karla johnston, bpsych(hons) faculty of education ... · four studies were conducted in accordance...

Defining the Nature and Outcomes of Australian Professional Supervision:

Applying Holloway’s Systems Approach.

Karla Johnston, BPsych(Hons)

School of Learning and Professional Studies

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2006

Principal Supervisor: Professor Wendy Patton

Associate Supervisor: Dr. Fiona Spencer

i

KEY WORDS

Professional Supervision

Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS)

Elizabeth Holloway

Supervision Functions

Supervision Tasks

Supervision Delivery Mode

Effectiveness of Supervision

ii

ABSTRACT

The goal of this thesis was to define the nature and outcomes of Australian

professional supervision by applying Holloway’s (1995) Systems Approach to

Supervision (SAS) across professional groups. Many Australian professionals such as

psychologists, counsellors, and accountants are required to participate in some form of

supervision before being granted permission, via registration, to practice independently

within their respective fields. This is the first study of its kind to investigate the

supervision experience of a range of professional groups within Australia.

The SAS model (Holloway, 1995) provided a well-researched theoretical and

practical framework with the potential to be applied across professional groups for the

purposes of developing, evaluating and enhancing supervisor and supervisee practice.

Based on the model, Holloway proposed a number of teaching tasks and functions in a

matrix to explain the process of supervision and to assist in the professional and personal

development of supervisees. To date, most of the literature on professional supervision

has failed to provide a theoretical framework from which results could be meaningfully

interpreted. This thesis outlines a program of research which used the SAS model as a

theoretical basis for understanding and evaluating the experience of supervision amongst

a range of Australian professional and its relationship to effective professional practice.

Four studies were conducted in accordance with Mackenzie and House’s (1979)

Model of Scientific Inquiry. The first study (Study One) was exploratory in nature, and

aimed to define the term “supervision” and the anticipated outcomes of supervision

activities. The second study (Study Two) was also exploratory in nature, and aimed to

evaluate the modes of supervision delivery as well as to collect information regarding the

key tasks and functions utilised in professional supervision. The third study (Study

Three) was empirical in nature, and investigated the supervision experience of

psychologists engaged in supervision in accordance with the SAS model (Holloway,

1995). It longitudinally tracked their performance over a 12-month period as evaluated

iii

by both their supervisors and work managers. The fourth study (Study Four) was

confirmatory in nature, and was the same as the third study but comprised a different

sample of business and accounting (who were not Certified Public Accountants)

graduates.

The four studies consisted of four separate samples surveyed with self-report

measures developed from the SAS model (Holloway, 1995) by the researcher. Study

One comprised a sample of 210 supervisor-supervisee dyads. Professional groups in this

sample were psychologists, counsellors, nurses, occupational therapists, financial

advisors, business consultants, and accountants (without CPA) all of whom were

participating in a supervision process. Study Two comprised a total of 200 supervisees

broken down into four groups of 50. The professional types included in this sample were

psychologists, counsellors, nurses and business consultants and accountants (without a

CPA). Study Three comprised 513 supervisees who were participating in supervision as

part of the criteria to become fully registered psychologists. Study Four included 480

business consultants and accountants (without CPA) who were in the early years of their

career and were participating in supervision as part of their professional development.

The central aims of the supervision experience, according to supervisees and

supervisors, were to develop skills in counselling, case experience, professional

experience, emotional awareness, the ability to self-evaluate and network. The six

reported outcomes of supervision were that professional supervision enhanced

supervisees’ ability to self-evaluate, gain academic knowledge, become emotionally

aware, develop profession networks, develop both professional and work skills and to

build on relationship skills. The findings supported and extended the SAS model

(Holloway, 1995) by adding the tasks of academic knowledge and networking. The

definition of supervision found in this research program also supported and built on the

definitions already provided in the literature. There was considerable support for the

SAS model’s matrix in that particular supervision functions employed to teach certain

supervision tasks were more effective than others. For example, on the one hand, to

iv

teach a supervisee the skill of emotional awareness, a supervisor is best advised to take a

supportive/sharing approach. On the other hand, it was shown that the teaching strategy

of monitoring/evaluating was not found to be conducive to teaching case

conceptualisation skills. The findings also suggested two enhancements to Holloway’s

original conceptualisation of the SAS model of supervision delivery mode and

supervisor allocation. Furthermore, the findings confirmed that the SAS model can be

applied to teach and objectively evaluate supervision success by supervisors and

managers across professional groups.

There were six major contributions of this research program to the field of

professional supervision: First, there was the application and validation of a theoretical

model, Holloway’s (1995) Systems Approach to Supervision, to the supervision

experience. Second, there was the development and application of scales to measure

supervision performance and satisfaction reliably and with demonstrated construct

validity. Third, the methodology which included the collection of both qualitative and

quantitative responses from supervisees, supervisors, and managers provided a multi-

method approach to understanding professional supervision across professional groups.

Fourth, a uniform definition of supervision was identified across a range of professional

groups. Fifth, Holloway’s supervision teaching matrix was empirically supported and the

findings recommend it as a mechanism for developing, evaluating and enhancing

supervisor and supervisee practice across a range of professional types. The SAS model

was found to be relevant to health-related professional groups but also supported in

business-related professional groups. Finally, the research recommended some

modifications to the SAS model to incorporate factors such as supervision delivery

mode. These additions and the results of the longitudinal research suggested that

supervision effectiveness was a predictor of on the job performance ratings by managers.

Based on a scan of the literature to date, this research program outlines the first

longitudinal empirical study of the relationship between supervision effectiveness and

v

on-the-job performance using a range of professional groups. Limitations and future

directions were discussed.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................1

Overview of the Thesis....................................................................................................1 Background..............................................................................................................1

CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................................5

Understanding Professional Supervision ......................................................................5 Defining Supervision................................................................................................5 Historical Perspective of Supervision......................................................................6 Limitations of the Definition of Supervision ............................................................6 Summary of the Definitions of Supervision..............................................................8

Common Types and Formats of Supervision Delivery ................................................9 Individual Supervision ...........................................................................................10 Group Supervision .................................................................................................11 Supervision with Multiple Supervisors ..................................................................12 Peer Supervision/Coaching ...................................................................................13 Self-Supervision .....................................................................................................16 E-Supervision.........................................................................................................17 The Effectiveness of Supervision Types .................................................................18 Summary ................................................................................................................19 Supervision Formats ..............................................................................................19 Internal Supervision...............................................................................................20 External Supervision..............................................................................................22 Summary ................................................................................................................23

CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................24

The Importance and Promotion of Professional Supervision ...................................24 Who Requires Supervision? ...................................................................................24 The Importance of Supervision ..............................................................................26 The Promotion of Supervision ...............................................................................29 Lack of Training for Supervisors ...........................................................................34 Summary ................................................................................................................39

CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................41

Is Supervision Effective? ..............................................................................................41 Supervision Effectiveness.......................................................................................41 Supervision Effectiveness and Health Care...........................................................42 Frequency, Duration, Method and Supervision Effectiveness...............................49 Group Formats and Supervision Effectiveness......................................................50 Training and Supervision Effectiveness.................................................................55 What is Identified as Effective or Constructive Supervision Practice? .................57 What is Ineffective or Destructive Supervision Practices?....................................57 Summary of the Limitations of the Research .........................................................58 Conclusion – Is Supervision Effective? .................................................................58

vii

CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................. 60

A Critique of Supervision Theories and Models ........................................................60 Psychoanalytic Supervision...................................................................................60 Client-Centered Supervision..................................................................................62 Cognitive-Behavioural Supervision.......................................................................63 Narrative Supervision............................................................................................65 Developmental Supervision Approaches ...............................................................67 The Social Role Supervision Approaches ..............................................................67 Holloway's (1995) Systems Approach to Supervision ...........................................69 Supervision Relationship .......................................................................................71 Supervisory Tasks ..................................................................................................75 Supervisory Functions ...........................................................................................78 Summary ................................................................................................................84 Contextual Factors ................................................................................................84 1. Supervisor Factors ..........................................................................................84 2. Trainee/Supervisee Factors .............................................................................89 3. Client Factors ..................................................................................................91 4. Institutional (Organisational) Factors ............................................................93 Summary ................................................................................................................96 Problems with Understanding Supervision Effectiveness .....................................96 Overall Summary of Literature Review .................................................................97

Research Program Methodology Overview..............................................................100 An Overview of the Four Studies .........................................................................100

The Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................103 Study One.............................................................................................................103 Study Two ............................................................................................................103 Study Three ..........................................................................................................104 Study Four ...........................................................................................................105

Research Design ..........................................................................................................106

Sample ..........................................................................................................................106

Procedure.....................................................................................................................107

Data Collection ............................................................................................................110

Analyses........................................................................................................................111

Exploring Supervision Definitions.............................................................................116 Feedback from a Range of Australian Professionals ..........................................116

Research Questions .....................................................................................................117

Method .........................................................................................................................118 Sample .................................................................................................................118 Procedure ............................................................................................................118 Measures..............................................................................................................118 Results..................................................................................................................122

Sample Demographics ...............................................................................122

Outcomes of Supervision ............................................................................................137 Special Case: Supervision Delivery Mode ..........................................................141

Discussion.....................................................................................................................143 Limitations ...........................................................................................................145 Implications .........................................................................................................146

viii

Does Delivery Matter: Is There a Science to Supervision? .....................................148 Hypotheses ...........................................................................................................150

Method..........................................................................................................................152 Sample..................................................................................................................152 Procedure.............................................................................................................153 Measures..............................................................................................................154 Results..................................................................................................................160 Qualitative Analyses ............................................................................................165

Definition of Supervision............................................................................165 Quantitative Analyses ..........................................................................................167

Assumptions................................................................................................167 Data Cleaning ............................................................................................168 Comparisons between the four sample professions ...................................169 Hypothesis Testing .....................................................................................173 Hypothesis 1(8H1)......................................................................................173 Hypothesis 2(8H2)......................................................................................174 Hypothesis 3 (8H3).....................................................................................175

Discussion............................................................................................................184 Summary ..............................................................................................................188

Limitations..................................................................................................188 Implications ................................................................................................189

Testing the Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS) Model...................................190

Methodology ................................................................................................................190 Sample..................................................................................................................190 Procedure.............................................................................................................191 Measures..............................................................................................................193 Hypotheses ...........................................................................................................198 Results..................................................................................................................201

Preliminary validation of the measure.......................................................201 Hypothesis testing results ...........................................................................205

Discussion............................................................................................................223 Summary ..............................................................................................................227 Limitations ...........................................................................................................228 Implications .........................................................................................................230

Confirming the Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS) Model ...........................231

Methodology ................................................................................................................232 Procedure.............................................................................................................232 Measures..............................................................................................................233 Hypotheses ...........................................................................................................233 Preliminary validation of the measure ................................................................234 Hypothesis testing results ....................................................................................236

Hypotheses 10H1 to 10H 4.........................................................................236 Hypotheses 10H5 and 10H6 - results.........................................................251

Discussion.....................................................................................................................257 Limitations ...........................................................................................................260 Implications .........................................................................................................260

Discussion.....................................................................................................................262

Overall Findings and Application to the Literature ................................................263 Discussion of Study One and Study Two .............................................................263

ix

Discussion of Study Three and Study Four .........................................................267 Comparison of Study Three and Study Four..............................................270

The Five Major Contributions to the Literature..................................................274 Contributions of the Research Program Methodology........................................274 Future Research Suggestions ..............................................................................280 Overall Limitations..............................................................................................280

Final Conclusion..........................................................................................................285

REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 286

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Supervision requirements across a number of professions ............... 32

Table 6.1 Overview of the research program methodology ............................ 102

Table 6.2 Survey distribution and response rates across professions............. 107

Table 7.1 Provides an overview of the questions asked and the scales employed for Study One.................................................................... 119

Table 7.2 Survey distribution and response rates across how supervision was arranged................................................................. 123

Table 7.3 Survey distribution and response rates across how supervisor was selected ...................................................................................... 123

Table 7.4 Survey distribution and response rates across supervision delivery mode.................................................................................... 124

Table 7.5 Survey distribution and response rates across regularity of supervision........................................................................................ 124

Table 7.6 Survey distribution and response rates across supervision-related payment ................................................................................ 125

Table 7.7 Survey distribution and response rates across frequency of supervision........................................................................................ 126

Table 7.8 Stages of content analysis and thematic development of the qualitative data relating to definitions of supervision...................... 130

Table 7.9 Comparison between SAS model concepts and the results of the empirical content analysis .......................................................... 132

Table 7.10 The number and percentage of participants, by professional grouping, who made mention of the SAS tasks ................................. 136

Table 7.11 Stages of content analysis and thematic development of the qualitative data relating to outcomes of supervision........................ 137

Table 7.12 An overview of the categories respondents identified as supervision outcomes and how these responses related to the SAS model tasks ................................................................................ 138

Table 7.13 The number and percentage of participants, by professional grouping, who made mention of the SAS supervision outcomes as well as the additional supervision processes of academic/technical knowledge and networking ............................... 140

Table 7.14 The number and percentage of participants, by professional grouping, distributed across delivery mode ..................................... 142

Table 8.1 Sample demographics by gender ..................................................... 153

Table 8.2 Survey distribution and response rates across professions............. 153

Table 8.3 Provides an overview of the questions asked and the scales employed for Study Two ................................................................... 155

Table 8.4 The number and percentage of how supervision was arranged ...... 162

Table 8.5 The number and percentage of how a supervisor was selected ...... 162

xi

Table 8.6 The number and percentage of supervision delivery mode. ............ 163

Table 8.7 The number and percentage of the regularity of supervision.......... 164

Table 8.8 The number and percentage of supervision-related payment options .............................................................................................. 164

Table 8.9 The number and percentage of the frequency of supervision.......... 165

Table 8.10 Stages of content analysis and thematic development of the qualitative data relating to definitions of supervision...................... 166

Table 8.11 Comparison between SAS model concepts and the results of the empirical content analysis .......................................................... 167

Table 8.12 The number and percentage of participants, by professional grouping, distributed across delivery mode ..................................... 170

Table 8.13 Descriptive statistics for supervision tasks by supervision delivery modes .................................................................................. 172

Table 8.14 Descriptive statistics for supervisee satisfaction with supervision by delivery mode ........................................................... 174

Table 8.15 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of supervision delivery mode and supervision tasks........................................................................ 175

Table 8.16 Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of counselling......................................................... 177

Table 8.17 Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of case conceptualisation....................................... 178

Table 8.18 Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of professional role ................................................ 179

Table 8.19 Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of emotional awareness ......................................... 180

Table 8.20 Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of self-evaluation ................................................... 181

Table 8.21 Matrix of statistically significant relationships found between supervision tasks and supervision functions as outlined in accordance with the SAS model ....................................................... 183

Table 9.1 An overview of the independent variables and their levels of discrimination................................................................................... 192

Table 9.2 Survey distribution and response rate ............................................. 193

Table 9.3 Provides an overview of the questions asked and the scales employed for Study Three ................................................................. 194

Table 9.4 The loadings of items of the factors in the oblique rotation............ 203

Table 9.5 Results from the factor analysis of the survey ................................. 204

Table 9.6 The intercorrelations between the factors in the survey ................. 205

Table 9.7 Tests of supervision arrangement, delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ................................................................... 207

xii

Table 9.8 Tests of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ........................................................................................................ 208

Table 9.9 Tests of delivery mode and supervision arrangement on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ........................................................................................................ 212

Table 9.10 The test of supervision delivery mode on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ..................... 215

Table 9.11 The test of task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ......................................... 216

Table 9.12 Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for hierarchical regression of predictor variables on manager ratings of supervisee performance ................................................... 218

Table 9.13 Correlation matrix of the hierarchical regression predictor variables on performance as rated by managers ............................. 219

Table 9.14 Beta weights, R squared, R squared change, F, and F change values for predictors on supervisee performance as rated by managers .......................................................................................... 220

Table 9.15 Significant correlations of overall work performance (improvement) 12 months after supervision commenced ................. 222

Table 10.1 Survey distribution and response rate ............................................. 233

Table 10.2 The loadings of items of the factors in the oblique rotation ............ 235

Table 10.3 The intercorrelations between the factors ....................................... 236

Table 10.4 Tests of delivery mode and frequency on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ..................... 238

Table 10.5 Tests of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ........................................................................................................ 239

Table 10.6 Tests of supervision arrangement and task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6......................................................................................... 243

Table 10.7 Tests of supervision arrangement and delivery mode on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ........................................................................................................ 246

Table 10.8 Tests of frequency on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6............................................................. 248

Table 10.9 Tests of task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ......................................... 249

Table 10.10 Tests of delivery mode on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ......................................... 250

Table 10.11 Tests of supervision arrangement on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6 ..................................... 251

xiii

Table 10.12 Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for hierarchical regression of predictor variables on manager ratings of supervisee performance ................................................... 252

Table 10.13 Correlation matrix of the hierarchical multiple regression predictor variables on performance as rated by managers ............. 253

Table 10.14 Beta weights, R squared, R squared change, F, and F change values for predictors on supervisee performance as rated by managers .......................................................................................... 254

Table 10.15 Significant correlations of overall work performance (improvement) 12 months after supervision commenced ................. 256

Table 11.1 Overview of the results found for the research questions and hypotheses for Study One and Study Two......................................... 263

Table 11.2 Comparison of hypotheses results for Study Three and Study Four .................................................................................................. 272

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.1 The System Approach to Supervision (SAS) model. ......................... 71

Figure 5.2 Supervision tasks and functions matrix. ............................................. 75

Figure 9.1 Displays the three-way interaction of supervision arrangement, delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction .................................................................... 207

Figure 9.2 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable of satisfaction ................ 209

Figure 9.3 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable of work skills ................. 209

Figure 9.4 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable of relationship skills ...... 210

Figure 9.5 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable of professional skills...... 210

Figure 9.6 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable emotional awareness/personal skills.................................................................. 211

Figure 9.7 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable ability to self-evaluate............................................................................................. 211

Figure 9.8 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and supervision arrangement on the dependent variable of satisfaction ........................................................................................ 213

Figure 9.9 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and supervision arrangement on the dependent variable of work skills.................................................................................................. 213

Figure 9.10 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and supervision arrangement on the dependent variable of relationship skills .............................................................................. 214

Figure 10.1 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and frequency on the dependent variable of professional skills.............. 238

Figure 10.2 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable of satisfaction ................ 240

Figure 10.3 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable of work skills ................. 240

Figure 10.4 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable of professional skills...... 241

Figure 10.5 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable of emotional awareness/personal skills.................................................................. 241

Figure 10.6 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variable of ability to self-evaluate............................................................................................. 242

xv

Figure 10.7 Displays the two-way interaction of supervision arrangement and task function match on the dependent variable of satisfaction........................................................................................ 243

Figure 10.8 Displays the two-way interaction of supervision arrangement and task function match on the dependent variable of work skills.................................................................................................. 244

Figure 10.9 Displays the two-way interaction of supervision arrangement and task function match on the dependent variable of relationship skills.............................................................................. 244

Figure 10.10 Displays the two-way interaction of supervision arrangement and task function match on the dependent variable of professional skills ............................................................................. 245

Figure 10.11 Displays the two-way interaction of supervision arrangement and delivery mode on the dependent variable of professional skills.................................................................................................. 246

Figure 10.12 Displays the two-way interaction of supervision arrangement and delivery mode on the dependent variable of academic/technical skills .................................................................. 247

Figure 10.13 Displays the two-way interaction of supervision arrangement and delivery mode on the dependent variable of ability to self-evaluate............................................................................................. 247

Figure 11.1 The System Approach to Supervision Enhanced (SAS-E) model. ............................................................................................... 279

Figure 11.2 Supervision tasks and functions enhanced matrix............................ 279

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A An Overview of Supervision Research over the Last Two Decades............................................................................................. 300

Appendix B Questionnaire 1................................................................................. 309

Appendix C Questionnaire 2................................................................................. 314

Appendix D Questionnaire 3................................................................................. 318

xvi

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

“The work contained in this thesis has not been previously

submitted to meet requirements for an award at this or any other

higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and

belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or

written by another person except where due reference is made.”

Signature

Date

xvii

This was a once in a lifetime opportunity for me to learn from brilliant academic minds

and gentle spirits.

Professor Wendy Patton

Dr. Fiona Spencer

&

Dr. Roland Simons

This was not and could never be my world.

I am in complete awe of you all.

xviii

However,

I wrote every word for you

Brian William Johnston

What lies behind us and what lies before us are but small matters compared to what lies

within us

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

How lucky I was to be born of you

xix

And to,

Gaye Johnston

You are my gentle landing… I carry your heart with me

I carry it in my heart I am never without it

Anywhere I go, you go And whatever is done by only me

Is your doing.

-E.E. Cummings

1

CHAPTER 1

Overview of the Thesis

Background

For most professions, supervision is viewed as an essential part of professional

development and competence (Dyche & Zayas, 2001; Page & Wosket, 2001). It is

perceived as an important process in developing the communication, knowledge,

technical skills, problem-solving ability, and values of a less experienced practitioner.

Despite the high usage of supervision within many professions, the assumption that

supervision provides effective outcomes for clients, and promotes best practice for

clinicians has remained largely untested. As Ung (2002) pointed out, “the fact that

supervision has been undertaken in a certain way for many years, does not automatically

make it ‘right’ or ‘useful’” (p. 101). Supervision research indicates that there is minimal

empirical evidence to support or refute these views. While some (McMahon & Patton,

2002; Segesten, 1993; Severinsson & Hallberg, 1996) argued that supervision is

beneficial for a supervisee's development, others (Kozlowska, Nunn, & Cousens, 1997;

Ladany, Lehrman-Waterman, Molinaro, & Wolgast, 1999; Vespia, Heckman-Stone, &

Delworth, 2002) have demonstrated that it can be an uncomfortable and relatively

unproductive process. The research that is available is inconsistent and in many cases

lacks the scientific rigor needed to give a reliable and valid assessment of the process of

supervision. This chapter will outline the rationale for a series of studies to

systematically evaluate the impact of professional supervision on professional practice.

There is minimal data available to comment on the changing practice of

supervision requirements within professional fields in the last decade in Australia and

internationally. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has not collected information on this

aspect of professional training. However, many professions are now emphasising the

importance of supervision more than ever. Professional bodies such as the Psychologists’

2

Board of Queensland and the Australian Institute of Radiography, have implemented

increasingly stringent guidelines to work towards ensuring a consistent level of

competence and credibility amongst their members (Australian Institute of Radiography,

2004; Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, 2005).

Some professions require supervision as part of full membership (for example,

the Chartered Professional Accountants of Australia, and the Australian Institute of

Radiography). In addition, a literature review revealed that within the last three years

there have been more than 100 research articles that have referred to the concept of

professional supervision in one form or another. Another search revealed that within the

last decade more than 30 books have been written about the supervision process (for

example, Campbell, 2000; Frawley-O’Dea & Sarnat, 2001; Holloway & Carroll, 1999;

McMahon & Patton, 2002).

While the last decade has seen an increase in research designed to investigate the

impact of supervision, it has predominantly focused on theoretical perspectives rather

than practical implications. It can be seen that the chances of arriving at a successful

outcome from the process of supervision in light of such varied and ambiguous

guidelines appear slim. Yet ironically, the perceived importance of supervision appears

to have grown over the last few years. For example, in the last five years more than 12

research papers have been written world-wide on the subject of supervision (Gatmon,

Jackson, Koshkarian, & Martos-Perry, 2001; Hart & Nance, 2003; Ladany, Walker, &

Melincoff, 2001; McMahon & Patton, 2001; Milne & James, 2002; O’Donovan, Dyck,

& Bain, 2001; Ogren, Apelman, & Klawitter, 2001; Ramos-Sanchez et al., 2002; Spence,

Wilson, Kavanagh, Strong, & Worral, 2001; Steward, Breland, & Neil, 2001; Vespia et

al., 2002; Wester, Vogel, & Archer, 2004). This is in comparison to the three years prior

where only six papers were published (Culbreth & Borders, 1998; Magnuson, Wilcoxen,

& Norem, 2000; McMahon & Patton, 2000; Ray & Altekruse, 2000; Scott, Ingram,

Vitanza, & Smith, 2000; Wheeler & King, 2000).

3

Of course, it is more difficult to measure the practical implications of supervision

as its nature and outcomes vary widely, resulting in complexities of research design and

varied application across a wide range of professions. This naturally makes it difficult to

compare and generalise results. In addition, the training requirements to become a

professional supervisor also vary by profession and in most Australian professions there

are no courses specifically designed to teach supervision. It is commonly assumed that

because one is a qualified professional in a field, he/she automatically has the knowledge

and skills required of a supervisor.

In short, there are four key limitations with current supervision research. First,

there is a lack of a consistent definition. Second, the research tends to not apply theory or

models to explain results. Third, supervision has rarely been empirically tested and most

supervision research is typically exploratory. Finally, there is no criterion-related

validity data available on supervision. In other words, we do not know if it is related to

real “on-the-job” improvements.

The present research program seeks to address these limitations by conducting a

number of qualitative and quantitative studies involving supervisors, supervisees and

work managers from a range of Australian professions. An exploration of how

supervisees and supervisors define supervision will be conducted in the first study. An

application of the SAS model will be used to identify different supervision delivery types

and key supervisor characteristics in the second study. The third study will assess

supervision effectiveness by comparing ratings of the supervision experience with

external ratings of supervisee performance. The final study will seek to replicate the

third study results to determine level of generalisability of the findings.

The following literature review will investigate, in more detail, (1) common

definitions of supervision, (2) common types and formats of supervision, (3)

supervision’s perceived importance and promotion in a range of professions, (4) a review

of the empirical literature on supervision effectiveness, (5) a critique of the supervision

theories and models, and (6) methodological issues. A number of primary questions and

4

research questions are presented. These are used to underpin the research program being

proposed.

The following provides an overview the thesis structure:

Chapter 2 describes how professional supervision is defined in the literature, the

types of supervision being practiced (e.g. group, individual), the supervision formats (via

universities or by private practitioners), and the associated limitations. Chapter 3

provides an overview of the promotion of supervision, for example, which professional

groups require supervision for professional registration and why, and the lack of training

for supervisors. Chapter 4 is focused on providing a review of the effectiveness and

ineffectiveness of professional supervision as reported in the literature. Chapter 5

provides a comprehensive review of the theories and models employed to explain the

professional supervision experience. While, it is typical to provide a theoretical review

prior to a discussion on the scientific impact of supervision on professional practice, the

aim of this thesis was to apply a model to the data. For this reason, the order of the

chapters has been adjusted. Chapter 6 is a methodological overview of the research

program and details research questions and hypotheses. Chapters 7, 8, 9 and 10 provide

the results for Studies One, Two, Three and Four respectively. Chapter 11 provides a

discussion of the results and major contributions to the supervision literature and field of

research.

5

CHAPTER 2

Understanding Professional Supervision

Chapter 2 provides the reader with an understanding of the fundamental

definition of supervision. It describes the complexities of measuring the definition

scientifically and explains how this problem has stemmed from its historical beginnings.

The chapter reviews the widespread indiscriminate use of the term supervision, the

varied components of supervision, the number of formats and types of supervision in

terms of process and the impact of supervisor characteristics. Finally, the limitations of

the current definitions employed in the literature are discussed.

Defining Supervision

The term supervision is hard to delineate because researchers have utilised a

wide range of definitions. The difficulty in establishing a precise and consistent

definition of supervision has occurred for a number of reasons. First, there is diversity

amongst professional groups as to the required length of supervision; for example, some

supervision periods are long-term (more than two years) and others are short-term (less

than one month). Second, methods of supervision differ; for example some take place in

a group environment while others occur on an individual basis. Third, supervision can be

conducted internally within a place of employment and/or it can be an external

arrangement organised outside of work time. Fourth, supervision can be a component of

a postgraduate degree and be provided by university staff. Fifth, supervision is highly

flexible and subjective; for example the goals of the supervision are often determined by

the individual and the supervisor depending on the individual's interests and training

needs. Sixth, supervisor styles can be diverse and thus the approaches of supervision will

vary. Seventh, supervision can take place via various media including

videoconferencing, via e-mail, on the telephone and in face-to-face (in vivo) situations.

Eighth, the construct of supervision is defined differently according to the application of

work being undertaken. Lastly, definitions of supervision rarely if ever include a

statement on the supervisees’ or supervisors’ level of satisfaction with the process

6

(Crago & Crago, 2002). This lack of consistency in application of the supervision

concept and its inherent flexibility has meant that it is difficult to give a general

understanding of what the term means. Interestingly, this problem became particularly

evident early in the 20th century with the inclusion of supervision within the non-medical

helping professions. This next section provides a brief historical perspective on the

development of “supervision.”

Historical Perspective of Supervision

Historically, supervision is a very old practice, dating back to the 17th and 18th

centuries in England. Supervision essentially came about within elite professional

(university-educated) groups to oversee the work of less experienced and/or less

educated supervisee’s work, particularly in the field of medicine (Grauel, 2002). Even in

those times, supervisees were required to pay for supervision, which consequently

evolved into three specific and clearly defined methods: “over-the-shoulder” supervision

or direct supervision; “on the premises” supervision or indirect supervision; and “remote

with monitoring” supervision or supervision by distance (p. 4). It was not until last

century that the term supervision became more complex to define, as a result of its

integration with the non-medical professions such as social workers and psychoanalysts.

“Each new, non-medical helping approach fashioned fresh connotations of professional

oversight” (p. 5). As will become evident in the next section, supervision is defined

differently depending on the profession.

