitted each item.
Each item was measured on a scale from one to ten, with an
option of Not applicable/Not observed provided. (The SSF
contained 28 items and was given to students and supervisors
at pretest and posttest. Thus there were 112 variables
generated (28 x 4).) Table 19 indicates the complete find-
ings of the analysis of the SSF, grouped by item with pretest
and postest scores of students and supervisors provided.

The SSF produced relatively homogeneous scores (contrib-
uting, along with the high pretest scores, to reduced likeli-
hood of significant differences with treatment). The
plateauing and the homogeneity of the scores may be illus-
trated by a discussion of the response patterns of students
and supervisors (using the descriptive statistics mentioned

above).

.159

0m
0m
Hm
0m

0m
0m
mm
mH

Hm
0m
Hm
5H

mm
mm
mm
«M

on
Hm
HN
5H

0m
0m
Hm
mH

 

mommu
ocmeHz

me
mv
«o
no

mv
mo
Ho
vv

«w
me
No
we

0v
0m
mm
mm

mm
«c
mo
we

no
no
Nv
we

momcu
oHHm>

0H

0H

0H

0H

0H

0H

0H

0H
0H

0H

0H

m

0H

m
0H

Esstoz

moH.H
mow.H
N05.H
wHH.N

NNQ‘U‘)
”00¢

00v.H
mum.H
5mm.H
Hmw.H

MMHQ‘
mommy

Hmm.H
vmm.H
0m0.H
mom.H

HNNV
mhmtn

00H.N
0mm.H
HNH.N
mmo.m

HNHr-I
maooooo

mmv.H
000.H
mwm.H
nmo.H

NNHM
@500

mwm.H
¢00.H
wa.H
m00.H

Nva
mhl‘ln

 

sschHz omcmm coHumH>w0
oumoccum

mom.n
¢0¢.n
00m.0
000.0

u>xo h~l\

0mv.n
0m~.h
Nnm.m
mnm.m

comooox

nmm.h
mm¢.h
chm.m
¢Hh.w

BVOQQ

00H.¢
vHN.n
000.m
m~0.m

«Noam

mmm.m
Nwm.0
w¢m.v
Nom.m

\Ofl'l‘w

HHH.n
HHH.~
mm0.o
mum.m

“10$!”

 

woo: coHcoz

la emsH an. mosumsuuum m>HooHHUmmo

mH mHm<a

"hmm

mHm.h
00¢.h
mmm.w
Nmm.0

mmm.n
mmm.w
Nom.m
00¢.0

Hmo.h
mn~.h
00>.m
5HN.0

mam.¢
500.0
HhH.v
¢H¢.m

v0m.o
050.0
mmn.¢
000.0

nnm.0
0¢H.h
mmm.m
mm~.o

~H~>
ooH>
omH>
o~H>

$0000

HHm>
mmH>
mmH>
an>

mini-OLD

0HN>
NmH>
va>
mmH>

Q'Q'Q'Q'

mo~>
HmH>
mmH>
mmH>

mmmm

mom>
omH>
NmH>
¢NH>

NNNN

50N>
th>
HmH>
mNH>

HHHH

Hmom mam

smom
mmm
mmm

amom
amom
mmm
mmm

Hmom
amom
mmm
mmm

Hmom
Hmom
mmm
mmm

Hmom
amom
mmm
mmm

Hmom
Hmom
mmm
mmm

max
mam
m9!

mam

mam
we:

mam
we:
mam
we:

mam

mam
m5:

mom
was
mam
we:

mam
was
mam
we:

mHHme nocomwauuomH>uod=m
uncommon
no unwound
useosommwm

nonssz nonssz
amuH «HooHuo>

 

.160

mH
0m
mm
5H

on
HN
Hm
5H

mH
mm
Hm
mm

mH
mm
Hm
mH

mH
Hm
mm
0H

mm
on
Hm
NH

 

momcu
ocmeHz

vv
mv
0c
00

mm
mo
no
0o

«0
He
Nv
0v

0v
00
me
«o

«v
No
Hv
0v

Hv
mo
no
00

 

momcu
UHHc>

0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H

0H

0H

0H

0H

0H

0H

m

0H

m
0H

NHMH HHHN me'I-n NMHQ‘ HNHM

NQ'HQ‘

 

ssstmz sschHz

 

 

o oom.H o mmo.a
a moo." o oma.s
o ooo.H a oom.o
o ass." a ooo.o
o moo.H o ooa.a
o mms.H o oon.a
a «mo.H o s-.o
o HHH.~ a soo.o
o aaH.H o maa.a
o on.H o moa.a
o omo. a ooo.o
a osa.H o oa~.a
a Haa.H o soo.m
o Hoo.~ o Hmm.s
a oo~.~ n ~oo.o
m aHH.~ a ooo.o
o moo.H o ooH.o
a ooo.H o mmo.o
o ~H~.~ m omo.o
o moo.H o ooo.a
m moH.H a soo.a
o aHo.H o mmm.a
m NHm.H o oom.o
o moo.H o m~o.a

mamas coaumH>oo woo: endow:

285$

H.0.ucoov mH cana

 

000.5
mmm.~
000.0
500.0

0H¢.n
00N.h
50H.0
0mm.0

«00.5
000.5
Nmm.0
050.0

000.0
00N.h
mmm.¢
mnm.0

mom.m
«05.0
0H0.¢
m~¢.0

00H.n
hm0.h
«Hh.0
NNO.B

NH
NH
NH
NH

HH
HH
HH
HH

0H
0H
0H
0H

cocoaoco O‘O‘QO‘

l‘hhl‘

 

nonssz
souH

 

 

mHm> amen mam
omH> amom we:
~0H> mam mam
¢MH> mmm we:
hH~> smom mam
mmH> smog we:
HOH> mmm mam
MMH> mmm we:
mHHme uoHomcsouuuomH>uodsm
0Hm> amom mam
me> 900m m9:
00H> mam mam
mmH> mam ma:
mHm> amom mom
hmH> amom ma:
mmH> mum mam
HMH> mmm we:
oH~> 900m mam
00H> awed we:
mmH> mam mam
OMH> mam we:
mH~> amom mam
mmH> smog was
an> mum mam
m~H> was was
Hones: umwuumom
oHnsHum> no amouwum
accusedmom

161

CM
mm
mm
mm

mH
0N
Hm
NH

0m
0m
Hm
NH

mH
0N
Hm
NH

0m
0m
Hm
0H

0m
0m
Hm
NH

 

momwu
ochmHz

mm
vm
om
em

00
no
No
0v

no
mo
N0
00

00
me
no
00

no
me
No
no

mv
mv
No
00

 

mommu
UHHc>

0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H

0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

.40th mcmm HMNQ‘ HNMIO NNNM

HMMI-O

 

ssstoz aseHcHz

QQQQ‘ mNcnm maoNtn 0000000

(1300“)

0‘55“)

NMN.H
000.H
0¢m.H
H00.~

00¢.H
NNO.H
H0m.H
m¢0.N

00m.H
H00.H
0N0.H
OMN.H

000.

«00.H
0¢M.H
HmH.N
vm0.H
N00.H
~0~.H
H00.N

NNH.H
0NN.H
000.H
0m~.~

 

omega

cpomH>oo
osmocosm

cooocooo \DSONCD hhmh toe-00

5055

005000

 

moo:

N00.m
v00.N
mm0.v
000.0

NOM.N
000.N
HN0.0
HNm.0

M00.N
000.N
mom.m
MNN.0

0mm.N
Hm~.0
NOH.N
000.N

000.N
mmM.N
Nmm.0
00N.0

00m.N
N¢0.0
000.N
00m.N

canoes

H.0.ucoov mH oHnoH

000.0
0NH.N
m~0.m
NH¢.0

000.N
00N.N
~0N.m
NH~.0

000.0
mH¢.N
NON.m
0m0.0

H¢0.N
0N0.m
omH.N
000.N

0mm.N
mm0.N
mmm.0
m0~.0

voN.N
0m0.N
NON.0
000.0

0H
0H
0H
0H

NH
NH
NH
NH

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

MH
MH
mH
MH

 

nobssz
amuH

 

 

¢m~> 900m mam
0mH> 900m max
00H> mam mam
ovH> mam ma:
m~m> 900m mam
mmH> 900m we:
NOH> mam mom
mMH> mam we:
mmm> amom mam
emH> amom max
00H> mam mam
QMH> mam we:
mHHme unnuHschUILOmH>uodnm
H-> smog mam
mmH> 900m was
m0H> mam mam
NMH> man we:
o-> 900m mam
mmH> 900m ma:
¢0H> mam mam
0MH> mam we:
mHm> 900m mom
HmH> amom ma:
m0H> mum mam
mmH> mum we:

nonssz umouumom
anmHuo> no unwound
accusedmmm

1152

mH
0N
Hm
0H

mH
Hm
Hm
mH

mm
mm
mm
0m

mm
MN
mm
NH

mm
0m
mm
0H

mH
mm
Hm
NH

 

mommu
uchmHz

we
m0
me
00

00
N0
N0
00

00
0m
mm
mm

He
00
Ho
00

Ho
me
He
no

we
00
No
00

mango
oHHm>

0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

m

0H
0H
0H

m

0H
0H
0H

m

0H
0H
0H

 

ssstmz aschHz

NNNl-n NNHl-n MQ'HQ' NNMQ' mu'mm

HQ‘HQ‘

 

 

 

o oom.H o ooo.“
a som.H o Hmo.a
m omm.H o omm.m
a oaa.H o ooo.o
o oon.H a oom.s
a moo.H o omo.o
o ooo.H o koo.o
o oao.H o ooo.a
o moa.H o mmm.a
m ooa.H o ooo.o
o aoH.H a omo.a
a oma.H o ooo.a
o mmo.H m omo.a
m mmo.~ a oom.a
o oHo.H a mam.o
o som.H a Hms.o
o HmH.H o omm.o
o Noo.H a ooh.“
o omm.H a ooo.m
o amo.~ a omo.o
m oom.H o oms.a
m oom.H o ooo.a
o Hmo.H a aoo.o
o Nom.H o oom.o
moans coasmH>oo moo: scone:
Ohwocwum

H.U.ucoov mH oHnoB

va.N
H00.N
000.0
000.0

mmm.N
000.N
HNm.0
mm0.0

000.N
N00.N
0~0.N
mmN.0

mm¢.N
00N.N
mmH.0
000.0

00N.0
H00.N
mm¢.m
000.0

0M0.N
000.N
0H0.0
000.0

cm
0N
cm
on

mm
mm
mm
mm

mm
mm
mm
mm

Hm
Hm
Hm
Hm

0m
0m
0m
0m

mH
mH
mH
mH

 

umnssz
smuH

 

 

cm~> smog mam
~o~> amom was
«NH> mmm mam
0¢H> mam max
mucouodeou HHmuo>o
m-> 900m mam
Hom> amom we:
MNH> mum mam
m¢H> mam we:
0m~> amom mam
oo~> amom we:
«NH> mam mam
voH> mmm we:
NNN> 900m mam
mmH> amom we:
HNH> mam mam
moH> mam we:
0mm> 900m mam
mmH> 900m was
oNH> mam mam
moH> 0mm we:
m~m> 900m mam
NmH> smog ma:
m0H> mmm mam
H¢H> man was

Honssz umouumom
oHanum> no umououm
accusedmmm

163

mH
0«
H«
0H

mH
0«
H«
0H

0«
H«
H«
mH

0H
0«
H«
0H

mommo
osHmmHz

vv
mo
«0
00

«w
mv
«a
00

mm
«o
«o
«o

00
me
«0
00

mommo
UHHw>

0H
m
0H

0H
0H
m

0H

0H
0H
m

0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

d‘Q'r-Id‘ NMNQ‘ MQ'NQ‘

NHHN

ssstmz EdchHz

00:30 0000 N000

oommoo

00«.H
moN.H
¢m«.H
HNO.H

MHO.H
0MN.H
va.H
Nm0.H

m«¢.H
MNO.«
MH¢.H
00v.H

0HN.H
000.H
««N.H
mm0.«

 

wmcmm

coHSmH>ma
osmocoom

N000 0000000 0000000

coo-coco

 

moo:

mHm.N
«00.0
NcH.0
0m¢.N

000.N
«00.0
0m«.0
mmm.N

0N0.0
««N.N
00«.0
000.0

000.N
mmm.N
m0m.0
000.N

cmsomz

A.U.ucoov mH oanB

000.N
«H0.N
0m«.0
N00.N

000.0
«H0.N
Nmm.0
m00.0

m0H.N
00¢.N
me.0
00N.0

N««.N
H«N.N
Nmm.0
¢¢0.N

w«
m«
m«
0«

N«
N«
N«
N«

0«
0«
0«
0«

m«
m«
0«
m«

Honssz
swuH

vm«>
00«>
0NH>
00H>

mm«>
mo«>
NNH>
m¢H>

«m«>
¢0«>
0NH>
0¢H>

Hm«>
m0«>
0NH>
NvH>

nonssz
03822,

800m
900m
mmm
mmm

8000
900m
mmm
mmm

900m
900m
mmm
mmm

800m
800m
mmm
mmm

mam
we:
now
we:

mam

mam

mam
we:
mam
we:

mam
was
mam
was

ummusmom

no unwound
bemusedmmm

164

The means of students' and supervisors' responses were
consistently high for SSF items. For students' responses at
pretest, the lowest mean was 5.414 (item #3, referring to
research) and the highest mean was 7.067 (#28, helpfulness).
For students' responses at posttest, the lowest mean was
6.667 (#3, referring to research) and the highest mean was
8.070 (#15, communicating respect).

For supervisors' responses at pretest, the lowest mean
was 4.171 (#3, referring to research) and the highest mean
was 7.190 (#15, communicating respect). For supervisors'
responses at posttest, the lowest mean was 4.525 (#3, refer-
ring to research) and the highest mean was 7.841 (#15,
communicating respect).

Thus students and supervisors shared common items three
out of four times for means, and the means were in the middle
of the lO-point scale.