Limitations of the Definition of Supervision

Essentially, “supervision is often conceptualized in structured and linear ways

such as models, approaches, frameworks or essential tasks” (Ung, 2002, p. 91). For

example, Itzhaky and Aloni (1996) defined supervision from both a developmental and

didactic perspective, stating “it is an interpersonal process in which a skilled person (the

supervisor) helps a less skilled person (the supervisee) to develop professional behaviour

and identity, in order to improve his/ her work” (p. 65). Inskipp and Proctor (1992) have

taken a more collaborative approach and defined supervision as

7

a working alliance between supervisor, worker and workers, in which the

worker can reflect on herself in her working situation by giving account

of her work and receiving feedback and, where appropriate, guidance and

appraisal. The object of the alliance is to maximize the competence of the

worker in providing a helping service. (p. 42)

In Holloway’s (1995) definition of supervision the emphasis is on its training

aspects:

The primary goal of supervision is the establishment of an ongoing

relationship in which the supervisor designs specific learning tasks and

teaching strategies related to the supervisee’s development as a

professional. In addition, the supervisor empowers the supervisee to enter

the profession by understanding skills, attitudes, and knowledge

demanded of the professional and guiding the relationship strategically to

facilitate the trainee’s achievement of a professional standard. (p. 250)

The difficulty in establishing a precise and consistent definition of supervision

has occurred for a number of reasons. First, definitions of supervision are usually

specifically developed to explain the practices and procedures of the supervision process

within a professional group. For example, supervision provided to those working in

rehabilitation will be defined differently from the supervision provided to those working

in school counselling. Rehabilitative supervision is defined as:

A relationship between an individual responsible for clinical and/or

administrative duties within the rehabilitation counselling profession

(rehabilitation counselling supervisor) and one or more individuals

(supervisees) working in that profession or involved in providing

rehabilitation services to clients of that profession. (Saunders & Peck,

2001, p. 21)

School counsellor supervision, however, is defined as: “(a) administrative-

focused on attendance, punctuality, staff relations, and outreach to parents; (b) program-

8

focused on program development, implementation, and coordination; and (c)

counselling- focused on enhancing clinical knowledge and skills” (Nelson & Johnson,

1999, p. 90).

There are three main limitations of the supervision definition identified as

follows:

The two specific definitions mentioned above are different in that the first

focuses on the relationship between supervisee and supervisor with an emphasis on

rehabilitative counselling, and the latter focuses on skills and knowledge obtained from

the supervision process without specifically describing who will be involved in the

process. Both incorporate the administrative function within the supervision process.

Research on supervision (Itzhaky, 2000; Jones, 1999; Nelson & Johnson, 1999;

Ross & Goh, 1993) has often been derived from post hoc methodology limiting the

scientific rigor of the term because it has been measured as a single concept with limited

psychometric properties and with limited theoretical explanation.

The difference between graduate supervision (for example, supervision provided

as part of a university course) and long-term professional supervision (provided by a

private practitioner) has rarely if ever been researched thereby making it impossible to

ascertain which form of supervision is more or less effective.

Summary of the Definitions of Supervision

On the surface, the term “supervision” is easy to grasp. However, its

conceptualisation across professions is inherently complicated and difficult to evaluate

scientifically. This has occurred for a few specific reasons. For example, the term is

used diversely, the process or method of supervision is not specific, and supervision is

provided in a variety of institutional and non-institutional environments. Due to these

complexities, researchers have the added difficulty of working out how to evaluate

supervision in a rigorous and scientifically valid way.

9

Common Types and Formats of Supervision Delivery

This section provides an overview of the different types of supervision; including

individual supervision, group supervision, supervision with multiple supervisors, peer

supervision, self-supervision and e-supervision (electronic supervision). Definitions of

each supervision type are given, as well as their strengths and weaknesses. Please refer

to Appendix A for an overall review of the professional supervision literature over the

last two decades.

Types of Supervision

Supervision is conducted in various ways, for example on a one-to-one basis, in

a group setting, with peers or coaches, or as part of an introspective/self-evaluative

process. Some professions see these arrangements as interchangeable whilst others make

important distinctions. Although individual face-to-face supervision is the norm, other

supervision experiences include small and large group supervision, supervision with

multiple supervisors, peer supervision, self-supervision and individual supervision

provided via telecommunication options (such as e-mail, telephone or teleconferencing).

To highlight the wide variety of supervision types, Saunders and Peck (2001)

pointed out:

Supervision in the rehabilitation counselling profession often involves

more than one-to-one supervision. For example, it may include

supervision of rehabilitation teams, or supervision occurring within

university practicum or internship courses. In addition, rehabilitation

counselling supervisees may not share the same professional identity as

their supervisor (rehabilitation nurses, substance abuse assessment

specialists) and the length of a supervisory relationship varies depending

on specific circumstances. (p. 20)

The following will describe each type of supervision and provide a brief

evaluation of each type.

10

Individual Supervision

“Supervision is frequently conceptualised as a one-on-one process” (McMahon

& Patton, 2002, p. 55), where a supervisee attends “one-on-one” supervisory sessions

with a supervisor. Ross and Goh (1993) presented individual supervision as the "direct,

one-to-one efforts on the part of your supervisor designed to help you improve your

professional skills as a school psychologist" (p. 70). For some professions, such as

psychology, professional boards mandate individual supervision as a formal requirement

of registration.

For example, the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland (2005) requires that

graduate psychologists, who are undertaking a two-year period of supervision, arrange a

minimum of fifty percent (50%) of their supervision sessions as individual, face-to-face

discussions with one supervisor. While the Board will allow supervisees to undertake

conjoint supervision that is, face-to-face supervision with an approved supervisor in

conjunction with one other conditionally registered supervisee, this can only account for

a maximum of forty percent (40%) of the entire supervision period (The Psychologists’

Board of Queensland, 2005).

Individual supervision is attractive to supervisees as it offers an environment

whereby a supervisee may feel more confident in sharing information about personal and

professional experiences and have more time with their supervisor to work on a case. In

addition, it alleviates the potential for argument in terms of interpretation between

experts in one field. On a practical level, it is generally easier to organise flexible

supervision times and locations.

On the downside, supervisees may be influenced by only one supervisor's values,

beliefs and attitudes to professional situations as they do not generally access the skills

and knowledge of other supervisors or learn from the experiences of other supervisees.

As such they may not feel as supported or known to their professional colleagues as

those supervisees who participate in group supervision. To overcome some of these

11

problems, group supervision is often regarded as a plausible alternative (McMahon &

Patton, 2002).

Group Supervision

As mentioned previously, most people commonly perceive supervision to take

place as a one-on-one process (McMahon & Patton, 2002). Despite this, some research

(Bernard & Goodyear, 1998) has indicated that group supervision is not as rare as first

thought. Group supervision will now be reviewed, definitions of group supervision will

be provided from recent literature, and the advantages and disadvantages of this

approach will be described.

Group supervision has rarely been scrutinised either descriptively or

scientifically, probably because there are so many forms of group supervision. To further

complicate the notion of diverse supervision types, the group supervision concept is also

made up of different forms of supervision. For example, one form of group supervision

can be where a supervisor supervises two or more supervisees. This means there can be

group supervision sessions with a small or large number of participants, or it can be

where two or more supervisors supervise a group of supervisees.

To help provide an understanding of the term “group supervision”, it will be

viewed from three different perspectives:

Group supervision is the regular meeting of a group of supervisees with a

designated supervisor, for the purpose of furthering their understanding

of themselves as clinicians, of the clients with whom they work, and/or

of service delivery in general, and who are aided in their endeavour in

their interaction with each other in the context of the group process.

(Bernard & Goodyear, 1998, p. 111)

Group supervision is a working alliance between a supervisor and several

counsellors in which each counsellor can regularly offer an account or

recording of her work, reflect on it, and receive feedback and where

appropriate guidance from her supervisor and her colleagues. The object

12

of this alliance is to enable each counsellor to gain in ethical competence,

confidence and creativity so as to give her best possible service to clients.

(Inskipp & Proctor, 1992, p. 72)

Christensen and Kline (2000) defined group supervision as:

the regular group meeting of group teaching (supervisees) with a

designated supervisor. The purpose of supervision was to further

supervisees' understanding of themselves as group leaders, to discuss

theories of group development and counselling, and to enhance

supervisees' group counselling skills. (p. 376)

Group supervision also allows supervisees to build on each other’s experiences

and is similar to that which occurs in peer supervision.

Essentially, group supervision is generally considered to be more cost-effective

and time-efficient than individual supervision sessions (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992;

Newman & Lovell, 1993). In addition, it gives supervisees the opportunity to meet and

to get to know other colleagues in their field, be exposed to different theoretical

perspectives and a broader range of skill acquisition via a variety of supervision

strategies, and to obtain a greater support network.

However, supervisees are given less time to present cases and depending on level

of experience, may not feel confident enough to discuss personal and professional issues

in front of more than one person. In addition, Bernard and Goodyear (1998) reported that

it is unknown how many participants are required for the optimum group supervision

session.

Supervision with Multiple Supervisors

Many professional boards, such as the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, the

Australian Institute of Radiography, and the Queensland Counsellors’ Association

(QCA) allow supervisees to be supervised by more than one supervisor for both practical

and skills development purposes. For example, the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland

permits the supervision of probationary interns by a supervisor or assistant supervisor

13

during individual and or group sessions (Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, 2005).

Generally the use of multiple supervisors implies that a supervisee will be contracted to

and attend supervisory sessions with more than one supervisor at different times

throughout the supervisory process.

The procurement of multiple supervisors has also been reflected in the literature.

For example, Roberts, Morotti, Herrick, and Tilbury (2001) defined supervision

as a formal, contractual relationship between university faculty and other

designated members of a specific profession, the term supervisors refers

to those who have appropriate degrees, licenses or certificates, and are

experienced to provide mentorship and directional instruction to

individuals desiring to become members of that profession. Such

supervision is conjoined between the university or college supervisor and

the designated site supervisor to better serve the individual being

supervised. (p. 208)

The obvious benefit of having more than one supervisor is the access to

knowledge and experience from different perspectives. In addition, this method also

offers more than one person’s evaluation of supervisee performance and quality of work.

However, problems can arise if supervisors disagree on supervision content and process

or if the supervisee is confronted with power struggles between junior and senior

supervisors (Roberts et al., 2001).

Peer Supervision/Coaching

Peer supervision/coaching is typically employed within the workplace

environment but is also applied in university settings. This form of supervision has many

names and has been commonly referred to as reciprocal mentoring and reciprocal peer

supervision (Hawken & Worrall, 2002). The difference is that: “the term ‘supervision’ is

used in the human service area while the term ‘mentoring’ has favour in business and

other arenas” (p. 43). For simplicity, this type of supervision will be referred to as “peer

supervision” in this thesis. This next section will provide definitions of peer supervision,

14

a comment on the lack of research in this area, a theoretical perspective and an

evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of this particular supervision process.

Peer supervision has been defined “as a process where there is mutual

involvement in encouraging and enhancing learning and development between two

peers, where peers are people of similar hierarchical status or who perceive themselves

as equal” (Beattie & McDougall, 1995, p. 3). Hawkin and Worrall (1992) extend on this

definition with the view of peer supervision as:

A structured, reciprocal learning relationship between two peers (two or

three) who wish to work together, where trust, support and challenge

encourage honesty, in-depth reflection and constructive analysis on

practice and related personal and contextual issues, enhancing self-

confidence, personal and professional learning, and promoting best

practice. (p. 48)

Internet searches revealed that a number of Australian organisations (for

example, The Commonwealth Bank, n.d., para. 9; Association for Children with a

Disability, n.d., para. 9) are implementing formal and informal peer supervision

approaches. Some authors (Robbins, 1991; Sullivan & Glanz, 1999) suggest that there

are indications of peer supervision being of value, however, the paucity of research on

peer supervision makes it difficult to provide a thorough evaluation of its usefulness.

From a theoretical perspective, peer supervision has some support in the

literature. For example, Bowman and McCormick (2000) argued that Vygotsky's (1978)

theories support the tenets of peer supervision.

Vygotsky viewed development as a social process, contending that

construction of meaning occurs first as exchanges between individuals.

Through the social interaction of discussion, active learning evolves.

Each participant interprets, transforms, and internalizes new knowledge

as a result of collective thinking. (p. 256)

15

Based on this theory, there appear to be a number of benefits of implementing

peer supervision over other forms.

First, researchers (Kram & Isabella, 1985) found that peer supervision helped the

newcomer to “establish a role within the organisation, learn the ropes, and prepare for

advancement” (p. 111). Second, it provided opportunities to refine professional skills

through immediate feedback and through experimentation with alternate strategies as a

result of the informal evaluation. Third, during peer supervision, supervisees collaborate

to develop a shared language, and participate in forums to test new ideas about their

profession (Hawken & Worrall, 2002). Fourth, peer supervision often results in less

dependency on “expert” supervisors, and subsequently increases their skills and taking

responsibility for assessing their skills on an ongoing basis, for example, continuous

learning (Benshoff, 1992, p. 2). Fifth, from an organisational perspective, peer

supervision is valued highly, particularly when supervision by senior management is not

possible, because it can “address both organisational needs for team work and greater

collaboration, and individual needs for support” (Holbeche, 1996, para. 8). Finally peer

supervision is a practical option when other supervision resources (such as clinical

supervisors) are unavailable/inaccessible (Remley, Benshoff, & Mowbray, 1987).

While there are many benefits to the peer supervision approach, Hawken and

Worrall (2002) warn of some of the pitfalls, particularly if peer supervision becomes less

structured and rule-bound over time. These include inappropriate self-disclosures rather

than remaining in the assigned role; behaving sympathetically rather than remaining

objective; inviting poor practice by not challenging inappropriate values and actions; and

finally, possibly exploiting the supervision relationship by rescheduling sessions.

Overall, Hawken and Worrall (2002) concluded that peer supervision is “one

way of accessing the wisdom of others, and ourselves, in a cooperative manner, fitting

for the networking climate of the 21st century” (p. 52). An adjunct to the range of

supervision types might be self-supervision. This type of supervision is explained briefly

next.

16

Self-Supervision

The process of self-supervision has been broadly discussed by a number of

researchers (Littrell, Lee-Borden, & Lorenz, 1979; Lowe & Guy, 2002) as a possible

component of the supervision process but not as the sole one. Bramley (1996) for

instance, defined self-supervision as

the private and preliminary digesting of a case and her [sic] handling of

it, by the supervisee, after which she [sic] is ready to progress to more

advanced work on the patient with her supervisor; or, feeling satisfied

with the outcome of self-supervision she takes another, more problematic

patient instead. (p. 42)

Essentially, self-supervision encourages the supervisee to be proactive in their

approach to supervision in that they plan for the session; develop their own goals and

outcomes; and self-reflect on their actions. As with peer supervision, self-supervision

has rarely if ever been scientifically tested for effectiveness. For example, a recent

literature search revealed that only one research paper (Dennin & Ellis, 2003) has been

published on this subject. Lowe (2000) believes this lack of interest has occurred

because “self-supervision has been typically perceived as an informal, unsystematic and

unprofessional process, rather like trying to help oneself in therapy” (p. 67).

Lowe (2002) argued vehemently that the development of self-supervision

actually plays a vital part within and outside of required supervisory process/method,

particularly in enhancing the supervisees’ insight into when and what supervision they

might require during their career. In addition, Lowe proposed that self-supervision is

better than no supervision at all.

The obvious difficulty with the idea of self-supervision is the misconception that

this form of supervision is a complete “method” of supervision, and the assumption that

professionals have the personal resources to learn, grow and challenge themselves

individually (Lowe, 2002). In addition, another problem with employing this form of

17

supervision solely is the reliance on an individual’s ability to determine if and when they

might require external supervision with particular issues and cases.

E-Supervision

The Psychologists’ Board of Queensland (2005) promotes the utilisation of

alternative methods of supervision including “videoconferencing, telephone, electronic

mail, and facsimile” (p. 11) where the supervisor and or supervisee cannot access other

facilities. Their approval of using such methods is based on strict guidelines; electronic

options are only supported when there are not alternative options and there are hour

restrictions. For example, supervision in the format of e-mail, phone or fax can only be

approved for up to thirty hours of the total supervision program.

Stebnicki and Glover (2001) devised a preliminary study to investigate the

advantages and limitations of e-supervision. E-supervision was defined as clinical

supervision using e-mail. In this exploratory study, e-mail and face-to-face supervision

were developed for a small number of rehabilitation counselling master students (n = 5)

in America. The study was purely anecdotal and there was no statistical comparison

between e-supervision and other forms of supervision. The supervisees utilised the e-

supervision method to discuss any practicum issues, organisation issues, client and/or

therapy issues, or personal issues related to their practicum. They were asked to e-mail at

least once per week in addition to attending group and individual supervision sessions.

The researchers examined 158 supervisee e-mails via a constant comparative qualitative

method to determine a number of themes and trends. In addition, an independent

researcher checked for any discrepant data to ensure the findings were valid. Results

indicated that supervisees favoured ongoing access to their supervisor via e-mail. It

appears that a working alliance was further enhanced as it was easier for the supervisor

to get to know the supervisees’ interpersonal skills and social qualities. It seems that

supervisees spent much time and thought in composing their “journal-entry” type e-mails

which resulted in supervisors being more prepared for supervision and taking on a

consultative role rather than a teaching role. Other results suggested that supervisors

18

were able to provide feedback more efficiently and effectively which in turn, was

influential in shaping the supervisees’ thoughts and behaviour. Also students preferred

the immediate feedback particularly on critical issues. Lastly, the e-mail data indicated

that supervisors were able to assess a supervisee’s personal development and

competence during the supervision.

This study by Stebnicki and Glover (2001) appears to be the first of its kind to

investigate e-supervision. The results tend to suggest this method is a valuable adjunct to

the traditional forms of supervision (individual and/or group), a finding supported by

McMahon (2002). At this stage, it is not possible to say whether or not e-supervision

alone will suffice as the sole method of supervision. There are a few major limitations of

e-mail supervision including the inability to assess non-verbal communication and the

potential problems associated with electronic security. On a practical level, e-supervision

might increase supervisor workloads. The authors suggested that further research should

be aimed at comparing e-supervision with individual and group supervision to determine

individual and combined effectiveness of these supervision formats. It is also be

important to determine if this format works effectively for other professions, for example

psychology and accountancy.

The Effectiveness of Supervision Types

A comprehensive literature search revealed that there is a small amount of

evidence suggesting that some types of supervision are more effective than others. Most

research evaluating the effectiveness of different types of supervision are comparisons of

individual versus group supervision, which will be discussed further below. There

appears to be no studies that the researcher has found that have scientifically investigated

the effectiveness of supervision with multiple supervisors, supervision via peer

coaching/mentoring or self-supervision. Only one study has investigated the

effectiveness of e-supervision. Consequently, there are no studies that compare the

effectiveness of these approaches. While we know that all of these approaches are

19

currently being practised, we have little information to tell us if these approaches work

or if a combination of approaches should be utilised for the best results.

Summary

There are a myriad of supervision types currently being employed within

supervision frameworks within Australia. These types include: individual supervision,

group supervision, supervision with multiple supervisors, peer supervision, self-

supervision and e-supervision, or a combination of these types. While each type has

advantages and disadvantages, there is very little research available to indicate the

effectiveness of these approaches. There is, however, some very small evidence (Ray &

Altekruse, 2000) to suggest that individual supervision is preferred over group

supervision by counsellor education supervisees. This research however has not been

replicated. Many questions still remain in terms of determining whether or not a

combination of approaches is better than one or whether or not a certain type should be

applied depending on the supervisee’s circumstances or stage of development.

Expanding further on the idiosyncratic nature of supervision, attention will now be given

to varying formats of supervision including internal and external supervision for students

and practicing professionals.

Supervision Formats

Various formats of supervision have been implemented within the same

profession, and across professions. In some organisations supervision is organised

internally whereas others encourage external supervision arrangements, which are

usually paid for by the employee. Some forms of professional supervision are conducted

within a university environment whereas other professional supervision is conducted

with private practitioners. Essentially, there are two formats of supervision: internal

(meaning that provided by the university via coursework programs or via employment

programs) and external (whereby supervision is provided by someone external to work

and/or study institutions). This next section provides an overview of supervision

20

provided internally by universities and organisations and supervision provided externally

by private practitioners.

Internal Supervision

Supervision within a university setting. Australian universities provide and

require some form of internal supervision at postgraduate level. Typically, a

postgraduate student’s professional practice is observed, evaluated and developed by

faculty staff member/s. Those supervisees' who undertake supervision in a university

setting are typically provided with a number of benefits. These advantages can include

access to the latest research in terms of theory and practise and psychometric tests, to

more than one expert in a variety of fields, to the latest technology and facilities, and to

supervision by professionals who must follow university supervision recommendations

in addition to their professional body's supervision recommendations. However,

university supervision can also mean restrictions in that it could be provided with limited

practical experience or outdated practice, for example, someone who has not practised

for a long period of time. In addition, it may not always be possible to choose a

supervisor but rather have one assigned. The allocated supervisor may not have an

interest in supervision but have to do it as part of their employment obligations and

therefore may not be committed to the process (Power & Perry, 2002). While

postgraduate students in many fields are required to undertake supervision internally

within the University setting, other graduates who are not pursuing a postgraduate

qualification typically undertake supervision with private practitioners or participate in

supervision provided by their workplaces (referred to as external supervision).

Supervision within an organisation. The concept of supervision being provided

“in-house” has been a typical arrangement in the fields of counselling and social work

where supervision has been perceived as an organisational activity for many decades

(Ung, 2002). Interestingly, supervision for other professional groups (e.g., psychologists,

radiographers, and accountants) is now also being provided either externally or internally

in a number of industrial/organisational settings, but means different things to different

21

people and different organisations. For example, some organisations encourage

supervision, and are aware of the link between professional and personal development

and organisational productivity. Many organisations in Australia, both government and

non-government, offer internship programs for professional staff whereby they provide

on-the-job supervision or opportunities for supervision. Examples of organisations that

offer internship programs include the Queensland Health Service, Law Firms and the

Australian Job Network.

The Queensland Health Service offers an internal supervision structure for

conditionally registered psychologists. Essentially, conditionally registered employees

are supervised for free and on work-time by more experienced psychologists who are

registered as supervisors with the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland. Interestingly, the

offer of free supervision to staff by their workplaces (outside of a medical type of

organisation) is a relatively new concept particularly in the field of psychology.

Not all organisations place such an importance on the supervision process and/or

may not have the resources to promote supervision. This might be because many staff

both in management and non-management roles do not always have a clear

understanding of the role, type and format of the supervision process. For example,

Copeland (1998) argued that United Kingdom organisations in the field of helping others

are yet to understand the nature of counselling supervision and described the educating

of these organisations in the nature of supervision as a very difficult task. She found that

there was an increasing need for counsellors and supervisors to educate their managers

about the supervisory process.

Internal workplace supervision has a number of benefits. First, it provides the

ability for the “in-house” supervisor to monitor the quality of the service being provided

by the supervisee. Second, the supervisor will have a contextual framework of the

organisation to work with within the supervision process. Third, on a practical level, an

in-house supervisor is usually more accessible and available than an external supervisor.

However, as pointed out by Ung (2002), there are as many inherent problems with this

22

type of supervision as there are benefits. First, as with university provided supervision,

the choice of supervisor might be limited within a workplace. Second, supervision might

be influenced and consequently restricted by the underlying power, authority and

political nature of the organisation. Third, the multiple roles required to be played out by

the supervisor and supervisee within an organisational context (such as manager,

supervisor, employee etc.) could become complicated due to competing and

contradictory demands. Lastly, the organisation supervisor might not have had formal

training, access to the latest research, knowledge or skills to provide good supervision

but rather, have learned their supervisory skills “on-the-job and via trial and error” (Ung,

2002, p. 96).

External Supervision

Supervision provided by private practitioners. Graduate students who wish to

practice in their desired fields and are required by law or their governing professional

bodies to undertake a period of supervision, often do so by hiring supervision time from

private practitioners. Most private practitioners who provide supervision to graduates are

not university staff or necessarily associated with the university but rather are those

people working within the profession that offer to supervise students usually for a

financial fee.

Supervisees who procure supervision from private practitioners are generally

considered able to obtain practical assistance from practitioners with a range of real-life

experiences. In addition, via this process, the supervisee has a greater freedom in

choosing a supervisor who could be more suited to the supervisee’s theoretical and

therapeutic orientation. While private practitioners do not always have the opportunity to

provide their supervisees with practice and can incur limited monitoring opportunities,

they can role-play and conduct discussions about cases to gauge supervisees' level of

knowledge and skill.

One of the greatest disadvantages of this format is that private practitioners

might not always be up-to-date or have access to the latest research in comparison to

23

those professionals practising within the university environment. In addition, the

structure of the private practitioners’ supervision sessions cannot be as easily monitored

or evaluated as those provided by university staff which might result in a lack of

accountability. The supervision is usually conducted via a “user pay” situation whereby

the supervisee pays for the supervision. As this can be a very costly transaction, the

frequency of the supervision might be limited due to funding problems. Finally, a

possible problem with supervision provided by private practitioners is the ease in which

the session could turn into therapy rather than supervision for the supervisee; commonly

referred to as “disguised therapy” as private practitioners are not subjected to University

quality assurance frameworks (Ung, 2002, p. 100).

Summary

It has been shown that different reasons for supervision are likely to be linked to

different supervision arrangements. The new psychologist looking for full membership

of a professional association may pay for one-to-one supervision as a means of entry,

whilst, a new accountant may be offered internal supervision in his/her place of

employment as a means of protecting him/herself and the firm from legal criticism. As

with the different types of supervision, there is limited scientific information available to

explain the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of supervision formats. For example, there

has rarely, if ever, been an investigation comparing the effectiveness of supervision

provided in a university setting to that offered by practitioners in external settings. We

have limited knowledge on whether or not supervision provided by a workplace is better

or not than other forms of supervision. This is surprising given that these different

formats have been implemented for a very long period of time and endorsed by many

professional boards, for example, the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland and the

Queensland Counsellors’ Association. The next chapter will provide further insight into

the importance placed on supervision by professional boards/associations.

24

CHAPTER 3

The Importance and Promotion of Professional Supervision

This chapter provides a response to some general questions in relation to the

process of professional supervision, for example, who requires supervision, why

supervision is more important now than previously, how supervision is being promoted

and the need for supervision training.

Who Requires Supervision?

Most professionals now undertake some form of supervised practice before being

recognised as competent within their field of expertise. A profession is defined as: The

body of persons engaged in an occupation (Macquarie Dictionary, 1992) and some of

those professions that require a period of supervised practice include: psychology,

counselling, accountancy, social work, radiography, law, medicine and nursing. Many

professional bodies who promote the use of supervision do not provide any guidelines on

how supervision should be developed, implemented or evaluated. These bodies include:

Queensland Law Society (Julie Mathers, personal communication, 21 February, 2002),

the Australian Medical Association Queensland (AMAQ, personal communication, 18

February, 2002), the Board of Professional Engineers (Denis Ward, personal

communication, 20 February, 2002) and the Queensland Nursing Council (Helen

Baguley, personal communication, 21 February, 2002).

The implementation of supervision requirements is varied. The following

example highlights the difference in requirements between psychologists and

accountants. The two groups were chosen specifically to compare the difference between

a health profession and a business profession. It is acknowledged that the Australian

Association of Social Workers (2000), the Queensland Counsellors’ Association (2003)

and the Australian Institute of Radiography (2004) have also developed comprehensive

supervision guidelines (refer to Table 3.1, p.33 for further information).

To become a registered psychologist in the state of Queensland, a graduate must

complete a four-year accredited course in psychology and then undertake either a two-

25

year program of supervision, which will include at least 100 hours of documented formal

supervision consultations and at least 1600 hours of documented professional practice, or

complete a postgraduate qualification that will also include supervision components

(Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, 2005). To become a full member of the CPA

(Chartered Professional Accountants), graduates are required to successfully complete

the CPA Program and demonstrate three years supervised or mentored practical

experience in accounting and/or finance and/or business advice. The minimum

requirement of supervision for a CPA student is approximately one hour every two

months. While there may be differences in time requirements of supervision, profession

bodies that oversee the implementation of this process are consistently ambiguous in

providing guidelines for both supervisors and supervisees to follow. They commonly

present descriptive rather than theoretical frameworks from which one is to organise and

make sense of the supervision process.

Further there appears to be a lack of instruction on how to conduct supervision.

For example, The Chartered Professional Accountants of Australia state

The CPA Practical Experience Mentor Program (the 'Mentor Program')

aims to provide a comprehensive framework to assist in ensuring quality

work experience. Through this program, CPA Australia's long term goal

is the development of highly qualified, highly employable professionals

valued for their skills and commitment to the field of accounting, finance

and business advice. (CPA Online, 2004, para. 1)

The Chartered Professional Accountants of Australia Board does not specify a

best practice model on how to supervise/mentor associates to achieve these outcomes.

Instead, it appears to make the assumption that a professional who has had five years

work experience at full CPA, FCPA or equivalent body status within a relevant field of

employment is qualified to assist an associate to meet these outcomes.

The Psychologists’ Board of Queensland provides a descriptive view rather than

a theoretical framework of the supervision for supervisees to follow. For example, the

26

Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, in regards to the content of the supervision, advises

that the supervisee should list all subject areas and themes that they are interested in

pursuing (including therapeutic practices, orientations and approaches, specific

therapeutic models, specific authors and fields, and disciplines within psychology etc.).

If interests are in psychotherapy, psychologists are asked to specify a certain approach to

counselling. If a psychologist is in organisational psychology, they may wish to

nominate specific models of evaluation, performance evaluation or strategic planning.

Similarly the psychologist may specify a discipline in psychology (e.g.,

neuropsychology, forensic etc). Psychologists are asked to list as many interest areas as

they like; while they will not be required to cover them all (Psychologists’ Board of

Queensland, 2005). Although this documentation has been recently updated (2005) and

to its credit provides many more guidelines with regards to how supervisees can meet the

required competencies as well as developing a compulsory training program for

supervisors, nowhere does the Board attempt to present a best practice model for

supervision.

The Importance of Supervision

There are a number of reasons why supervision is becoming an important aspect

of professional training. Essentially, these reasons fall into five broad categories:

professional accountability; public awareness; professional competence and

development; networking; and multicultural issues.

First, there is the impact of professional accountability and the changing legal

and ethical obligations and responsibilities of professional practice. It is the supervisor's

responsibility to ensure that the supervisee understands and applies the legislation

associated with their profession (Campbell, 2000). In addition, the supervisor is

responsible for defining ethical principals and discussing ethical dilemmas (Campbell).

The following two examples are used to highlight legislative requirements and ethical

dilemmas often faced by the psychological profession and are essential discussion points

within the supervision process.

27

1. Professional Accountability – an example of Legal Competence.

A psychologist is required under the principle of a duty of care to ensure that

when dealing with a suicidal client, they have undertaken a thorough and specific

assessment of risk, and have arranged appropriate psychological, medical, psychiatric

and/or social care, and community response. A failure to do so may constitute

professional negligence (Australian Psychological Society, 2001).

2. Professional Accountability – an example of Professional Competence.

A psychologist in private practice is confronted by the parents of a four-

year-old, wanting to know if she is gifted. The psychologist has been

given a kindergarten report stating that child is reading and doing

mathematics at several years above her age. The parents want their

daughter tested so that they can hand the report over to the school that

she will be attending next year. (Verbyla, 2002, p. 19)

The ethical issues surrounding this typical scenario include the following: the

issues surrounding labelling a child of this age group and the expectations of the parents

and school; considering what type of data should be collected; what tests and norming

considerations should be employed; giving the parents/school an IQ score or confidence

interval; and what would happen if the school could not offer extra resources (Verbyla,

p. 19).

Second, another reason why supervision is becoming more important is that the

general public is increasingly becoming aware of and gaining more knowledge about

what they should and can expect of professional providers and services. The supervisor

is responsible for protecting the clients/customers, employees and supervisees whilst the

supervisee learns professional tasks and roles.

For example in psychology, the supervisor is accountable to the professional

Board for ensuring that supervision is provided within the requirements of the

Psychologists’ Registration Act 2001 and the Board’s Guidelines for Supervised Practice

Program. This means, for example, that a supervisor must assess a supervisee’s training

28

and development needs and identify strategies to meet those needs; the supervisor must

inform a supervisee of areas of knowledge and skills that require special attention and

development; the supervisor must contribute to the supervisee’s Record of Practice and

Record of Supervision via evaluation processes; and the supervisor must inform the

supervisee of any concerns they have with their practice or progress with supervision

(Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, 2005).

A third commonly cited reason for supervision is the development of

professional competence. For example, supervision assists the supervisee to continue to

learn and to develop knowledge and skills in their area of expertise. As an instance of

this, the supervisor is to gain an awareness of the supervisee's strengths and weaknesses

and help them develop, on an individual basis, the knowledge and skills they need to be

professionally competent (Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, 2005).

In addition, the supervision processes are often encouraged as a mechanism for

promoting professional development. Professional development is a crucial part of

supervisees’ development in that it allows them another avenue in which to learn about

their field. Professional development is commonly described as a process of learning and

keeping abreast of one's area of expertise (Australian Human Resource Institute, 2005).

The principal purposes of professional development are to optimise an individual’s

quality of working life and to achieve excellence by enhancing and supporting the

existing strengths and potential contributions of the individual.

Fourth, as part of the supervision process, supervisors should ensure

opportunities for networking so that supervisees participate in activities such as

conferences that will contribute to the supervisees’ development and growth as a

practitioner. The supervision process can also play a role in helping the supervisee to

develop contacts within their profession and to develop a network with other

professionals, both of which can lead to future employment and research possibilities

and for developing knowledge and skills in areas unknown or unfamiliar.

29

Finally, it is suggested that supervision provide an insight into multicultural

differences and requirements for professional competence in administering appropriate

and effective services to people of difficult cultures. The supervisor plays a role in

helping the supervisee to work through these aspects of service and to develop

appropriate strategies to assist customers/clients from diverse backgrounds. Australia’s

greater awareness of multi-cultural issues, our changing demographics and growing role

in the Asia Pacific region are all issues that should be reflected on as part of the

supervision process.

In summary, there are many reasons why supervision is promoted in different

professions; the above examples demonstrate a range of reasons associated with

psychology. Specifically, these reasons included professional accountability; public

awareness; professional competence and development; networking and multicultural

issues. Most of these issues also contribute to why other professional groups have

institutionalised supervision as a core component of professional training.

The Promotion of Supervision

A myriad of professional boards operating in Australia and internationally have

enforced a compulsory supervision period for less experienced practitioners and/or new

graduates in order for them to obtain membership to their professional body.

Interestingly, most of these boards have instituted directives for supervisees to adopt in

order to fulfill the requirements of membership. Yet rarely do these Boards promote in

their member rules, policy documents, on their websites or in their registration kits, an

appropriate rationalisation for the benefits of undergoing what is often considered to be

long-term and expensive training. For example, the Queensland Counselling

Association’s (2003) Guidelines for the Completion of Supervisors’ Report (n.d., para.

1) stated the following perspective:

Supervision is a formal, collaborative process in which case material

from the Supervisee’s own practice experience is reflected upon.

Counselling supervision is different from line management. It is a

30

professional exchange designed to support the counsellor’s emotional

wellbeing and encourage ongoing professional development. It supports

clients indirectly through highlighting awareness of ethics and practice

options. The focus of supervision is neither therapy nor training for the

counsellor, but within limits, both may be present. Supervision is the

forum for the discussion of otherwise confidential material to build new

possibilities for practice.

Similarly, the Australian Institute of Radiography website (2004, para. 9)

provided the following rationale for their graduates to undergo a Professional

Development Year (PDY): “To develop future professional goals and to be assisted in

achieving those goals through gaining knowledge and practice within a structured

process taught by professionals in the field of Radiography.”

Generally, there are two main reasons why practitioners are encouraged to

undertake periods of supervision, that is, for professional development and personal

development. As shown, supervision is commonly promoted as a form of professional

development and often neglects to identify the personal growth aspect of supervision.

For example, it is the general perception that supervisory sessions provide a supervisee

with the opportunity to further develop their understanding of relevant theory and

concepts; to apply this knowledge, using a variety of strategies, to realistic

examples/situations; and to evaluate and make changes depending on level of

effectiveness/usefulness all within the guidelines of a professional code of ethics and the

advice of an experienced practitioner. The other important aspect of supervision is the

personal development of the supervisee. It is assumed that the supervision situation is

conducive to providing a safe, confidential and respectful environment whereby the

supervisee will be encouraged to grow personally. It is a time in which new practitioners

are able to gain greater insight into their own beliefs, values, attitudes, emotions and

behaviours and how these factors impact on their professional practice. Both self-

evaluation and feedback from the supervisor is assumed to help guide a supervisee to

31

gain a greater awareness of how to operate on a psychological level, its impact on

relations with others, and to develop strategies to counteract personal influences.

Whether or not a supervisee has the opportunity to develop both professionally

and personally in the supervision process is not a straightforward process and is

potentially dependent on a number of factors. Such factors that influence personal and

professional growth might include the strength of supervisory relationship, the

supervisor’s professional experience and competency, the supervisee’s experience, the

supervisor’s and supervisee’s personal characteristics and possible organisational

constraints. Furthermore, a supervisee’s personal development needs may not always

match professional development needs and one may be given more preference over the

other. While Boards may promote personal and professional development as the main

benefits of supervision, there is little scientific evidence to support or refute such claims.

Given the complexity of the supervision process and the lack of data available to provide

insight into how this much proclaimed training framework advantages a less experienced

professional, it seems contradictory for Professional Bodies, particularly those of the

scientific community, to market it as a “necessary requirement” of the trade.

The requirements of supervision for new practitioners are dependent on the type

of profession and the individual professional body they are affiliated with (refer to Table

3.1). This Table illustrates the differences in supervision requirements of various

professional bodies.

32

Table 3.1

Supervision requirements across a number of professions

Profession Minimum Supervision Hours

Hours of Supervised Practice

Supervisory Experience

Chartered Professional Accountants (2004)

Minimum requirement is approximately one hour every two months over a three-year period.

Not specified. Be of CPA or FCPA status, or a full voting right member of one of the equivalent professional bodies. Have five years work experience in a relevant field of employment as a CPA or equivalent. Be a member in good standing of their respective professional body. Have previous experience in mentoring.

Psychologists’ Board of Queensland (2005)

100 hours over a two -year period.

1600 hours Registered Psychologist with at least two years experience.

Queensland Counsellors’ Association (2003)

50 hours. 1000 hours Knowledgeable of counselling supervision, either through formal qualifications or continuing education; have substantive experience of being supervised in his/her own practice of counselling and be committed to on-going professional development in the specialty of supervision.

Australian Association of Social Workers (2000)

Must undertake two field placements in two practice settings during their degree equivalent to 980 hours. No placement can be shorter than 40 days.

Two hours of supervision per 35 hours.

Field educators must be qualified social workers with a minimum of two years full-time experience who demonstrate a commitment to professional education. Individual or group supervision is acceptable.

The Australian Institute of Radiography (2004)

Not specified, supervisees are required to undertake assessment processes at 24 and 48 weeks.

Professional Development year following graduation or 48 weeks of full-time practice.

A clinical supervisor will hold a Statement of Accreditation or its equivalent, issued by AIR (Australian Institute of Radiography).

Both the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland and the Queensland Counsellors’

Association are flexible in terms of offering a range of options that will enable

registration with the desired Board. The Psychologists’ Board of Queensland (PBQ)

requirements were discussed previously. Those practitioners wishing to become a

33

member of the Queensland Counsellors’ Association (QCA) can apply for membership

depending on category (such as: Fellow; Member; Associate; and Affiliate). There are

different requirements that must be met for each category, but generally members are

required to have undertaken at least two years of full-time undergraduate training and

completed, or have a contract to complete, one thousand hours of client-related work

(includes: counselling, group facilitation, supervision of counsellors and counselling

education at the level of courses approved for membership), and have undertaken, or are

to undertake, fifty hours of supervision.

While the PBQ does not offer a definition of supervision it does present a range

of supervision goals which include: educating and promoting ethical and professional

standards of conduct; protecting clients, employers and supervisees whilst learning

professional tasks and roles; assisting supervisees to apply their professional knowledge

in current work situations; supporting professional development in ways that will

increase their effectiveness as psychologists; and ensuring all registered psychologists

have demonstrated specified core professional competencies. The QCA, however,

defines counselling supervision as “an interactive process whereby an experienced and

qualified practitioner (the supervisor) in the counselling profession, facilitates and

promotes the professional development of another practitioner (the supervisee). The

exploration and review of the practice of counselling is central to the supervisory

process” (Queensland Counsellors’ Association, 2004).

The PBQ generally requires that the supervisee undertake supervision with a

psychologist who is fully registered with the Board and who has gained a minimum of

two years of professional experience after meeting the requirements for full registration.

They also recommend that the supervisor should have experience in the supervisee's

field of work or professional activity; has passed the STAP (Supervisor Training and

Accreditation Program) and be locally accessible in terms of time and traveling distance.

The QCA states that the supervisor must be knowledgeable about the methods and

techniques of counselling supervision, either through formal qualifications or continuing

34

education; have substantive experience of being supervised in his/her own practice of

counselling and be committed to on-going professional development in the specialty of

supervision. They also require that supervisors are competent and knowledgeable about

what constitutes legal, ethical, and professionally appropriate practices in the counselling

profession.

Both Boards/Associations deem that it is the new practitioner’s responsibility to

find a suitable supervisor, and to organise appropriate contractual arrangements. The

QCA Board does not require individual supervisors to undergo any formal type of

supervision training whereas the PBQ requires that supervisors undertake supervision

training through the Board. Neither the PBQ nor the QCA offer a valid and/or reliable

evaluation assessment tool, rather the PBQ provides a statement of competencies to be

completed when the new practitioner completes his/her required period of supervision.

In addition, neither Boards/Associations suggests an appropriate fee level for supervision

and thus the fee for supervision is variable and negotiated between the supervisor and

supervisee.

Similar to the differences outlined between the PBQ and the QCA, there is much

diversity in the eligibility requirements for membership of other professional bodies

representing a range of professions. Australian professions that require new practitioners

to undertake a supervision period in order to become eligible for membership with their

respective professional body include accountants, lawyers, teachers, engineers, medical

doctors, nurses, occupational therapists, radiographers, psychologists, and counsellors.

Every professional body within these professions outlines their own requirements for

supervision. Therefore, the term “supervision” remains difficult to define. Despite the

growing importance of supervision, there are very few policies and procedures for the

training of supervisors.

Lack of Training for Supervisors

As evidenced in the preceding sections of this literature review, many

professional graduates within Australia are required to partake in some form of

35

supervision to legally practice within their profession. Despite this, McMahon and Patton

(2002) argued that although many researchers in the field of supervision perceive it to be

a profession in itself, untrained professionals commonly provide this service to unaware

graduates. Bernard and Goodyear (1998) suggested that despite claims that supervision

is a profession in its own right, untrained/unqualified professionals have commonly

provided it. Grover (2002) found that for allied health professionals “in general, most

supervisors gain their skills as a supervisor on the job and have little education or

preparation for the role” (p. 276). In addition, Schofield and Pelling (2002) pointed out

that we rarely ask what novice supervisors need to know to be good/effective supervisors

rather than relying on the perception of colleagues as to whether they view a peer to be

good or not. Recently, there has been a move by the Health Registration Boards within

Australia to formalise the supervision process and to introduce accredited training for

supervisors.

The Psychologists’ Board of Queensland (2005) has introduced an accredited

supervision training program. Previously, a registered practitioner who had obtained at

least two years of practice outside of the required probationary period, was eligible to

supervise given that he/she was not related to the supervisee, were not engaged in a

therapeutic relationship with the supervisee and not prohibited by law or the Board to act

as a supervisor. Now, psychologists registered in Queensland who wish to practice as a

supervisor, need to undertake an accredited supervision program offered by the Board.

However, all other state psychologists’ boards in Australia are yet to introduce a

supervision training course. Furthermore other professional boards who require

supervision such as the Queensland Counsellors’ Association and the Occupational

Therapists Board of Queensland have not implemented specific supervision training

programs. The CPA developed a CD on mentoring to those members who provide

graduates with supervision.

The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has also introduced an on-line

supervision training and development program referred to as “Supervisor Solutions” for

36

academic staff/lecturers responsible for post-graduate research students. This electronic

tool provides self-paced modules as well as discussion group opportunities to assist and

enhance in the provision of good supervision (Supervisor Solutions, 2002).

While there is little research available in Australia in regards to the

implementation and effectiveness of supervision training, two research papers (Ross &

Goh, 1993; Scott et al., 2000) on this subject have been published in the United States.

Ross and Goh (1993) conducted a national survey designed to obtain information

about the training of those professionals conducting supervision for school

psychologists. Out of a sample of 331 professionals conducting supervision, only one

quarter had some graduate or coursework training in supervision practice. This training

typically consisted of informal consultation, reading, and workshop/lecture attendance.

The researchers found that for most supervisors, training "came after graduate work was

completed and infrequently included the types of training experiences considered

essential for skill building" (p. 63). Interestingly, in the seven years since the publication

of this research, supervision training has become a part of some doctoral programs and

internship programs but it essentially remains unpromoted as a necessary part of training,

particularly for psychologists in the USA.

Scott et al. (2000) reported that there were no published studies that included a

comprehensive investigation of the state of training in the provision of supervision for

clinical and counselling psychologists (refer to Appendix A for a summary). A

comprehensive literature review revealed that there were no studies currently (2006) that

examine who is doing supervision training or that assess the extent, type, or effectiveness

of training in the provision of supervision. In their comprehensive study, Scott et al.

identified supervision-training practices across America. In order to obtain a snapshot of

these practices, the researchers surveyed doctoral program directors from counselling

psychology and clinical psychology programs and training directors from American

Psychological Association accredited pre-doctoral psychology internship programs.

37

The opportunities available for doctoral students in the United States to

undertake supervision training indicated that the majority of respondents perceived

supervision training to be important. First, half of the doctoral programs incorporated a

course on supervision as part of their curriculum, either as a compulsory or elective

course. Second, many programs did not offer supervision training for the following

reasons: a) students were too focused on other necessary courses, b) budgetary

constraints or, c) it was perceived that learning to supervise should occur via an

internship or on-the-job.

The first part of these results provided a picture of how many doctoral students

had undertaken supervision. Data suggested that most counselling psychology students

(85%) were required to undertake or elect to do this training. In comparison to the

counselling psychology students, only a small percentage (34%) of clinical psychology

students were required or could elect a course in supervision training. Interestingly,

clinical students took more supervision courses than counselling psychology students

during a year.

The second part of results from this study overviewed the methods of teaching

and evaluation used by those programs offering supervision training and when directors

thought the training should occur. Nearly all (90%) of the supervision training offered in

a doctoral program was taught by faculty staff. It seemed the preferred method of

teaching supervision was via didactic instruction, individual supervision, group

supervision and assigned readings while review of audiotaped/videotaped sessions was

used rarely. Clinical psychology students (27%) reported that no formal or informal

methods were used to evaluate supervision proficiency in comparison to the counselling

psychology students (3%). Most directors (91-95%) regardless of stream (clinical

psychology or counselling psychology respectively) believed that supervision training

should occur before a psychologist starts employment. However, more counselling

psychology directors (95%) thought that supervision training should occur before a

student commences an internship in comparison to the clinical psychology directors.

38

The third part of the overall results in the Scott et al. (2000) study was based on

responses from training directors of internship programs across United States of America

employed by community mental health centres, private general hospitals, Veterans’

Administration medical centres and child facilities, private psychiatric hospitals, medical

schools and military hospitals. Respondents were asked to indicate their program

training orientation. Some (21%) placed most emphasis on providing practice-oriented

programs, whereas most others (68%) indicated their programs were only somewhat

practice-oriented. A very small number of respondents (7%) indicated they provided a

scientific-practitioner internship, that is an equal emphasis on practice and research. The

remaining 4% of the sample argued that their internship programs were mostly research-

focussed. As with the program directors, most trainers thought that supervision training

was important. As with doctoral programs, those interns who participated in supervision

training either as a requirement or an elective (39%) were taught via didactic seminars,

individual and group supervision and assigned readings in supervision. Some (one-third)

participated in tape-recorded supervision sessions.

Half of the internship programs required interns (29%) to supervise. As before,

those internships that did not offer supervision training argued that interns were too busy

with other duties to learn supervision and they did not have access to appropriate

students to supervise within their work settings. As with the doctoral programs, close to

a third of intern trainers (28%) indicated that no formal or informal evaluation methods

of supervision were ever employed. Similar to the doctoral programs, most supervision

training was provided by agency staff (79%) - usually the training director (58%) or

affiliate staff (14%). Lastly, most internship trainers (78%) thought that supervision

training should occur before a psychologist is on the job, either before or during

internship. However, more intern trainers (23%) said supervision training could occur

on the job in comparison to doctoral program directors (6%).

In summary, most who participated in this study believed that teaching

supervision is important. The researchers concluded that academic programs in

39

counselling psychology and clinical psychology were superior in teaching their students

supervision in comparison to internship programs. In addition, the researchers argued

that the counselling psychologists and their programs might be an ideal model from

which others can learn how to teach supervision.

Many Australian and internationals researchers are now asserting the need for

and benefit of compulsory supervision training programs whether they are provided by

universities, internship programs or professional boards. For example, Schofield and

Pelling (2002) argued that training in supervision is essential for supervisors to develop

supervisory skills. Furthermore, Watkins (1995) suggested that untrained supervisors are

really not officially qualified to practice supervision and could be seen to be practising

supervision unethically. Campbell and Wackwitz (2002) warn that a lack of supervision

training particularly in an organisational context has and will continue to mean that

supervision will be undervalued and its provision may be lacking in quality.

Furthermore, there is no research nationally or internationally on standardized training

manuals in supervision for supervisors (Holloway & Neufeldt, 1995).

Summary

In summary, recent research clearly shows that there is still very little training

available in Australia for those professionals who wish to become supervisors. In

addition, research available from the United States of America suggested that although

some graduate schools teach some aspects of supervision, not many graduates have

received this training. As discussed, some Australian Psychologists’ Boards are in the

process of making supervision training compulsory in order to practice as an accredited

supervisor. In addition, the Queensland University of Technology has implemented on-

line supervision training for academic staff. However, as reviewed, many Australian and

international researchers believed that accredited supervision training is the only way to

ensure ethical practice and quality supervision regardless of profession. To enhance this

process, Campbell and Wackwitz (2002) argued that incentives provided by

organisations/institutions/boards would increase professionals’ motivation to obtain

40

formalised qualifications in the field of supervision. The next chapter provides an

overview of research on the effectiveness of supervision and describes the theories and

models that have been utilised both descriptively and scientifically to explain the

purpose and effects of supervision.

41

CHAPTER 4

Is Supervision Effective?

While it is more common to provide a review of the theories and models to

explain a concept prior to describing the literature findings, it was decided in the current

research program to do the opposite as the central aim of the thesis was to test a model of

professional supervision in order to explain supervision effectiveness. This chapter will

provide a review of the results of all of the research available that explores the

effectiveness of supervision on outcomes, tasks and behaviours in various professional

groups including clinical psychologists, counsellors, nurses, occupational therapist

lecturers, psychiatrists, mental health workers and school guidance counsellors.

Appendix A provides a comprehensive summary of this research. First, supervision

effectiveness as determined by health care outcomes is investigated. Second, the impact

of supervisee and supervisor behaviours within supervision is provided. Third, the

contribution of supervision frequency, duration and method is overviewed to determine

supervision success. Fourth, supervision group dynamics and format are investigated as

factors that determine supervisor and supervisee performance. Lastly, the impact of

supervisor training on supervision effectiveness is discussed. The chapter will conclude

with assumptions as to whether supervision is deemed to be effective or not for

supervisees. Chapter 5 will then provide an overview and critique of supervision models

and theories which can be applied as frameworks to explain supervision effectiveness.

Supervision Effectiveness

It is argued in this dissertation that determining the effectiveness of supervision

is not easy. There is currently limited experimental research that has comprehensively

demonstrated that supervision is an effective method for developing the skills and

knowledge needed to be a proficient practitioner. While some studies (Baker, Daniels, &

Greely, 1990; Daniels, Rigazio-Digilio, & Ivey, 1997) have shown that basic counselling

skills, modelling, skills practice and feedback have enhanced a supervisee’s

42

development, these results are primarily restricted to research with interns practicing in

clinical settings and based on descriptive data. It is difficult to find research that has

assessed a broad range of supervision outcomes and that is not based on anecdotal/case

descriptive data.

This is unusual given the number of authors who have studied the topic (e.g.,

Bernard & Goodyear, 1998; Campbell, 2000; Holloway, 1987; Inskipp & Proctor, 1992;

McMahon & Patton, 2002; Mueller & Kell, 1972; Page & Wosket, 2001; Shohet &

Hawkins, 1989; Spouse & Redfern, 2000; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987; Sullivan &

Glanz, 1999; Wolkenfeld, 1990). The authors who have written on this subject have

provided descriptive and theoretical accounts of the process rather than evaluative or

research-based discussions. Given the importance of supervision as part of a new

professional’s development, it is of concern that little has been done to assess the

effectiveness of the practice.

Supervision goals appear to be critical to any assessment of supervision

effectiveness and as highlighted by Spence et al. (2001), there are also a number of

outcome variables to be considered when undertaking this type of research. These

outcome variables include enhancement of supervisees' skills and knowledge,

supervision satisfaction, and client outcomes. An evaluation of supervision should focus

on measuring a range of outcome factors to determine its effectiveness.

Supervision Effectiveness and Health Care

Does supervision benefit the recipient (the client) of a professional service? So

far, only one research paper has provided evidence to suggest that supervision can

enhance the care provided by nurses to psychiatric patients (Severinsson & Hallberg,

1996). However, as this is the first study of its nature, further experimental research is

needed to replicate and generalise these findings to draw any definite conclusions. In

addition, the researchers did not proffer a theoretical explanation of their results.

Severinsson and Hallberg (1996) conducted a longitudinal exploratory study

aimed at investigating nurses’ perceptions of the effectiveness of clinical supervision on

43

psychiatric health care. A small number of trained nurses participated in a 15 month

clinical supervision program while working in two acute care psychiatric wards in

Sweden. Ward One generally cared for patients for an average of 6.5 days and admitted

patients day and night while Ward Two cared for patients for 25 days (Note: results

indicated that there were no statistical difference between the two wards in terms of

supervision effectiveness). Nurses’ perceptions on the effectiveness of clinical

supervision on nursing care, the working milieu (environment) and the influence on their

duties were collected via a questionnaire. Nurses perceived that clinical supervision

improved their empathy towards patient needs, and increased their personal growth as it

had given them time to self-reflect. However, findings suggested that there was no

significant relationship between supervision effectiveness and the working milieu or

influence on nursing duties.

Severinsson and Hallberg (1996) noted a number of limitations with this study

including the small sample, the lack of a comparison control group, and the absence of a

pre-test which has reduced its generalisability to other psychiatric nurses. In addition, the

authors did not proffer any theories or models to support their findings.

Supervisor and Supervisee Behaviour and Supervision Effectiveness

Do supervisor and supervisee behaviours impact on supervision effectiveness for

supervisees? The following, primarily cross-sectional research papers, provide support

that in the fields of psychiatry and psychology, supervisor and supervisee behaviour

impacts both positively and negatively on supervision performance. However, as will

become evident, each of these studies is fraught with methodological limitations. Again,

researchers did not incorporate a theoretical framework to enhance understanding of

their findings.

Kozlowska, Nunn, and Cousens (1997) conducted research into the perceptions

and experiences of psychiatric registrars participating in supervision in Australia.

Participants were asked to evaluate their relationships with their supervisors. Supervisees

who considered their relationships with supervisors to be negative tended to rate their

44

supervisors badly on availability, support, ability to be emotionally supportive, their

ability to act in a difficult situation and their personal manner. Interestingly, even in

relationships that were considered to be positive, the supervisees rated their supervisors

as slightly less satisfactory in emotional support and openness and ability to act in a

difficult situation.

In 2001, Ladany et al. discovered significant positive relationships between

attractive, interpersonally sensitive and task-oriented supervisory styles with aspects of a

working alliance and frequency of supervisor self-disclosure. They investigated the

supervision experiences of supervisors (n = 137) who supervised counsellor education,

counsellor psychology and clinical psychology postgraduate supervisees (n = 137). It

was shown that supervisors who perceived themselves to behave in a warm, friendly and

supportive manner during supervision also believed their relationship with their

supervisee was mutually trusting and that there was agreement on supervision goals and

tasks. Counselling, didactic and empathic understanding approaches were also perceived

by the supervisors as enhancing the supervision working alliance.

Interestingly, results indicated that a variety of supervisor styles might contribute

to enhancing a working alliance between supervisor and supervisee. The authors

proposed that supervisors need to adopt a flexible style to supervision and will be most

effective when engaging in the three supervisory styles of attractiveness, interpersonal

sensitivity and task-orientation. Those supervisors who rate highly on interpersonal

sensitivity typically take on a counsellor-type role with a focus on being therapeutic,

insightful and committed to their supervisee, whereas task-oriented supervisors are goal-

focused and structured throughout the supervision program. The researchers did not find

an association between a task-oriented supervisor style and self-disclosing behaviour,

explaining that perhaps self-disclosure is actually a method of building rapport and

developing trust with a supervisee.

Steward et al. (2001) developed a study to investigate supervisees’ perceptions of

supervisor style, supervisees’ self-evaluations, and supervisors’ evaluations of

45

counselling competency in the supervision process. Supervision style was assessed in

terms of attractiveness, interpersonal sensitivity, and task orientation. Counselling

competency was assessed as the degree of difference between supervisors’ and

supervisees’ perceptions of supervisees’ counselling competency. Masters level

counselling students were supervised by advanced level doctorate students who had

completed a counselling supervision program. Self-evaluation on counselling

competence and perceptions of supervisor style were submitted by the supervisees at the

end of semester. The supervisors also submitted final evaluations of supervisee

competence.

Data indicated that supervisees who perceived their supervisors to be attractive

provided less accurate self-evaluations of their counselling competence or, those who

perceived their supervisors as less attractive provided more accurate self-evaluations of

their counselling competence. Attractiveness was defined as being friendly, flexible,

supportive, open, positive and warm. The researchers argued that this result might reflect

the idea that supervisees who perceive their supervisors as attractive tend to negatively

evaluate themselves as a reaction to the supervisors’ “authority, seniority, and

competence” (Steward et al., 2001, p. 135). Those who find their supervisors less

attractive will do the exact opposite and provide positive self-evaluations that are

matched closer to their supervisors’ perceptions.

These results might have implications for practising supervisors and for

supervisor training programs, in that attractive supervisors’ methods of supervision (e.g.,

supportive, flexible) might hamper a supervisee’s professional and personal

development. For example, Steward et al. (2001) pointed out it could be that the more

attractive a supervisor is perceived to be, the more supportive their method of

supervision is, and the less likely the supervisee will develop confidence, self-efficacy

and accomplishment. The results suggested that monitoring could be an essential part of

the supervision process to assess supervisor perceptions of supervisees’ counselling

46

competence via supervisee self-evaluations. In addition, a supervisor needs to have the

ability to impart their knowledge and skills.

O’Donovan et al. (2001) investigated 16 student perceptions of clinical

psychology training and supervision at Masters and Doctorate level in a qualitative study

(refer to Appendix A for a detailed review of the study). Students were asked to

comment on their level of overall satisfaction of the training, the effectiveness of the

course design, the effectiveness of supervision, and any professional issues. While all

students in the study reported positive supervision experiences, the majority of the

participants (n = 12) reported that they had at least on one occasion received

unsatisfactory supervision during their clinical training.

Supervisor characteristics that negatively impacted on their supervision

experiences included self-interest, egocentric, arrogant, people-users, disrespectful,

passive-aggressive communication style, defensive, insecure, not at ease with

themselves, mentally sloppy, overly zealous, lacking a backbone, empty, inauthentic,

deceptive, false, image-conscious and lacking in self-awareness. While the supervisees

felt they coped with negative supervision experiences, it appeared to impact negatively

on their confidence and clinical performance (O’Donovan et al., 2001). Other

researchers (Ladany et al., 1999; Ramos-Sanchez et al., 2002) have also reported that

unprofessional behaviours, such as breaching the code of ethics, impacted negatively on

supervision effectiveness (for more information on these studies, refer to Chapter 5 and

Appendix A). Interestingly, results indicated that supervisees were not proactive about

raising any concerns in regards to the inadequacy of some supervision experiences and

external placements. They did not want the university to be overburdened with making

new placement arrangements, knowing how difficult they are to organise.

Supervisor characteristics that were considered to be positive included

warmness, caring, approachable, friendly, accepting, open, flexible, humorous,

encouraging, sensitive, thoughtful, enthusiastic, and insightful. Supervisees also reported

that when with a positive supervisor, they demonstrated positive characteristics such as

47

enthusiasm, tenaciousness, earnestness, approachability, effective listening skills,

commitment, empathy, and a willingness to learn (O’Donovan et al., 2001). Hart and

Nance (2003) also concluded that supervisees prefer a supportive teacher supervisor

style whereas supervisors prefer offering both the supportive teacher and counsellor roles

during supervision (refer to Chapter 5 and Appendix A for a review of this research).