The lowest reported mean at pretest was 4.171 (#3, SUP,
referring to research). The highest reported mean at pretest
was 7.190 (#15, SUP, communicating respect). The lowest
reported mean at posttest was 4.525 (#3, SUP, referring to
research). The highest reported mean at posttest was 8.070
(#15, MTS, communicating respect).

There were only three SSF items for which the means and
medians of students and supervisors were more than 1.0
different at pretest and posttest. In all three items, the

students were more satisfied than the supervisors. Those

165

items were #3 (referring to research), #9 (making correc-
tions), and #18 (giving feedback).

There were three items on which the means and medians of
students and supervisors differed by more than 1.0 at pretest
only. In those three items, students were more satisfied
than supervisors. Those items were #2 (demonstrating and
instructing), #8 (monitoring compliance), and #20 (using
problem-solving). There were no posttest items where the
means and medians of students and supervisors differed by
more than 1.0.

No SSF items had a mode of 10, which was the highest
possible score, but there were five items which had a mode
of nine. All five items were supervisors' responses at
posttest: #5 (structuring), #10 (evaluating), #12 (non-
evaluating), #19 (responding), and #21 (flexible content).
There were only three SSF items where the modes of students
and supervisors differed by more than two points. Students
were again more satisfied than supervisors for all three
items. The items were #3 (referring to research, posttest),
#8 (monitoring compliance, pretest), and #18 (giving feed-
back, posttest).

The students' scores resulted in wider ranges than the
supervisors'. There were seven items for which students'

ranges were four or five points greater than supervisors'

ranges (on a 10-point scale): #5 (structuring, MTS range
9, SUP range = 5); #7 (professional vocabulary, 9 and 5); #14

(questioning, 9 and 5); #15 (communicating respect, 8 and 4);

166

#19 (responding, 9 and 5); #20 (problem-solving, 8 and 4);
and #21 (flexible content, 9 and 4). All seven items were at
posttest; the largest range was five.

The minimum reported scores were similar for students
and supervisors for SSF items. In the 12 cases where there
were two or more points difference in reported minimum
scores, supervisors' scores were higher. There were two
items where both pretest and posttest items revealed more
than two points difference in reported minimum scores: #14
(questioning, 4 and 1 for SUP and MTS respectively at pretest
and 5 and 1 at posttest) and #19 (responding, 4 and l for SUP
and MTS at pretest and posttest). The ten posttest items
were #5 (structuring, 4 and 1); #7 (professional vocabulary,
4 and l); #11 (experiential content, 4 and 1); #15 (communi-
cating respect, 5 and 2); #20 (problem-solving, 5 and 2); #21
(flexible content, 5 and 1); #22 (administrative problems, 4
and 1); and #26 (using time, 4 and 1).

All variables had a maximum reported score of either
nine or ten (out of a possible ten points). The highest
reported minimum score was five, which in all the nine cases
were supervisors' scores. The one pretest item was #10
(evaluating), and the eight posttest items were #6 (feed-
back), #10 (evaluating); #13 (facilitative communication),
#14 (questioning), #15 (communicating respect), #17 (colle-
gial relationship), #20 (problem-solving), and #21 (flexible
content). There were 27 items with a minimum score of one

reported.

167

Standard deviations for SSF items were fairly consistent
for students and supervisors at pretest and posttest. Two
items had standard deviations of less than 1.0: #10 (evalu-
ating, SUP, pretest) and #15 (communicating respect, SUP,
posttest). The SSF items with the largest standard devia-
tions were both for students' pretest scores: #3 (referring
to research, 2.693) and #12 (non-evaluating, 2.419).

There were three items for which 30 or more respondents
marked not applicable/not observed or marked no answer: #3
(referring to research, MTS, pretest, 34 "missing cases");
#18 (feedback, SUP, posttest, 30 "missing cases"); and #22
(administrative problems, MTS, pretest, 30 "missing cases").
There were 18 items which were almost always rated on the
ten-point scale by respondents (i.e., items which yielded the
highest number of "valid cases"). All those items were
students' pretest responses (V124, V126, V129, V130, V133 -
V139, V141 - V143, V146, V147, V149, and V150), and they were
evenly distributed across the teacher, counselor, consultant,
and overall competence subscales.

The Music Therapy Student Evaluation Form (MTSEF). An
SPSS Frequencies program for categorical variables was run
for the 53 items of the MTSEF, and the mean, median, mode,
standard deviation, range, minimum score, maximum score, and
number of responses (i.e., number of valid and missing cases)
for each of the items were determined. Table 20 indicates

the complete findings of that analysis, grouped by item with

168

H«
H«
««
0H

mH
H«
««
mH

mH
H«
v«
0H

mH
H«
««
NH

mH
H«
««
0H

mommo
mchmHz

v0
«0
H0
no

00
«¢
H0
¢¢

vv
«0
mm
00

«v
«0
Ho
00

00
«0
H0
00

momcu
cHHm>

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

ssstwz sschHz

anmv 0000 MMQ'I-n Vfi'md'

«mmN

“10050 00mm 55mm @060

050m

Nmm.H
N00.H
mmn.H
00¢.H

¢Hm.H
N«H.H
m«0.H
«mm.H

mm«.H
N00.H
0««.H
«mm.H

0N«.H
NHH.H
m¢«.H
0¢M.H

00H.H
m¢«.H
««m.H
00m.H

 

omcmm

sodoms>mo
peaceabm

N000:

N00000:

(\hmm

oooocom

0H

00

OH

 

woos

00«.0
m00.N
00«.N
mNm.N

m00.0
000.N
m«0.N
«mH.N

000.0
000.N
N«N.N
N00.N

m0m.m
0mm.N
mmm.0
m0«.0

N0m.m
00H.0
0m«.0
m«m.m

Gchwz

is sues soc mossmssasm m>HooHsommo mmmsz
om mqm<a

mom.N
««0.N
mm«.N
HHm.N

om«.m
«0«.N
m0¢.N
m«0.N

N««.m
mmm.N
000.N
HHO.N

v0m.m
N00.N
00m.0
vom.m

m00.m
000.0
0H¢.0
HHN.0

NNNN mmmm Q'Q'VQ' mmmtn

HHHH

nonssz
aura

«m«> Hmom mam
mm~> 900m we:
¢N> mam mam
Hm> mmm we:
Hmm> amom mom
wmm> 900m my:
MN> mam mam
o«> mmm we:
mo~> amom mam
Nm~> amom was
«N> mmm mam
mH> mam we:
mmm> 900m mam
0m«> smom mam
HN> mam mam
mH> mam we:
mm~> amom mam
mmm> 900m ma:
05> mmm mam
NH> mam my:
mHHme ucwsommcmz conmom

umnssz uncommom
mHnoHum> no unwound
unwocOQmom

169

0H
m«
m«
0H

0H
««
««
0«

0H
««
««
NH

0H
m«
m«
m«

m«
0«
HM
m«

 

mommu
uchmHz

00
00
co
mo

¢¢
Ho
Hv
mv

v0
H0
H0
0v

ow
00
00
mm

00
mm
«m
«m

momou
cHHm>

0H

0H
0H

0H

0H
0H

0H

0H
0H

0H

0H

0H

m

0H
0H

NMQ’Q‘ 0000 Q'Q'Q'Q Q'Q'Q'V

NMQ‘V’

 

esstcz sschHz

(\(‘lfio \OIDQ'Q' \OKOl-flfl' 001-00

0Nm0

0m«.H
00H.H
0N0.H
««0.H

mHH.H
vN0.H
@00.H
m0m.H

0HH.H
0¢0.H
MH¢.H
00«.H

00¢.H
mm¢.H
me.H
0N0.H

«0N.H
HHO.H
N00.H
m0w.H

 

omcmm

cOHuwH>w0
unaccoum

mNmoo (\hmm Nmoom \Ohmh

N000

 

woo:

00m.N
NH¢.N
000.N
000.N

mmm.m
00N.N
0H0.N
00v.N

m0«.0
000.N
000.0
Nm«.N

000.N
NOH.N
MNN.0
0«H.N

000.N
NH¢.N
000.0
00m.0

cmHooz

H.0.ucoov 0« oana

0M0.N
mNH.N
0«¢.N
¢v0.N

N««.0
H00.N
«MN.N
000.N

mHm.0
0mm.N
mv0.0
H0«.N

00v.N
0«m.0
mNN.0
000.0

00m.N
000.0
00H.0
000.0

0H
0H
0H
0H

aoaocoao mamas

(\th

0000

Homes:
amoH

 

 

Nmm> 900m mam
oon> amom mam
mn> mam mam
0m> mmm max
0mm> amom mam
mom> awed max
mN> mmm mam
mm> mam ma:
mmm> amen mam
~o~> amom we:
NN> mam mam
¢m> mmm we:
om~> 900m mam
Ho~> 900m ma:
0N> mmm mam
m~> mam we:
mmm> smog mam
oom> amen max
mN> mam mam
~«> mum we:

umnssz uncommom
anuHum> no amoumum
unconcemmm

170

«m
Hv
0o
«0

0H
H«
m«
0H

0«
Hm
Hm
m«

vm
0v
mm
om

mH
H«
««
NH

 

mommu
ochmHz

Hm
««
NH
H«

00
«0
0m
00

NM
«m
«m
mm

m«
m«
v«
0«

«v
«0
H0
00

 

mommu
0HHo>

0H

0H

0H

0H

0H

0H
0H

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

NHQ'I-n 0000 Q'Q'ln‘O Nfl'lnfi'

0000

esstmz sschHz

0001:- 0mmN IDOQ'Q' BWQ‘O

‘OIOQ'Q'

mmN.H
«m«.H
mmm.H
mom.H

«0«.H
mmH.H
«NN.H
mmc.H

00¢.H
v««.H
¢«m.H
0NN.H

«N0.H
Hm«.H
¢m0.H
Nvm.H

00H.H
0HH.H
0N0.H
000.H

 

wmccm

COHUQH>8
ounoomom

mhl‘m whhl‘ 0001"

0000

000N

 

one:

000.N
000.N
00N.0
000.N

«00.N
mm«.N
00«.N
000.N

0N0.N
000.0
000.N
HNO.N

000.N
00N.0
000.0
m00.0

m«m.N
000.0
00H.N
000.0

ccHUwS

..c.ucoo. 0« oana

emH.N
N««.N
0HH.N
N00.0

000.N
¢H«.N
0Hm.N
¢v«.N

000.N
mHN.0
00«.N
N¢m.0

000.N
mMN.0
mm0.0
«NH.0

000.0
0H0.N
H¢M.N
0MH.0

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

MH
MH
MH
«H

«H
«H
«H
«H

HH
HH
HH
HH

uwnssz
amuH

«0m>
mv«>
00>
Hm>

H0m>
0¢«>
00>
0m>

00m>
Nv«>
«0>
m«>

mm«>
0v«>
H0>
0«>

0m«>
m¢«>
00>
N«>

nonssz
«335;

900m
9000

mmm

800m
800m
mmm
mmm

900m
9000
mmm
mmm

900m
9000
mmm
mmm

900m
800m
mmm
mmm

mam

mom

mam

mam

mam

mam

mam
was
mam
we:

mam
we:
mam
max

 

umouumom
no ammuoum
accusedmom

171

0H
0«
««
NH

0H
v«
««
NH

0H
0«
««
NH

0«
m«
0«
NH

mm
mm
«m
00

 

mommu
ochmHz

vv
mm
Hv
00

«0
00
Ho
00

00
00
H0
00

mo
00
00
0v

0«
0«
m

0H

 

mommu
0HHM>

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m
0H
m

ssstcz sseHcHz

Q‘fi'd‘m Q'MQ'ID 0000 «r000

d'HMKO

00mm 0000 0000 0000

“3010*

000.H
NOH.H
N0«.H
00H.H

00¢.H
00m.

Nmm.H
N0«.H

000.H
00H.H
0H0.H
0«¢.H

0«v.H
00H.H
Hm¢.H
mm¢.H

00«.H
00«.H
mm0.«
000.H

 

omcmm

aossms>mo
ouuoamum

0H

000N

Ch

0H

N-\o P~l\

r~<n d>r~

 

woo:

N00.0
000.N
«0«.0
0H0.0

0N0.0
0«0.0
0m0.0
000.0

0N0.0
000.N
000.N
0«0.0

0NH.N
00«.N
000.N
N00.N

0H«.0
NNO.N
m«0.N
0«H.N

cmHomz

A.U.ucoov 0« cHnd8

00«.0
H«0.N
000.0
««0.0

00«.0
0N0.N
000.0
000.0

N««.0
N00.N
0«0.N
NHN.N

mN«.N
00H.N
vHH.N
00«.N

00«.0
00«.N
N00.0
000.0

0«
0«
0«
0«

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

NH
NH
NH
NH

0H
0H
0H
0H

 

uwbssz
souH

N0m>
¢m«>
00>
0m>

00m>
mm«>
00>
00>

00m>
«m«>
N0>
00>

«00>
H0«>
00>
mm>

mom>
00«>
00>
«m>

 

sonssz
mHnnHuu>

8000 000
8000 082
000 000
000 08!

8000 000
8000 082
000 000
000 082

8000 000
8000 08:
000 000
000 082

8000 000
8000 082
000 000
000 08:
mHHme Hccomuw0
8000 000
8000 08:
000 000
000 082

 

umwuumo0
no umouou0
ucwoco0mo0

172

0H
«N
«N
0H

0H
¢N
NN
NH

0H
0«
«N
NH

0H
«N
«N
NH

0H
0M
MM
MN

 

mommo
ochmHz

«0
am
He
no

«0
0M
H0
00

00
0M
H0
0v

«0
0M
H0
00

00
MM
0M
00

mwmoo
OHHM>

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
0

0H
0H

MQ'Q'O M000 MQ‘Q'IO VQ'OI‘

Nd'fl'ln

ssstmz eschHz

N‘DmQ' N000 ROI-DID 00MM

WWI-DID

0N0.H
0N0.