There is very little data to describe effective supervisee behaviours in

supervision. Vespia et al. (2002) produced the first paper to scientifically address this

issue by surveying counselling psychology graduate students at various stages of their

practicum and counselling centre supervisors (refer to Appendix A for a summary). The

researchers developed and applied the Supervision Utilization Rating Form (SURF) to

assess supervisee behaviour during supervision taking into account the developmental

level of the supervisee. Examples of items on the form include questions about the

supervisee’s ability to accept feedback in a non-defensive manner, whether the

supervisee admits mistakes and difficulties and demonstrates effective non-verbal skills

in supervision. Significant results showed that supervisees sometimes rated the

importance of some behaviours higher than the supervisors’ ratings. These behaviours

included listening to the supervisor, developing own learning needs, inviting feedback

from the supervisor, understanding personal dynamics in therapy and supervision, and

discussing own level of development. These results suggested that supervisees might

have much higher expectations of themselves than that of their supervisors. However,

there was no evidence to support the idea that ratings would differ depending on

developmental level of supervisees.

Wester et al. (2004) investigated how male supervisees, specifically postgraduate

psychology students, would cope with their socialised restricted emotionality in

supervision (refer to Appendix A for a summary). Socialised restricted emotionality

refers to males “who conform to the socialised behavioural norm of not expressing their

emotions in certain situations” (p.1). Findings suggested that male supervisees displayed

different styles of coping depending on their levels of socialised restricted emotionality.

48

This study warns of potential gender differences in the supervision experience. Results

from work by Putney, Worthington and McCullough (1992) also showed that gender

differences might contribute to the supervision experience particularly in relation to

autonomy and conflict management (see Appendix A for a review. This study is further

reviewed in Chapter 5).

Summary

Current research suggests that supervisor and supervisee behaviours do

contribute to supervision effectiveness. Supervisors who display pleasant personalities,

maintain a professional role and implement a flexible, collaborative approach to

supervision appear to enhance supervisee confidence and willingness to learn.

Unprofessional and unpleasant supervisors promoted poor supervisee confidence and

hampered clinical performance. Supervisees appear to prefer a supportive teacher

approach from their supervisors and a supervisor who can teach their knowledge and

skills effectively. Supervisor attractiveness might contribute to supervision effectiveness

particularly in regards to the credibility of supervisee self-evaluations.

Acknowledgement of cultural factors might also determine supervision performance

particularly in improving supervisory working alliance and supervisee satisfaction. This

is supported by the possibility that gender dynamics might play a role in the

effectiveness of supervision on supervisee coping style. However, it is not possible at

this stage to make any definite conclusions as to whether supervision effectiveness is

significantly determined by supervisee or supervisor behaviours due to a number of

methodological limitations within this area of research.

There were a number of limitations identified with the research described in this

chapter. A number of studies comprised small sample sizes (Kozlowska et al., 1997;

O’Donovan et al., 2001; Steward et al., 2001; Vespia et al., 2002). Most researchers

(Kozlowska et al., 1997; O’Donovan et al., 2001; Steward et al., 2001; Vespia et al.,

2002) employed of a cross-sectional methodology making it difficult to determine the

dynamics and impact of behaviour over time in relation to supervision effectiveness. All

49

data was derived from self-report measures and most, except Putney et al. (1992) and

Ramos-Sanchez et al. (2002), analysed from a descriptive rather than an inferential

approach, restricting the researchers from making any definite conclusions.

Frequency, Duration, Method and Supervision Effectiveness

Do the frequency, duration and method of supervision play a role in determining

its effectiveness? In Australia, there is only one study that has attempted to answer this

question and results tended to indicate that these specific factors contribute to

supervision effectiveness for school guidance counsellors. While this paper provided

some insights into the supervision experience of guidance counsellors, it was limited by

its descriptive rather than inferential findings and lack of theoretical explanation.

McMahon and Patton (2001) conducted an exploratory study to investigate the

supervision perceptions and experiences of Australian school guidance counsellors (refer

to Appendix A). The sample consisted of guidance counsellors who were all registered

teachers with postgraduate qualifications in guidance and counselling. The guidance

counsellors were required to complete a self-report questionnaire on their own

perceptions and experiences in clinical supervision. The respondents were then invited to

teleconference focus groups to discuss and further elaborate on the data collected from

the self-report questionnaires.

Data suggested that one quarter of the guidance counsellors surveyed had never

received supervision. Another quarter reported that they received supervision either

weekly, fortnightly or monthly supervision. Almost half of the guidance counsellors

stated that they received clinical supervision twice per year or less. The time spent in

clinical supervision was also variable with half the guidance counsellors reporting

spending less than an hour in supervision with the senior guidance counsellor. The

majority of guidance counsellors felt the time spent in clinical supervision was not

enough.

The guidance counsellors reported on supervisory method and overall, clinical

supervision was perceived to be beneficial. Most guidance counsellors indicated that

50

they often received a supportive approach from their supervisors. Many reported that

they had learned new ideas and strategies. In addition, they also indicated that the

clinical supervision resulted in personal growth and time for debriefing. On the other

hand, only half recorded that they had received regular feedback on their work.

Discussions from the focus groups identified some negative implications for

supervision including the idea that supervision was either an extra duty to undertake in

addition to work or that it was considered to be a luxury. Generally, there was much

support and acknowledgement of the necessity of clinical supervision in this type of

stressful work environment particularly in relation to supervisees’ psychological

wellbeing.

The guidance counsellors also discussed a range of informal networks that were

developed via various connections and situations to gain support, guidance and a

debriefing mechanism in conjunction with or instead of clinical supervision. These

informal networks tended to offer a positive interaction that worked to enhance their

wellbeing. Some guidance officers pointed out that they did not perceive these networks

as a substitute for clinical supervision, meaning that while the networks offered support,

they might not provide/develop skills via supervision methods of constructive feedback

and monitoring work for example.

Being exploratory, the results of the McMahon and Patton (2001) study were

based on descriptive data making it difficult to generalise to all guidance counsellors’

experiences. However, the sample size (n = 227) was large enough to suggest that these

results should be explored further to determine the significance of these experiences and

perceptions for clinical supervision. It would also be interesting to track these

experiences and perceptions over time to determine if other variables like experience and

developmental stage mitigate the current results.

Group Formats and Supervision Effectiveness

Is group supervision effective? The following researchers have shown that

group-types appear to provide a number of benefits to enhancing some supervisees’

51

performance. Communication skills, cognitive clarity and direction of supervisors

conducting supervision increased. In addition, other factors such as group dynamics and

type (e.g. group versus individual sessions) contribute to the effectiveness of the

supervision experience. The results of these studies need to be interpreted with caution

due to small sample sizes, their descriptive nature and the lack of theoretical frameworks

guiding discussions.

Ray and Altekruse (2000) were the first to investigate the effectiveness of group

supervision versus combined group and individual supervision with a group of 64

Masters students (refer to Appendix A for a summary). Each student was randomly

selected for one of three treatment groups: an individual and group supervision treatment

group; large group supervision treatment group (8:1 counselling student to supervisor

ratio); and a small group supervision treatment group (4:1 counselling student to

supervisor ratio). The results indicated that group supervision and group supervision

combined with individual supervision are equally effective in increasing counsellor

effectiveness. The large group and small group supervisory sessions seemed to be equal

in increasing counsellor effectiveness. However, the large group format seemed more

effective in increasing counsellor autonomy than were the small group or individual and

large group formats. Interestingly, there was overwhelming support from the participants

that they preferred individual supervision to group supervision, primarily because they

preferred immediate feedback. The results of this study suggest the possibility that group

supervision is not only complementary to individual supervision but may be

interchangeable with individual supervision.

Ogren et al. (2001) investigated the dynamics and significance of group

supervision within the field of psychotherapy (refer to Appendix A for a summary of the

research). Participants (n = 12) were drawn from four extreme supervision groups

described as a) angry, b) disappointed, c) sensible, and d) solidarity. The questionnaires

collected information on group climate (n = 98 supervisees) such as competition,

insecurity and dependency and competence ratings of therapeutic skill (n = 76

52

supervisees). Results indicated that supervisees in the angry group experienced

significant trust issues. One factor negatively impacting on the climate of this group

included rivalry. The supervisor tended to focus on individual therapeutic development

rather than group cohesion. The disappointed group emphasised the dysfunctional

relationships (due to insecurity, rivalry, a lack of cohesion and a lack of participation) as

a problem and that it ultimately led to strong feelings of disappointment. There was some

indication that the supervision lacked structure and uncertainty about supervisor

expectations. The focus of this group was the dysfunctional relationships rather than the

task. The sensible group reported a strong sense of cohesion despite significant

individual differences. This group was reportedly focused on learning and taking a

logical approach to the emotional aspects of the supervision experience. It was also

reported that this approach was limiting in that it was difficult to disclose

personal/emotional information. The solidarity group reported cohesive relationships

between group members creating a climate of security and trust.

The second part of this study investigated the perceptions of of ten supervisors of

these same groups. Supervisors were given an overview of how each group had been

labelled and asked to describe their own experiences of the group supervision climates.

The supervisors identified the following categories as relating to group climate 1) the

individual; 2) group composition; and 3) group dynamic factors. The supervisors

believed that the insecure groups were influenced by individual factors such as personal

problems, insecurity, lack of trust/or difficulty in benefiting from supervision. In terms

of group composition, the supervisors argued that group heterogeneity particularly

personality characteristics of maturity, motivation and personal qualifications impacted

on the groups experience. Group dynamics (such as inter-group conflict and insecurity)

appeared to be influenced by the supervisees’ individual problems and extreme

heterogeneity.

In terms of supervision style, every supervisor reported on the importance of a

structured environment presenting a clear model of supervision. Supervisor style varied

53

depending on the stage of group development. Supervisors were, however, concerned

about becoming too involved in any inter-group conflict problems due to the possibility

of crossing the boundary between supervision and therapy. In addition, it was not always

easy to identify the conflicts within the groups and many of the difficulties were related

to individuals’ personal concerns.

The Ogren et al. (2001) study has many benefits in that it has utilised rigorous

inferential statistical methods to analyse the data. It employed a large group of

participants and a scientific method to investigate the experiences of supervisees and

supervisors in the group supervision process.

Howie, Kennedy-Jones, Lentin, Macdonald, and Giffin (1995) wrote an

anecdotal research paper on their experiences as occupational therapy educators

participating in group supervision (see Appendix A). These educators supervised second

year occupational therapy undergraduates who were participating in group work to learn

group skills. The main reason for implementing supervision was due to the difficulty of

running groups at tertiary level and ensuring that the group environment was conducive

to optimal learning. The researchers identified that their experiences as educators was

not enough to determine the quality and/or effectiveness of the group experience due to

the lack of evaluation and discussion about effective leadership styles and strategies to

enhance group work. They were keen to learn about group process and dynamics and

believed that group supervision would be the best conduit for their own learning and

development.

Segesten (1993) conducted a study to evaluate whether or not group supervision

could influence nurses’ professional identity (see Appendix A). The nurses met with a

supervisor for four months every fortnight for two and half hours, and were supervised

by two supervisors alternatively, a psychologist and an enrolled nurse.

Results provided from the nurses via self-report measures indicated that meeting

with two different supervisors was disruptive and could be unproductive. However, the

nurses reported that the supervision appeared to strengthen their professional identity.

54

The researchers indicated that the group environment was beneficial for the nurses as

they were able to compare themselves with others and obtain a realistic self-perception.

A real-life experiment was conducted by researchers Komaki, Desselles, and

Bowman (1989) to establish what team leaders/supervisors need to do to create an

optimal team performance. The researchers tested an extended version of the operant

model of effective supervision (Komaki & Desselles, 1990) by applying it to a sailboat

regatta race. The participants included skippers, crew members, observers and university

coaching staff. The experiment was carefully considered and planned taking into

account many extraneous influences, for example, the random assignment of boats, crew

members and observers to the skippers. Six races took place during the experiment and

all participants sailed with a different skipper each time in effort to assess the true nature

of the skippers’ leadership skills.

The results demonstrated that the collection of performance information and

providing positive and negative feedback (providing consequences) was displayed by

winning skippers. In other words, the winning skippers consistently monitored team

performance and in turn let their crew know how well they were performing. However,

in this experiment it was indicated that the winning skippers’ behaviours of monitoring

and feedback did not enhance team coordination.

Summary

The research included in this section has shown that the effectiveness of group

supervision might be dependent on type of supervision as well as group dynamics. For

example, results indicated that supervisees found individual supervision to be more

effective than group supervision due to the immediate feedback element. However, data

also indicated that a combination of individual and group supervision was equally as

effective as individual supervision alone. It seems that supervisee group dynamics and

supervisor supervision style contributes to the success or failure of group supervision.

More specifically, immediate positive and negative/constructive feedback seemed to

enhance performance. Data appears to suggest that group supervision for supervisors in

55

particular, enhanced their cognitive clarity and direction, their communication skills, and

improved their professional identity so that they had a realistic perception of themselves

as practitioners and supervisors.

While these studies have provided a glimpse into the group supervision

experience and have outlined factors that contribute to its effectiveness, there are a

number of methodological limitations. The Howie et al. (1995) study was based on

anecdotal data, the Segesten (1993) research does not scientifically show how the

supervision aspect of the group work significantly impacted on the development of the

nurses’ professional identity, and the Komaki et al. (1989) investigation was based on one

event, restricting its generalisability. In addition, sample sizes were small, again making

it difficult to generalise results and the researchers did not offer any theoretical

framework to explain their results but rather offered observation and descriptive

information

Training and Supervision Effectiveness

Does “supervision” of “supervisors” led to effective practice? Results from the

following studies suggest that supervision enhanced supervisors’ counselling skills,

competence and increased the likelihood of them implementing experiential rather than

reflective methods of supervision resulting in increased supervisee satisfaction. This

research appears to support the need for supervisor training but further investigation is

required to overcome some inherent problems such as the small sample sizes and

descriptive conclusions. There was also a lack of application of theoretical frameworks

to explain the findings.

Wheeler and King (2000) investigated the experience of “supervision” for

“supervisors” in counselling within the United Kingdom (refer to Appendix A for a

summary). Forty respondents listed the following issues as pertinent to their supervision

experiences over a 12 month period, including 1) ethical issues (e.g., supervisees non-

attendance at supervision, confidentiality), 2) boundary issues (e.g., the difficulties of

confidentiality in small communities, assisting supervisees to create boundaries with

56

clients, boundary issues between supervision and therapy), 3) supervisee competence

(e.g., comments were made in regards to supervisee incompetence, supervisee distress,

and assessment difficulties), and 4) other issues (e.g., one supervisor commented on

multicultural issues in supervision, and the relationship between the supervisor and

supervisee, particularly transference and counter-transference issues). The researchers

indicated that the majority of respondents perceived the “supervision” of “supervisors”

as a necessary aspect of professional counselling practice.

Milne and James’ (2002) longitudinal study assessed the effectiveness of

consultancy type training and consultancy training with informational feedback in

clinical “supervision” for a “supervisor” (refer to Appendix A for a summary).

Participants included an experienced consultant (a clinical psychologist), a supervisor (a

clinical psychologist) and a small sample (n = 6) of supervisees who all worked in

mental health (including a psychiatrist, a GP, and psychiatric nurses). Supervision

occurred in pairs and the supervision was videotaped and then analysed using the

Teachers PETS which is a method of observing supervisor behaviours.

Results showed that supervisor training, particularly a combination of

consultancy plus feedback, enhanced the supervisors competence in supervisee sessions.

When the supervisor employed more experiential learning methods (such as

conceptualisation, experiencing and experimenting) more than simply reflecting, the

supervisees indicated that they were more satisfied.

Summary

Data indicated that the “supervision” of “supervisors” is effective in enhancing

the supervisor’s counselling skills, competence and application of experiential learning

methods which resulted in increased supervisee satisfaction. In terms of the

“supervision” of “supervisors” concept, more research needs to be conducted in this area

to remedy some methodological limitations, in particular with respect to sample size.

57

What is Identified as Effective or Constructive Supervision Practice?

Descriptive studies have indicated that constructive supervision is beneficial for

supervisees’ personal and professional development (Bradshaw, Butterworth & Mairs,

2007; Kozlowska et al., 1997; Ladany et al., 2001; McMahon & Patton, 2002;

O’Donovan et al., 2001). Supervisors who are able to impart their knowledge and skills

appear to be more effective than those, who while being considered good practitioners,

cannot teach their skills (Culbreth & Borders, 1998; Ellis, 2006). Supervisor training

more than likely enhances the supervision experience due to the application of proven

learning methods (Howie et al., 1995; Milne & James, 2002; Wheeler & King, 2000).

Supervisors who acknowledge cultural aspects (gender, race etc.) of supervision also

appear to have better working alliances with their supervisees (Gatmon et al., 2001;

Putney et al., 1992). Individual rather than group supervision sessions seem to be

preferred due to the benefits of immediate feedback (Ray & Altekruse, 2000). It seems

likely that regular monitoring and consequential feedback plays a significant role in

supervisee performance (Komaki et al., 1989; Ramos-Sanchez et al., 2002). Lastly and

most importantly, it has been suggested that perceptions of supervision might be long-

lasting and therefore increase the need for a constructive rather than a destructive

supervision experience (Ramos-Sanchez et al., 2002).

What is Ineffective or Destructive Supervision Practices?

Many studies have identified a number of variables that appear to contribute to

negative and ineffectual supervision experiences (Culbreth & Borders, 1998; Kozlowska

et al., 1997; Ladany et al., 1999; Magnuson et al., 2000; O’Donovan et al., 2001; Ramos-

Sanchez et al., 2002). It seems that supervisees do not always know what is expected of

them in the supervision process (Vespia et al., 2002). Supervisees reported that they

prefer supervision with one supervisor rather than joint supervision due to the disruptive

and unpredictable nature of working with two different people (Ogren et al., 2001;

Segesten, 1993). Sadly, it seems that supervisees appear to be resistant to raising

58

concerns about these inadequate aspects of supervision due to the difficulty of finding a

supervisor and/or a practicum (O’Donovan et al., 2001).

Summary of the Limitations of the Research

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, determining the effectiveness of

supervision is not easy due to methodological limitations (refer to Appendix A). In

addition, much of the research on supervision was yielded from the helping professions

(for example, counselling, psychology and nursing) and there is no information available

to understand the supervision experiences of supervisees in business-related fields (such

as accountants, consultants and financial advisors). The five major limitations of the

available supervision research includes: a) the use of small sample sizes making

generalisability problematic; b) the unsophisticated methods of analysis providing purely

descriptive results; c) the scant application of theoretical frameworks to explain and

predict outcomes; d) the employment of cross-sectional rather than longitudinal designs

making it impossible to assess perceptions and experiences of supervision over time; and

e) the utilization of self-report measures by most researchers assessing supervision

restricting empirical validation. On the other hand, the supervision research available

provides interesting insights into constructive and destructive observations of local and

international supervision experiences. These observations and descriptions are valuable

in contributing to the future direction to both research and practice.

Conclusion – Is Supervision Effective?

Supervision appears to include both constructive and destructive elements which

can have varying effects on a supervisee’s professional and personal development.

Supervision can be both effective and ineffective depending on a range of mediating

factors such as supervision environment, supervisor style, supervisee characteristics to

name but a few. There are too many limitations within current research methodologies to

provide a definite scientific conclusion to answer whether or not supervision, in general,

is effective. In addition, what might be true for one professional group or profession

might not be true for others. Perhaps the application of a sound methodology and a

59

comprehensive theoretical framework applied across a number of professional bodies (in

both the health and business sectors) will provide more comprehensive answers. The

next chapter provides a comprehensive review of the models and theories applied over

the last twenty years to explain the professional supervision experience.

60

CHAPTER 5

A Critique of Supervision Theories and Models

In practice, it is generally accepted that most supervisors take an eclectic

approach to supervision, that is, they generate their own unique style of supervision

usually based on their theories of therapy and therapeutic experiences in order to help

supervisees develop professionally and personally. A literature review on theories of

supervision revealed a plethora of theories and models that have been applied to both

inform and explain the supervision experience. All of these theories have been developed

from the fields of psychology and counselling and include psychoanalytic theory,

person-centered theory, cognitive-behavioural supervision, and narrative type-

approaches to supervision.

Each approach has its benefits as well as limitations with many theories of

supervision being knowledge-specific and limited to a particular type of therapeutic

practice. This next section will provide a brief review of each of these supervision

theories, outlining benefits and acknowledging their limitations. The section will

conclude with a comprehensive review of the Systems Approach to Supervision

(Holloway, 1995), the model that has been employed to understand the supervision

experiences investigated in this thesis because it is a comprehensive yet parsimonious

model that is generalisable to all professional supervision settings.

Psychoanalytic Supervision

Historically, psychoanalytic supervision is considered to be the oldest form of

supervision because it preceded the other forms of therapy and also included supervision

as an important aspect to therapy. Based on Freudian theory, psychoanalytic supervision

perspectives are seen as "a teaching and learning experience that gives particular

emphasis to the relationships between and among patient, therapist, and supervisor and

the processes that interplay among them" (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998, pp.17-18). Due to

the complexities of this sort of relationship, psychoanalysts see supervision as dynamic

and emphasise a working alliance whereby the supervisor and supervisee are working

61

toward a common goal (Embelton, 2002). Psychoanalysts believe the interaction

between the supervisor and supervisee must occur at a conscious and subconscious

awareness level. This interaction has three specific aims: a) for the supervisee to

understand the interpersonal and intrapsychic world of the patient, b) for the supervisee

to explore he/she’s own psychopathology and psychodynamics to counteract

transference and counter-transference, and c) for the supervisor and supervisee to be

aware of and act on potential boundary conflicts (Embelton). Underlying these tenets is

the idea that the supervision process cannot be separated from therapeutic intervention

and outcomes (Embelton). This is a concept commonly referred to as “parallel

processes” whereby the therapist-client relationship is mirrored in the supervisee-

supervisor relationship (Wolkenfeld, 1990). Psychoanalysts have employed three

specific and directive approaches to facilitating the supervision process which include:

authoritarian, didactic; quasi-therapeutic and case-focused (Embelton).

Despite the historical application of this theory to supervision, there are a

number of concerns to consider in its adoption. First, while the theory emphasises the

supervisor as the teacher in the supervision process, it does not espouse if or how the

supervisor will be trained in supervision. Instead, it assumes that therapists are capable

of teaching supervision because they are therapists with experience in psychoanalytic

techniques and therapy. Second, this theory of supervision has rarely if ever been

scientifically evaluated and its scientific effectiveness is unknown. Third, some of the

concepts associated with this theory are difficult to measure and evaluate, for example,

the working alliance between supervisor and supervisee, and the effectiveness of parallel

processing. In addition, little is known about the impact of the processes of transference

and counter-transference in the supervision experience or how potential boundary issues

are identified and resolved. Fourth, the psychoanalytic theory of supervision is limited in

its use as it is not easily transferable to other psychological therapies, let alone other

fields, as it requires one to be educated in psychodynamic theory.

62

Client-Centered Supervision

Supervision is a very important aspect of client-centered therapy as it is seen as

an opportunity for a supervisee to grow personally within a collaborative environment.

Client-centered therapy is based on the writing of Carl Rogers (1951). It was the first

non-directive therapeutic approach to counselling as opposed to the traditional method of

diagnosis and interpretation (Patterson, 1986). Whereas psychotherapists view their

patients as irrational and self-destructive, client-centered therapists see their clients as

rational, future-oriented and realistic and on the pathway towards self-actualisation

(Patterson). From a therapeutic point of view, the therapist provides an environment of

unconditional positive regard and empathic understanding towards a client who is in a

state of incongruence (or vulnerability). Within this environment, the client is free to

express feelings of incongruence between the self and life experiences through

verbal/and or non-verbal methods of communication (Patterson). The outcome of

therapy is to help clients restructure their own self-perception according to their life

experiences in an effort to achieve internal congruency (Patterson).

In a supervision experience, as with therapy, the therapeutic relationship is the

crux of the supervision. The supervisor communicates a genuine acceptance and respect

of the supervisee and seeks to understand and develop an internal frame of reference by

thinking, feeling and exploring with the supervisee (Patterson, 1986). The supervisor

listens carefully and empathically to the supervisee and develops a trusting relationship

with the supervisee. The aim of supervision from this perspective is the personal change

and growth of the supervisee in self-confidence which in turn impacts on the client’s

personal change and growth (Patterson). The supervisor explores any difficulties the

supervisee might be having in working with a client.

Undoubtedly, Rogers (1951) would have strongly encouraged client-centered

supervision in a group environment as he believed that this format was conducive to

personal growth in that supervisees could learn from in-group conflict and have an

opportunity to get to know one another and themselves more intimately (Sharf, 1996).

63

This level of intimacy would in time create a trusting relationship between the

supervisees allowing them to share more of their feelings and experiences (Sharf). While

Rogers recognised that there could be negative complications in a group setting, he

believed that the risk would be minimal if group members were positive and respectful

of each other. The supervisor of a group session would take on the role of the facilitator

and ultimately his/her job is to understand what the supervisee is trying to communicate

to others without being judgmental, directing or controlling (Sharf).

The person-centered model has a number of benefits in that many of its concepts,

such as the focus on the therapeutic relationship, listening and offering a client positive

unconditional regard, are easily transferable and useful to all forms of supervision

regardless of therapeutic orientation. This form of supervision may also be applicable to

not only individual but group supervision. However, it is difficult to find any

comprehensive information or empirical data on the effectiveness of this form of

supervision. In addition, the underlying principles of this theory tend to suggest that all

people are basically good and motivated to change and improve. The theory tends to

discount the various destructive agendas supervisors and supervisees may bring to

supervision, for example, taking on a supervisee just for the money or turning up to

supervision because it is a requirement of a professional Board. Like many theories, it

assumes that supervisors and supervisees are capable of understanding and applying

concepts, like unconditional positive regard and listening techniques, correctly in

supervision. As with most theories of supervision, criteria are not given as to if or how

the process of supervision should be taught.

Cognitive-Behavioural Supervision

Cognitive-behaviouralists refer to their supervision process as Cognitive-

Behavioural Supervision (CBS). To understand the focus and underlying theory of CBS,

an understanding of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is required. Essentially CBT

includes observation of behaviour within its natural environment, determining the

precursors of the behaviour, what maintains/influences the behaviour and how the

64

behaviour can be changed (Kavanagh, Bennett-Levy, & Crow, 2002). Essentially

therapy is based on the idea that our cognitions determine how we will feel and how we

will subsequently act on these feelings (Kavanagh et al.). In comparison with the

psychoanalytic approach, CBT therapists focus on conceptualising the relationship

between thoughts, emotions and behaviours rather than on analysing the relationship

between the therapist and patient. CBT therapists assist their clients to resolve their

maladaptive behaviours by challenging irrational thoughts, emotions and behaviours

(Kavanagh et al.). CBT is a therapy developed from theory and is a good example of a

scientist-practitioner approach. This therapeutic approach is well documented in the

research and has been successful in treating a myriad of psychological disorders such as

panic disorder and depression (Kavanagh et al.).

CBS is based on the principles of CBT and offers a very structured approach to

supervision. Supervisors are to provide an environment whereby the supervisee feels

safe, comfortable and able to share their experiences within the bounds of confidentiality

(Kavanagh et al., 2002). The supervision process is clearly defined in a supervision

agreement that outlines the goals, structures and mutual expectations of the supervision

(Kavanagh et al.). The aim of this supervision is to improve assessment,

conceptualization and therapy skills and to provide an opportunity for self-observation

and self-directed learning. The supervisor conducts the supervision by direct observation

of the supervisee’s behaviour in therapy and supervision (Kavanagh et al.). In addition,

the supervisor assists the supervisee to develop cognitive-behavioural skills by

instructing them in CBT and theory, giving them an opportunity to practise in session, by

positive role-modelling, and by providing corrective feedback (Kavanagh et al.).

CBS appears to be a comprehensive, practical and user-friendly style of

supervision in that the goals and expectations of supervision are defined initially and

readjusted as necessary. The methods utilised in therapy and supervision are objective

and include strategies such as clinical observation, recording of information in detail,

testing theories, creating treatment plans and basing clinical conceptualisations on

65

objective information. On the other hand, this theory of supervision, like others, is not

transferable to other forms of therapy or other professional fields as it does require that

the supervisor and supervisee have an in-depth knowledge of psychological theory and

concepts. In addition, CBS lacks scientific evidence to support its usefulness. This is

surprising given the emphasis on applying a scientific-practitioner approach to therapy.

There is some evidence to suggest that CBS supervisors do not adhere to the principles

of CBS in naturalistic environments (Kavanagh et al., 2002). These researchers found

that in general, CBS primarily involves discussion about a client with little application of

strategies such as direct observation, modelling or practicing CBT skills. This finding is

supported by the fact that many CBS supervisors are not trained in supervision (Proctor,

1994).

Narrative Supervision

Narrative supervision encourages “storying” (Crocket, p. 159) or story telling

whereby a supervisee uses words to describe their experiences in detail and then are

assisted by a supervisor to gain an understanding of how they put their experiences

together will impact on their professional practice. This form of supervision is

underpinned by the theory of constructionism. Crocket (2002) defined constructionism

as an approach where it is believed that words do not represent the world but that words

construct the world. Furthermore, those who prescribe to this theoretical approach assert

that our lives gain meaning by the way in which we describe experiences in words or the

way we tell our stories based on our knowledge of the world. Crocket explained that

“narrative therapists consider carefully the descriptions of persons that they employ: they

purposefully talk about a woman struggling to win back her life from bulimia (rather

than using the totalizing description, bulimic)” (p. 158).

Similarly, supervisors with a narrative approach provide a forum for their

supervised colleague to story their own practice with clients (Crocket, 2002). In this type

of supervision, the focus is on the description of lives, personal and professional, within

the guidelines of professional and ethical responsibility (Crocket). Narrative supervisors

66

proclaim that supervision is a process whereby a supervisor works with a professional

colleague in a collaborative environment to contemplate or reflect on “the ethics of the

practice” by describing and discussing that practice. The supervisory relationship is one

where there are no power imbalances (as it is viewed that both players are competent

professionals) and one of much mutual trust and understanding. For example, monitoring

of progress is determined and undertaken together. The process or vehicle of the

supervision is verbal conversation. For example, discussions will take place around

open-ended questions such as “What are your thoughts?” or “What is your experience?”

(Crocket). However, it is argued strongly that supervision conversations should primarily

be methods of inquiry and essentially related to practice (e.g., the client, the problem). In

this form of supervision, it is believed that both players bring knowledge and experience

to the supervision.

The use of terminology to describe the players in the supervision process is also

given consideration. Narrative supervisors do not refer to their supervised colleagues as

“supervisees” but rather by their professional title such as “counsellor” or

“psychologist.” This is done so that the supervised colleague is considered within a

framework or within the context of their work. This approach is consistent with the

underlying theory of narrative therapy, that is, words construct the world.

An obvious benefit to the narrative approach to supervision, like the person-

centered supervision theory, is the emphasis on a collaborative approach whereby the

inexperienced professional is able to tell of experiences in a trusting and understanding

environment. Despite this, the narrative approach suggests that both the novice and

experienced supervision participants have the cognitive ability and verbal skills to

understand and make use of the narrative approach. Similar to the psychoanalytic

approach to supervision, the theory and its application are subjective and open to

misinterpretation. A lack of scientific research on the effectiveness of this form of

supervision makes it hard to determine its effectiveness. In addition, it would be very

difficult to apply this supervisory method to other professional fields, particularly those

67

where verbal interchange is not a high priority (e.g., accounting graduates, financial

advising services).

Developmental Supervision Approaches

The developmental approaches to supervision include, but are not limited to, the

following models proposed by Littrel et al. (1979), Stoltenberg, (1981), Loganbill,

Hardy, and Delworth (1982), Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987) and Skovholt and

Ronnestad (1992). These developmental models of supervision have been created

independently from the psychoanalytic theories and were primarily developed during the

1980s and onwards. Some were developed based on clinical observation while others

were born from empirical findings. It is these models that remain predominantly

researched in the literature and it is believed that more than twenty-two different models

of developmental supervision exist. It is assumed that developmental models have

become more studied in the literature than others because they are easy to comprehend

due to their parsimonious and generalisable structure. The underlying premise of

proponents of developmental supervision is that supervisees change as they gain training

and supervised experience. The premise of developmental models is that supervisees

progress through a number of separate stages before becoming competent (Bernard &

Goodyear, 1998). These models also address methods that supervisors can apply as the

supervisee develops (Bernard & Goodyear). According to Worthington & Stern’s

(1985) review, most research in this area has focused on the supervision of the

developing supervisee, and the supervision of the developing supervisor. This particular

approach has given rise to criticism from some (e.g., Holloway, 1987) who argue that the

development of a supervisee is more than that which occurs solely in the supervision

period and that perhaps the supervision period is not the most important aspect.

The Social Role Supervision Approaches

The social role supervision models include those of Friedlander and Ward

(1984), Hawkins and Shohet (1989), Holloway (1995) and the discrimination model

(Bernard, 1997). The central aspect of these models is the belief that role or styles of

68

behaviours, and functions or methods of supervision, play an important part in the

supervision experience. In other words the supervisor presents to the session for

example, with perhaps an unconscious template/idea about what the supervisory

relationship should be like, how they should behave and what method of supervision

should be implemented. Supporters of the social role theory argue that a range of factors,

which are defined according to the individual theory, will influence the role/s of the

supervisor at any given time. For example, Friedlander and Ward provided a linear

argument to explain how certain factors may influence the supervisor's decision to

employ particular techniques in a supervision session. That is, a supervisor's past

personal and professional experiences will predict his/her theoretical orientation.

Theoretical orientation will then influence supervisor role (such as teacher,

counsellor/therapist, consultant, monitor, or evaluator), which will influence the choice

of format for the supervision, which then influences what technique is employed in the

supervision.

The most researched and generally supported social role model is the

discrimination model (Bernard, 1997). Its core premise is similar to that of all other

social role models but it presents a 3 x 3 matrix that demonstrates how a supervisor's

chosen supervision focus (that is either intervention skills, conceptualisation skills and/or

personalisation skills) will influence the role (e.g., teacher, counsellor or consultant) that

the supervisor is likely to respond with at any given moment within and across the

supervision sessions. The major noted problem with this model is that supervisors

themselves have been unable to determine to which psychotherapy theory the role of

consultant would be assigned. Although supervisors like the thought of playing a

consultative role in the supervision process, its definition remains ambiguous and

because of this it has not been adequately researched. Hawkins and Shohet (1989)

present six categories (the therapist narrative, the therapist activity, the therapy process,

the supervisee state, the supervision process and the supervisor experience) for

identifying supervision focus within two interlocking systems (the therapy, and the

69

supervisory systems). A prescriptive and linear formula is then presented to help the

supervisor determine which focus should be chosen for the supervision and is also

influenced by other factors such as the agreed supervisory contract, the supervisee's level

of development, learning needs, and time constraints.

Holloway’s (1995) Systems Approach to Supervision model (SAS) is arguably

the most comprehensive of the social role models and is based on seven dimensions that

are said to influence each other mutually and interact with various aspects of supervisory

relationship. In terms of the social role aspect of the theory, Holloway explains the

“how” and “what” of supervision in terms of five tasks (monitoring-evaluating,

instructing-advising, modelling, consulting and supporting) and five functions

(counselling skill, case conceptualisation, professional role, emotional awareness, and

self-evaluation). According to Holloway, a supervisor can use any task with any

function, however she believes that the supervisor would develop preferences that would

be used repeatedly.

This contemporary model of supervision has been chosen for use in the current

project for a number of reasons. First, it is not confined to any one particular

psychoanalytic focus and thus can be applied or generalised to explain a variety of

supervision relationships. Second, it offers a comprehensive framework for

implementing and evaluating the supervision process. Third, it offers a model for

teaching supervision. Fourth, it is not prescriptive and does not delineate levels or stages

a supervisor is to move through before becoming competent. Fifth, it is a scientific-

practitioner approach that was developed from empirical research and practitioner

experience. Sixth, it is a parsimonious model that is easily understood and applied by

practitioners. Seventh, although this model has been developed from counselling

research literature, its potential applicability to other fields will soon become evident.

Holloway's (1995) Systems Approach to Supervision

Professor Elizabeth Holloway has spent many years interviewing, and analysing

scripts between supervisors and supervisees in the pursuit understanding the supervision

70

experience. It is from this research that she has developed a theoretical framework, the

Systems Approach to Supervision, from which empirical, conceptual and practice

knowledge can be used to guide supervision teaching and practice (Wampold &

Holloway, 1997). Essentially, the model is meant to "ask questions about what each

practitioner does as a supervisor rather than to tell a supervisor what to think or what to

do" (Holloway & Carroll, 1999, p. 10). Holloway understands supervision to be a

“learning alliance” where supervisors are encouraged to create a learning environment

for their supervisees (Holloway, 1995, p. 6). Holloway proposed that the model could be

used primarily for three purposes: 1) as a frame of reference for supervisors to work

through issues, 2) for case conceptualization, and 3) for supervisor training.

Holloway defined the primary goal of supervision as the

establishment of an on-going relationship in which the supervisor designs

specific learning tasks and teaching strategies related to the supervisees

development as a professional and that the supervisor empowers the

supervisee to enter the profession by understanding the skills, attitudes

and knowledge demanded of the professional and guiding the

relationship strategically to facilitate the supervisee's achievement of a

professional standard. (Holloway & Carroll, 1999, p. 10)

The model (see Figure 1) is made up of seven integrated factors and is more

easily understood diagrammatically than via explanation. Holloway (1995) says that the

seven components of the model are dynamic because "they mutually influence each

other and are highly interrelated” (p. 8). The seven factors include: the institution

(industrial structure and professional ethics and standards); the client (characteristics,

identified problems and diagnosis); the supervisor (professional experience, role in

supervision, theoretical orientation, cultural characteristics, self presentation);

trainee/supervisee (experience in counselling, theoretical orientation, learning needs and

style, cultural characteristics and self-presentation); the functions of the supervision; the

71

tasks of the supervision (both of these concepts are explained in greater detail below, see

Figure 5.1) and the supervision relationship

Figure 5.1 The System Approach to Supervision (SAS) model.

From “Clinical Supervision A Systems Approach” by E. L. Holloway, 1995, p. 58.

Supervision Relationship

The supervision relationship is the foundation and core factor of the model (see

Figure 1). It is thought that "the structure and character of the relationship embody all

other factors and in turn all other factors are influenced by the relationship" (Holloway,

1995, p. 41). A number of studies (Ramos-Sánchez et al., 2002; Steward et al., 2001)

have provided evidence for the importance of the relationship in supervision. Based on

these findings and from supervision experiences, Holloway incorporated the following

three factors of the supervision relationship in the SAS model: the interpersonal

structure, the phase of the relationship and the supervisory contract. These factors are

described in more detail below.

halla

This figure is not available online. Please consult the hardcopy thesis available from the QUT Library

72

Interpersonal structure of the relationship. Described in terms of power and

involvement, Holloway (1995) views the relationship between the supervisor and

supervisees in terms of the theory of interpersonal relations (Leary, 1957). The theory

postulates that the "degree of relational influence potential determines the degree of

social bonding and thus the persuasiveness of a relationship" (Holloway, p. 44). In other

words, as a relationship develops between a supervisor and supervisee they will use

more "personally relevant interpersonal, psychological and differentiated information to

make predictions of each others' behaviour and thus reduce interpersonal uncertainty" (p.

44). The supervisory relationship is a hierarchical one as the supervisor is in the position

of power by purely being involved in the experience by bringing their experience and

skills to the experience. However, both participants can determine this distribution of

power and it is expected that this will be adjusted over time as the supervisee develops.

The concept of power within the functions of the supervision process is explained in

more concrete terms later.

Phases of the supervisory relationship. Holloway's (1995) review of the

supervisory literature revealed that the development of the supervisory relationship had

rarely been examined. However, the evolving nature of relationships has been given

considerable thought by those in the social psychological field and it is from the

friendship research (Morton, Alexander, & Altman, 1976) and findings from the

supervision relationships literature (Mueller & Kell, 1972) that Holloway was able to

create the phases of supervision in the SAS model. These phases are: the beginning, the

maturing and the terminating phase. The beginning phase includes: clarifying the

relationship with the supervisor and establishing a supervision contract; the mature phase

includes the enhancement of social bonding and the development of conceptualization

skills; and the terminating phase includes decreasing the need for supervisor direction.

Holloway (1995) argued that a relationship grows when it moves from being non-

interpersonal to interpersonal, that is, as the two parties become more familiar with each

other's individual thoughts, emotions, and behaviours, the uncertainty between them

73

reduces and both disclose more information about themselves. In terms of the

supervisory relationship, Holloway believes this to be a formal and professional

relationship with high expectations and to be more role-bound than friendship-bound.

However, similar to a less formal arrangement, as the relationship grows it too becomes

more individualised, specifically around the learning needs of the supervisee and the

teaching methods of the supervisor.

Holloway’s phases of relationship development are similar to those of

Tuckman’s (1965) small group development theory. Tuckman identified the following

five stages of development within a group’s lifespan: forming, storming, norming,

performing and adjourning. In the first phase, forming, team members are introduced to

each other, and state why they are participating in the team and what they would like to

accomplish. They then explore the boundaries of acceptable group behaviour. In the

second stage, storming, all members have their own agendas and ideas as to how the

group process should be. This is usually a difficult stage because group members realise

the process is more difficult than they had realized and can often become impatient about

the progress of the group. The third stage, norming, is characterised by a heightened

group focus and team members become more accepting of the other team members and

their individual roles. They also have a greater understanding of the group’s ground

rules. The fourth stage, performing, is where group members’ relationships have further

developed and they begin performing the tasks assigned to them. The fifth and final

stage, adjourning, is where group accomplishments are reflected upon and evaluated. In

addition, group members say goodbye to one another. Some of the group relationships

continue after the group disbands and others end.

In support of Holloway’s model, American researchers (Ramos-Sánchez et al.,

2002) demonstrated in their exploratory study of supervision (n = 126) that highly

developed supervisees self-reported a better working relationship with their supervisors

than those supervisees at the beginning of their careers (refer to Appendix A for a

summary). Interestingly, in this study, those supervisees who had reported negative

74

supervision experiences also indicated poor relationships with their supervisors. They

cited discrepancies between supervision tasks and goals and a lack of trust and

confidence as contributing to weak relationships. One participant stated that there was a

personality clash with the supervisor because the supervisor “resents supervising, as she

gets paid little and reminds me of this. She is very curt and works to keep supervision as

brief as possible” (para. 21).

Supervisory contract. The supervisory contract is described by Holloway (1995)

as the establishment of a set of expectations for the tasks and functions of supervision.

As each of the parties will usually have individual expectations of the role and function

of the supervision, Holloway along with other researchers (Inskipp & Proctor, 1992)

argued that it is essential that expectations of supervision are clarified and adjusted in

order to establish an effective supervisory relationship. There is a large amount of

research that has investigated the expectancies and needs of supervisory relationships.

Inskipp and Proctor (1989) posited that the supervisory contract essentially

determines the nature of a supervisory relationship as it normally sets up the norms, rules

and commitments of the relationship at the beginning phase thereby giving a sense of

certainty and predictability. This does not mean the initial contract cannot be

renegotiated. Holloway (1995) pointed out that the supervisor should be "alert to the

changing character of the relationship and thereafter initiate discussion on renewed goals

and relational expectations" (p. 52).

While some professional boards in Australia (The Psychologists’ Boards of all

states in Australia and The Queensland Counsellors’ Association) require the

development and engagement of a supervisory contract between a supervisor and

supervisee, there is little research to report its effectiveness. Whitman (2001)

investigated the supervision experience of psychiatry interns (n = 4), psychology interns

(n = 7) and clinical social work interns (n = 6). Results indicated that only 15% of the

psychiatry interns and 15% of the psychology interns had engaged in a supervision

agreement or contract with their supervisor. On the other hand, 64% of the social work

75

interns had discussed a supervision agreement with their supervisors. There is no

empirical data to indicate the effectiveness of a formal contract and/or agreement in a

supervision arrangement.

The Tasks and Functions of the SAS model

Holloway (1995) described a number of teaching tasks and functions to explain

the process of supervision. As the matrix (See Figure 5.2) shows, supervisors are able to

choose any number of supervision functions to assist a supervisee achieve a number of

supervision tasks relevant to their personal and professional growth. In addition, this

matrix allows for the evaluation of function and task match effectiveness and to assist in

planning supervisory sessions. A thorough description of this process will now be

given.

Figure 5.2 Supervision tasks and functions matrix.

From “Clinical Supervision: A Systems Approach” by E. L. Holloway, 1995, p. 59.

Supervisory Tasks

In the SAS model (see Figure 5.1), Holloway (1995) proposed a number of

"teaching objectives" (p. 13), which she had identified from the counselling research

halla

This figure is not available online. Please consult the hardcopy thesis available from the QUT Library

76

literature as being essential components of the supervisory process. These teaching

objectives have been categorised into five specific tasks including: counselling skills,

case conceptualization, professional role, emotional awareness, and self-evaluation that

are considered to be important skills for a supervisee to obtain. Each task will now be

described in detail.

Counselling skills. This task is where the supervisee develops the fundamental

skills and knowledge of their field for example, counselling, aimed at helping the

supervisee identify what type of action needs to be taken with their client. For example,

the supervisee develops micro and macro counselling skills such as empathy, listening,

reflection of feeling and summarising to enhance client self-disclosure.

McMahon and Patton (2000) reported in their Australian qualitative study of

school guidance counsellors that skill development in the supervisory experience was an

important benefit to supervisees. One participant reported that supervision provided the

forum to “really hone your counselling skills, get ideas” (p. 346). Another participant,

who was unsupervised, gave a further insight by indicating that supervision might also

provide an opportunity whereby a supervisee can try new counselling techniques and

develop as a supervisor.

Case conceptualisation. This task involves both the supervisor and the

supervisee understanding the client’s psychosocial history and presentation of the

problem. Holloway (1995, p. 16) stated that case conceptualisation is the focus of

supervision. Essentially, the supervisee must gain a comprehensive insight into the

client's behaviours and then apply a theoretical framework to explain why these

behaviours occur in order to devise a plan of intervention. Holloway notes the duality of

this task by outlining that it also presents an opportunity for the supervisor and

supervisee to identify their particular theoretical orientations (for example, CBT,

psychodynamic theory).

American researchers (Culbreth & Borders, 1998) gave some insight into the

importance of supervisor competence in the areas of counselling and case

77

conceptualisation in their study on the perceptions of the supervisory relationship of

recovering and non-recovering substance abuse counsellors (refer to Appendix A for a

summary). Results from their qualitative study (N = 5) indicated that the primary issue in

supervision is supervisor competence. It was also shown that good counsellors do not

necessarily make good supervisors. The supervisor must be able to impart their skills and

knowledge to the supervisees effectively so that the supervisees learn to be better in their

field.

Professional role. This task is about the management of the supervisory

relationship. Supervisory contracts are generally formed between a supervisee and

supervisor before supervision begins and assists both parties to identify their individual

roles. Holloway (1995) discusses four components of this task that include how the

supervisee will: a) utilise relevant external resources to assist their client, b) apply

professional and ethical principles, c) learn appropriate forms of record management,

professional procedures and inter-professional relationships, and d) participate in the

supervisory relationship.

There is much research (see Gatmon et al., 2001; Kennard, Stewart & Gluck,

1987; Ladany et al., 1999; Magnuson et al., 2000) to support the importance of a

supervisor’s professional role in supervision and this research is described throughout

this chapter. For example, Ladany et al. emphasised the importance for a supervisor to

provide respect and adequate session conditions for supervisee satisfaction. Results from

this study also suggested that supervisees’ expected that ethical guidelines would be

strictly adhered to and became unhappy with the supervision process if confidentiality

was breached. In addition, Magnuson et al. showed that professionalism is important to

supervisees because it helps them to understand supervision expectations and boundary

issues (refer to Appendix A for a summary).

Emotional awareness. In this task, the supervisee is given an opportunity with

their supervisor to reflect upon their own feelings, thoughts, and actions that have arisen

from their work with clients and with their supervisor. This process is undoubtedly the

78

primary task of supervision because the basic tenet of most counselling theory articulates

the need for the counsellor to gain an understanding of their own emotional reactions and

to understand why they occur in order to consider issues that might impact negatively on

their professional relationships with others.

There is some qualitative and quantitative research to suggest that both

supervisor and supervisee emotional awareness is an important aspect of the supervisory

relationship and supervisee development. For example, the Nutt-Williams, Judge, Hill

and Hoffman (1997) results stressed the importance of emotional awareness of both the

supervisor and supervisee to remedy transference and counter transference issues in

supervision (refer to Appendix A for a summary). Ward, Friedlander, Schoen, and Klein

(1985) confirmed the importance of emotional awareness by describing the negative

impact of differing interpersonal patterns and counter-defensiveness in supervision

experiences.

Self-evaluation. The self-evaluation process allows the supervisees to examine

themselves as a professional in a non-judgmental environment. As part of professional

growth and as an ethical responsibility, the supervisee is essentially encouraged by their

supervisor "to recognize limits of competence, effectiveness and client progress in

counselling" (Holloway, 1995, p. 25). According to Holloway, supervisors employ

various techniques to promote this task to supervisees, which can include role modelling

and questioning techniques to assist the supervisee to assess how their intervention

impacts on a client. A comprehensive literature review indicated that there is no

scientific data available to support or deny the use and/or effectiveness of self-evaluation

processes in supervision.

Supervisory Functions

Holloway (1995) developed a number of primary functions that a supervisor

engages in throughout the supervisory process. These functions are labelled:

monitoring/evaluating, instructing/advising, modelling, consulting and supporting/

sharing. In the SAS model, each of these functions is characterised by "behaviours

79

typical of their respective social role and the form of relational power governing that

function" (p. 32). Although the concepts of social role and supervision process have been

well researched previously, Holloway was the first to present the relationship between

role, function and power in the supervisory process within a comprehensive framework.

This next section gives a brief overview of how Holloway has defined and applied the

concept of power to the functional aspect of supervision.

Holloway (1995) has employed French and Raven's (1960) classification of

power to explain the different types of power considered to be inherent in the

supervisory role. These five different types of power include: reward and coercive (and

when combined these two terms are typically referred to as evaluative power),

legitimate, expert and referent. She argued that there are four forms of this power that are

characteristic to the role of the supervisor and include: reward power, coercive power,

legitimate power and expert power. Reward power is the perception that the other

person has the ability and resources to mediate reward whereas coercive power is the

perceived mediation of punishment. Legitimate power is a person's perceived

trustworthiness as a “professional.” Expert power is attributed to a person because of

their mastery of knowledge or skills. Referent power, derived from a person's

interpersonal attraction, or in other words, the respect and esteem a supervisee has for

the supervisor based on their personal characteristics. Although it is recognised that both

the supervisor and supervisee can influence each other in the process of learning and

teaching, Holloway focuses on the supervisor's rather than the supervisee’s use of power

in the supervisory relationship. Holloway (1995) did not mean for this idea to be

misconstrued and to be perceived as the supervisee having no power in the relationship

"but, rather, that the supervisee does not have the same responsibilities for formal

evaluation and teaching" (p. 32).

Interestingly, Putney et al. (1992) demonstrated in their exploratory study of

psychology interns that gender played a role in the level of autonomy a supervisee

experienced in supervision as male and female supervisors tended to use different forms

80

of power in supervision although they did not elaborate on what these power differences

were (refer to Appendix A for a summary). Despite this, their results indicated that

gender unmatched pairings (for example a male-supervisor and a female-supervisee

arrangement) appeared to encourage more supervisee autonomy and less conflict than

those who were matched with a same-sex supervisor.

The following provides an overview of each function of supervision according to

the SAS model.

Monitoring/evaluating. Holloway (1995) described this function as a process in

which the supervisor has a professional and ethical responsibility to evaluate the

supervisee's work and to provide "formative and summative evaluations" (p. 32).

Essentially, the supervisor is required to make comments about the supervisee's

behaviour and how it relates to their professional role. It is here that the supervisor will

generally exhibit evaluative power (i.e., reward and coercive power) in this function

meaning that the supervisor will provide both positive and negative feedback on the

supervisee's performance. Research (Poulin, 1994) has shown that the process of

evaluation is a fundamental component of supervision. Despite this finding, Ladany et

al. (1999) found that one third of the respondents in their research perceived that their

supervisors, in some way, did not provide adequate evaluations of their counselling

performances. Similarly, Ramos-Sanchez et al. (2002) demonstrated that insufficient

feedback can have a negative impact on the supervisee’s experience and confidence

citing one participant who reported “I feel my current supervisor is very unclear and

inconsistent with her expectations of me. I feel she does not give constructive feedback

but is generally critical and not conscious of how her way of delivering supervision

impacts my therapy and confidence” (para. 23). Ramos-Sanchez et al. argued that this

lack of confidence in ability and feelings of incompetence might be long-lasting and so

detrimental that the supervisee eventually changes career paths.

Instructing/advising. This function involves the supervisor providing

information, opinions, and suggestions or "advising" the supervisee on how a case

81

should be managed based on professional knowledge and skill. Holloway (1995)

suggested that expert and legitimate power are employed in this function. That is,

supervisors influence and shape supervisees’ experiences by their presumed expert

knowledge and skills and by the trust the supervisee has in them as “professionals.” As

in the monitoring/evaluating function, the supervisor controls most of the

communication in the supervision session and because of this, the relationship between

the supervisor and supervisee remains distant. However, as would be expected, it is

suggested that as the supervisee becomes more knowledgeable and skilful, the

supervisor's would become less advisory and the relationship between teacher and

student would become less distant.

Hart and Nance (2003) conducted empirical research to evaluate supervisor and

supervisee supervision style (for example, directive teacher, supportive teacher,

counsellor and consultant) preferences over a period of ten supervision sessions (refer to

Appendix A for a summary). From a large sample (n = 90 for supervisor responses; n =

180 for supervisees) results indicated that supervisors indicated that they would prefer to

employ a high support and low direction style (e.g., counsellor) or both high support and

high direction (e.g., supportive teacher) in supervision. Supervisees reported that they

preferred high support and high direction (e.g. supportive teacher). The researchers

acknowledged that the brevity of the supervision made it difficult to determine if the

style of the supervision would change depending on the development level of the

supervisee.

82

Modelling. As the name of this function implies, as part of the supervisor’s role,

he or she is required to model professional conduct and practice so that the supervisee

can learn what is expected of them as a professional. Holloway (1995) has applied the

concept of expert and referent power to this function to explain the underlying dynamics

of the supervisor and supervisees' relationship. She added that when "the supervisee sees

the supervisor as having values and attitudes similar to their own or as having

professional skills and knowledge they aspire to, referent [and expert power] of the

supervisor is significant" (p. 36). Ramos-Sanchez et al. (2002) commented that

supervisor modelling can have both positive and negative affects on the supervisee’s

supervision experience. Their qualitative research indicated that violations of ethical

codes by supervisors negatively impact on the supervision experience and that

supervisors must take immediate action to rectify this type of behaviour.

Consulting. In this function, the problem solving of clinical and professional

issues becomes a consultative process whereby the supervisor asks for the supervisee's

opinions. As in the modelling function, Holloway (1995) suggested that the supervisor

employs expert and legitimate power in this function too, that is, the supervisee is

influenced by the supervisor’s skills and experience and the interpersonal attraction the

supervisee has for the supervisor based on respect of them as a “professional.” It is also

here that the supervisee also has an opportunity to learn self-evaluation skills. The

communication style is likely to be bi-directional making the supervisory relationship

less distant and more interactive.

Magnuson et al. (2000) reported in their exploratory study of counsellors in

supervision (N = 11) that supervisees considered supervisors to be “lousy” when they

failed to listen to the supervisee and simply ignored the skills and needs of the

supervisee. It should be noted that the aim of this particular study was to produce a

profile of what “lousy” or ineffective supervision would look like, conceptually

speaking.

83

Smaby, Harrison, and Maddux (1996) conducted a study which aimed to

investigate the efficacy of the use of consultation in the supervision of a variety of staff

working in a medical diagnosis unit. The sample included one supervisor and 15 staff

members (some were technically trained and others were trained in administration). The

supervisor participated in twenty hours of consultation training with a consultant which

included reading materials on influencing others, a professional career needs analysis

and developing supervisory interaction via methods like role-playing. These strategies

were then applied by the supervisor with the supervisees in the unit over a 40 day period.

Qualitative data indicated that the supervisor’s consultative approach influenced the

supervisees’ responses, in that, these supervisees perceived their supervisor in a positive

or neutral light on tasks like: problem-solving, instructing, reinforcing and scheduling

contacts. The supervisor felt that a consultative style of communication and access to the

consultant for assistance helped to employ new ways of positively influencing staff.

Supporting/sharing. The supervisor's main role in this function is to support the

supervisee's professional and personal development through "empathic attention,

encouragement, and constructive confrontation" (Holloway, 1995, p. 37). Holloway

applied the use of referent power here because she believed that a supervisee would need

to experience their supervisor as "trustworthy and respectable" in order for them to think

of their supervisors' views and opinions as important. Similarly to the consulting

function, the communication style here would tend to be bi-directional and that the

relationship between the supervisor and supervisee would be close. McMahon and

Patton (2000) demonstrated that Australian school guidance counsellor supervisees

identified support received from supervisors as one of the main benefits of the

supervision experience. In addition, in the absence of clinical supervision, participants

relied heavily on the support of their colleagues whereby they could discuss difficult

cases with peers. Furthermore, participants in this study also indicated that support from

both supervisors and colleagues enhanced their psychological wellbeing and decreased

chances of burnout.

84

Summary

In summary, Holloway (1995) envisages the supervisory process as made up of a

combination of tasks and functions. "The interrelatedness of identifying what is the

teaching task with deciding how one will function to accomplish that task is known as

the process of supervision" (p. 37). In simple words, the supervisory process is formed

based on what objectives need to be achieved and what teaching strategies will be

implemented to achieve the objectives. There is much empirical evidence to support the

use and effectiveness of the tasks and functions described in the SAS model. Holloway

acknowledged in this model that other factors will play a vital role in understanding why

supervisors choose particular tasks and functions and the effectiveness of these choices.

Holloway refers to these mediating variables as contextual factors. These are now briefly

explained.

Contextual Factors

Holloway (1995) defined contextual factors as "the conditions [of supervision]

that are related scientifically and practically to the supervisor's and supervisee's choice of

task and function and the formation of the relationship" (p. 23). These factors are

differentiated from the tasks and function of the supervisory process, as they are not

easily identified from interactional experiences or from analysing scripts. The SAS

model describes four contextual factors and they include: 1) supervisor factors, 2)

trainee/supervisee factors, 3) client factors and 4) institutional factors. Each of these

factors will now be described.

1. Supervisor Factors

Holloway (1995) has incorporated five supervisor factors in the SAS model,

identified by her from previous research as being important to supervisor performance.

These factors include the supervisor's: professional experience in counselling and

supervision; expectations concerning roles for the supervisor and supervisee; theoretical

orientation to counselling; cultural characteristics; and self-presentation. These factors

are defined briefly.

85

Professional experience. Holloway (1995) found that the supervisor's

professional experience impacts on the supervision relationship. Her qualitative research

revealed that counselling supervision experience is associated with "the types of

judgments by the supervisors regarding self-disclosure, supervisee performance, and

instructional approach to supervision" (p. 63). In support of this finding, Kennard et al.

(1987) showed that supervisees reported significantly more positive experiences with

supervisors who were perceived to be supportive, instructional and interpretative (refer

to Appendix A for a summary). Interestingly, Ladany et al. (1999) yielded results that

indicated that nine percent of supervisees perceived their supervisors as lacking expertise

or competence regarding the clients they were treating. Examples given by respondents

included "a lack of knowledge on the part of the supervisor or supervisee in treating

clients with diagnoses such as multiple personality disorder, eating disorders, or mental

retardation" (p. 453).

Magnuson et al. (2000) also reported that one counsellor in their study reported

that the lack of professionalism by their supervisor had limited their ability to learn what

was expected of them within the counselling role. Another pointed out that all

supervision experiences had been provided by people who had never worked as a

counsellor, again limiting the supervision experience. Others characterised their

supervisors as professionally apathetic, meaning that their supervisors were lazy and not

committed to either the profession or the supervisee’s skill and knowledge development.

Counsellors reported their supervisors were never prepared for the session and that the

supervisee was responsible for the direction of the supervision. If little was said from the

supervisees’ point of view, the supervision was considered to be over for that session.

Others indicated that supervisors came with their personal power agenda and would step

over anyone to reach their own professional goals.

Role in supervision. Social role theories have been applied in the supervision

research before (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998) to explain the attitudes and behaviours that

occur in a supervisory relationship. Holloway (1995) discovered through analysing

86

scripts between supervisors and supervisees that supervisees are influenced by the role a

supervisor plays and that those impressions appear to impact on the development of the

supervisory relationship.