000.H
0NH.H

«NM.H
MH«.H
MNO.H
00N.H

N00.H
MNO.H
000.H
000.H

NOH.H
00H.H
H00.H
N00.H

0MM.H
000.H
0N¢.H
«m0.H

 

wwcmm

cosums>mo
osmoomum

0H

QQNOS

00

OH

O‘QDQO‘

000N

 

0002

0N0.0
00N.N
000.0
00N.N

0MH.0
«00.0
00N.N
000.N

0HM.0
NNm.N
NNN.0
00«.0

MMM.0
0N0.N
000.N
00«.0

NOH.0
00N.N
0HN.N
000.0

cchwz

H.O.ucouv 0N ano8

MNN.0
0HN.N
00M.0
MMN.N

MN0.0
000.0
000.N
«00.0

0MH.0
H«0.N
MN0.0
MHO.N

MNN.0
000.N
NMm.N
H00.N

MN0.0
000.N
MMH.N
000.N

0N
0N
0N
m«

«N
«N
¢«
¢«

MN
MN
MN
MN

«N
«N
«N
«N

HN
HN
HN
HN

umnssz
saga

NHM>
00N>
00>
H¢>

HHM>
00N>
M0>
00>

0HM>
NON>
N0>
0M>

00M>
00N>
Hm>
0M>

00M>
00N>
00>
NM>

umnspz
«33.3,

8000
8000
000

8000
8000
000
000

8000
8000

000

8000
8000

000

8000
8000
000
000

000
08:
000

000

000
082

000

000
088

000

000
08:

000
082
000
08:

 

unwoum00
no ummu0u0
ucoucOQmmm

173

0H
0N
MN
NH

HN
0N
0M
«N

0H
mN
NN
0H

HN
NN
NN
MN

HN
NN
«N
NN

mwmmu
oaHmmHz

««
0M
0«
0«

N«
0M
MM
0M

««
0M
H«
m«

N«
0M
H«
0«

N«
0M
mm
H«

 

mwmmu
3 Hw>

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

en «3.4 U1 cw Q'r4 a) r4‘« Faun ‘« «1‘9 «3

mlen

asefixmz asaacfiz

000m 0000 00«0

N000

I‘mhln

«HM.H
000.

HH«.H
H00.H

0NH.H
000.H
mmm.H
0HN.N

0MN.H
mN«.H
«0N.H
MMO.H

««H.H
0«0.H
0NN.H
000.H

0«N.H
«MM.H
0H«.H
0M0.H

 

mmcmm

aofiumfi>mo
cuucamum

Fwd)” Ql‘l‘O‘ 0000 QQQQ

“)QO

 

moo:

00N.0
HHO.N
000.0
NNN.N

00M.0
00N.N
M00.N
M00.0

00«.0
00N.N
mNM.N
«««.N

00M.0
NOM.N
«N0.N
00H.N

00N.0
MMO.N
000.N
N00.N

 

cchwz

H.0.ucoov 0N mHnd8

00N.0
Mmm.N
000.N
mM«.N

NON.0
0N0.N
N«N.N
«Nm.m

NNN.0
00H.N
M0«.N
««0.N

00N.0
000.N
00N.N
000.0

000.0
HOM.N
NNO.N
NHM.N

0M
0M
0M
0M

0N
0N
0N
mN

0N
0N
0N
0N

NN
NN
NN
NN

0N
0N
0N
0N

umnasz
EmuH

 

 

NHM> 8000 000
«0N> 8000 08:
mm> mam m=0
0«> 00m 08:
0HM> 800m 000
m0N> 800m 08:
0m> 00m mam
m«> mam 082
0HM> 800m 000
NON> 800m 08:
Nm> mmm mam
««> mam 08:
«HM> 8000 A00
HON> 800m 08:
0m> mam m00
m«> mmm 08:
MHM> 800m mam
00m: 800m 082
mm> mmm 000
N«> mam 082
mHHme coHuMNHHmsuawocou

uwnasz ammuumom
«HauHHu> uo amououm
uamUQOQmmm

]I74

MN
0N
0N
NN

NM
0N
0«
mM

0H
mN
NN
NH

0H
«N
NN
NH

0H
«N
NN
NH

 

mwmmu
mchmH2

0«
0M
NM
H«

HM
«M
0H
0N

««
0M
H«
0«

««
mm
H«
0«

««
mm
H«
0«

mwmwu
0HHM>

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

0H
0

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

MG'WO (Viv-IMO MQ'Q'Q' Q'fl'lnd'

MG'SOkO

 

Esame2 adchH2

hVOMQ' (\ChKOQ' BQWO \DQQ'kD

h‘OMQ‘

wmnmm

0MM.H
00H.H
000.H
m«m.H

000.H
00«.H
«0M.H
N0«.N

000.H
0N0.H
NNH.N
H00.H

000.H
000.

0N0.H
0NN.H

««0.H
0N0.

HHO.H
N«N.H

coHumH>m0
ouuocmum

0000 QQQQ 0N00

QCDCDO‘

000m

 

wnoz

000.N
0MN.N
N00.N
N00.N

N«0.N
0NH.N
000.N
M«0.N

mN«.0
0H0.N
00N.N
00M.N

HH0.0
mNN.N
000.N
0N0.N

HHN.0
H«0.N
000.N
MMO.N

:chmz

H.c.uaouv 0N and8

0N0.N
HN«.N
NmN.N
«M0.N

N00.N
«0N.0
0NN.N
«00.0

NM«.0
000.N
00M.N
NNO.N

00«.0
000.N
NMO.N
000.N

m«m.0
0HN.N
0N0.N
N0«.N

0M
0M
0M
0M

«M
«M
«M
«M

MM
MM
MM
MM

NM
NM
NM
NM

HM
HM
HM
HM

uwnasz
EmUH

 

 

NNM> 800m 800
m0N> 800m 082
«oH> mam mam
Hm> mam m8:
HNm> 8008 000
mom> 800m 082
MOH> 0mm 0:0
00> mmm 082
mafifixm magmamfiofimsz
on> 8000 mam
NON> 800m 082
NoH> 00m mam
m«> 0mm 082
mHm> 8000 000
00N> 8000 082
HoH> mam mam
0«> 00m 082
0HM> 8000 000
m0N> 8000 082
00H> mum 8:0
N«> mam 082

809.52 umwuumom
wHQuHHM> Ho ”~00...me
uawUGOQmmm

175

0N
HM
MM
0N

0N
mN
0M
0N

NM
HM
M«
0M

HM
0M
0«
NM

MM
0N
0M
HM

mwmmu
oaHmmH2

0M
NM
0M
NM

0M
0M
0N
mM

0N
NM
0N
NN

NM
NN
MN
HM

0M
«M
0N
NM

mwmmu
0HHM>

0H

0H
0H

0H
m

0H
0H

 

adstmz astcH2

Q'HNO Q‘HNID NQ‘G'Q 140$“)

«H00

00N« 00N« 000« O‘Q‘WQ‘

00«0

NMm.

00N.H
NON.H
0««.N

mMO.H
00«.H
««0.H
N00.N

«00.H
00N.H
00N.H
00«.H

N00.

0N0.H
MON.H
0«m.H

00«.H
MMH.H
000.H
0N0.H

 

meM8

GOHumH>w0
oumonaum

0000 QNQQ 000m O‘NQQ

CDQQQ

 

0002

«mN.0
00N.N
MMO.N
0NH.0

000.0
NHm.N
NOH.0
MHM.0

0M0.0
M0m.N
000.N
NmN.N

000.N
mN«.N
NH«.N
N«0.N

NHO.N
000.N
000.N
000.N

cmHuwz

H.U.ucoov 0N wHQm8

«HM.0
00«.N
MMm.N
0MH.N

N0«.0
HHN.N
«0m.N
«HN.N

0«0.N
HON.N
000.0
MMM.N

000.N
M0m.0
N00.N
0M0.0

NON.N
H««.N
000.0
HMO.N

0«
0«
0«
0«

0M
0M
0M
0M

0M
0M
0M
0M

NM
NM
NM
NM

0M
0M
0M
0M

 

uwnasz
emuH

NNM>
«NN>
00H>

00>

0Nm>
MNN>
00H>

00>

mNM>
NNN>
NOH>

«0>

«NM>
HNN>
00H>

M0>

MNM>
0NN>
00H>

N0>

 

nomad:
mHanHm>

8008
8008
888
888

8008
8008
888
888

8008
8008
888
888

8008
8008
888
888

8008
8008
888
888

800

800
082

800

800
082

800

800
082

800
082
800
082

800
082
800
082

 

umwuumO8
no ammuou8
unmoc08mm8

176

0H
HN
«N
NH

mH
HN
MN
mH

N«
N«
0«
0«

0M
0M
0«
0M

HM
HM
0M
«M

 

mmmou
uaHmmH2

««
N«
am
0«

««
N«
0«
««

0H
HN
0H
«H

0N
NN
0H
NN

NM
NM
0N
0N

 

mwmmu
UHHM>

0H
0H
0H
0H

0H
0H
0H
0H
0H

0H

0H

0H

0H
0H
0H
0H

asstM2 aschH2

Nil-ONO MHNQ MHQ'Q' mth

Q'Q'NI-n

$0th \OO‘WG N000 l-an-nm

000m

0«0.

00H.H
000.H
00M.H

MOH.H
M«m.H
M00.N
0HN.N

«0N.H
HHN.H
HmN.N
mNN.H

00M.H
00N.H
000.H
000.H

00H.H
N00.H
000.H
MON.H

 

umGM8

cofiund>ma
oumoauum

OH

0000

NONE

(1)th

 

woo2

0N0.0
N«H.0
0NH.m
«HN.0

000.0
0M0.0
000.0
00N.N

000.0
0N0.N
00N.N
MM0.0

M0m.N
HHH.N
000.N
M«H.N

000.N
0N0.N
000.N
0NN.N

amHowz

H.o.uaoov 0N 0Hn08

MN0.0
N00.N
m«m.0
«NH.0

0M0.0
NON.N
MNM.0
00N.N

0NH.0
N00.0
MM0.0
«HN.0

0NN.N
«0N.0
MMM.N
0N0.0

0N0.N
«00.N
000.0
«H«.N

m«
m«
m«
m«

««
««
««
««

M«
m«
M«
M«

N«
N«
N«
N«

H«
H«
H«
H«

 

uwnasz
BouH

 

 

NMM> 8008 800
mNN> 8008 082
«HH> 888 800
H0> 888 082
HMM> 8008 800
0NN> 8008 082
MHH> 888 800
00> 888 082
mmuznooou8 oHcHHu
0MM> 8008 8:0
NNN> 8008 082
NHH> 888 800
mm> 888 082
mNM> 8008 800
0NN> 8008 082
HHH> 888 800
00> 888 082
0NM> 8008 800
0NN> 8008 082
0HH> 888 8:0
N0> 888 082
“023:2 umwuu008
mHnoHuw> no ammumu8
uawca08mm8

177

0H
HN
MN
0H

HN
0N
HM
0N

0H
MN
0N
HN

0H
HN
mN
0H

0H
HN
MN
NH

 

mummu
uaHmez

««
N«
0«
m«

N«
«M
NM
NM

««
0«
«M
N«

««
N«
0M
0«

««
N«
0«
0«

mmmwu
0HHw>

0H
0H
0H
0H

LOCDQ'I"

0H
0H
0H
0H

Infilnl‘

0H
0H
0H
0H

MQ'Q'N

0H
0H
0H
0H

Q'Q'd'h

0H
m

0H
0H

Q'Q'V'Q

 

asstm2 adchH2

000M 500"! thnM IONWM

\DQIOQ'

wmQM8

0H0.
0N0.H
«00.
«NN.H

000.
0M0.H
000.
0N«.H

m0N.

0H«.H
0«0.H
H«m.H

m0N.

00M.H
0M0.H
«MN.H

N«0.H
00M.H
«N«.H
Hmm.H

COfiuMH>OQ
nuancmgm

0H

0H
0H

0H
0H

0H

0mNm

 

0002

M«m.m
0M«.0
Hmm.m
000.0

0M0.0
00H.0
000.0
000.0

««0.0
000.0
NOH.0
«00.N

000.0
N«H.0
N00.0
000.N

M00.0
NNO.N
N00.0
MM0.0

 

cmHowz

H.U.ucoov 0N and8

«0M.m
NmM.0
0N0.0
««0.0

000.0
0HH.0
MHM.0
00«.0

«00.0
00N.N
N«0.0
N0«.N

mmN.0
000.N
0N0.0
00N.N

NNN.0
mN«.N
000.0
0«0.N

00
00
00
00

m«
m«
m«
m«

0«
0«
0«
0«

N«
N«
N«
N«

0«
0«
0«
0«

 

amnesz
souH

NMM>
«0N>
0HH>

00>

0MM>
MON>
0HH>

00>

mMM>
NON>
NHH>

«0>

«MM>
HON>
0HH>

M0>

MMM>
00N>
0HH>

N0>

uwnadz
mHndHHd>

8008
8008
888
888

8008
8008
888
888

8008
8008
888
888

8008
8008
888
888

8008
8008
888
888

800
082
800
082

800

800
082

800

800

800
082
800
082

800
082
800
082

 

ummuum08
no umwuou8
unaccoqmmm

178

ON
HN
MN
NH

H«
0N
m«
NN

MN
MN
0N
NN

 

mmmmu
mchmHz

m«
N«
0«
0«

NN
NM
«H
H«

0«
0«
NM
H«

 

mommu
0HHw>

0H
0H
0H
0H

¢\D\O\D

0H
0H
0H
0H

Inf—‘0“)

0H
0H
0H
0H

«munH

 

Edstm2 ESEHCH2

 

« 000.H m
« 0Nm. m
« mHM.H 0H
0 HMO.H 0
m mm0.H 0H
« N«m. 0
m N00.N 0H
m 00N.H 0H
m N«0.H m
m NOH.H 0
m «0M.H 0H
0 MNN.H 0
meM8 coHuwH>m0 moo2
cumccmum

 

0HN.0
MN«.0
0N0.0
NOM.0

MM0.0
NON.0
0N0.0
000.0

000.0
NOM.0
0N0.0
NOH.0

cmfinmz

H.0.ucouv 0N wHQM8

000.0
«HN.0
000.0
N00.0

NOH.0
0HN.0
M«H.0
NON.0

0N0.0
mNN.0
MN0.0
0N0.N

M0
M0
M0
M0

N0
N0
N0
N0

H0
H0
H0
H0

 

umnapz
amuH

0«M>
NON>
NNH>

00>

mMM>
00N>
HNH>

00>

0MM>
00N>
0NH>

N0>

 

uwnasz
Bani;

8008 800
8008 082
888 800
888 082

8008 800
8008 082
888 800
888 082

8008 800
8008 082
888 800
888 082

 

umwuumO8
uo ammumu8
uGUQQO8mM8

179

pretest and posttest scores of students and supervisors
provided.