A supervisor's preferred theoretical orientation is considered to be an influential

factor in the supervision process, as an essential part of supervision is the application of

theoretical principles to assessment and intervention. To do this, a supervisor will

naturally utilise their experiences and knowledge base in this teaching process. This can

produce obstacles in a supervisory relationship particularly when the supervisor and

supervisee’s theoretical orientations do not match. Kennard et al. (1987) demonstrated

that supervisees reported that their supervision experiences were significantly more

positive when their theoretical orientation matched their supervisor’s. Ladany et al.

(1999) found that eighteen percent (18%) of respondents reported that their supervisors

were not receptive to theoretical approaches other than their own. This finding

corroborates with an earlier study (Moskowitz & Rupert, 1983) that found twenty

percent (20%) of supervisor-supervisee conflicts centered on differences in theoretical

orientation.

Interestingly, Putney et al. (1992) found in their study of psychologist interns (N

= 84) that the supervisor’s theoretical orientation generally determined the supervision

focus. They significantly showed that it is a supervisor’s theoretical orientation, and not

the supervisee’s theoretical orientation, that impacts on the way in which the supervisee

evaluates the supervisor’s characteristics. The researchers argued that this tends to

support the notion that supervisor style is relatively fixed and that supervisors are not

generally flexible in adapting their style to match that of the supervisee’s. This research

(Putney et al.) also found that matching the theoretical orientation of a supervisor and

supervisees would provide for a more satisfactory and effective supervision experience.

Cultural characteristics. Holloway (1995) also argued that a supervisor’s

cultural values strongly influence their social and moral judgments. Examples of

cultural characteristics include gender, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, religious

87

beliefs and social values. Holloway believed it is essential that supervisors recognise the

importance of cultural issues and gain insight into how these issues may impact on the

supervisory process. Gatmon et al.’s (2001) exploratory research showed that discussion

of cultural variables (such as gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation) in supervision

significantly enhanced the supervisory working alliance and increased satisfaction with

the supervisory experience (refer to Appendix A for a summary).

According to Ladany et al. (1999), seven percent (7%) of the supervisees in their

study provided evidence to suggest their respective supervisors were multi-culturally

insensitive in reference to clients. Examples included "Negative stereotype words and

comments were used," "Comments about women taking care of men in traditional ways

seemed to be inflexible in his thinking about roles," "Her perceptions of African

American clients, I believe, were misinformed or distorted," "Supervisor is quick to

counter a racial/cultural focus for a more superficial explanation of client behaviour,"

and "She made supposedly humorous derogatory remarks about some of our clients" (p.

454). In support of these findings, in Ramos-Sánchez et al.’s (2002) study a supervisee

reported that when discussing a sensitive multi-cultural issue that their “supervisor

imitated one of my [ethnic] clients, which I found pejorative, misogynist, and offensive”

(para. 22).

Counsellors in the Magnuson et al. (2000) study also reported the following

issues in supervision: boundary violations, intrusiveness, and exploitation. One

supervisee reported that the supervisor utilised their supervision sessions for therapy.

Another supervisee reported that they had observed the initiation of a sexual relationship

between one supervisor and a supervisee within a group supervision setting. Another

supervisee reported that the supervisor had disclosed confidential information disclosed

in their supervision session to others, which irrevocably destroyed their supervision

relationship.

Self-presentation. In the SAS model, self-presentation is defined as

88

the affective, verbal and nonverbal behaviours that the participants

engage in to convey a particular desired impression on the other; these

behaviours may be habitual and require no conscious monitoring or may

be purposefully regulated. They characterise the individual and become

the supervisor's individual manner of enacting his or her role. (Holloway,

1995, p. 80)

There has been much research into the influence of self-presentation in

relationships in social-psychological research (see Ward et al., 1985). Holloway included

this factor in the SAS model because many of her transcripts revealed that various forms

of self-presentation were evident in the supervisory experience.

While there is little research on this concept, Steward et al. (2001) produced

results that showed that supervisor attractiveness was negatively associated with

supervisees' self-evaluations. However supervisor interpersonal sensitivity and task

orientation did not impact on the supervisees' self-evaluations. In addition, Ladany et al.

(1999) found thirteen percent (13%) of respondents reported that supervisors did not

always ensure adequate session conditions or respect. Respondent examples included

"She sometimes cancels sessions with no [sic] rescheduling," "consistently short-

changed in supervision time because supervisor wanted to go out to lunch/shopping,"

and "Supervisor constantly missed supervision sessions and allowed them to be

interrupted by others" (p. 452).

Magnuson et al. (2000) reported that some counsellors had described their

supervisors as having “impatience, rigidity, depersonalization, and inflexibility” (para.

17) with them during their supervision sessions. Culbreth and Borders (1998) also found

that supervisor attitudes are an important factor in the supervisory relationship. Results

from their study indicated that supportive and positive type attitudes contribute to how

supervisees perceive the supervisory relationship.

89

2. Trainee/Supervisee Factors

The SAS model presents five supervisee/trainee factors thought to be influential

in supervisory relationships. These include the supervisees counselling experience,

theoretical orientation, learning style, and learning needs; cultural characteristics; and

self-presentation. These factors will now be explained in more detail.

Trainee/supervisee experience. The supervision experience from a supervisee's

perspective is associated with a supervisor's expectations of the supervisee's needs and

levels of competence. Holloway (1995) presented a number of research findings that

indicated that supervisees in the beginning stages of their supervision period need more

support, encouragement and structure in supervision, whereas more experienced

supervisees are more independent in their approach to supervision (McNeil, Stoltenberg

& Pierce, 1985; Reising & Daniels, 1983; Wiley & Ray, 1986; Worthington & Stern,

1985). The supervisee's stage of development and supervisor approach appears to

influence the supervisory relationship. Many researchers (Kennard et al., 1987;

Magnuson et al., 2000; McMahon & Patton, 2000; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1988) have

found evidence to support the notion that supervisee experience influences the

supervision experience. This research has already been described previously in this

chapter.

Theoretical orientation. As with supervisor theoretical orientation, Holloway

(1995) has found that supervisee theoretical orientation is evident in the supervisory

experience and influences the way a supervisee will interpret and conceptualise a case,

what form of treatment they will apply and how they will relate to their supervisor.

Much research (Friedlander & Ward, 1984; Kennard et al, 1987; Ladany et al., 1999;

Magnuson et al., 2000; Putney et al., 1992) has been conducted to suggest that

supervisee theoretical orientation plays a role in the supervision experience. This

research has also been described in previous sections within this chapter.

Learning needs and style. Holloway (1995) defined learning style and needs as

"that identified group of developmental factors relevant to the supervisee's approach to

90

and perception of the supervisory experience" (p. 88). Holloway presents the findings of

two research papers (Stoltenberg, McNeil, & Delworth, 1988; Poulin, 1994) that

demonstrated the influence of learning style and needs in the supervisory process.

Stoltenberg et al. (1988) found that a supervisee's developmental level influenced

the degree of structure in a supervision session. Poulin’s (1994) work indicated that

supervisors thought of supervisees in three categories: as a student, as a counsellor and

as a person. Within these categories, it was shown that supervisors taught their less

experienced counterparts according to their own style and to their readiness to assimilate

and apply knowledge. However, Spence et al. (2001) reported supervisors generally

adopt their own style of supervision, which they apply to all supervisees and across

settings. Further still, they found evidence to indicate that despite supervisors suggesting

that they adapt their style to meet their supervisees' needs, this rarely happens when

measured behaviourally.

Cultural characteristics. As with the supervisor’s cultural characteristics, the

SAS model assumes that a supervisee’s cultural beliefs will influence the supervisory

relationship. The importance of this issue is given credence in the Ladany et al. (1999)

study, which revealed that seven percent of their sample perceived that their supervisors

had been culturally insensitive towards them personally. More specifically, one

supervisor had chosen not to approach differences in ethnicity "explicitly stating [sic]

several times that racial and cultural differences were easier to deal with if ignored" (p.

454).

Self-presentation. Similar to the definition of supervisor self-presentation,

factors such as interpersonal and emotional characteristics are considered to be part of a

supervisee's self-presentation in supervision. Empirical research, as presented by

Holloway (1995) suggested that interpersonal patterns, reactance potential,

defensiveness, and counter-defensiveness are influential in the supervisory experience

(Tracey, Ellickson, & Sherry, 1989; Ward et al., 1985). In addition, Holloway's

interview transcripts of a supervision session also indicated that the supervisee self-

91

presentation (e.g., level of maturity and presence in the session) influenced the

supervisor's teaching strategy. Kennard et al. (1987) demonstrated that supervisees

reported a good supervision experience when their supervisor had perceived them to be

interested in their feedback specifically in relation to professional development.

Researchers (Nutt-Williams et al., 1997) investigated supervisees’ levels of

anxiety, self-efficacy, counter-transference management and therapeutic skills over a

semester of participating in supervision sessions in a qualitative and quantitative study.

Responses to a set of self-report measures indicated overall that the supervisees became

less anxious as supervision progressed, that they had developed greater therapeutic skills

and were more able to manage counter-transference reactions. Supervisees reported that

while they could demonstrate empathy and understanding in counselling sessions with

clients, they also felt anxious, frustrated, inadequate and distracted. In addition,

supervisees reported that they often had difficulty managing their own feelings in

regards to some client issues (such as guilt, sex and abortion). Supervisors reported that

these feelings sometimes interfered with the counselling process and resulted in

behaviours like the supervisee advancing their own agenda or using a directive

communication style. Supervisors reported that supervisees utilised the strategies of

focusing on the client, self-awareness and controlling their feelings to manage their

reactions in counselling. The data also suggested that the supervisees appeared to be at

different levels of expertise and self-awareness and therefore requiring different training

needs.

3. Client Factors

The client is generally considered to be the essential element in the supervision

process. Holloway (1995) revealed that despite this, there is no research that has

measured client change or outcome in relation to the supervision process. Holloway has

included three client factors in the SAS model that she considered to be influential in the

supervision experience. These factors include: client characteristics, identified problem

and diagnosis, and the counselling relationship. Each of these factors is described below.

92

Client characteristics. Client characteristics, in relation to the outcome of

psychotherapy have been researched extensively in the literature (for examples see

Bryan, Dersch, Shumway, & Arrendondo, 2004; Ogrodniczuk, Piper, & Joyce, 2004;

Robiner, 1987; Sanders Thompson, Bazile, & Akbar, 2004; Steketee, Chambless, &

Tran, 2001) and have shown that characteristics such as ethnicity, social class, gender,

age, race and personality traits impact on the outcomes of therapy. While it is generally

believed that a supervisor would certainly consider client characteristics such as age,

gender, ethnicity and race when helping a supervisee manage a case, there is no research

to indicate how if at all these characteristics are attributed to supervisee effectiveness in

the supervision process. For example, a supervisee's ineffectiveness with a particular

client could be attributed to a mismatch between gender or race, rather than processes

that may be at work such as the supervisee's characteristics.

Identified problem and diagnosis. It is common when evaluating a client case,

that a supervisee would initially present details of their client's symptomatology,

significant historical events, recent history, and assessment and diagnosis of the problem.

It is undoubtedly the supervisor's responsibility to ensure that the case is conceptualised

and diagnosed correctly and that the client receives appropriate treatment. Thus, it is

essential that a supervisor apply the appropriate skills and knowledge to assist the

supervisee to manage a client case effectively. Presumably, there is most likely some

discrepancies between the levels of assistance a supervisee is given which in turn may

influence therapy outcomes and client level of change.

McMahon and Patton’s (2000) study indicated that most of the participants in

their study made no mention of the influence of supervision on client welfare. However,

a senior school guidance counsellor suggested that a benefit of supervision is “having the

best outcomes for clients” (p. 347). Furthermore, this same participant commented that if

supervisees “are well supervised…then you’re giving the best outcomes for the client

and you’re keeping a good service” (pp. 347-348). Another supervised school guidance

counsellor elaborated further on this idea by stating “I need to grow and learn and want

93

to be supervised, and I see it as my responsibility because I do have to look at the quality

of service that I provide for students at my school “ (p. 348).

Counselling relationship. Holloway (1995) argued that it is from the counselling

relationship that a supervisor and supervisee can understand the effectiveness of their

treatment plan, evaluate the supervisee's ability to create a therapeutic relationship and to

provide therapy. Interestingly and as opposed to psychoanalytic theorists, Holloway

contended that parallel process, often seen in the supervision process, is potentially

problematic. As discussed previously, parallel process is when a supervisee

unconsciously acts out the counselling relationships he or she has with the client in

supervision or can also be the reverse whereby the supervisee acts out the relationship he

or she has with a supervisor in a client relationship. Holloway believed this was an

unproductive phenomenon and counterproductive to the counselling relationship.

Holloway cautioned that supervisors must be able to recognise this in supervision so that

they are able to employ effective supervision intervention strategies to overcome it and

help the supervisee understand the meaning of the client's behaviour before they only see

the case through the supervisee's focus. Holloway implied that the application of an

objective and evaluative approach sustains the counselling relationship.

4. Institutional (Organisational) Factors

Professional supervision takes place in a number of different organisations across

the world. Interestingly, the influence of organisational factors in the supervision process

has never been examined in the supervision literature. In the SAS model, the following

organisational characteristics are considered to play a role in the supervisory experience:

the agency clientele, the organisational structure and climate, and the professional ethics

and standards of the organisation. The constructs are examined more closely below.

Agency clientele. "The clientele served by the agency is relevant to the

supervisee's type of clinical training and, in some instances, perhaps to the supervisory

strategies" (Holloway, 1995, p. 99). That is, the supervisory process may be influenced

by organisational factors such as the type of clientele they are servicing. As Holloway

94

highlighted, there has been little research done to understand the impact of this factor on

the supervisory process. Despite this, it seems logical to suggest that this factor should

be investigated further as most professionals have specialised training needs given that

they come from various areas of expertise within a given field. Holloway argued (based

on Fredenberger’s, 1977 research) that other extraneous variables such as burnout and

job-related stress may also impact on the supervisory relationship. Therefore, it can be

assumed that organisational clientele variables (e.g., age, presenting problem etc.)

influence organisational structure and systems (e.g., procedures and policies), which will

in turn influence the nature of the supervisory process. There is very little empirical

evidence available to determine how clientele factors impact on the supervisory

experience.

Organisational structure and climate. As suggested above, Holloway (1995)

wrote, "Organisational norms and policy often intrude on the supervisory relationship"

(1995, p. 100). A number of researchers (Cherniss, 1980; Ekstein & Wallerstein, 1972)

have presented findings that give support for this intrusion. For example, supervisors

appear to have to play a number of roles when working within an organisation. Each role

could potentially have a different focus and motivation that needs to be consolidated in

order for the supervisor to work effectively. Supervisees have frequently indicated that

they are concerned about dealing with organisational politics due to a lack of experience

and insight. Supervisees who have been subjected to varying levels of stress and burnout

have reported feeling "emotional exhaustion, depersonalization of the organisation, and a

reduced sense of accomplishment" (Holloway, p. 100) and have thus become less

motivated and involved in client management which has then impacted on their

supervisory relationship. Again, there is very little empirical data available to illustrate

how and if organisational policy and process impact on the supervisory experience.

Professional ethics and standards. Some professional bodies (e.g., The

Australian Psychological Society and The Certified Practising Accountants (CPA)

Australia) have created ethical guidelines and standards for professionals in a

95

supervisory relationship to adhere to. Both supervisees and supervisors are faced with

the complexity of resolving ethical issues both as part of supervision and in the

supervisory relationship. The supervisor is responsible for acting as a representative of

his/ her profession and thus must comply with ethical standards. Supervisors must act

ethically in their supervisory role and are the conduit for helping the supervisor to learn

about ethical guidelines and making ethical decisions. In the SAS model, Holloway

(1995) has identified the following as ethical issues pertinent to the supervisory

relationship. Those issues she considered to be most relevant to the teaching of ethics

are: a) dual relationships, b) confidentiality, and c) the limits of professional

competency. As the SAS model is primarily a tool for teaching the supervisory process,

Holloway has focused on the teaching of ethics rather than reviewing a broader range of

ethical issues.

There is some research available to suggest that violations of these ethical issues

play a vital role in the supervisory process. For example, Ladany et al. (1999) reported

that six percent (6%) of their respondent's identified ethical problems in relation to the

concept of dual roles. Respondents indicated that these issues were usually in relation to

their supervisor wishing to engage in a friendship with the supervisee. Another example

of a dual relationship is when the supervisor provides supervision for a supervisee as

well as personal counselling concurrently. Under these situations it is argued that there is

potential to compromise the supervisee's performance evaluation.

Overall, it appears that, at times, supervisees are affected by the multiple

roles in which supervisors are engaged and that these roles may influence

the supervision process. Although multiple roles are common (e.g.,

supervisor-professor), it seems important for supervisors to thoroughly

discuss and process issues relevant to these multiple roles with their

supervisees. (p. 454)

Another example is breaches of confidentiality that occur if a supervisor chose to

divulge information discussed in supervision to a third party without the consent of the

96

supervisee. For example it was shown in the Ladany et al. (1999) study that over half of

the supervisees perceived that their supervisors violated at least one of the ethical

guidelines and some reported that their supervisors had breached confidentiality. In

addition, the supervisor chose not to accept limits of professional competency when they

did not have the knowledge and/or experience to deal with certain case management

issues. These examples highlight the need to consider ethics when trying to understand

the supervisory relationship.

Summary

Holloway (1995) defined supervision "as the opportunity for a student to capture

the essence of the psychotherapeutic process as articulated and modelled by the

supervisor and, subsequently, to recreate this process in an actual counselling

relationship" (p. 1). To help supervisors and supervisees achieve this goal, Holloway has

developed a multi-dimensional theoretical framework that enables both parties to

measure the effectiveness of the supervisory process and to methodically plan

supervisory sessions. Most aspects of Holloway’s model have been scientifically

researched and evaluated. Her dual purpose model can be used to evaluate a supervisory

process and is instructional nature, which means it has the potential to be applied

effectively to teach professionals to become supervisors in all fields (e.g., from health

professionals through to business professionals).

Problems with Understanding Supervision Effectiveness

There are a number of factors that have limited further understanding of the

drivers of effective supervision. As has been suggested in the preceding section, there is

a limited research base from which to draw implications for research. First, definitions of

supervision usually vary by professional group. Second, much of the empirical research

in this field has been derived from post-hoc and cross-sectional methodology limiting

our understanding of changes over time. Third, the application of theory to explain

results yielded from research has rarely occurred. Fourth, supervision is practised in a

variety of formats (including individual supervision, group supervision, electronic

97

supervision, peer supervision and self-supervision) and there is no research to suggest

which is the most effective. Fifth, the training of supervision can be provided from either

educational institutions or via private practitioners and any potential differences between

these options has never been investigated. Sixth, in Australia, only one tertiary institution

and only one state board of Psychology have offered courses in learning how to become

a supervisor which has meant that many current supervisors have had little, if no,

instruction on best practice for supervision. Currently, there is a formal requirement for

supervisors to obtain accreditation specifically in supervisory skills by the Psychologists’

Board of Queensland, the only Board in Australia to do this. Despite the current attention

on supervision, there are no quality assurance processes to ensure professional

supervisees are receiving an equitable, appropriate and effective service.

Overall Summary of Literature Review

Many Australian professionals are required to undertake some form of

supervision before being granted permission to practice within their respective fields. In

essence, it is thought that supervision provides an opportunity for the inexperienced to

develop knowledge, skills and experience needed to work effectively and ethically

within their chosen profession. Many professional boards and bodies have placed

supervision requirements as an adjunct to university training for their membership. It is

hard to fathom but, as has been highlighted in this chapter, the reasons for doing this and

quite often a definition of what is meant by supervision are rarely provided. This creates

a natural problem; lack of consistency in any understanding of what is actually being

promoted and why it is being promoted. This in turn leads to another problem relevant

to both research and practice. If we do not know what it is we are trying to understand,

how can we evaluate how effective professional supervision in Australia is?

The term supervision means different things depending on profession and field

of expertise. Each professional board has its own set of requirements that is to be

adhered to by both the supervisee and supervisor. While there are few specific courses in

Australia designed to teach a professional practitioner to become a supervisor, each

98

professional body appears to entrust that any professional, usually with at least one year's

experience, is capable of mentoring a less experienced practitioner. Interestingly,

despite the cost of supervision in terms of money and time usually encumbered by the

supervisee, there is little guidance or even questioning by supervisees of the necessity for

such practices. This is emphasised by the mandatory requirement for supervision in

many professions. Given this, it is critical that professional bodies collect empirical

evidence on whether supervision provides a model of best practice for the inexperienced

professionals and whether it enhances client or other outcomes.

There seem to be many questions that need to be considered before a full

empirical analysis of this concept can take place. It is not known if one particular format

(such as individual versus group) or a combination of formats (such as individual and

group versus individual only) of supervision is superior to others. There is no research to

indicate whether or not supervisees benefit more by having one supervisor or multiple

supervisors. There are no controlled studies to compare the supervision provided by

Universities and that provided by private practitioners. In addition, the data available on

the supervision experience is commonly limited to descriptive analysis and anecdotal

recounts, which in turn has limited our understanding of the supervision experience from

a multitude of perspectives.

Very rarely have any of the researchers in this field applied the theories and

models of supervision that have been developed since the beginning of last century to

give a greater insight into the experience of supervision. Surprisingly, theories drawn

from psychoanalytic teachings, developmental approaches, social role models and

eclectic and integrationist thought have never been comprehensively and scientifically

examined. On the surface, many theories appear to have potential to provide a theoretical

framework from which supervision could be evolved but none are as comprehensive and

formulated as Holloway’s (1995) SAS model.

The SAS model not only provides a way to understand and evaluate the

supervision experience but also has the added benefit of providing a model of teaching

99

supervision. Its all-encompassing approach allows it to be applied to all types of

supervision programs regardless of profession or field. While this model is based on

research and supervision experiences, it is easy to understand, is flexible in applicability

and plays dual roles in explaining and evaluating supervision it has yet to be employed to

assist in gaining a broader empirical understanding of the effectiveness of supervision.

The SAS model raises a number of questions aimed at understanding the supervision

experience and measuring its effectiveness. It is from this model that a number of

hypotheses have been developed to gain insight into the supervision practice.

In summary, the four key limitations with research into supervision are (1) lack

of consistent definition, (2) tendency to be atheoretical, (3) rarely scientifically tested

and typically exploratory, and (4) no criterion-related validity data. This research seeks

to address these limitations by conducting a range of qualitative and quantitative studies

involving supervisors and supervisees from a range of Australian professions. The next

chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the research program including full

details and a rationale for all research questions and hypotheses.

100

CHAPTER 6

Research Program Methodology Overview

The purpose of this chapter is to provide the reader with an overview of the

methodology used in this research program to investigate the application of the SAS

model to the Australian experience of professional supervision (refer to Table 6.1 for an

overview of the research program methodology). Mackenzie and House’s (1979) Model

of Scientific Inquiry was the conceptual framework employed in the methodological

design of this study. The operationalisation of Mackenzie and House’s Model in this

research resulted in the execution of four research studies designed to answer important

hypotheses that comprised its overall aim.

An Overview of the Four Studies

The first study was exploratory in nature. In light of the may definitions of

supervision available in the literature the study aimed to collect, from a group of

Australian professionals, the interpretations of the term “supervision” and the intended

or anticipated outcomes of supervision activities. It was proposed that this study would

help to confirm or disconfirm the definitions of supervision presented earlier (see

Chapter 2) and allow initial consideration of the relevance of the SAS model and its

assumptions to professional Australians participating in supervision. Based on this study

some support for the SAS model, over other theoretical approaches was identified.

Therefore, the SAS model was selected as a basis for further empirical exploration of the

supervision experience.

The second study was also exploratory in nature. The study aimed to evaluate

the modes of supervision delivery as well as to collect information regarding the key

tasks and functions utilised in professional supervision experiences. Given the SAS

model had been supported by the previous study, the second study was designed to

evaluate the adequacy of the operationalisation of the SAS model in relation to

supervision delivery, tasks, and functions.

101

The third study was empirical in nature. The aim of this study was to conduct a

quantitative quasi-experimental study of Australian psychologists engaged in supervision

and to track their performance over a 12-month period. Using a range of externally

provided performance measures (e.g., managerial and supervisor ratings of performance)

and controlling for key supervisee-supervisor characteristics, SAS model variables (i.e.,

delivery mode, format, task-function match) were evaluated for their ability to predict

supervisee performance. A second analysis was conducted 12 months after the initial

period of testing.

The fourth study was confirmatory in nature and followed the same design

method as the third study. The aim of this study was to conduct a quantitative quasi-

experimental study of Australian business consultants and accountants without CPA

qualification engaged in supervision and to track their performance over a 12-month

period.

102

Table 6.1

Overview of the research program methodology

Study One Study Two Study Three Study Four Chapter 7 8 9 10 Data approach Exploratory Exploratory and Confirmatory Confirmatory Confirmatory Aim of Study

To establish definitions of professional supervision and to determine outcomes to be achieved at completion of supervision.

To assess the relationship between supervision delivery mode, format, and supervision tasks, functions and success by controlling for profession

To determine whether or not professional supervision contributed to ratings of psychology supervisees’ professional performance.

To determine whether or not professional supervision contributed to ratings of business consultant supervisees’ professional performance.

Theory tested SAS Model (Holloway, 1995) SAS Model (Holloway, 1995) SAS Model (Holloway, 1995) SAS Model (Holloway, 1995) Research Design Cross-Sectional Cross-Sectional Longitudinal Longitudinal Data collection method

Survey (qualitative and quantitative)

Survey (qualitative and quantitative)

Survey (predominantly quantitative)

Survey (predominantly quantitative)

Sample 210 supervisor-supervisee dyads 200 supervisees, 50 from each of four professional areas

513 supervisees 480 supervisees

Sample groups

psychologists counsellors nurses occupational therapists financial advisors business consultants and accountants without a CPA accountants

psychologists counsellors nurses business consultants and accountants without a CPA

psychologists business consultants and accountants without a CPA

Analyses

Descriptive Content Analysis

Descriptive Content Analysis Chi-square ANOVAs Standard multiple regression

Exploratory Factor Analysis MANOVA Post hoc analysis Hierarchical Multiple Regression Bivariate intercorrelations

Exploratory Factor Analysis MANOVA Post hoc analysis Hierarchical Multiple Regression Bivariate intercorrelations

103

The Research Questions and Hypotheses

A number of research questions and hypotheses were drawn from the supervision

literature and from Holloway’s (1995) Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS) model.

Two research questions are presented for Study One followed by 17 hypotheses for

Studies Two to Four. The research questions and hypotheses are numbered in accordance

to chapters:

Study One

7RQ1 Will supervisees report a range of different definitions of supervision that

can be used to compile a typology of supervision?

7RQ2 Will supervisees report a range of intended outcomes and be able to

operationalise supervision success?

Study Two

8H1 The selection of delivery mode (as agreed by supervisor and supervisee)

will differ according to differing levels of supervision success. Supervision success here

is defined as supervisee satisfaction with the supervision after 6 months of supervision.

8H2 The selection of delivery mode (as agreed by supervisor and supervisee)

will differ according to different supervision tasks.

8H3 The selection of supervision tasks will be associated with different intended

supervision functions. It is predicted that the following supervision functions and tasks

will be associated:

8H3a The supervision task of counselling will be associated with the functions

of monitoring/evaluating, instructing/advising, modelling, and consulting.

8H3b The supervision task of case conceptualisation will be associated with the

functions of monitoring/evaluating, instructing/advising, modelling and consulting.

8H3c The supervision task of professional role will be associated with the

functions of monitoring/evaluating, modelling, and consulting.

104

8H3d The supervision task of emotional awareness will be associated with the

functions of monitoring/evaluating and supporting/sharing.

8H3e The supervision task of self-evaluation will be associated with the

functions of monitoring/evaluating, consulting, and supporting/sharing.

Study Three

9H1 Significantly higher supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills

development will be found for in-training psychologists who have experienced a

matching of supervision functions and tasks when compared to those who have not.


development will be found for in-training psychologists who have greater matching of

gender and cultural characteristics.

9H3a Significantly higher supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills

development will be found for in-training psychologists who experience face-to-face

supervision in comparison to those who receive supervision via mechanisms other than

face-to-face supervision.

9H3b Significantly higher supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills

development will be found for in-training psychologists who have been able to select

their supervisors in comparison to those who have supervisors allocated.


development will be found for those who have more frequent supervision than for those

who have less frequent supervision.

9H5 The SAS model and supervisor ratings of supervisee development will

predict manager ratings of supervisee performance (improvement) 12 months after

supervision commenced for in-training psychologists.

9H6 Supervisor ratings of supervisee performance will predict manager ratings

of supervisee performance (improvement) 12 months after supervision commenced for

in-training psychologists.

105

Study Four


development will be found for in-training business consultants and accountants who

have experienced a matching of supervision functions and tasks when compared to those

who have not.



have greater matching of gender and cultural characteristics.



experience face-to-face supervision in comparison to those who receive supervision via

mechanisms other than face-to-face supervision.



have been able to select their supervisors in comparison to those who have supervisors

allocated.



have more frequent supervision than for those who have less frequent supervision.



supervision commenced for in-training business consultants and accountants.



in-training business consultants and accountants.

106

Research Design

The research design included both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs (refer

to Table 6.). Study One and Two were cross-sectional in design and Studies Three and

Four were longitudinal. According to de Vaus (2002), a cross-sectional design is the

most common method used in survey research. Essentially this method means that data

was collected at one point in time in comparison to a longitudinal design where data is

collected over time. While a cross-sectional design is often employed for efficiency

purposes it does come with limitations, for example it is not possible to look at causal

influences (de Vaus). A longitudinal design can determine causal effects due to the

tracking of individuals (de Vaus).

A cross-sectional design was employed in Studies One and Two to collect

empirical qualitative comments on the definition of supervision and its intended

outcomes as a preliminary step to the operationalisation of supervision needs, tasks and

outcomes. Content coding of qualitative comments indicated confirmation of the SAS

model and paved the way for measurement of the variables in the later longitudinal

studies. Initial cross-sectional studies also allowed for comparison between the nature

and experiences of supervision across a range of professions. Based on findings

regarding the breadth of supervision delivery methods, longitudinal studies (Studies

Three and Four) were modified to incorporate a broader number of factors for study than

originally suggested by the SAS model. Longitudinal designs employed in Studies

Three and Four allowed the researcher to measure the supervision experience as rated by

supervisees, supervisors and managers over time (12 months).