The MTSEF produced relatively homogeneous scores. The
lowest and highest means for student pretest responses to the
MTSEF were for items #12 (timing out, 6.171) and #50 (room
order, 8.844). For supervisor pretest responses, the lowest
and highest means were for items #6 (assessing progress,
6.188) and #50 (room order, 9.525). The range of means for
posttest scores was similarly narrow. For posttest student
responses the lowest and highest means were for items #42
(improvisation, 6.704) and #50 (room order, 8.357). The
lowest and highest means of supervisor responses were for
items #15 (client homework, 7.194) and #45 (written format,
9.023).

There was one item in which both the mean and the median
were more than one point different for student and supervisor
responses at pretest and posttest, #29 (updating goals). The
supervisors' ratings of this student skill were higher than
the students' self-evaluation. Twelve items revealed more
than one point difference in means and medians for students
and supervisors at either the pretest or the posttest;
supervisors' responses were again higher in all items. The
pretest items for which the means and medians of the supervi-
sors' evaluation of clinical skills was greater than the
student's self-evaluations were items #44 (timely written
work), #48 (charting), and #51 (1:1 supervision). The

posttest items in this category were items #1 (timing), #4

180

(pacing), #24 (clear messages), #25 (professional behavior),
#27 (objectives), #28 (assessment criteria), #46 (written
work accuracy), and #50 (room order).

There was one item, #25 (professional behavior), for
which the modes of the students' and supervisors' scores were
more than two points different, with student mode lower
(modes of 7 and 10 respectively for students and
supervisors).

The highest possible score was 10, and 20 items yielded
a mode of 10. Only four items were for students' responses;
and those were all at pretest: items #1 (timing out), #49
(contacting others), #50 (room order), and #52 (group super-
vision). For supervisors' high-mode items, only three were
at posttest: items #31 (timing), #50 (room order), and #52
(group supervision). The remaining 13 high-mode supervisors'
responses were at pretest: items #18 (consistent interac-
tion), #20 (communicating respect), #23 (genuineness), #25
(professional behavior), #44 (timely written work), #45
(written format), #47 (accurate records), #48 (charting), #49
(contacting others), #50 (room order), #51 (1:1 supervision),
#52 (group supervision), and #53 (improvement). These
high-mode items were primarily in the clinic procedures
subscale skill area.

There were four MTSEF items for which the ranges of
scores reported by students and supervisors differed by four
or five points (no items differed in range by more than five

points). The items were #16 (separation, student range = 5

181

and supervisor range = 9); #40 (movement and dance, 9 and 4);
and #52 (group supervision, 5 and 9) at pretest. The post-
test item was #51 (1:1 supervision, 5 and 9). Only item

#40 (movement and dance) had a greater range for students
than for supervisors.

The following data analyses will be described more
briefly and by referencing variable numbers because of the
large numbers of items within the categories. There were 10
variables with standard deviations greater than 2.2: v45,
V50, v55, v56, v60, v85, V102, v112, v113, and v121. There
were 16 variables with standard deviations less than 1.0:
V118, v119, v253, V259, v264, v265, v266, v287, v286, V324,
V327, V332, V334, V335, v336, and v337.

There were six items where the minimum score reported by
students was at least three points greater than the minimum
socre reported by supervisors: v32 - v85 (4 and 1 were the
minimum scores reported for students and supervisors respec-
tively); v52 - v105 (4 and 1); V53 - v106 (4 and 1); v54 -
le7 (4 and 1); v68 - v121 (5 and 1); and v285 - v338 (5 and
1). On the other hand, there were seven items where the
minimum score reported by supervisors was at least four
points greater than the minimum score reported by students:
v261 - V314 (1 and 5 minimums for students and supervisors
respectively); v262 - V315 (1 and 5); v263 - V316 (1 and 5);
V271 - V324 (2 and 6); v56 - V109 (1 and 6); v276 - v329 (2

and 6); and v277 - V330 (2 and 6).

182

There were nine MTSEF items for which 45 or more
respondents marked not applicable/not observed or omitted an
answer: v84 (46 "missing cases"); v32 (48); V85 (54); V103
(45); V111 (45); v59 (49); v112 (48); V330 (47); and v121
(49). There were 17 items for which the highest number of
respondents marked ratings from one to ten (i.e., the lowest
number of N/A or omitted responses): v18, v24, v27, V33,
V34, v35, v36, V38, V39, v40, v46 - V49, v61, V62 and V69.

No items yielded more than 46 "valid cases".

Other statistical analyses reported earlier referred to
directions of the subscale skill areas, and the conclusions
of those trends will be mentioned here. The means of stu-
dents' responses decreased from pretest to posttest for all
subscale skills except conceptualization. The standard
deviations decreased from pretest to posttest for all sub-
scale skills evaluated by students, indicating that the
self-evaluations were more consistently clustered at a lower
level.

On three subscales (session management, personal skills,
and musicianship) students rated themselves higher than their
supervisors rated them at the pretest. On the posttest,
however, students rated themselves lower than their supervi-
sors rated them on all five subscales. These conclusions and

results are discussed more fully in Chapter 5.

V. SUMMARY OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The present study of satisfaction with the use of
supervisor skills in providing helpful supervision was
conducted using music therapy students and supervisors
engaged in clinical training activities. An experimental
procedure was designed which was based on the Discrimination
Model of Supervision for counselors of Bernard (1979). The
procedure consisted of planning and evaluating supervision
sessions with the use of the Supervision Planning Aid (SPA)
and the Supervision Session Evaluation Form (SSEF).

Supervisory pairs, or dyads, were selected from MSU
Music Therapy Clinic personnel who had on-going, established
patterns of supervision. Twelve dyads were in the eXperi-
mental group; twelve dyads were in the comparison group. A
trait level co-variate was measured for students (clinical
skill levels for overall subscales of the Music Therapy
Student Evaluation Form) and for supervisors (high or low
experience level as measured by the Supervisor Experience
Index).

Statistical analyses included one-way analysis of
variance for treatment effects and interactions, Pearson
Correlation Coefficients for relationships among variables,

and descriptive statistics to reveal response patterns and

183

184

phenomena related to the data collection instruments. The
co-variate analyses were omitted because significant differ-
ences between groups were not detected without the use of the
co-variates.

This study of supervision has accomplished several aims.
1. The experiment is the first in the field of music therapy
clinical supervision which permits the natural complexity of
the supervision experience to be maintained. The use of
actual supervisory dyads was important in an exploratory
study such as this because the experimental procedure being
tested was specifically designed to allow for the indivi-
dualized and flexible nature of effective supervision.

2. The study lays the groundwork for future, more
atomistic studies of music therapy clinical supervision
through its comprehensive review of theoretical and empiri-
cal studies in the literature of related helping profes-
sions. The model of music therapy clinical supervision which
was offered as a part of this study may serve to generate
other research methodologies and designs. The literature
review served to integrate and synthesize studies in supervi-
sion for the use of music therapists.

3. Several procedures in clinical supervision were
used in this study which may be useful in the training and
support of music therapy students and supervisors. The SPA,
SSEF, MTSEF, and SSF are useful tools with which to clarify
goals of clinical training, assess the quality of performance

of students and supervisors, and teach

185

supervision issues in workshops and courses. The written
materials of this study are applicable to the widely varying
philosophies, client needs, and treatment settings in music
therapy.

4. The sample size was considerably smaller than
expected due to the loss of two supervisors and 10 super-
visory pairs during the experiment. The results have there-
fore been interpreted cautiously. However, the specific
findings of the study contribute to an increased under-
standing of the factors of satisfaction, subscale skill
areas, student skills, and supervisor experience level.
Those findings will be summarized briefly.

Hypothesis #1 and Hypothesis #2. Neither students nor

 

supervisors reported statistically significant differences in
satisfaction with supervision as a result of the

experimental treatment. It is possible that the following
factors, operating either singly or in combination, contrib-
uted to the lack of significant differences between groups:
(a) treatment procedure, (b) data collection instruments, (c)
student maturation, and (d) timing.

The treatment procedure (planning and evaluating super—
vision sessions) may have been too weak. Supervisors were
not given guidelines for the amount of time to spend plan-
ning, and it is possible that the SPA format allowed a
superficial or perfunctory planning effort. Also, supervi-
sors were not able to see the results of the students'

evaluations of supervision sessions; if immediate feedback

186

from those evaluations had been accessible, supervisors might
have altered future planning decisions. It is possible that
the planning and evaluation procedure did not have a direct
effect on the actual behaviors of supervisors or students
during supervision. Behavioral observation studies would
yield interesting data on this possibility.

It is possible that supervisors did not receive thorough
enough training in the use of the SPA and SSEF procedures.
Additional opportunity to practice using the procedures may
have been helpful.

The Supervision Satisfaction Form may not have been
sufficiently sensitive to assess differences in satisfaction.
The lower end of the lO-point scale was not used nearly as
often as the upper end. The means of the experimental group
students and the comparison group students were almost the
same (7.0010 and 7.2012). The findings may have been affect-
ed by a particularly dissatisfied experimental group student;
the minimum reported scores of students in the experimental
and comparison groups were 2.8889 and 5.1786 respectively.

The data revealed that the means of students were
similar but the standard deviation of the experimental groups
was considerably larger (2.0810 and 1.6333). That amount of
scattering of scores in the experimental group took its toll
in the available Sample size.

Supervisor satisfaction results were also quite similar
for both treatment and comparison conditions for means and

minimum and maximum reported scores. The data showed that

187

the mean of the experimental group supervisors was slightly
lower than the mean of the comparison group (6.8982 and
7.0459) and that the standard deviation was higher for the
experimental group (.6924 and .5358).

The experimental treatment addressed responses within
the affective domain (attitudes and satisfaction). Such
affective dimensions are known to change more slowly than
behaviors in the cognitive or psychomotor domains, and it is
possible that satisfaction with supervision and the supervi-
sory relationship may best be studied in a longitudinal
manner.

It is also possible that students at the beginning point
of professional life cannot yet discriminate the supervisors'
use of the various supervisory skills sufficiently to make a
difference on the SSF. Students may have been sufficiently
satisfied with supervision at the beginning of the
experiment, precluding room for large improvement in satis-
faction. Or, perhaps students in the experimental group who
were routinely shown the SPA and routinely completed the SSEF
reported comparatively less satisfaction than they would have
otherwise reported because of raised expectations or
standards.

The duration of the experimental treatment may have been
too brief to result in significantly changed satisfaction
levels. Had an entire term of using the SPA and SSEF for
supervision been possible, perhaps the students and supervi—

sors would have learned how to benefit more from the

188

procedures. It is possible that the timing of the
experiment (Spring Term) caused the comparison group to
inflate their satisfaction with supervision. That is, they
may have wished to View their experiences together as satis-
factory knowing that, at the end of a year of clinical
training, little time was left to alter the course of the
supervisory relationship.

The trait-treatment element of the design (i.e., using
supervisors in both the experimental and comparison condi-
tions) did not in actuality result in contaminated groups as
evidenced by the T-Test results. The scores revealed that
the groups functioned independently, and that the concept of
the supervisory dyad as the proper unit of analysis was valid
for this investigation.

The findings for the questions related to subscale
responses and relationships among variables will be
summarized briefly according to the question numbers as
formulated in earlier chapters.

Question #3. Supervisors reported significantly in-

 

creased satisfaction at posttest irrespective of treatment
condition. Both statistical analyses (i.e., Condescriptive
and one-way ANOVA) revealed that the supervisors' mean
satisfaction increased from pretest to posttest (from 5.8697
to 6.9720) (when treatment and comparison groups were com-
bined and treated as one group). The pretest minimum report-
ed score of supervisors (4.8889) increased substantially at

posttest (6.2679), while the standard deviation decreased

189

(from .6448 at pretest to .5888 at posttest), indicating a
clustering at the higher level.

Question #4. Supervisors reported significantly im-

 

proved satisfaction on all subscale supervisor skills from
pretest to posttest irrespective of treatment condition (and
with the use of the scores from all supervisors combined).
When the average scores of each supervisor were paired for
comparisons, only the teacher subscale yielded significant
improvement in satisfaction from pretest to posttest.
Descriptive statistics supported the increase of the other
three subscales, however. The means of all subscale skills
increased from pretest to posttest.

Question #5. Students reported significantly greater

 

satisfaction with supervisor use of skills on four subscales
at posttest (for all 24 students as a group). The T value
for the counselor skills scale resulted in a probability of
.010, which was substantially lower than the probability of
the other three subscales (.055, .084, and.057). (All of the
subscales, however, reached the .10 significance level).
Standard deviations remained similar for all scales from
pretest to posttest.

Question #6. Students reported no statistically signif-

 

icant difference in clinical skills from pretest to posttest
for any of the five subscales. Only the conceptualization
subscale showed an increase in the mean, and that increase
was slight. Perhaps the increased awareness and maturity of

students in self-evaluations accounted for this result.

190

Perhaps "termination anxiety" (commonly found among students
about to graduate and be judged by professional standards)
affected students' self-evaluations. On the other hand, the
lower self-evaluations may reflect lowered anxiety levels,
which permit more accurate, less defensive self-reflection
and self-disclosure.

Question #7. Supervisors, however, reported signifi-

 

cantly improved clinical skills for students for session
management, personal skills, and musicianship (using supervi-
sor reports from both groups combined). When individual
supervisor's scores were averaged and paired, only session
management and musicianship skills reached significance at
the .10 level for improvement from pretest to posttest.

On the three scales mentioned above, students rated
themselves higher than their supervisors rated them at the
pretest. On the posttest, however, students rated themselves
lower than their supervisors rated them (indeed, lower on all
five subscales).

The MTSEF was used for evaluation purposes not only for
this study, but for the Music Therapy Clinic. It is possible
that its usage for student feedback inflated the supervisors'
scores or deflated the students' scores, and made them more
homogeneous. Perhaps a measure of student skills by supervi-
sors which was not also intended to be used as feedback and
evaluation of students engaged in actual clinical training

would have yielded different scores.

191

Qgestion #8. High and low experience level supervisors

 

reported no significantly different satisfaction at posttest,
although the low experience level supervisors reported a
higher mean satisfaction, higher standard deviation, and
higher maximum score than did the high experience level
supervisors.

The mean satisfaction of low experience supervisors was
higher than the mean satisfaction of high experience supervi-
sors (7.4420 and 6.4387), which could suggest that low
experience level supervisors have a less professional frame
of reference or were more defensive about self-evaluation.

On the other hand, perhaps they experienced "easier"
supervisees. The low experience level supervisors had a
larger standard deviation (1.5398 and .2792) and a larger
standard error (.8890 and .1612) than the high experience
level supervisors. The low and high experience level super-
visors also varied on maximum reported scores (9.1429 and
6.7541).

Questions #9, #10, and #11. The correlation of student

 

skill level as measured by the MTSEF-SUP and student
satisfaction as measured by the SSF-MTS almost reached
significance. There was no significant correlation of
students' self-evaluation of skill level and their satisfac-
tion with supervision. And finally, student self-evaluation
of skills was not correlated significantly with the supervi-

sors' evaluation of student skills.

192

Recommendations

 

The high mortality of subjects caused difficulty in this
study, but a data-base has been generated for future studies.
The assumptions underlying this study may now be examined in
light of the analyses of the data collection instruments.
Future studies should perhaps select supervisory dyads with
low levels of expressed satisfaction in one or more supervi-
sion subscale skill areas. Future studies to examine the
efficacy of planning and evaluation of supervision sessions
may draw on the supervision model and the subscale skill
areas to isolate variables for controlled studies.

The experimental procedures of the SPA and SSEF and the
measurement of the co-variates were implemented successfully
and warrant additional experimental inquiry.

Based on the findings of this study, the following
recommendations for further research are suggested. This
study, which was exploratory in nature and focused on in 3319
rather than analogue or simulated experimental tasks, should
be replicated. Replication studies would be valuable using
the following adaptations of design: (a) using a measurement
of student skill level that is not intended to provide
feedback to the student, (b) extending the training period
during which supervisors and students using the SPA and SSEF
procedures can experiment with and seek clarification on the
options and mechanics, (c) using a longer experimental period
to strengthen the treatment, and (d) using a larger sample

size. A larger sample size would permit controlling

193

extraneous factors, the probable use of the co-variate, and
the use of completely independent groups for evaluating the
treatment effect.

It is recommended that studies be conducted which extend
this research. Such studies could (a) take behavioral
observations of supervision content and process in relation-
ship to expectations and plans, (b) investigate choices and
cognitive process variables of the SPA, (c) assess pretest
and posttest expectations, (d) assess the reliability and
validity of the various data collection instruments using a
national sample; (e) determine the sources of data and
perceptions supervisors use in making supervision decisions,
(f) test the differential effects of the SPA procedure on
experienced and inexperienced supervisors, and practicum
students and interns, (g) validate the compilation of super-
visor competencies; and (h) validate the compilation of
student clinical skills.

The issues addressed in this study may be useful in
meeting needs in the field of music therapy for workshop
presentations and for preparation of a handbook for supervi-
sors. Certification of supervisors and/or continuing educa-
tion requirements for supervisors may be mandated soon and
thus create a need and market for such a handbook.

It is hoped that the issues addressed in this study will
serve to enhance the understanding and effectiveness of

supervision for students and supervisors.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
Supervision Satisfaction Form

(SSF)

1594

APPENDIX A
Supervision Satisfaction Form

(SSF)

SUPERVISION SAIISFACTION

Purpose: This Supervision Satisfaction Form is part of a doctoral
research project aimed at improving music therapy clinical
supervision. The supervisory relationship between a super—
visor and a music therapy student is unique, and is influ-
enced by many factors. The evaluation of the supervision
that has already occurred is the first step in this research
project, and all responses by students and supervisors will
be kept strictly CONFIDENTIAL.

CONPIDENTIALITY will be ensured by a coding system in which Hrs. Ruth Parry.
Hr. Unkefer's secretary. will be the only person knowing the
identities of the members of each supervisory pair. She will
retain the only'copy of the "dyad" members and will reveal to
the researcher (and to noone else) the pairs pertaining to
a given supervisor. Even the researcher will not know which
responses belong to which student.

Directions: Please complete the Supervision Satisfaction Form for each
supervisor-music therapy student pair in which you are a member.
Answer all questions with the one best answer, and do not
identify by name either member of the dyad on the attached pages.
hrs. Parry will write the dyad number and circle the appropriate
coding information using this page. She will then tear off this
page so that all responses are known only by dyad number.

 

Please return this stapled package to Mrs. Parry when you are
finished.

Please note that the first three sections of the form ask you

to rate how satisfied you are with the supervisor's use of a
specific skill. If the skill was not observed at all. mark the
box under "Not applicable/not observed." If the supervisor lacked
the skill and could not apply it, or had the skill yet did not use
it to your satisfaction, mark an appropriately low box. If the
supervisor possessed the skill and used it to the extent you found
helpful. mark an appropriately high box.

The final section of the form asks you to rate your opinion of

the supervisor's overall competence in meeting supervision needs.
Please mark the boxes corresponding to the actual supervision that
you received from the supervisor.

IT IS CRUCIAL THAT YOU BE ABSOLUTELY HONEST IN RArIxc SUPERVISION.
RESPONSES IN rnE MIDDLE or THE SCALES INDICATE SATISFACTION era
SUPERVISION; THEY ARE 391 "POOR GRADES."

I am willing to participate in this research project. I understand
that all information will be held completely confidential. and that
only the research assistant will know the identity of individuals
in supervisory dyads.

Student Supervisor

 

195

APPENDIX A, continued

SUPERVISION SATISFACTION
This supervision satisfaction form is part of a doctoral research
project aimed .at improving music therapy clinical supervision.
All responses by snidents and supervisors will be kept strictly
confidential. Please do not sign your name to the attached form:

a dyad number will be assigned to it.

Please complete a supervision satisfaction form for each clinical
assignment for which you have received supervision.

Please complete and return this stapled package to Mrs. Parry
by Friday. May 13. '

Thank you very much far assisting in this project.

Student

 

Supervisor

 

Client(s)

 

I.

l.

10.

II.
ll.

12.

13.

14.

[Se

196

APPENDIX A, continued

SUPERVISION SATISFACTION
DYAD ! HTS SUP nggf POST

 

BO" SNIISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE SUPERVISOR'S
USE OF THE FOLLOUING SKILLS IN PROVIDING
YOU WITH HELPFUL SUPERVISION?

Sgpervisor "Teggher” Skills

Pocused the content of supervision sessions on the
student's skills and behaviors which were observed
during music therapy sessions. . . . . .

Demonstrated techniques, role-played interactions.
and instructed student in music therapy techniques.

Referred student to research, assigned readings or
observations related to clinical work. . . .

Shared own case conceptualization and made direct
suggestions for the student's use in therapy. .

Structured the supervision session by initiating
discussion topics and refocusing discussion. .

Gave positive and negative feedback to student
based on observation of student during therapy ses-
sions and professional standards. . . .

Used professional vocabulary and frame of reference.

Monitored student compliance with clinical proce-
dures and kept accurate records of student's work.

Made suggestions and/or corrections on student's
written work. . . . . . . . .

Evaluated student skills fairly and according to
clinic procedures. . . . . . . . .

Supervisor "Counselor" Skills

Focused the content of supervision sessions on the
student's feelings. thoughts, and experiences
relating to clinical issues. . . . .

Functioned without Judging the student's perfor—
nance in order to facilitate the student's personal
growth. Offered an open. helping relationship.

Supported the student's efforts. reassured and
encouraged the student. and used facilitative
communication techniques in supervision. . .

Used questioning. clarification of student communi-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\

O

H
.fl‘U PC.
.0 H6
u>—-o >4 .0
«Obs-0‘0 ‘B’e‘ud‘ *0
NOCUUOF‘OCO'UU
a. dflunuuwflfl
BABE-SUHUO'H‘UU
COCIJDHOHIOU
vi “UVG‘O.
uuuuiucu HOG:
£00. 68‘ I58
325.1007! I 0

, [3 00000011000
, U UUUUUUUUDU
, U UUUUDUUUUU
, [1 [1000000000
, E) 00001300000
,1] UUUUUUDUUD
,U UUUUUUUUUU
,U UDDUUUUUUD
_U UUUUUUDUDU
.D UUUUUUUDUU

,D UDUUUUUUUU
,U UUUUDUDUUU
,U UUUUUUUUUU

cation. and self-disclosure as supervision techniques . J U D U U U D D U D U

Communicated caring. respect for the student's
potential. and respect for the student's viewpoints.

.3 [13131385801111

DYAD I

1197

APPENDIX A, continued

151's SUP PRE POST

 

.4

now SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE SUPERVISOR'S
USE OF I!!! FOLLOWING SKILLS IN PROVIDING

 

of applicable]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘U I" I!
0 .-o c
>- s. e o
’- fl '3 ‘0 >~‘U -| ‘0 «0
YOU um 3mm summsmm : “3:322 3.23::
‘8 :3 ‘3 S '1; 3 “a; 2 “.3 B 3
.. u I: 2 I: 3 3 2': 8 2
III 3 " N nascent-Joann
. upervisor Consultant Skills 2 g a 0 "IS‘: a. 9 am: 2
16. Focused the content of supervision sessions on the
" client's needs and responses in therapy sessions. U U U D U U D U U U B
1?. Gave student maximum freedom and autonomy by offering
a collegial, democratic relationship. . U U U D an H U U U D
18. Gave data-based feedback on client or student
tunnhhflnsflmrumuu. . . . [IDUUUUUUUDU
l9. Responded to student concerns and questions directly:
encouraged student to express supervision preferences. U D U D U U U U D U U
20. Used problem-solving techniques (problem identifica-
tion, prioritizing, brain-storming, viewing conse-
quences, and strategy selection) in supervision. .13 U U g a a U U D U U
21. Negotiated content and approach to supervision with g- -1
student on a flexible, on-going basis. . . . .U U U B ‘J U L4 U U U U
22. Dealt with administrative problems promptly and -

efiuunn. . . . . . . . . . .[JflnnggUEDBU
23. Has available and dependable for supervision sessions. U U U U L- U D U D U U

\
2 I
‘3‘; "i 1 |>~ a g
HOV COMPETENT OVERALL DO YOU BELIEVE THE :3 g '3 :2“ g 3: g"; g .0 :
ggEEVISOR 5A8 BEEN IN THE l-‘OLLOVING Egg 3‘ ‘35 £5 73!}; gig: é
' sassiiésiééi
IV. Overall Competegce of Sgpervisor z -.: :: uni 6 0 o 8 5:0 9)
24. Competence in meeting the student's individual r190 —- -1
needs for supervision. - . . . . . . . . U U U D L- U U B U U L)

25. Competence in developing a positive supervisory - r1 .

relationship with the student. . . . . . . a U U U HE). D U U E U
26. Competence in using supervision time wisely. . . U U U a a U a D U a D
27. Competence in influencing the student's personal and r; 'T —-71 F7
professional growth in a positive manner. . . . a U a L- g g g 11:11 I-I u t".
28. Competence in providing good or helpful supervision. C] U B E 8. L: U 5- D U L!

APPENDIX B

Names of the Variables measured by the SSF

198

APPENDIX B

Names of the variables measured by the SSF

 

 

Variable
Pretest Posttest
V138 V13Sp
V14s v14sp
vlSs vlSsp
V16s V165p
V17s V17sp
v185 V18sp
V19s Vl9sp
V208 V205p
V21s Vlep
V22s V22sp
V123 V179
V124 V180
V125 V181
V126 V182
V127 V183
V128 V184
V129 V185
V130 V186
V131 V187
V132 V188
V133 V189
V134 V190
V135 V191
V136 V192
V137 V193
V138 V194
V139 V195
V140 V196
V141 V197
V142 V198
V143 V199
V144 V200
V145 v201
V146 V202
V147 V203
V148 V204
V149 V205
V150 V206
V151 V207
V152 V208
V153 V209
V154 V210
V155 V211
V156 V212
V157 V213
V158 V214
V159 v215

Variable
Name

 

SSF-MTS
SSF-MTS
SSF-MTS
SSF-MTS
SSF-MTS
SSF-SUP
SSF-SUP
SSF-SUP
SSF-SUP
SSF-SUP
SSF-MTS

SSF-SUP

Supervisor—teacher skills score
Supervisor-counselor skills score
Supervisor-consultant skills score
Overall competence
Overall satisfaction
Supervisor-teacher skills score
Supervisor-counselor skills score
Supervisor-consultant skills score
Overall competence
Overall satisfaction
item #1 score

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

#17

#18

#19

#20

#21

#22

#23

#24

#25

#26

#27

#28
item #1 score

#2

 

Variable
Pretest Posttest
V160 V216
V161 V217
V162 V218
V163 V219
V164 V220
V165 V221
V166 v222
V167 V223
V168 v224
V169 V225
vl70 v226
V171 V227
V172 V228
V173 V229
V174 V230
V175 V231
V176 V232
V177 V233
V178 v234
V

V
V
V

199

Appendix B (cont'd.)