Sample

The four studies included four separate samples (refer to Table 6.1). Study One

comprised a sample of 210 supervisor-supervisee dyads. Professional types in this

sample were psychologists, counsellors, nurses, occupational therapists, financial

advisors, business consultants and accountants without a CPA, and accountants all of

whom were participating in a supervision process. Study Two comprised a total of 200

107

supervisees broken down into four groups of 50. The professionals included in this

sample were psychologists, counsellors, nurses and business consultants and accountants

(without a CPA). Study Three comprised 513 supervisees who were participating in

supervision as part of the criteria to become fully registered psychologists. Study Four

comprised 480 business consultants and accountants (without a CPA) who were in the

early years of their career and were participating in supervision as part of their

professional development.

Procedure

Study One. A total of 750 surveys were mailed to supervisees’ from each of six

professions (psychology, counselling, nursing, occupational therapy, financial advising,

business and accounting) in November 2000. The data was originally collected for a

series of research papers but was converted into a thesis. Surveys were distributed by

professional organisations to a list of recent members. These professional groups were

the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, the Queensland Counsellors’ Association,

Queensland Nurses’ Union, Occupational Therapists’ Board of Queensland, and

Chartered Professional Accountants (refer to Table 6.2).

Table 6.2

Survey distribution and response rates across professions

State Sent (N)

Sent (%)

Returned (n)

Returned (%)

Psychology 100 13 45 21 Counselling 150 20 39 19 Nursing 100 13 37 18 Occupational Therapy 100 13 32 15 Financial Advice (Economics) 150 20 28 13 Business & Accounting 150 20 29 14 Total 750 100 210

Two hundred and twenty three surveys were returned from which 13 surveys

were dropped because they were either (1) incomplete or (2) not from the target

population of supervisees. This left 210 complete surveys to be included in the analyses.

108

The supervisees who participated in Study One were different to those who participated

in Study Two.

Study Two. Two hundred and eight surveys were mailed to supervisees from four

professions (psychology, counselling, nursing, and business consulting). The surveys

were sent out in April 2001 and each included a reply paid envelope in which to submit

the completed forms. In line with QUT ethical guidelines, each survey was also

accompanied by a covering letter that indicated that participation was voluntary,

participants could withdraw at any point without penalty and that all data would be kept

confidential.

The covering letter clearly stated that research into supervision effectiveness was

needed given concerns about its relevance and ability to build professional strength. The

survey called for the participation by individuals who were about to embark upon

supervision (only those with less than one month from the commencement of their

supervision were requested to participate). The cover letter also included statements

about the value of effective supervision drawn from the public press.

Surveys were distributed in response to interest gleaned by flyers and a number

of short presentations. Flyers were placed around Universities in southeast Queensland

on noticeboards, distributed at introductory lectures, and a number of conferences (e.g.

ANZAM (Australia New Zealand Academy of Management) 2000; National Rural

Health Conference, 2001; National Forensic Psychology Conference, 2001 and National

Occupational Therapy Conference 2001) held in early to mid 2001. Flyers outlined the

location of the online participation registration process and a prize giveaway. A prize of

eight $20 Myer vouchers were offered as part of the process; with the probability of

winning presented as approximately 1 in 25. Other potential benefits of participation

were presented as (1) increased awareness of supervision options, (2) greater ability to

ensure successful outcomes from supervision, and (3) greater self-awareness regarding

personal goals as part of supervision. A reminder letter and further copy of the survey

were distributed after 3 weeks.

109

Study Three. A total of 600 surveys were mailed to psychology supervisees. The

surveys were sent out by November 2001 and each included a reply paid envelope in

which to submit the completed forms. In line with QUT ethical guidelines, each survey

was also accompanied by a covering letter that indicated that participation was

voluntary, participants could withdraw at any point without penalty and that all data

would be kept confidential.

The covering letter clearly stated that research into supervision effectiveness was

needed given concerns about its relevance and ability to build professional strength. The

survey clearly called for the participation by individuals who were about to embark upon

supervision (only those with less than one month from the commencement of their

supervision were requested to participate). The cover letter also included statements

about the value of effective supervision drawn from the public press.

Surveys were distributed to a list of potential participants collated as part of a

call for participation. Flyers were placed around universities in southeast Queensland,

on noticeboards and distributed at introductory lectures in early 2001. Flyers outlined

the location of the online participation registration process and a prize giveaway of a

retail store credit voucher. Potential benefits of participation were presented as (1)

increased awareness of supervision options, (2) greater ability to ensure successful

outcomes from supervision, and (3) greater self-awareness regarding personal goals as

part of supervision. A reminder letter and further copy of the survey was distributed after

the first and second weeks to participants.

Study Four. A total of 700 surveys were mailed to business consultants and

accounting supervisees. The surveys were sent out by Novemeber 2001 and each

included a reply paid envelope in which to submit the completed forms. In line with

QUT ethical guidelines, each survey was also accompanied by a covering letter that

indicated that participation was voluntary, participants could withdraw at any point

without penalty and that all data would be kept confidential.

110

The procedure was identical to that used in Study Three with the following

exceptions. After the number of respondents was deemed to be insufficient (N = 312) an

additional two reminder e-mails were sent requesting completion to those who had yet to

submit their second survey. After the response rate was raised to a sufficient level no

further requests for completion were made.

In all 700 initial surveys were distributed to participants from which 480

completed surveys were eventually received with a final response rate of 68.6%. The

initial survey sample was distributed on a convenience basis and continued until a

sample of 700 participants was achieved. Each supervisee/supervisor group was sent

two reminder notices via e-mail during the 12 months between initial survey and final

survey. Supervisees were also e-mailed prior to the final survey to prepare them for the

arrival of the follow-up survey.

In summary, the studies in the research program were conducted consecutively

taking into account that study three and study four occurred at the same time. There was

a six-month time-lag between studies. The time between study one and study three/four

was one and a half years.

Data Collection

Three self-report surveys (refer to Appendix B) were utilised to collect the data

for the four studies (also refer to Table 6.1). A self-report tool was utilised in this

research program for a number of reasons including cost, convenience, efficiency and

the ability to statistically validate the items (de Vaus, 2002). Other data collection

processes were considered such as case studies, interviews and focus groups but due to

the large sample sizes employed, the time allocated and resources available it was more

efficient to utilise self-report measures.

The first two surveys were designed to explore the nature of supervision

delivered to and experienced by new professionals. A range of qualitative comments

were yielded relating to supervisee definitions and expectations. Information regarding

supervisee demographics (e.g., gender, profession) were collected as well as information

111

regarding the manner in which supervision was organised (e.g., allocated to supervisee

or selected by supervisee) and delivered (e.g., method and frequency). A number of key

differences were found to exist in the way in which supervision is delivered to different

professionals (e.g., Psychologists and Accountants). Based on these early findings a

final survey was constructed to collect data from a new group of supervisees both (1)

early in their supervision relationship and (2) after 12 months of supervision. The

longitudinal survey was comprised of predominantly Likert rating scaled questions

which were designed to collect data on key SAS model variables (i.e., needs, tasks, and

supervisee development) as well as key structural characteristics of supervision (i.e.,

gender match, cultural match, task function match, frequency of supervision, delivery

mode, and method of supervision arrangement).

Analyses

This research program employed both parametric and non-parametric statistics to

test the hypotheses (see Table 6.1). Parametric statistics were used to assess interval and

ratio data (McBurney, 1997). Non-parametric tests are usually employed to assess

ordinal and nominal data (McBurney). Non-parametric tests lack power and robustness

in comparison to parametric statistics simply due to their technical properties or, in other

words, parametric statistics test all of the data whereas non-parametric statistics analyse

a section or sample of the data.

Study One analysis. Content analysis was considered to be the most applicable

method of analyzing the qualitative comments to answer the research questions as it

forms a consistent and commonly used method of gleaning meaningful categories from

text data. The term “content analysis” has been defined in the social sciences as any

research technique for connecting inferences from text with specific characteristics of

text (Krippendorff, 1969; Stone, Dunphy, & Smith, 1966). According to Kabanoff

(1996), content analysis has two specific properties: (1) the language used reflects the

issues important to the person, and (2) the relative frequencies with which particular

words are used are an indication of the salience of that issue to the message-sender.

112

Content analysis has been used previously as a research methodology in organisational

psychology research (see Marshall & Rossmann, 1999). As a research tool, the strengths

of content analysis include being unobtrusive, non-reactive and able to assess text

characteristics (Kabanoff, 1996; Marshall & Rossman, 1999).

The main idea behind content analysis is the truncation of many words into

succinct content categories (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). The process consists of two

steps. The first step, which is referred to as the qualitative step, is the exploration of

word frequency. This is where the researcher identifies the meanings of similar words.

This step also creates a key-word-in-context index. Essentially, the main words in the

text are extracted with a certain amount of text immediately preceding and following the

main term. Words of similar meaning are then grouped together. The researcher also

identifies how broadly or narrowly the writer of the test construes a certain term, or the

research might compare a word’s use among groups of the other writers. The content

analysis employed in this thesis does this by constructing categories of terms with

similar meanings and by comparing those meanings across professional type.

Grounding the content analysis. This next section describes the grounded

theory content analysis approach and how it was applied to the current research

methodology. Grounded theory has been incorporated into computer programs like

NUD*IST (Richards & Richards, 1989) to analyse qualitative data in a scientific way.

The grounded theory technique (Strauss, 1998) is essentially a concept-indicator model,

which means that the data yielded from text becomes an indicator of a specifically

derived concept. Therefore, in order to formulise particular concepts, grounded theory

analysis constantly compares indicators, which eventually form a category of words.

Coding is actually the identification and names of these categories of words. The next

sections provide an in-depth overview of this process.

Coding of data. The difference between grounded theory in comparison to other

approaches to analysing qualitative data is its conciseness. Coding in grounded theory is

not limited to identifying text and then deriving categories. This method also attempts to

113

meta-categorise text (Strauss, 1988). In step one, for example, the researcher identifies

provisional categories that will be the focus of the coding; this process is referred to as

“open coding” (Strauss, 1998). These categories are commonly derived from theory. In

the second step, the researchers will implement “axial coding” which involves

comprehensive analysis of each category, one at a time. The purpose of this step is to

gain a better understanding of the relationships between the categories identified. Step

three involves “selective coding” which as its name suggests is a process whereby a

more precise set of codes is established. Step three actually occurs simultaneously with

open and axial coding.

However, the current research did not strictly follow this entire process of

content analysis in that step three was not executed. Given the degree of accuracy

identified in both open and axial coding categories, selective coding was not deemed

necessary. Instead, a quantitative methodology was employed to analyse the application

of the theory to the concept of professional supervision (refer to Study Three). Therefore,

the quantitative methodology actually replaced the final stage of the grounded concept

theory method which is normally analysed from a qualitative perspective only. This

change was applied to enhance the reliability and validity of the results via an inferential

approach. The next section will describe the procedure of how grounded theory and

content analysis was applied in the research.

Study Two analyses. A number of parametric and non-parametric statistical tools

were employed to answer the hypotheses in Study Two. Descriptive statistics provided

an overview of the types of data collected, for example, the percentage of supervisees

participating in group and/or individual supervision. Content analysis was also used in

this study to analyse one open-ended question: “How do you define supervision?” This

question was included to confirm the concepts suggested by the SAS model. The text

was analysed in the same way as in the first study to examine the themes in supervisees’

responses. Chi-square was employed to test for differences between the four professions

on gender, gender mix, methods of payment for supervision and frequency of

114

supervision. A series of one-way ANOVAs was used to test the difference between the

professions on age, ratings of supervision tasks and functions, and supervisee

satisfaction. In addition, five one-way between subjects ANOVAs (with a Bonferroni

correction applied) and post hoc analysis were performed on supervision meeting

arrangements towards supervision outcomes. Five standard multiple regressions were

used to test the relationship between supervision tasks and supervision functions.

Study Three and Study Four analyses. As part of a preliminary validation of the

items utilised in Study Three and Study Four, exploratory factor analysis was conducted.

Prior to the parametric analyses, assumptions of the MANOVA statistic were analysed

using the appropriate descriptive statistics (e.g., histograms, scatter plots etc.). A

MANOVA was employed to answer hypotheses 9H1-9H4 in Study Three. MANOVA

was chosen over a series of ANOVAs due to efficiency and robustness. Post hoc analysis

was conducted utilising the Student-Newman-Keul test for the significant interaction

term. An hierarchical multiple regression was employed to answer hypothesis 9H5.

Bivariate intercorrelations were applied to answer hypothesis 9H6.

In all studies, the determination of the most appropriate statistical methods was

chosen largely by the type of data available for analysis. Chi-square analyses were

applied to frequency data. ANOVA analyses were applied where the dependent variable

was scaled and the independent variables were nominal in nature. Regressions were

applied where the associations between multiple scaled independent variables were

required to be evaluated against scaled dependent variables. Correlations were applied

where the associations between pairs of scaled variables were required. ANOVAs were

selected to analyse interval data in this case for robustness and as shown in recent

literature "for many statistical tests, rather severe departures (from intervalness) do not

seem to affect Type I and Type II errors dramatically" (Jaccard & Wan, 1996, p. 4).

Significance levels. It should be noted that throughout this thesis a 95%

confidence level or alpha (α < .05) value of .05 will be used to indicate the minimum

115

level of statistical significance, unless otherwise indicated. However, in some cases

where greater levels of significance are identified two additional benchmark values will

be used, these are 99% confidence (α < .01) and 99.9% confidence (α < .001). Where

results were non-significant these will be denoted by “ns”.

Partially correct hypotheses. The author has used the term ‘partially correct’

hypothesis in cases where a part of the hypothesis was supported but not the whole

hypothesis.

Complexity of investigating other relevant variables. The author would like to

acknowledge that while there was adequate data available to investigate other factors

that might have contributed to the supervision experience, such as supervision formats

(e.g. individual versus group supervision), it was not possible due to time restrictions and

the complexity of adding more variables to the analyses.

Furthermore, while it was found in Study One that the supervision outcomes of

networking skills and academic knowledge could have been added to the SAS matrix

(Holloway, 1995) and examined in Studies Two, Three and Four, this was impracticable

given time and complexity issues.

116

CHAPTER 7

Exploring Supervision Definitions

Feedback from a Range of Australian Professionals

As discussed in Chapter 2, the term supervision within the context of

professional practice has been difficult to define due to the various factors that influence

its execution. These differences include professional board requirements (e.g., total

hours of supervision, format and arrangement of the supervision, and goals of

supervision) and the nature of the professional profession (e.g., the focus of supervision

will depend upon the tasks and purpose of the professional role for example, supervision

of a nurse is different from that of an accountant). In addition, researchers (e.g., Kennard

et al., 1987; Kozlowska et al., 1997; Putney et al., 1992; Ramos-Sanchez et al., 2002;

Ross & Goh, 1993; Scott et al., 2000; Steward et al., 2001) have commonly applied a

post-hoc methodology to studying the concept of professional supervision, often using a

single item to define the term therefore limiting its psychometric properties.

Given the complexity of establishing a universal meaning for the term

professional supervision, it follows that testing its effectiveness in developing

professionals has also been problematic. As discussed in Chapter 4, the main contention

with establishing the success of professional supervision is the limited application of

accepted scientific methodology in its research. Samples have primarily been drawn

from health-related professions (Kennard et al., 1987; Ladany et al., 2001; Magnuson et

al, 2000; Nutt-Williams et al., 1997; Putney et al., 1992; Segesten, 1993; Severinsson &

Hallberg, 1996; Wester et al., 2004) while business-related fields have been largely

ignored. Most of the data (Culbreth & Borders, 1998; Howie et al., 1995; Kozlowska et

al., 1997; Magnuson et al., 2000; Milne & James, 2002; O’Donovan et al., 2001; Ross &

Goh, 1993; Steward et al., 2001) has been drawn from small sample sizes and analysed

via descriptive rather than inferential statistical techniques. Research designs have

commonly employed a cross-sectional rather than longitudinal designs (e.g., Kennard et

al., 1987; Kozlowska et al., 1997; Putney et al., 1992; Ramos-Sanchez et al., 2002; Ross

117

& Goh, 1993; Scott et al., 2000; Steward et al., 2001) limiting the ability to measure

supervision success over time. The tools used to understand the supervision experience

have commonly been self-report (e.g., Kennard et al., 1987; Magnuson et al., 2000;

McMahon & Patton, 2001; Ramos-Sanchez et al., 2002; Ross & Goh, 1993; Wheeler &

King, 2000) which alone does not provide an objective assessment of one’s supervision

experience. Despite this, the current literature (Gatmon et al., 2001; Hart & Nance, 2003;

Howie et al., 1995; Kennard et al., 1987; Ogren et al., 2001 Putney et al., 1992; Ray &

Altekruse, 2000; Wheeler & King, 2000) does provide insight into how research can be

progressed.

This chapter outlines Study One, which employed a particular qualitative

methodology based on open-ended questions, to determine whether Australian

professionals from a range of professions (psychology, counselling, nursing,

occupational therapy, financial advising, business consultation and accounting) self-

report a number of core definitions of supervision and the intended or anticipated

outcomes from their professional supervision within the first month of the process.

Research Questions

The aim of this study was to assess the nature and consistency of supervision as

experienced by a wide range of Australian professionals. Given its exploratory nature,

the present study was guided by two research questions:

7RQ1 Will supervisees report a range of different definitions of supervision that


7RQ2 Will supervisees report a range of intended outcomes and be able to


Using a data driven approach, qualitative definitions of supervision and its

outcomes were collected, content coded, and quantified to extract commonalities that

will be presented in a taxonomy.

118

Method

Sample

A sample of 210 supervisor-supervisee dyads across seven professional areas

(psychology, counselling, nursing, occupational therapy, financial advising, business

consulting and accounting) were received from a total survey distribution of 750

(representing a response rate of 28%). The average age of the supervisees was 21.8 years

(ranging from 20 to 24 years) and the average age of the supervisors was 35.1 years

(ranging from 28 to 48 years). The majority of supervisees was female (n = 146,

69.5%) with the minority being male (n = 64, 30.5%). Conversely the majority of

supervisors was male (n = 118, 56.2%) with the balance being female (n = 92, 43.8%).

Supervisor years of experience averaged 5.9 years (ranging from 2 to 16 years).

Procedure

Procedural details have been discussed in Chapter 6.

Measures

The survey consisted of 4 pages and was split into 4 sections aimed at collecting

separate types of information: (A) professional supervision arrangements, (B) the

supervision process, (C) shared understanding, and (D) supervisee preparation (see

Appendix B for a copy of the survey instrument). Table 7.1 provides an overview of the

questions asked and the scales employed for Study One.

119

Table 7.1

Provides an overview of the questions asked and the scales employed for Study One

Survey Section Appendix Concept Question Scaling Scale A1 A B Supervision

involvement “Are you currently involved in supervision?”

Nominal 1 = Yes 2 = No

A1 A B Supervision role “What is your role?” Nominal 1 = Supervisor 2 = Supervisee 3 = Other

A1 A B Gender “Is this a mixed gender arrangement (e.g., Female/Male)?”


A1 A B Supervision arrangement

“What is the arrangement?” Nominal 1 = Work initiative/requirement 2 = Association/body initiative 3= Supervisor contacted from professional list 4 = Supervisor contact through friend/acquaintance 5 = Supervisee is a friend /acquaintance 6 = Supervisor offer to group of supervisees 7 = Other

Nominal 1 = Work initiative/requirement 2 = Association/body initiative 3= Supervisor contacted from professional list 4 = Supervisor contact through friend/acquaintance 5 = Supervisee is a friend /acquaintance 6 = Supervisor offer to group of supervisees 7 = Other

A1 A B How supervisor was determined

“For your work/association, how is a supervisor determined?

Nominal 1 = Volunteering 2 = Qualifications

120

Survey Section Appendix Concept Question Scaling Scale (tick all that apply)” 3 = Location

4 = Field of expertise 5 = Other 6 = Years of professional membership 7 = Level of professional membership 8 = Years of experience 9 = Selection/testing by association/body

A1 A B Delivery mode “How do you meet?” Nominal 1= Face-to-face (work hours) 2 =Face-to-face (after work) 3= Phone (work hours) 4= Phone (after work) 5 = Other, please describe (e.g. e-mail)

A1 A B Frequency “Do you meet…” Nominal 1 = Regularly 2 = Supervisee decides 3 = Sporadically (when convenient to all) 4 = Supervisor decides 5 = Other

A1 A B Payment “Does the supervisee pay ‘in kind’ to be supervised?”

Nominal 1 = No 2 = Yes, works as “understudy” for < $20/hour 3 = Yes, fixed payment ($60+/hour) 4 = Yes, nominal payment (<$60/hour) 5 = Other

A1 A B “Please try to estimate how often you have supervision?”

Ordinal 1= Daily 2= 2-4 times per week 3= Weekly 4 = Fortnightly 5 = Monthly 6 = Bi-monthly 7 = Quarterly 8 = Half yearly 9 = Yearly

121

Survey Section Appendix Concept Question Scaling Scale 10 = Other, please describe

A1 B B Supervision definition

“How do you define the term ‘supervision’?”

Open-ended question

A1 B Expected supervision outcomes

“What do you hope to get out of supervision arrangements (i.e., outcomes?)”

Open-ended question

122

Results

The demographic data is outlined followed by qualitative comments received in

response to the two open-ended questions analysed using content and text analysis. The

rationale and processes used are described in this section.

Sample Demographics

Current involvement in professional supervision. This item was asked with

“yes” or “no” options. The “no” option also included those who had put their supervision

on hold. Only those who answered “yes” to this question were included in the study (n =

210).

Role in the supervision arrangement. This item was included to determine

whether the respondent was a supervisor, supervisee or other. Only supervisees were

included in the present study (n = 210).

Gender similarity between supervisee and supervisor. This item was included to

evaluate the degree of gender-based diversity in the sample. In total, 208 supervisees

answered this question with 144 (68%) indicating a mixed arrangement and 66 (32%)

indicating same gender.

Supervision ratio. This item was included to evaluate whether the relationship

involved a one supervisor to one supervisee or alternate arrangement. In total, 210

supervisees answered this question with 167 (80%) indicating a one-to-one ratio and 43

(20%) indicating an alternative ratio.

How supervision was arranged. This item was included to evaluate how the

supervision was arranged. In total 210 supervisees answered this question with the

following outcomes (refer to Table 7.2):

123

Table 7.2

Survey distribution and response rates across how supervision was arranged

Category n % Work initiative/requirement 73 35 Association/Body initiative (e.g., function/event/meeting) 48 23 Supervisor contacted from professional list 34 16 Supervisor contact through friend/acquaintance 23 11

Supervisee is a friend/acquaintance 14 7 Supervisor offer to group of supervisees 12 6 Other 6 3 Total 210 100

How was the supervisor selected? This question was included to evaluate how

supervisees choose their supervisor. In total 210 supervisees answered this question and

were allowed to select more than one option with the following outcomes (refer to Table

7.3):

Table 7.3

Survey distribution and response rates across how supervisor was selected

Category n % Level of Professional membership 169 80 Qualifications 164 78 Years of Experience 132 63 Years of Professional membership 108 51 Volunteer basis 105 50 Field of expertise 83 40 Location 49 23 Selection/Testing by Association/Body 3 1 Other 0 0 Total 813 387

124

Supervision delivery mode. This item was included to identify the primary

mechanism by which supervisees obtained supervision. In total 210 supervisees

answered this question and were allowed to select more than one option with the


Table 7.4

Survey distribution and response rates across supervision delivery mode

Category n % Face-to-Face (after work) 75 36 Face-to-Face (work hours) 69 33 Other 44 21 Phone (work hours) 12 6 Phone (after work) 10 5 Total 210 100

Of the “other” responses, 39 (19% of the total sample) indicated e-mail as the

primary means of supervision.

Regularity of supervision. This item was included to assess the consistency of

the supervision arrangements. In total 209 supervisees answered this question with the


Table 7.5

Survey distribution and response rates across regularity of supervision

Category n % Regularly 139 66 Sporadically (when convenient to all) 38 18 Supervisor decides 25 12 Supervisee decides 7 3 Total 209 100

Supervision related payment. Supervisees were asked whether they paid for the

supervision they received. Responses to this question were slightly confounded by the

presence of a number of people who were working in firms in which their supervisor

125

also worked and in which supervision was arranged by the firm. This created some

confusion regarding whether there was a payment involved or not. In total 209

supervisees answered this question with the following outcomes (refer to Table 7.6):

Table 7.6

Survey distribution and response rates across supervision-related payment

Category n % Yes, fixed payment ($60+/hour) 58 28 No 49 23 Yes, nominal payment (<$60/hour) 49 23 Yes, works as “understudy” for <$20/hour 41 20 Other 12 6 Total 209 100

Frequency of supervision. Supervisees were asked how often they met with their

supervisors. In total 210 supervisees answered this question with the following outcomes

(refer to Table 7.7):

126

Table 7.7

Survey distribution and response rates across frequency of supervision

Category n % Daily 3 1 2-4 times/week 21 10 Weekly 26 12 Fortnightly 69 33 Monthly 51 24 Bi-monthly 32 15 Quarterly 6 3 Half yearly 1 0 Yearly 0 0 Other 1 0 Total 210 100

Data entry of text for content analysis. The data collected from survey one was

transcribed into the computer program, Microsoft Excel. The data was then coded and

indexed using NUD*IST (the Non-numerical Unstructured Data-Indexing, Searching

and Theory-building program, version 5 for Windows). This is a data management tool

used to analyse qualitative data. Essentially, this computer program uses a hierarchical

indexing system, represented visually as a tree diagram, to process and maintain data as

well as having the facility to manipulate the data (Richards & Richards, 1989). The next

section will describe in more detail this procedure.

To begin, specific text taken from survey one was in relation to the two open-

ended questions:

“How do you define supervision?”

“What do you hope to get out of the supervision arrangements (e.g., outcomes)?”

The responses to these questions were entered into the NUD*IST program. There

were 14,891 words (n = 71 surveys; less than 50% of the sample responded to this

question) analysed from the two open-ended questions. It was apparent that many

respondents had difficulty in answering the two questions in that most assumed that their

answer to the first question was also appropriate to the second question. This finding

127

suggested that many supervisees in the sample might have given litte thought to the

purpose of engaging in supervision.

In NUD*IST, an asterisk is used to denote the beginning of a “survey” and each

paragraph mark to denote the end of a “question” of text. Additionally, in the header of

each file was placed the demographic information for each of the supervisees so that

responses could be linked back to the characteristics of the supervisor in question should

the need arise.

The program was then used to generate a tree diagram that represented the

structure of the information (ranging from general at the top to more detailed at the

bottom). This form of content representation was applied to the survey used in Study

One (The Australian Supervision Quality Project Survey 1, refer to Appendix B or the

qualitative questions above) to allow the computer to compute the number of supervisees

who indicated certain general “themes” of concepts (from 0% to 100%). For the

purposes of this study, concepts identified by 50% or more of the sample were

considered common or shared concepts.

Constructing the grounded dictionary for the content analysis. The content

analysis first required that an appropriate dictionary be created, specifying the words that

refer to the topic being examined. The process began by constructing a primary list

consisting of the non-common words that occurred with a frequency of more than half a

percent of all of the words (20 categories). Words with frequencies between one in 200

and one in 1000 were also examined as a secondary list (52 categories) and those that

referred to issues similar to those in the primary list were incorporated into the

subsequent master list (refer to Table 9). A number of categories were excluded because

they did not appear to relate to the definition of supervision. The remaining categories

were condensed into word roots. A word root is the basic group of letters that is

common to different permutations of a similar concept (e.g., happ* is the root of words

like “happy” and “happiness”). All of the resultant 38 common word roots were then

examined for content by using NUD*IST to retrieve all sentences identified as

128

containing that word. NUD*IST ran a text search for each of the 38 target word roots

respectively using the text search function also calling up 1 sentence to either side of

each sentence containing the target word (done by creating a temporary node and then

spreading the node on the clipboard, before pasting and doing a report on it) and, if the

meaning of the target word was still unclear, the search was re-run calling up a further 1

sentence either side of the target sentence. The terms were kept in the process if the word

was used with a consistent meaning, that is, particular perception, across more than 50%

of the sentences retrieved. If permutations of a term were used in the same sense then the

relevant variations were grouped as specific words. For example, the term “skills” was

used in the sentences of the text to refer to the supervisee perception of learned abilities,

whereas “skill-development” referred to the act of developing abilities.

The final list consisting of 67 words was evaluated and later condensed back to

word roots if the meaning underlying the words were deemed to be similar. Inter-rater

consistency between 2 separate raters indicated that 100% of categories were similarly

matched. In all 28 separate words/word roots were identified. In order to create the

frequency dataset, NUD*IST was used to run a text search (specifically:

documents/search text/pattern, set at: whole word, all finds) for each of the remaining 28

words/word roots respectively. Output was entered into Word 6.0 for Windows, and

edited until the data represented frequencies per variable by removing all of the non-

essential text automatically generated by NUD*IST. Note that NUD*IST only allocates

one “hit” per occurrence of the target term per sentence. That is, if the target term is

mentioned more than once in any given sentence, the maximum number of hits, for that

term, in that sentence, is one.

Simultaneously, the 67 words were further processed qualitatively by many

iterations of the open coding, axial coding, selective coding process outlined earlier. The

grounded process was undertaken in accordance with the principles of avoiding the

reification of the codes and constantly linking back to the context of the terms (and

categories). NUD*IST was used to pull up sections of text surrounding the target area

129

and to constantly refer to the range of target occurrences. In keeping with the inductive

nature of the content analysis, as many as possible of the categories were used as

comparison groups at every step of this coding process. In achieving this goal, many

iterations of comparisons, texts, linking, splitting and re-testing, respectively were

undertaken.

The final list was grouped into 11 thematic categories, on the basis that the

categories were to be as topic-specific as possible, in order to maintain the inductive

nature of the study (refer to Table 7.8). Further reduction of the categories may have

resulted in the loss of information. Up until the stage where there were 11 categories, the

building of categories was typically clear and was not overly reliant upon researcher

specific bias. Therefore, in keeping with the inductive nature of this method, the content

analysis was based on 11 categories and the further analysis of the categories was

conducted by cluster analysis. Each variable score for the grounded content analyses as

used in the analyses below, is the frequency per case as a proportion of total occurrences.