Variable
Name

 

SSF-SUP item #10 score
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
#27
#28
SUP's average pre-test satisfaction
SUP's average satisfaction score,
experimental group, post-test
SUP's average satisfaction score,
comparison group, posttest
SUP's average satisfaction score,
both experimental and comparison
groups combined, posttest

APPENDIX C
Music Therapy Student Evaluation Form

(MTSEF)

ZCH)

APPENDIX C

' InsIc ramp! STUDENT EVALUATION roan
Michigan State University - Husic Therapy Clinic

STUDENT CLIENT

 

 

(Circle one: Self—eval

 

Supervisor-eval)

 

1. Session Management Skills

1. Begins and ends sessions on time. . .

2. Arranges people. furniture and instruments to suit
the needs of participants and activities. .

3. Sequences activities logically and makes smooth
transitions between activities. .

6. Presents activities at the pace needed by the
client(s) to remain interested and challenged.

5. Adapts activities flexibly and spontaneously to
meet the ongoing needs of the client(s). .

6. Assists client(s) in assessing client(s)'
strengths and progress toward objectives. . .

7. Communicates the purpose of activities in terms
the client(s) can understand.

8. Explains and demonstrates activities clearly.
9. Reviews past experiences and work adequately.
10. uses effective questioning and elicitation.

ll. Uses verbal and nonverbal positive reinforcement
to increase the frequency of desired responses.

12. Utes ignoring and time-out from positive rein—
forcement to discourage undesired responses.

13. Sets firm limits when necessary.

14. Models. shapes. and cues desired responses. and
rewards successive approximations toward the goal.

[5. Generalizes clinic experiences to other

 

s improve-

ed

E.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISatisfactory

IExcellent

Innsatisfactory

El UUUDDUUUUU

D DUDUUUUUUU

D DUUUUDUUUU
U [1000000000
E) DUUUUUUUUU
U UUUUUUUUUU

U UUUUUDDUUU
D UUUUDUUUUD
D DUDDDUUUDD
U UUDUUUDUUU

U UUUUDDUUUU

Cl [3000000000
E) DUDUUUDUUB

U UUUUDDUUUU

by assigning relevant homework to clientutufuou. U U U U D D U E D D D

16. Prepares client(s) for separation or termination.

U UUUUUUEUDU

mu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C, continued

Se

1! >6 I

as be 0

A‘UO ’ ’e

tau 0 be

U>U h 0

C.I:-Q & H g

2:“: 3. 3 w

nun-H 'H —'

CO“ I I H
a and 3 O

as“. OCH 0

II. Personal sun. .85 “’8 .53 “L 1

I7.
18.
19.
20.

21.

22.
‘23.
. 24.
25.

III.
26.
27.

28.

29.
30.
31.

32.

33.

lesponds to unexpected Client behaviors in a
resourceful and creative manner. . . . .

Utes a consistent and appropriate style of inter-
acting with client(s); avoids using authoritarian
style as primary role relationship. . . .

Develops a positive relationship with client(s). .

Communicates caring. respect for client(s)'
potential. and appropriate warmth to client(s).

Exchanges appropriate personal information with
client(s): uses self-disclosure to enhance the
therapeutic relationship. . . . . .

Uses humor and/or enthusiasm to engage the cli-
ent(s) and/or to enhance rapport. .

Uses own personal style to advantage; acts genu-
inely. not mechanically during sessions. .

Gives clear and consistent messages. verbal and .
nonverbal. regarding pxpectations of client(s).

Models behaviors and feelings appropriate to the
music therapy session; behaves professionally.

Cogggptualization Skills

"rites goals based on assessment of client(s)'
functioning in one or more areas appropriate
to music therapy. . . . . . .

Writes objectives that are attainable within
the available treatment time. . . . . .

writes assessment criteria that are observable.
measurable. specific. relevant. and stated in
positive terms. . . . . . .

Updates client(s)' goals and objectives as
required by ongoing assessment. . . .

Plans acrivities which elicit desired responses
directly related to client(s)' objectives.

Plans activities suited to the age. interests.
and skills of client(s). . . .

Plans activities that are adaptable to varied
levels of client responses and part of long-
range plan. . . . . . . .

writes evaluation statements that are based on ob-
served behavior which is directly related to cli-

ent(s)' objectives: clearly indicates subjective

impressions and interpretations. .

 

El UUUUUUDUUU

U nuuunuuggu
I] UTUD' DUDUDD

. )3 00110080000
. l3 DDDDDUDDUU

l3 DDDDDUDDGD

, D DUDDDDDDUD
, D DUUDDDDDUU
, [3 [1000000081]

E] DDUUDDUDDU
E] 00110000000

0 UDDDUDUDDU
C] DUUDUDDDUD
D BUDDDDUDUD
D UDBUEBDEC‘D

Dr.

H

EEG. D

I.)
[-1

r:1
L-)

r" '-.l'"""."‘ “P“
UlJLUZSUu_

:1
[Tl

E3

202

APPENDIX C, continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

K

I h 0

rd he 0

AVG > ’e

IOU O be

099 I- O

«In. C. U U

neous a u g

6.0- v0 I .

nun-um he up

.08 I O a-

Q '04-!" g C

“32 35: °

Iv. theicianship sun; 3 c: z a 0 8 d

 

Effectively uses the following modalities as
activities and/or accompaniments:

38 man . . . . J . . . . . .IJUUUUUUUUUU
35. yo... . . . . . . °. . . D UUUUUUUUUU
36. Guitar or autoharp . . . . . . . . U UUUUUUUUUU
37. Percussion . . . . . . . . . . U DDUDUUDDUU
38. Hellet instruments . . . . . . . . U UUUUDUUDUU
39. Recordings or tapes . . . . . . . . U UUUUUUUDUU
‘0. Hovement and dance . . . . . . . . D UDUUUDDUUU
Al. Echo structure . . . . . . . . . E] UDUUUUUUUU
62. Improvisation . . . . . . . . . D DUUUUUUDUU
43. Instruental arrangments . . . . . . U UUUUUUUDUU

V. Cligic Procedures

“- Submits written work at the agreed-upon time. . U DUUUUUUUUU

‘5. Uses the prescribed format for written work. . U UUUUUUUUUU

53:13:: $3:.é‘.§:::.f"f“f“f“°f". . U 0000000000

47. Keeps accurate records of clinical work. . . D U U U U U a D D U U
48. Maintains client(s)' charts according to clinic U D U U D D U U D U U

procedures.
49. Contacts appropriate persons inediately when ses-

sions must be postponed or client fails to appear:

follows through with revised plans. . . U UBDDUUUUDD
SO. Leaves therapy room(s) in proper order when done. D UUUUUUUDUU
51. Schedules. attends. and actively participates in --

individual supervision sessions. . . . U UDUUUDUUUU
52. 3:32? and actively participates in.group super- U EDUUE‘UUUDU

53. Assesses own clinical skills. sets personal goals.
and uses own initiative and suggestions of others 31
to improve clinical work. . ‘-

(”I

D 'UU’JUUUDU

(Over. please)

203

APPENDIX C, continued

COHHENIS:

I have read this evaluation:

Music Therapy Student Date Supervisor Date

APPENDIX D

Names of the Variables Measured by the MTSEF

 

Variable
Pretest Posttest
vls vlsp
V25 VZsp
v3s V3sp
V4s V4sp
VSs VSSp
V6s V6sp
V7s V7sp
V88 V88p
V9s V9sp
v10s Vlosp
vlls vllsp
V12s V125p
V17 V235
v18 V236
V19 V237
v20 V238
V21 V239
V22 V240
V23 V241
V24 V242
V25 V243
V26 V244
V27 V245
V28 V246
v29 V247
V30 V248
V31 V249
V32 V250
V33 V251
V34 V252
V35 V253
V36 V254
V37 V255
V38 V256
V39 V257
V40 V258
v41 V259
V42 V260
V43 V261
V44 V262
V45 V263
V46 V264
V47 V265
V48 V266
V49 V267
V50 V268
V51 V269

204

APPENDIX

D

Names of the Variables measured by the MTSEF

Variable
Name

 

MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-MTS

session management skills
personal skills score
conceptualization score
musicianship score
clinic procedures score
overall skills score
session management skills
personal skills score
conceptualization score
musicianship score
clinic procedures score
overall skills score
item #1 score

#2

#3

#4

#5

 

205

 

Appendix D (cont'd.)
Variable Variable

Pretest Posttest Name
V52 V270 MTSEF-MTS item #36 score
V53 V271 #37
V54 V272 #38
V55 V273 #39
V56 V274 #40
V57 V275 #41
V58 V276 #42
V59 V277 #43
V60 V278 #44
V61 V279 #45
V62 V280 #46
V63 V281 #47
V64 V282 #48
V65 V283 #49
V66 V284 #50
v67 V285 #51
V68 V286 #52
V69 V287 #53
V70 v288 MTSEF—SUP item #1 score
V71 V289 #2
V72 V290 #3
V73 V291 #4
V74 V292 #5
V75 V293 #6
V76 V294 #7
V77 V295 #8
V78 v296 #9
V79 V297 #10
V80 V298 #11
V81 V299 #12
V82 V300 #13
V83 V301 #14
V84 V302 #15
V85 V303 #16
V86 V304 #17
V87 V305 #18
V88 V306 #19
V89 V307 #20
V90 V308 #21
V91 V309 #22
V92 V310 #23
V93 V311 #24
V94 V312 #25
V95 V313 #26
V96 V314 #27
V97 V315 #28
V98 V316 #29
V99 V317 #30
V100 V318 #31

Appendix D

 

Variable
Pretest Posttest
V101 V319
V102 V320
V103 V321
V104 V322
V105 V323
V106 V324
V107 V325
V108 V326
V109 V327
V110 V328
V111 V329
V112 V330
V113 V331
V114 V332
V115 V333
V116 V334
V117 V335
V118 V336
V119 V337
V120 V338
V121 V339
V122 V340

206

(cont'd.

)

Variable

Name

 

MTSEF-SUP item

#32 score
#33
#34
#35
#36
#37
#38
#39
#40
#41
#42
#43
#44
#45
#46
#47
#48
#49
#50
#51
#52
#53

APPENDIX E
Supervisor Experience Index

(SEI)

207

APPENDIX E

SUPERVISOR EXPERIENCE INDEX

Directions: Please provide the following information including this

2.

3.

academic year. Thank you for your cooperation.

now many years have you been employed full-time as a clinical
music therapist?

years or years 8 months

How many years have you been employed part-time or volunteered I
your services as a clinical music therapist (do not include any
years reported in question ll)?

years or years 6 months

How many years have you spent in graduate school full-time or..
part-time studying music therapy-related subjects (do not include
any years reported in questions fl or #2 above)?

years or years 5 months

How many years have you been employed teaching music therapy in a
college setting either full-time or part-time (do not include any
years reported in questions #1. '2. or #3 above)?

years or years & months

Approximately how many music therapy practicum students have you
supervised in clinical training?

practicum students

Approximately how many music therapy interns have you supervised
in clinical training?

interns

Please list any additional experiences you have had which you believe
contributed substantially to your expertise as a supervisor.

 

 

APPENDIX F

Names of Variables Measured by the SEI

208

APPENDIX F

Names of variables measured by the SEI.

 

 

Variable Variable
Number Name
V10 SEI #1 (years employed full-time)
V11 SEI #2 (years employed part-time or volunteer)
V12 SEI #3 (years in graduate school)
V13 SEI #4 (years teaching music therapy)
V14 SEI #5 (number of practicum students supervised)
v15 SEI #6 (number of interns supervised)
V16 SEI score (overall score)

APPENDIX G

Scoring System for the Supervisor Experience Index

209

APPENDIX G

Scoring System for the Supervisor Experience Index

Variable

Number

V10

v11

V12

V13

V14

V15

Item
Number

1

Scoring System

 

0

UTAWNl-I

O

U'lnhWND—I

O

U'lbUJNl—l

O

U'lubWND-l

U'lubWNI-J O

O

(UNI—l

zero years full—time employment as a
clinical Music Therapist

less than one year

one year to less than two years

two years to less than four years
four years to less than six years
six years or more

zero years part-time employment or
volunteer clinical Music Therapist
less than one year

one year to less than two years
two years to less than four years
four years to less than six years
six years or more

zero years part-time or full-time
graduate study of Music Therapy-
related subjects

less than one year

one year to less than two years

two years to less than three years
three years to less than four years
four years or more

zero years college teaching of Music
Therapy (full or part—time)

less than one year

one year to less than two years

two years to less than four years
four years to less than ten years
ten or more years

zero practicum students super-
vised in clinical training

one to three

four to seven

eight to ten

11 - 20

21 or more practicum students

interns supervised in clinical
training

one to two

three to five

six to eight

210

Appendix G (cont'd.)

 

Variable Item
Number Number Scoring System
V15 6 4 = interns supervised in clinical
training
5 = 13 or more interns
V16 SEI overall score (total of points

accumulated in 6 SEI items)

APPENDIX H
Supervision Planning Aid

(SPA)

211

APPENDIX H
Supervision Planning Aid

(SPA)

SUPERVISION PLANNING AID

Purpose: This Supervision Planning Aid is part of an experiment in supervision
research. It is an attempt to study the effects of a three-part
"treatment" in which the supervisor plans a tentative agenda for
the next supervision session with a music therapy practicum student.
The agenda consists of prioritizing topics of discussion. choosing
the role-relationship within which the supervisor wishes to function
in order to best discuss the topic. sharing and. if desired. changing
that agenda in conjunction with the student's desires. and then evalua-
ting the supervision session (both supervisor and student individually
and confidentially).

CONFIDENTIALITY of responses will be ensured by a coding system in which “re
Hrs. Ruth Parry. Hr. Unkefer's secretary. will receive. store. and
assign a dyad number to all forms. Noone. including the researcher.
other than Hrs. Parry. will have access to responses of students or

supervisors other than to know which responses belong to which super-
visor.

Directions: Please complete the Supervision Planning Aid some time prior to the
expected time of all supervision sessions following the beginning of
this experiment. Complete the form by choosing 3 or more topics of
discussion and. for each. a preferred role relationship. Put the numbers
1. 2. and 3 in the appropriate boxes on the form to indicate first priority.
second priority. and third priority. etc. for each topic of discussion.
Other topics may emerge. and supervision should be conducted without
additional reference to this form other than for a reminder if desired.

Please show the form to the student upon beginning supervision. and
negotiate changes in the agenda if desired. Please have the student
initial the form at the bottom to indicate compliance with these directions.

Immediately following supervision. please give the student a copy of the
Supervision Session Evaluation Form with the request to complete it
and turn it in to Mrs. Parry. Please do the same yourself.

(Base your decisions on content-focus on any of the following: the
last observed music therapy session conducted by the student; overall
needs of the student; or future session planning needs of the student.
Base your decisions on approach or role-relationship on the personal
or expressed preferences of either you or your student in light of what
approach will be most helpful to the student at that particular time.)

CNOICES OP CONTENT/FOCUS OF NEXT SUPERVISION SESSION!

SUPERVISOR

APPENDIX H ,

212

SUPERVISION PLANNING AID

STUDENT

 

 

continued

DATE _.

 

CHOICES OP
ROLE RELATION-
.SNIPS:

TEACHER-STUDENT

(instructing.
explaining.
evaluating)

COUNSELORPCLIENT
(encouragment.
reassurance.
empathic response)

CONSULTANT-COLLEAGUE
(problem-solving.
responding to student
initiated structure)

 

Therapeutic
interventions

Q

 

Nuaicianship/
techniques

 

Activities]
pacing

 

Client needsl
responses

 

Verbal
interactions

 

Relationship
with client

 

Peelings/
Reactions

 

Goals/
objectives

 

Session evals/
Client chart

 

Clinic
procedures

 

Scheduling
concerns

 

Supervision
needs/goals

 

Other
(Specify:)

 

 

 

 

I have seen this Supervision Planning Aid:

 

Music Therapy StudenErS Initials

Date

 

APPENDIX I
Supervision Session Evaluation Form

(SSEF)

213

APPENDIX I

(SSEF)

. SUPERVISION SESSION EVALUATION PORN
(Form To be Completed by Husic Therapy Student)

DYAD # SESSION 0 DATE & TIME OF SESSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H O
H I:
0
now SATISFIED ARE YOU mm THE SUPERVISION E 3 .. '3 3'3 5‘ 3 v E
SESSION IN “RICH YOU JUST PARTICIPATED? u c g c r; 3 g 3; .g 3
I m 3 m H 0 F‘ U) 0 U
HONSATISI-‘IEDAREYOUWITE... “333333333
O G! O a Q) G O Q X X
:2 ate at; mid aid 0
l. The overall helpfulness of this session to you D D U U U
and your work with your client. . . . . .
2. ‘lhe supervisor's use of time during this session . . U D U U U
3. The content (or topics of discussion) of the session . g g B B 8

la. The supervisor's personal approach (role relationship).

PLEASE DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF OR YOUR SUPERVISOR BY NAME ON THIS FORM. PLEASE
TURN THIS FORM IN TO MRS. PARRY WHO WILL ASSIGN THE DYAD NUMBER.

(cut along this line)

SUPERVISION SESSION EVALUATION PORN
(Form To Be Completed by Supervisor)

DYAD # SESSION I DATE 8 TIME OF SESSION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:8

NOV SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE SUPERVISION '3 B!“ '3 3731733 .3 7c:

SESSION VHICH YOU JUST CONDUCTED? u :‘g :g'; :1; C .3 3

now SATISFIEDAREYOU VII-N . . . 2§|§~35§§§§‘§3

samzussass

l. :2; overall helpfulness of this session to your student D D U [:1 U
your student 3 work with client(s). . . .

2. Your use of time during the supervision session . . U U D U D

3. The content (or topics of discussion) of the session . U U U D U

4. Your personal approach (or role relationships) with a U U D U

the student . . . . . . . . . . .

PLEASE DO NOT IDENTIFY YOURSELF 0R YOUR STUDENT BY NAME ON THIS FORM. PLEASE
TURN THIS FORM IN TO MRS. PARRY WHO WILL ASSICN THE DYAD NUMBER.

APPENDIX J

List of Abbreviations

AAMT -

BLRI -

CERS -

MTS -

MTSEF -

MTSEF-MTS

MTSEF-SUP

NAMT -

RMT -

SEI -

SSEF -

SSF -

SSF-MTS

SSF-SUP

SUP -

214

APPENDIX J

List of Abbreviations

American Association for Music Therapy, Inc.

Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory

Counselor Effectiveness Rating Scale

Music Therapy Student

Music Therapy Student Evaluation Form

Music Therapy Student Evaluation Form,

completed by the music therapy student

Music Therapy Student Evaluation Form,

completed by the supervisor
National Association for Music
Registered Music Therapist
Supervisor Experience Index
Supervision Session Evaluation
Supervision Satisfaction Form
Supervision Satisfaction Form,
music therapy student
Supervision Satisfaction Form,
supervisor

Supervisor

Therapy, Inc.

Form

completed by the

completed by the

APPENDIX K

Assignment to Groups by Group

215

APPENDIX K

Assignment to Groups by Group

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group Dyads Comparison Group Dyads
Dyad # SUP # MTS # Dyad # SUP # MTS #
01 2 06 02 3 14
08 2 04 03 2 03
09 6 08 04 1 02
12 2 12 05 1 05
14 3 O9 06 1 O7
15 1 01 11 5 02
19 6 O4 13 5 07
22 6 10 18 2 11
24 5 13 20 6 14
28 5 01 25 2 15
29 3 06 26 3 11
48 4 16 27 6 02
Group with Pretest Group with Posttest
Data only Data only
Dyad # SUP # MTS # Dyad # SUP # MTS #
07 7 14 49 2 07
16 7 O7 50 l 01
17 1 O4 51 4 05
21 7 08 52 1 13
23 7 13 53 2 O3
30 7 O9 54 1 14
31 2 19 55 6 15
33 18 56 5 08
34 4 17 57 l 12
35 8 O9 58 1 11
36 8 18 59 2 10
39 8 12 60 l 08
4O 2 18 61 1 13
41 5 17 62 5 12
42 8 11 63 1 15
43 8 15 64 6 09
44 2 17
46 2 09 Dyads in Group Supervision
47 6 20 Dyad # SUP # MTS #
32 l 01
37 1 11
38 1 02
45 1 12

APPENDIX L

Assignment to Group by Supervisor

216

APPENDIX L

Assignment to Group by Supervisor

 

 

 

 

 

 

Experimental Group Dyads Comparison Group Dyads
SUP # MTS # Dyad # SUP # MTS # Dyad #
1 1 15 l 2 04
2 4 08 1 5 05
2 6 01 1 7 O6
2 12 12 2 3 O3
3 6 29 2 11 18
3 9 14 2 15 25
4 16 48 3 11 26
5 1 28 3 14 02
5 13 24 5 2 11
6 4 19 5 7 13
6 8 O9 6 2 27
6 10 22 6 14 20
Group with Posttest Group with Pretest
Data Only Data Only
SUP # MTS # Dyad # SUP # MTS # Dyad #
1 01 50 1 04 17
1 08 6O 2 09 46
1 11 58 2 19 31
1 13 61 2 17 44
1 13 52 2 18 40
1 14 54 4 17 34
1 12 57 5 17 41
l 15 63 6 20 47
2 03 53 7 09 30
2 07 49 7 O7 16
2 10 59 7 13 23
4 05 51 7 14 07
5 08 56 7 08 21
5 12 62 8 09 35
6 O9 64 8 11 42
6 15 55 8 12 39
8 15 43
8 18 36
8 18 33
Dyads in Group Supervision
SUP # MTS # Dyad #
1 01 32
1 11 37
1 2 38
1 12 45

APPENDIX M

Assignment to Groups by Student

MTS #

217

APPENDIX M

Assignment to Groups by Student

SUP #

 

01
01
01
01
02
02
02
02
03
03
04
04
04
06
06
05
05
O7
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
09
09
09
09
09
10
10
11
ll
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13

l—‘l—‘QU‘IUII-‘CDNHl—‘mWNNO‘smN(DNJWHWONQNNJHLflohl-‘wNONNl-‘NNONHHWi—‘l—‘l-‘(fl

DYAD #

28
15
32
50
11
04
38
27
O3
53
17
08
19
01
29
05
51
13
06
16
49
21
O9
56
6O
14
30
35
46
64
22
59
18
26
42
58
37
12
39
57
62
24
23
52
61

MTS #

14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
16
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
20

DYAD #

U)
C
"U
4::

 

07
02
20
54
25
55
43
63
38
41
34
44
33
36
4O
31
47

mNNm'QNobLflbHCDOSNl-‘ONWNI

APPENDIX N

Names of Computed Variables

 

Variables
Pretest Posttest
V16
vls vlsp
V28 VZSp
V35 V3sp
V4s V4sp
V58 V5sp
V6s V6sp
V7s V7sp
v8s VBSp
V9s V9sp
V108 Vlosp
vlls vllsp
V128 V125p
V13s V13sp
Vl4s V14sp
V158 vlSsp
V16s V16sp
V17s V17sp
V18s V18sp
V19s V19sp
V208 V205p
v21s V21sp
V225 V225p

V

V

V
V

218

APPENDIX

N

Names of Computed Variables

Variable
Name

 

SEI score
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-MTS
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP
MTSEF-SUP

session management skill
personal skill
conceptualization skill
musicianship skill
clinical procedures skill
overall skills

session management skill
personal skill
conceptualization skill
musicianship skill
clinic procedures skil
overall skills

SSF-MTS teacher skills
SSF-MTS counselor skills
SSF-MTS consultant skills
SSF-MTS overall competence
SSF-MTS overall skills
SSF-SUP teacher skills
SSF-SUP counselor skills
SSF-SUP consultant skills
SSF-SUP overall competence
SSF-SUP overall skills
Supervisor's average posttest
satisfaction score experimental

group

Supervisor's average posttest
satisfaction score, comparison

group

Supervisor's average posttest
satisfaction score, both groups

combined

Supervisor's average pretest
satisfaction score, both groups

combined

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Alley, J. M. (1978). Competency based evaluation of a music
therapy curriculum. Journal of Music Therapy. 15, 1,
9-14.

 

Alley, J. M. (1980). The effect of self-analysis of Video-
tapes. Journal of Music Therapy, 11, 3, 113-132.

 

Alley, J. M. (1982). The effect of Videotape analysis on
music therapy competencies: An observation of simulated
and clinical activities. Journal of Music Therapy, 12,
3, 141-160.

 

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1971).
New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc.,
p.1292.

Anderson, J. L. (1982). The effect of feedback versus no
feedback on music therapy competencies. Journal of
Music Therapy, 19, 3, 130-140.

 

 

Anderson, R. P. & Anderson, G. V. (1962). Development of
an instrument for measuring rapport. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1, 18-24.

 

 

Barrett-Lennard, G. T. (1962). Dimensions of therapists'
responses as causal factors in therapeutic change.
Psychological Monographs, 16, 21-44.

 

Berg, K. S. (1977). Conceptual level and degree of struc-
tured supervision: Implications for microtraining
(Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Western
Ontario (Canada), 1977). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 38, 9, 44398.

 

 

Berg, K. S. & Stone, G. L. (1980). Effects of conceptual
level and supervision structure on counselor skill

development. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 5,
500-509.

 

Bergan, J. R. & Tombari, M. L. (1975). The analysis of
verbal interactions occurring during consultation.
Journal of School Psychology, 13, 209227.

 

219

220

Bernard, J. M. (1979). Supervisor training: A discrimina-
tion model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 12,

60-68.

Bernstein, B. L. & Lecomte, C. (1979). Self-critique
technique training in a competency-based practicum.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 12, 69-76.

Bernstein, B. L. & Lecomte, C. (1979). Supervisory-type
feedback effects: Feedback discrepancy level, trainee
psychological differentiation, and immediate
responses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16, 4,

295-303.

Bernstein, B. L. & Lecomte, C. (1979). An integrative
competency-based counselor education model. Counselor

Education and Supervision, 16. 26—36.

Bibbo, M. P. (1975). The relationship of supervisor-
supervisee personality factors and supervisory relation-
ships (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1974).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 15, 5008A.
(Universtiy Microfilms No. 75-20, 107)

Birk, J. M. (1972). Effects of counseling supervision
method and preference on empathic understanding.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12, 6, 542-546.

Blumberg, A. (1968). Supervisory behavior and interpersonal
relations. Educational Administration Quarterly,

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.

C. (1975). Evaluating counseling

Borman, C. A. & Ramirez,
Counseling Education and Supervi-

practicum students.
sion, 15, 48-54.

Carkhuff, R. R. (1969). Helping and Human Relations:
A Primer for Lay and Professional He1pers. Vol. II:
Practice and Research. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart, &

Winston.

Carkhuff, R. R., & Traux, C. B. (1967). Toward Effective
Counseling and Psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine.

221

Clapper, T. W. (1981). The effects of peer clinical super-
vision on inservice teachers: Attitudes toward pupil-
teacher relations, perceptions of supervisor behavior,
and classroom competency (Doctoral dissertation, The
Pennsylvania State University, 1981). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 11, 4, 1457A-1458A. (PP-6-9
from the dissertation)

 

 

Clinical Training Committee Notes. (1978).

Clinical Training Guidelines of the National Association for
Music Therapy. (1983).

Clinton, B. J. (1982). DevelOpment and validation of an
instrument to assess problem identification skills for
instructional supervisors (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Georgia, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 11, 8, 3359A-3360A.

 

 

Cogan, M. L. (1973). Clinical Supervision. Hopewell, NJ:
Houghton Mifflin.

 

Cogan, M. L. (1976). Rationale for clinical supervision.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 2, 2,
3-19.

 

Cohen, L. A. (1980). Behavioral and analytic supervisees'
evaluations of the desirability of certain characteris-
tics in the ideal and typical supervisor (Doctoral
dissertation, Adelphi University, 1980). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 11, 4, 1496B.

 

 

Condon, S. R. (1977). Therapeutic conditions and feedback
as variables of supervisory relationships in counselor
education (Doctoral dissertation, Washington State
University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 12, 9, 5243A.

 

Corrigan, J. D., Dell, D. M., Lewis, K. N., & Schmidt, L. D.
(1980). Counseling as a social influence process: A

review. Journal of Counseling Pyschology: Monograph,
11, 4, 395-441.

 

Couchon, W. D. (1982). The effect of the timing of counsel-
or sessions on supervisor and counselor performance and
on counselor and client satisfaction (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Purdue University, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 11, 8, 3437A-3438A.

 

 

Cuff, W. A. (1978). Indirect versus direct influence in
supervisory conferences and student teachers' levels of
needs (Doctoral dissertation, New York University,
1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 12, 8,
4877A-4878A.

 

222

Davis, K. L., & Arvey, H. H. (1978). Dual supervision:
A model for counseling and supervision. Counseling
Education and Supervision, 12, 293-299.

 

 

Deming, A. L. (1977). A measure of self-actualization as a
predictor of supervision effectiveness (Doctoral
dissertation, State University of New York-Buffalo,
1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, 12, 9,
5244-5245A.

 

Detry, D. V. (1975). Supervisory role expectations and
their effect on the practicum student-supervisor
relationship and on the practicum student-client
relationship (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois
University, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts International,
12, 4, 2018A.

 

Dodenhoff, J. T. (1981). Interpersonal attraction and
direct-indirect supervisor influence as predictors of
counselor trainee efectiveness. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 12, 1, 47-52.

 

 

Dole, A. A. (1973). A proposed multiple model for
supervision. Professional Psychology, 2, 1, 7-16.

 

Eckstein, R., & Wallerstein, R. (1959). The Teaching and
Learning of Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books.

 

 

Editorial on Supervision. (1977). Quodlibet, July.

Fitzmaurice, R. W. (1978). Supervising student teachers:
An individualized systematic approach (Doctoral
dissertation, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 1487A.

 

 

Flanders, N. A. (1976). Interaction analysis and clinical
supervision. Journal of Research and Development
in Education, 2, 2, 47-57.

 

 

Garfield, S. L., & Bergin, A. E. (Eds.). (1978). Handbook
of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: An Empirical
Analysis (2nd. Ed.). New York: Wiley.

 

Gault, A. W. (1978). An assessment of the effectiveness of
clinical training in collegiate music therapy curricula.
Journal of Music Therapy, 12, 1, 36-39.

 

Geiger, P. E. (1981). The application of operant condition-
ing as a means of supervision (Doctoral dissertation,
Columbia University Teachers College, 1981). Disserta-
tion Abstracts International, 21, 12, 4905A.

 

223

Goldfarb, N. (1976). The effects of supervisory style on
counselor effectiveness and facilitative responding
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia,
1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 9,

5603A-5604A. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1978,
Q, 5’ 454-460e

 

 

Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical Supervision. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

 

Goldman, L. (1976). A revolution in counseling research.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 11, 6, 543-552.

 

Goralski, M. M. (1978). The development, implementation,
and evaluation of simulation activities to train coun-
seling supervisees (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Pittsburg, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts Internation-
21, 12, 8, 4728A-4729A.

 

Grant, R. E. (1980). The Supervisory Dilemma--Revisited.
Unpublished manuscript.

 

Greenfield, D. G. (1980). The use of visual feedback in
training music therapy competencies. Journal of
Music Therapy, 11, 3, 94-102.

 

 

Greenfield, D. G. (1978). Evaluation of music therapy
practicum competencies: comparisons of self- and
instructor ratings of Videotapes. Journal of Music

Therapy, 11, 1, 15-20.

 

Gurk, M. D., & Wicas, E. A. (1979). Generic models of
counseling supervision: Counseling/instruction
dichotomy and consultation metamodel. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 21, 8, 402-407.

 

 

Handley, P. G. (1981). The relationship of supervisor-
trainee personality simularity to counselor supervision
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia,
1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 21, 2,
549A.

Hansen, J. C., Pound, R., & Petro, C. (1976). Review of
research on practicum supervision. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 16, 107-116.

 

 

Hansen, J. C., & Warner, R. W., Jr. (1971). Review of
research on practicum supervision. Counselor Educa-
tion and Supervision, 12, 261-272.

 

 

Hanser, S. B. (1978). A systems analysis model for teaching
practicum skills. Journal of Music Therapy, 11, 1,
21-35.

 

224

Hanser, S. B., & Furman, C. E. (1980). The effect of
Video-based feedback versus field-based feedback on the
development of applied clinical skills. Journal of
Music Therapy, 11, 3, 103-112.

 

 

Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D., & Schroder, H. (1961). Conceptual
Systems and Personality Organization. New York: Wiley.

 

 

Hayman, M. J. (1977). The influence of supervisor feedback
in the microcounseling format (Doctoral dissertation,
Ball State University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 5950A.

 

 

Heppner, P. P., & Handley, P. G. (1981). A study of the
interpersonal influence process in supervision. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 12, 5, 437-444.

 

Hess, A. K., Ed. (1966). Psychotherapy Supervision:
Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: John Wiley.
pp.3-25.

 

 

Heyden, E. B. (1977). The relationship to two methods of
supervision and locus of control to reactance and
progress in supervision (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Virgina, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 12, 9, 5250A.

 

 

Hill, C. E. (1978). Development of a counselor verbal
response category system. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 11, 5, 461-468.

 

 

Hill, C. E., Thames, T. B., & Rardin, D. K. (1979).
Comparison of Rogers, Perls, and Ellis on the Hill
Counselor Verbal Response Category System. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 12, 3, 198-203.

 

 

Hogan, R. A. (1964). Issues and approaches in supervision.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1,
1739-1741.

 

 

Holloway, E., & Wolleat, P. (1980). Relationship of
counselor conceptual level to clinical hypothesis
formation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 11,
539-545.

 

Holloway, E. L., & Wolleat, P. L. (1981). Style differences
of beginning supervisors: An interactional analysis.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12, 4, 373-376.

 

Holton, H. S. (1975). An interaction analysis of
supervisory conferences (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Maryland, 1975). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 12, 6, 3586A-3587A.

 

 

225

Hunt, D. E. (1971). Matching Models in Education: The
Coordination of Teaching Methods with Student
Characteristics. Toronto: Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education.

 

 

Jamieson, J. L. (1978). The effects of two supervisory
styles on therapist self-disclosure and therapist-client
interaction ratio (Doctoral dissertation, The American
University, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 12, 7, 4060A.

 

 

Kagen, N. (1975). Influencing human interaction - eleven
years with IPR. Canadian Counselor, 2, 2, 74-97.

 

Kaydin, A., & Wilcoxon, L. (1976). Systematic desensitiza-
tion and nonspecific treatment effects: A methodo-
logical evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 21,
729-758.

 

Kennedy, K. B. (1981). The effect of two methods of super-
visor preconference written feedback on the verbal
behaviors of participants in individual speech pathology
supervisory conferences (Doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Oregon, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 21, 5, 2071A.

 

Killian, J. K. N. (1981). Effect of instructions and
feedback on music teaching skills. Journal of
Music Therapy, 12, 4, 166-180.

 

 

Kirchner, K. R. (1975). Expectations about individual
counseling supervision (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Missouri-Columbia, 1974). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 12, 1, 445B-446B.

 

 

Kozisek, C. J. (1975). A study of Verbal interactions of
supervisory conferences using Videotape and Blumberg's
15-category system (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Denver, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 12, 7, 4402A.

Kunstler, R. A. (1981). Competencies for therapeutic
recreation field experience site supervisors (Doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University, 1980). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 21, 4, 1788A.

 

 

LaCrosse, M. B. (1980). Perceived counselor social
influence and counseling outcomes: Validity of the
Counselor Rating Form. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 11, 4, 320-327.

 

 

226

Lanning, W. L. (1971). A study of the relation between
group and individual counseling supervision and three
relationship measures. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 12, 5, 401-406.

 

 

Lanning, W. L., & Lemons, S. L. (1974). Another look at
the factor structure of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship
Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 2,
4, 228-231.

Leddick, G. R., & Bernard, J. M. (1980). The history of
supervision: A critical review. Counseling Educa-
tion and Supervision, 12, 186-196.

 

 

Lemons, S., & Lanning, W. E. (1979). Value system
similarity and the supervisory relationship.
Counseling Education and Supervision, 12, 13-19.

Lutwak, N., & Hennessy, J. J. (1982). Conceptual systems
functioning as a mediating factor in the development of
counseling skills. Journal of Counseling Pschology,
12, 3, 256-260.

 

Mattaliano, A. P. (1977). Clinical supervision: The key
competencies required for effective practice (Doctoral
dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1977).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 12, 2060A.
(University Microfilms No. 77—22,029).

Memory, B. C. (1984). Model of the Music Therapy Clinical
Supervision System. Unpublished.

 

Memory, B. C. (1983). Music Therapy Student Evaluation
Form. Unpublished manuscript.

Memory, B. C. (1983). Supervision Satisfaction Form.
Unpublished manuscript.

Myers, D. W. (1975). The effects of two supervisory
approaches on teacher attitude toward supervision,
evaluation, and self (Doctoral dissertation, University
of Tennessee, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 12, 3, 1221A-1222A.

 

Myrick, R. D., & Kelly, F. D., Jr. (1971). A scale for
evaluating practicum students in counseling and
supervision. Counseling Education and Supervision, 12,
330-336.

National Association for Music Therapy Education Committee
Requirements. (1980).

227

Neufeldt, S. A. (1978). Client cognitive characteristics
and preference for counseling approaches. Journal of
CounselingpPsychology,‘12, 3, 184-187.

 

 

Newton, R. M. (1976). Supervisor expectations and
behavior: Effects of consistent-inconsistent
supervisory pairings on supervisee sarisfaction with
supervision, perceptions of supervisory relationships,
and rated counselor competency (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Missouri-Columbia, 1976). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 911B-912B.

 

 

Nicholas, M. J., & Gilbert, J. P. (1980). Research in music
therapy: A survey of music therapists' attitudes and
knowledge. Journal of Music Therapy, 11, 4, 207-213.

 

Nichols, J. J. (1976). A comparison of feedback techniques
in supervising student teachers (Doctoral dissertation,
Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey
(New Brunswick), 1976). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 11, 12, 7703A-7704A.

 

 

Nie, N., Hull, D., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D.
(1975). SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ovando de Antelo, M. N. (1981). Competency based indivi-
dualized learning modules: A methodology for in-service
education of Bolivian supervisors (Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Utah, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 21, 6, 2416A.

 

 

Payne, P. A., & Gralinski, D. M. (1968). Effects of
supervisor style and empathy on counselor perceptions
in simulated counseling. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, Feb., 557-563.

 

Pierce, R. M., & Schauble, P. G. (1970). Graduate training
of facilitative counselors: The effects of individual
supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 11, 3,
210-215.

 

Reavis, C. A. (1978). Clinical supervision: A review of
research. Educational Leadersh1p, 11, 7, 580-584.

 

Reavis, C. A. (1977). A test of the clinical supervision
model. Journal of Educational Research, 12, 311-315.

Reising, G. N. (1982). A study of Hogan's model of psycho-
therapist development and supervision (Doctoral disser-
tation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,
1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 10,
4207B-42088.

228

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient condi-
tions of therapeutic personality change. Journal
of ConsultingAPsychology, 11, 95-103.

 

Shiel, T. V. (1977). Supervision: Individual control
needs, compatibility, and dyadic attraction (Doctoral
dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology, 1976).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 12, 9, 4481B.

 

Smith, J. P., Jr. (1976). Supervisor behavior and super-
visor expectations (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Missouri-Columbia, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 12, 6480A-6490A. (University Microfilms
No. 76-7551)

 

 

Smrekar, M. J. (1979). The effects of supervisee role
training on first year counseling students' anxiety,
Verbal behavior in supervision, and counseling skill
development (Doctoral dissertation, The American
University, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 22, 5, 2568A.

 

 

Southard, S. (1973). The process of student supervision.
Journal of Music Therapy, 12, 1, 27-35.

 

Stenack, R. J., & Dye, H. A. (1982). Behavioral descrip-
tions of counseling supervision roles. Counselor Educa-
tion and Supervision, 11, 4, 295-304.

 

Stern, A. (1979). Interpersonal compatibility and
counseling supervision (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Missouri-Columbia, 1978). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 12, 6040A. (University
Microfilms No.70-O6, 929)

 

 

Stoltenberg, C. (1981). Approaching supervision from a
developmental perspective: The counselor complexity
model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12, 1, 59-65.

 

Stone, G. L. (1980). Effects of experience on supervisor
planning. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 11, 1,
84-88.

 

Strong, S. R. (1968). Counseling: An interpersonal
influence process. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
11, 215-224.

Sund, R. B. (1976). Piaget for Educators: A Multimedia
Program. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.

 

Traux, C. B., Carkhuff, R. R., Douds, J. (1964). Toward
an integration of the didactic and experiential
approaches to training in counseling and psychotherapy.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 11, 240-247.

 

229

Turow, V. K. (1982). Supervisor and supervisee behaviors
as predictors of perceived learning in psychotherapy
supervision (Doctoral dissertation, California School
of Professional Psychology, 1981). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 42, 10, 4215B.

University Curriculum Guidelines of the American Association
for Music Therapy. (1976).

Wagner, C. A., & Smith, J. P., Jr. (1979). Peer super—
vision: Toward more effective training. Counseling
Education and Supervision, 19, 288-293.

Wasserman, C. W. (1975). The effects of three supervisory
styles on counselor trainees' level of functioning
(Doctoral dissertation, The American University, 1975).
Dissertation Abstracts International, gg, 6, 3421A.

Wedeking, D. F., & Scott, T. B. (1976). A study of the
relationship between supervisor and trainee behaviors
in counseling practicum. Counselor Education and

Supervision, 16, 259-266.

 

Wilbur, M. P. (1975). The association among nonverbal
stimuli, supervisory strategies, and satisfaction
ratings in counselor trainee supervision (Doctoral
dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1975).
Dissertation Abstracts International, fig, 7,
4277A-4278A.

Wittmer, J. (1971). An objective scale for content-analysis
of the counselor's interview behavior. Counselor Educa-
tion and Supervision, 10, 3, 283-290.

Worthington, E. L., & Roehlke, H. J. (1979). Effective
supervision as perceived by beginning counselors-in-
training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 1,
64-73.