The sections above have detailed the processes used in the grounded content

analysis for the current study. The use of a grounded approach allows for the discovery

of theory from data. However, while theory creation is important, there is an equally

important role for the researcher in the reverse direction, where theory is tested. Theory

development is an iterative combination of theory generation and theory testing (Strauss,

1998). The accumulation of knowledge involves the continuous cycling between theory

and data (Eisenhardt, 1989). Grounded content analysis is useful for the generation of

theory, although it does incorporate some testing of the (generated) theory. Content

analysis is particularly helpful if the concepts and sources of data are composite and can

lead to refinements in theory (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The final studies concentrate

more on theory testing with the application of more empirical methods to complement

the purely taxonomic grounded content analysis method describe here.

130

Table 7.8

Stages of content analysis and thematic development of the qualitative data relating

to definitions of supervision

Stage Number of themes

Categories

1 Frequency analysis

20 primary categories 52 secondary categories

2 38 word trunks academ* activ* approach* argu* availab* build* car* (e.g., caring, cares) case* concept* consider* cop* (e.g., coping) debat* describe* develop* emotion* experien* explain* feedback guid* interperson* listen* mentor* monitor* network* professional* reflect* risk* self shar* situation* skill* stress* support* technique* theor* train* understand* work*

3 28 word categories (including word roots/words)

approach(able); personable case(work); reviewing of, hypothetical concept(s)(ualisation); training in, listening to cop(e)(es)(ing); how to, listening to debat(e)(ing); active use of, devils advocate develop(ment)(ing)(s); skill/behaviour/ thought/professional emotion(s)(al); management of, development of, listening to experien(ces)(tial); sharing of, reflecting on, linking to theory,

131

Stage Number of themes

Categories

hypothetical explain(s)(ing); based on professional experience, feedback; provision of, requesting of interpersonal; development of, skills listen(s)(ing); actively, with support mentor(s)(ing); on difficult issues, on regular basis, as needed monitor(s)(ing); development, progress, building of self monitoring skills network(s)(ing); development of, giving advice on profession(al); guidance, behaviour reflect(s)(ing); on style/thoughts/behaviours self; development / evaluation / awareness shar(e)(es)(ing); of experiences, knowledge, training, theory, advice, situation(s)(al); analysis, review of difficult skill(s); development, identification, testing stress; management of, reduction of support* technique(s); teaching of, role modelling of, fine-tuning of theor(y)(etical); review of, identification of, testing of train(s)(ing); skills / behaviour / profession / thoughts / conceptualisation understand(s)(ing); provision of, as part of supporting work; related, guidance on, reflecting on, discussion of , career planning at

4 11 themes Active listening / questioning / debating Caring / open - attentive attitude / support / understanding Conceptualisation / theory / reflection Networking development Professional development / training / guidance Range of case review techniques - Reflecting / Role modelling / Hypothetical / Critical cases Self awareness / evaluation / analysis Situational guidance / training / development / hypothetical / mentoring Skills development Career planning Stress management / emotional coping

Definition and examples. Respondents defined supervision in 11 distinct ways,

which mapped very similarly to the SAS models supervision tasks (see Table 7.9).

There was 100% agreement between 3 raters (two university academics and a research

assistant) on the matching of the empirical categories to the SAS model concepts.

132

Table 7.9

Comparison between SAS model concepts and the results of the empirical content

analysis

SAS Model Concept Empirical Categories Counselling Active listening / questioning / debating / challenging

Caring / open - attentive attitude / support / understanding Case experience Range of case review techniques - Reflecting / Role modelling /

Hypothetical / Critical cases Conceptualisation / theory / reflection Situational guidance / training / development / hypothetical / mentoring

Professional experience Networking development Professional development / training / guidance Skills development Career planning and guidance*

Emotional awareness Stress management / emotional coping Ability to self-evaluate Self awareness / evaluation / analysis *Career planning was originally coded under a separate category but was placed under the “professional experience” category for ease of reference.

Based on the above matching process, the SAS model concepts were supported

for use in later studies and scientifically defined. As outlined in Chapter 5, Holloway’s

(1995) SAS model included a number of learning objectives, referred to as tasks, to be

provided in the professional supervision experience. Holloway categorised these

supervision tasks into the five specific objectives of counselling skills, case

conceptualisation, professional role, emotional awareness, and self-evaluation. The

following provides the definitions and examples from the sample of supervisees in this

study.

Counselling – Supervision was partly defined in respect to a counselling of

supervisees by supervisors. Critical to this notion was the concept of active listening,

questioning, and challenging in which the supervisor utilises these behaviours to

encourage supervisee awareness and development. Critical also to this process was the

presence of a caring and open attitude for the supervisor. Specifically, in the role of

133

challenging, it was frequently emphasised that the role of the supervisor needed to be as

constructive and understanding as possible.

Examples:

- “I think supervision should be a support mechanism for me. I know I have

a lot to learn and develop but I also want my supervisor to understand my

feelings so they know the ways I need to be developed and can tell when I

am in a frame of mind to accept constructive advice”

- “I think supervision is about listening first and then providing advice”

- “Supervision is not just watching over work but understanding needs and

challenging in a caring way”

Case experience – Supervision was partly defined as the process of reviewing

individual incidents or cases, the supervisee’s responses to those cases, and the use of

various techniques by the supervisor to encourage supervisee development. Commonly

referred to techniques included theoretical reflection, role modelling, reflecting on past

cases and using hypothetical cases (e.g., critical cases in the literature).

Examples:

- “… I want to be able to discuss specific events and to dissect them

carefully and learn from that…”

- “Supervision is the process in which he (the supervisor) gives me problems

to solve and reviews my work and concerns. I like to bring sticky issues

and discuss them and also to work on problems that he (the supervisor) has

had or heard of in the past.”

- “I like discussing real issues and then trying to apply theory to them and

seeing where that helps and where it doesn’t”

Professional experience – Supervision was partly defined as the process of

assisting the supervisee in professional development. This covered a broad range of

areas such as attaining full professional membership, pursuing specific specialisations,

seeking professional recognition, enhancing professional reputation, enhancing

134

professional networks, developing professional skills (e.g., management skills) and

career planning/guidance.

Examples:

- “I don’t know the first thing about being a professional counsellor apart

from what I have learnt at uni so I would expect that supervision will give

me the professional skills that I need, for example, managing a client list

and which bodies to join.”

- “I expect that supervision will also tell me when to change jobs and how to

manage my progression in the field.”

- “I really need to create my own networks and I think that is a key role in

supervision”

Emotional awareness – Supervision was partly defined as the process of

developing supervisee emotional awareness and coping skills. These skills incorporated

workload management and emotional reactions to task processes as well as emotional

reactions to case content. The emphasis from the data was almost equally attributed to

awareness and coping (the intervention in response to emotional awareness).

Examples:

- “…. I can see that this is a stressful profession at times and I want to

develop methods of coping with my supervisor.”

- “I think supervision is not just about work supervision but feelings as well

and my supervisor has given me feedback on my reactions and how to

manage them. I think that is important.”

- “Supervision is about helping the individual manage their reactions to

extraordinary circumstances even at a personal level. Such as coping with

stress.”

Ability to self-evaluate – Supervision was partly defined as a process of

developing skills and awareness for supervisees that will allow them to reflect on their

own behaviours and cognitions in future practice.

135

Examples:

- “I would hope that I would leave supervision with the ability to supervise

my own behaviour.”

- “Supervision is about giving you the skills to evaluate your own

performance without bias…..”

- “I hope I will learn how to develop myself in my profession, and “way

[sic]” up my thoughts and actions in the future.”

After the content coding was conducted and mapped to the SAS model

categories (of counselling, case experience, professional experience, emotional

awareness and ability to self-evaluate), the text responses were recoded accordingly

(including data that previously did not get coded due, for example, to the use of less-

common wording). The number and percentages of people who provided comments

relating to the SAS model tasks are presented in Table 7.10.

136

Table 7.10

The number and percentage of participants, by professional grouping, who made mention of the SAS tasks

Category SAS tasks Psychology

n = 45

Counselling

n = 39

Nursing

n = 37

Occupational Therapy n = 32

Financial Advice n = 28

Business & Accounting

n = 29

Total

N = 210

Counselling 44 (97%) 39 (100%) 19 (51%) 21 (67%) 12 (43%) 15 (54%) 150 (72%)

Case experience 41 (91%) 39 (100%) 37 (100%) 32 (100%) 28 (100%) 27 (96%) 204 (97%)

Professional experience 36 (80%) 31 (68%) 35 (94.5%) 30 (94%) 28 (100%) 28 (100%) 188 (90%)

Emotional awareness 38 (84%) 35 (97%) 35 (95%) 18 (56%) 20 (72%) 24 (86%) 170 (81%)

Ability to self-evaluate 27 (60%) 30 (77%) 24 (65%) 26 (81%) 26 (93%) 27 (97%) 160 (76%)

137

Outcomes of Supervision

The qualitative data relating to the outcomes of supervision were analysed in an

identical way to the qualitative data relating to the definition of supervision. The

analysis was complicated by the specific response “see above” being made by 59

respondents. This response refers to the responses made to the definition question and

indicates a degree of perceived overlap between the answers required of the two

questions. In such circumstances, the text from the first question was included in the

second analysis. Not surprisingly the categories arrived at have a degree of similarity

with those presented for the supervision definition question. Respondents defined

supervision outcomes in 7 major ways (refer to Table 7.11).

Table 7.11


to outcomes of supervision

Stage Number of themes Categories 1 Frequency analysis 12 primary categories

34 secondary categories 2 20 word categories

(including word roots/words)

Ability to act professionally Ability to communicate ideas Ability to cope under pressure Ability to inspire others Ability to learn from mistakes Ability to listen to others Ability to manage multiple tasks Ability to problem solve Ability to source knowledge Ability to stay focused Ability to think creatively Ability to time manage Ability to work alone Ability to work efficiently Awareness of own limits Emotional maturity Moral/Ethical development Networking Overall work ability Theoretical knowledge

3 11 themes Ability to Self-evaluate Academic/Technical knowledge Emotional awareness/personal skills Networking Professional skills Relationship skills Work skills

138

Respondents defined supervision outcomes in 7 distinct ways, which mapped

very similarly to the SAS model’s supervision tasks, as follows (refer to Table 7.12):

Table 7.12

An overview of the categories respondents identified as supervision outcomes and

how these responses related to the SAS model tasks

SAS Model Concept Empirical Categories Counselling Relationship skills Case experience Work skills Professional experience* Professional skills Emotional awareness Emotional awareness/personal skills Ability to Self-evaluate Ability to Self-evaluate Other Academic/Technical knowledge

Networking *Career planning was originally coded under a separate category but was placed under the “professional experience” category for ease of reference.

Relationship skills – A key outcome of supervision was identified in relation to

relationship/interpersonal skills. Specific areas included: ability to communicate ideas,

ability to inspire others and ability to listen to others.

Work skills – A key outcome of supervision was identified in relation to the

ability to manage daily work-related incidents/cases/tasks. Specific outcomes included:

ability to problem solve, ability to stay focussed, ability to think creatively, ability to

work alone, ability to work efficiently and overall work ability.

Professional skills – A key outcome of supervision was identified in relation to

the ability to develop as a professional. Specific outcomes included: ability to act

professionally, ability to manage multiple tasks, ability to time manage and moral/ethical

development.

Emotional awareness/development - A key outcome of supervision was

identified in relation to emotional awareness and coping. Specific outcomes included:

ability to cope under pressure and emotional maturity.

139

Ability to Self-evaluate – A key outcome of supervision was identified as the

willingness to reflect on own behaviours and thoughts. Specific areas included: ability

to learn from mistakes and awareness of own limits.

Academic/Technical knowledge – a key outcome of supervision not directly

linked to the SAS model was related to the accumulation of technical/theoretical

knowledge. Specific outcomes included: ability to source knowledge and theoretical

knowledge.

Networking – a key outcome of supervision not directly linked to the SAS model

was related to the development of networks of people. It was generally unclear whether

this related to professional or work-related networks.

The number and percentage of people who provided comments relating to the

SAS model supervision outcomes as well as the two additional processes of

academic/technical knowledge and networking are presented in Table 7.13.

140

Table 7.13

The number and percentage of participants, by professional grouping, who made mention of the SAS supervision outcomes as well as the

additional supervision processes of academic/technical knowledge and networking

Category Supervision Outcomes

Psychology

n = 45

Counselling

n = 39

Nursing

n = 37




n = 29

Total

N = 210

Relationship skills 45 (100%) 36 (92%) 22 (60%) 25 (78%) 11 (39%) 10 (36%) 149 (94%)

Work skills 44 (98%) 37 (95%) 37 (100%) 32 (100%) 26 (93%) 28 (100%) 204 (97%)

Professional skills 41 (91%) 33 (85%) 37 (100%) 32 (100%) 28 (100%) 28 (100%) 199 (95%)

Emotional awareness/personal skills 40 (88%) 32 (82%) 18 (49%) 15 (47%) 20 (74%) 23 (82%) 148 (70%)

Ability to Self-evaluate 36 (80%) 35 (90%) 17 (46%) 13 (40%) 22 (79%) 21 (75%) 144 (69%)

Academic/Technical knowledge 44 (98%) 36 (92%) 29 (78%) 31 (97%) 24 (86%) 20 (72%) 184 (88%)

Networking 16 (36%) 14 (36%) 16 (43%) 15 (47%) 22 (79%) 27 (96%) 110 (52%)

141

Special Case: Supervision Delivery Mode

One particular pattern of results warrants further discussion, namely the

relationship between supervision delivery mode and professional area. It can be seen in

Table 7.14 that there is a pattern between supervision delivery mode and supervisees’

professional area. This relationship was statistically significant using chi-square, χ2 (25,

n = 210) = 153, 27, p < .001. Whilst this relationship was identified using chi-square, it

was unclear as to whether this relationship impacted on the themes derived in the

qualitative analysis. Cell sizes were too small, particularly in relation to supervision

provided via the phone and e-mail, to determine whether definitions and outcomes

provided were linked to the delivery mode. Based on the large percentages associated

with the themes identified for both questions (see Table 7.14), it appears that the

concepts are generally consistent for most professions and, therefore, delivery mode.

142

Table 7.14

The number and percentage of participants, by professional grouping, distributed across delivery mode

Category

Delivery Mode

Psychology

n = 45

Counselling

n = 39

Nursing

n = 37




n = 29

Total

N = 210

Face - Face (after work) 31 (69%) 25 (64%) 2 (5%) 12 (38%) 5 (18%) 0 (0%) 75 (36%)

Face - Face (work hours) 5 (11%) 11 (28%) 31 (84%) 10 (31%) 5 (18%) 7 (24%) 69 (33%)

Email 5 (11%) 3 (8%) 0 (0%) 7 (22%) 12 (43%) 12 (41%) 39 (19%)

Phone (work hours) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 4 (11%) 1 (3%) 2 (7%) 3 (10%) 12 (6%)

Phone (after work) 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (7%) 7 (24%) 10 (5%)

Other 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (6%) 2 (7%) 0 (0%) 5 (2%)

143

Discussion

Responses from professionals in the present study converged on six central aims

of supervision and six key outcomes of supervision as proposed by the SAS model. The

central aim of supervision according to the respondents was to develop skills in

counselling, case experience, professional experience, emotional awareness, the ability

to self-evaluate and to network. The six reported outcomes of supervision found in this

study were that professional supervision enhanced supervisees’ ability to self-evaluate,

gain academic knowledge, become emotionally aware, develop profession networks,

develop both professional and work skills and to build on relationship skills. The

findings supported the SAS model and also supported and built on the definitions

already provided in the literature (refer to Baker et al., 1990; Daniels et al., 1997;

Kozlowska et al., 1997; McMahon & Patton, 2002; Segesten, 1993; Severinsson &

Hallberg, 1996).

For all supervisees, there appeared to be a strong association between the

definition of supervision provided and the intended or anticipated outcomes. However,

supporting information suggested that supervisees did not see a link between the

mechanisms of supervision (e.g., delivery mode, supervision tasks and functions) and the

outcomes. Rather they expected the supervisor to be able to structure the supervision

sessions in a way that would achieve these ends. It is suggested that locus of control or

responsibility for the supervision outcomes was therefore largely attributed to the

supervisor rather than the supervisee. Regardless, the finding supported and extended the

conclusions from the literature review and culminated in the operationalised measures of

supervision aims and outcomes, which were to be used in future studies.

The data from this study supported the process of simultaneous examination of

the multivariate outcomes of supervision, and that the links between types of supervision

and how the outcomes of supervision are achieved should be further investigated. The

results identified in this study have implications for the theoretical understanding of

144

Holloway’s (1995) Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS) Model. Two research

questions were posed for this study.

The first research question asked whether supervisees would report a range of

different definitions of supervision that could be used to compile a typology of

supervision. As shown, there was strong support to indicate that the majority of

supervised professionals in this study perceived/defined the concept of professional

supervision in a range of ways including being a conduit to learn skills in counselling,

case experience, professional experience, emotional awareness and an ability to self-

evaluate. Whilst the content analysis in the present study generated 11 themes, they

were readily collapsed into the five key areas identified by Holloway (1995) as the

teaching objectives for supervision (refer to Chapter 5).

The second research question asked whether supervisees would report a range of

intended outcomes and be able to operationalise supervision success. The supervised

professionals, as suggested by a content analysis of qualitative data, perceived that

effective supervision would result in a range of benefits including the development or

enhancement of skills in the specific areas of building relationships, work and

professional performance, academic/technical knowledge, networking, emotional

awareness and the ability to self-evaluate. Again these results were in keeping with the

SAS model (Holloway, 1995) while identifying two other factors of academic/technical

knowledge and networking as determinants of supervision success.

As discussed in Chapter 5, there was a small body of research from the

supervision literature to support the results of this study and the application of the SAS

model in defining professional supervision and its success. Learning of counselling skills

was identified as a critical factor of supervision success by McMahon and Patton (2000).

In addition, Culbreth and Borders (1998) reported that the ability of supervisors to

impart their knowledge in the area of developing counselling skills and case

conceptualisation abilities contributes to supervision success. The importance of the

supervisor’s professional role, for example, the supervisor’s ability to provide the most

145

conducive learning environment during the supervision process has been researched

extensively (see Gatmon et al., 2001; Kennard et al., 1987; Ladany et al., 1999;

Magnuson et al., 2000). There was also evidence to suggest that development of

emotional awareness contributes to supervision success, a notion supported by Nutt-

Williams et al. (1997) and Ward et al. (1985) who reported respectively that one, it was a

strategy to help counteract transference and counter transference and two, that without it,

there could be negative experiences in supervision. Holloway (1995) was the only other

researcher to examine the role of self-evaluation in supervision effectiveness. It seems

overall there was descriptive support from the current study and the supervision

literature to support the usefulness of the SAS model in explaining the purpose and

effectiveness of professional supervision for the fields of psychology, counselling,

nursing, occupational therapy, accounting and business consulting. The current study

identified two other tasks that appear to also play a role in the success of supervision: the

process of networking and the ability to develop academic/technical knowledge.

Limitations

Given the exploratory nature of this study it should be kept in mind that there are

some limitations. For example, only a few of the vast range of professional areas have

been studied via one instrument. Furthermore, this study relied solely on supervisee self-

report. It would be most beneficial for future research to consider a greater range of

professions and various data gathering methodologies (such as, focus groups, interviews)

to adequately establish the relationship between delivery mode and supervision tasks

and, in turn, supervision success. This being said, the results of this study point to the

direction for more detailed and comprehensive research in the supervision literature and

suggest the existence of supervision factors that have to date received only brief mention

in much of the research. An example of this is the special case whereby it was shown

that there was a significant difference in supervision delivery mode across the

professions of psychology, counselling, nursing, occupational therapy, financial advice,

and business accounting. For example, most psychologists attended after work face-to-

146

face supervision in comparison to accountants where none reported attending after work

face-to-face supervision. While this study demonstrated there were differences in

delivery mode across professional groups, it was not possible to predict the impact of

this difference on supervision success.

Implications

The term of “professional supervision” in the Australian context can now be

defined across health and business related fields (of psychology, counselling, nursing,

occupational therapy, financial advice and business and accounting) as a process

whereby supervisees develop skills in counselling, case experience, professional

experience, emotional awareness and the ability to self-evaluate. Furthermore, it is now

possible to measure whether supervision has been successful based on whether the

following tasks are achieved: enhanced ability to self-evaluate, broader academic

knowledge, increased emotional awareness, and increased profession contacts. Both of

these findings were in keeping with the SAS model’s (Holloway, 1995) definition and

expected outcomes of supervision.

It was also shown that supervisees tended to rely on supervisors to develop,

implement and evaluate supervision processes. Perhaps university courses could

encourage inexperienced professionals to be more proactive about the supervision

process so that they receive maximum benefit and have input into the continuing

development of professional supervision as a whole.

It has been established that within the Australian context, the majority of

supervisees found their supervisor through work and that in most cases supervisors were

chosen due to their level of society membership and/or professional qualifications. Most

supervisees participated in face-to-face supervision after and during work hours. Most

supervisees meet with their supervisors on a fortnightly basis, regularly. Most

supervisors were paying more than $60 per hour for supervision. These findings have

implications for both those professionals wishing to pursue a career in supervision and

for those graduates wishing to pursue a career in their chosen field as they allow the

147

supervisee to plan and make good choices when instigating and participating in

supervision.

It is suggested that future research should aim to collect information from both

young and mature age supervisees. It would be beneficial to obtain an equitable gender

mix in the professional supervision sample although this will probably depend on the

professional group given that generally females are more attracted to the health-related

fields than males. Furthermore, future investigation into the way in which professional

supervision is defined and evaluated by other professional groups is needed. Central to

the SAS model (Holloway, 1995) is the supervision relationship which is comprised of

the supervision contract, phases and structure. While these factors were not explored in

the current research program, it would be interesting to investigate the impact of the

supervisory relationship on supervision definition and outcomes. If possible, other data

collection modalities such as focus groups and interviews might offer another

perspective on the supervision experience.

148

CHAPTER 8

Does Delivery Matter: Is There a Science to Supervision?

If you ask most supervisors how they impart and disseminate knowledge, most

would indicate that they take an eclectic approach (Holloway, 1995). In other words,

they tend to generate their own style of supervision, which is commonly yielded from

their own experiences and preferred theoretical perspective. As has been discussed in

depth in the literature review, much of the research in the area of professional

supervision does not apply a theoretical framework to assist in understanding the

findings. Despite this, there are many theories of supervision for example,

psychoanalytic supervision, client-centered supervision, cognitive-behavioural

supervision, narrative supervision, developmental approaches, and social role

supervision approaches. Rarely have any of these theories been tested scientifically. As

such, Holloway’s Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS) has been employed in this

study to make sense of what actually occurs in supervision. A review of this model was

provided in Chapter 5. Study Two will specifically examine whether or not supervisors

utilise particular task function matches while facilitating professional supervision.

Study Two explores the relationship between delivery mode and task function

match success by controlling for profession. The Study Two method provided an

opportunity to scientifically measure the impact of delivery mode on various aspects of

supervision success. In other words, it was important to determine which supervision

tasks and functions can be effectively provided by all types of delivery modes (such as

face-to-face at work or after work, phone at or after work, and e-mail).

As overviewed in Chapters 2, 3, and 4, there are many ways in which

supervision is being delivered to professional groups in Australia, including face-to-face,

over the telephone, and via e-mail. As discussed previously, the provision to examine

other supervision formats such as individual versus group and university versus private

practitioner was not taken in this study due to time and complexity issues. There was

practically no evidence in the literature to suggest that some types of supervision

149

delivery are more effective than others. The present study investigated supervision

delivery in much more detail.

A primary aim of the current study was to evaluate the relevance of supervision

delivery mode, which was raised as a critical factor in Study One. While supervision

delivery mode was not included in the SAS model as a critical variable, it was clear that

some professional boards were specific about their expectations in this regard. For

example, the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland had specified that a minimum of 60

hours of supervision must be undertaken through face-to-face supervision meetings

(Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, 2005). At the writing of this thesis, there are no

studies which have specifically investigated whether or not face-to-face supervision is

more effective and satisfying than other types (such as over the phone, e-mail).

Since the development of the SAS model, there has been an increase in usage of

electronic forms of communication such as e-mail, the internet and increased access to

telecommunication services which has varied the ways in which supervision can now be

delivered. The current study investigated whether supervision delivery mode related to

the intended tasks and whether delivery mode factored into the expectations of

supervision success. Supervisee satisfaction with supervision was also included as a

measure to be related to supervisory delivery mode to explore the relationship between

delivery mode and supervision success.

The secondary aim of this study was to evaluate the supervision task function

matrix as proposed by the SAS model. As discussed in Chapter 5, Holloway’s SAS

model (1995) suggested that there are a number of teaching tasks and functions to

explain the supervision process. Supervisors can choose any number of supervision

functions (e.g., consulting, modelling, supporting/sharing, instructing/advising and

monitoring/evaluating) to assist a supervisee to achieve a number of supervision tasks

(e.g., counselling skills, case conceptualisation, professional role, emotional awareness

and self-evaluation). In addition, Holloway argued that task function match would assist

150

in planning supervision sessions. Holloway’s (1995) task function matrix has not been

tested scientifically previously.

The survey (refer to Appendix B) sought to operationalise key themes identified

in Study One and in the SAS matrix into valid and reliable items. To this end an alternate

form of questions was included and convergence between the two sets of items was

evaluated. Based on the key themes of supervision delivery mode and the relationship

between the SAS tasks and functions, three major hypotheses were proposed.

Hypotheses

As outlined in Chapter 6, a number of hypotheses were posited to test whether

supervision delivery mode would be associated with supervision success, that is, would

there be an association between the selection of supervision functions to supervision

tasks.

8H1 The selection of delivery mode (as agreed between supervisee and

supervisor) will differ according to differing levels of supervision success. Supervision

success here is defined as supervisee satisfaction with the supervision after 6 months of

supervision.

Supervision delivery mode was identified in Study One as a relevant factor that

might impact on supervision success. Holloway’s (1995) SAS model did not take

account of different methods of delivery, however Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) developments during the last decade make supervision possible using

different technologies. Based on the results from the Study One, it was expected that a

relationship between delivery mode and supervisee satisfaction would be identified and

thereby suggest delivery mode as an important factor in determining supervision success.

This hypothesis was tested using an ANOVA, where the independent variable was

supervision delivery mode and the dependent variable was supervision success (as

measured by perceived supervisee improvement).

8H2 The selection of delivery mode (as agreed between supervisee and

supervisor) will differ according to different supervision tasks.

151

Supervision delivery mode was identified as an important distinguishing factor

for various professional samples investigated in Study One. Given that the supervision

needs of each of the professions studied are likely to vary, it is expected that delivery

mode will be a careful consideration for supervisors and supervisees when planning their

supervision arrangements. It was therefore expected that delivery mode would be related

to the supervision tasks engaged by supervisees and supervisors (e.g., to engage in

counselling tasks, face-to-face supervision would be more appropriate). This hypothesis

was tested using a series of ANOVAs with Bonferroni correction, where the independent

variable was supervision delivery mode and the dependent variables were ratings of

supervision task usage (i.e., counselling, case conceptualisation, professional role,

networking and social connections, and self-evaluation).

8H3 The selection of supervision tasks will be associated with different intended

supervision functions. It is predicted that the following supervision functions and tasks

will be associated:

8H3a The supervision task of counselling will be associated with the functions

of monitoring/evaluating, instructing/advising, modelling, and consulting.

8H3b The supervision task of case conceptualisation will be associated with the

functions of monitoring/evaluating, instructing/advising, modelling and consulting.

8H3c The supervision task of professional role will be associated with the


8H3d The supervision task of emotional awareness will be associated with the


8H3e The supervision task of self-evaluation will be associated with the

functions of monitoring/evaluating, consulting, and supporting/sharing.

Five standard multiple regressions were employed to test the above hypotheses.

For these regressions, the independent variables were the frequency of supervision

function (i.e., monitoring/evaluating, instructing/advising, modelling, supporting/

sharing, and consulting.) and the dependent variables were each of the supervision tasks

152

(i.e., counselling, case conceptualisation, professional role, networking and social

connections, and self-evaluation) in turn.

Method

Sample

A sample of 200 supervisees, 50 from each of four professional areas

(psychology, counselling, nursing, and business consulting) replied from a total survey

distribution of 208 (representing a response rate of 96%).

For all of the four professional areas, the 50 subjects were matched based on

supervisees’ characteristics, age in years, gender, and gender of supervisor. Each

profession was collected sequentially with psychology participants data collected first,

followed by counselling, nursing and finally business consulting and accounting without

CPA. After a sample of 50 psychology participants were collected, their age in years,

gender and gender of their supervisor were noted and used as the template for the

matching in the remaining professional area samples. In each successive sample, the

quota of participants with identical characteristics was set as the target and achieved. The

samples were initially matched to allow for the possibility of repeated measures analysis

but this was not needed. The number of female and male supervisees targeted was set at

50% for each sample. Eight supervisees declined involvement after initial agreement

resulting in the sourcing of replacements.

The average age of the supervisees was 21.4 years (ranging from 21 to 22 years)

and the average age of the supervisors was 36.8 years (ranging from 26 to 52 years). The

sample was evenly comprised of females (n = 100, 50%) and males (n = 100, 50%).

Supervisors of respondents were slightly skewed towards males (n = 104, 52%) with a

smaller number of female supervisors (n = 96, 48%). The gender match of supervisee –

supervisor dyads were allocated as indicated in Table 8.1. The survey was

counterbalanced across the four professions of psychology, counselling, nursing and

business consulting to ensure that no particular bias was present for each of the

153

professions based on gender mix between supervisee and supervisor. Supervisor years of

experience averaged 6.2 years (ranging from 2 to 22 years).

Table 8.1

Sample demographics by gender

Supervisors Female

(n) Male (n)

Total (N)

Female 48 (12 per profession)

52 (13 per profession)

100

Supervisees Male 48

(12 per profession) 52

(13 per profession) 100

Total 96 104 200

Procedure

An overview of the procedure for this study was provided in Chapter 6.

As shown in Table 8.2 the response rate from potential participants after initial

contact was very high. However, it was impossible to know how many people

considered participating but did not express interest. The surveys were sent only to those

who expressed an interest. A possible reason for large of amount of participants may be

the use of the following strategies: marketing presentations and flyers, incentives to

participate and a survey that was reasonably short and easy to complete.

Table 8.2

Survey distribution and response rates across professions

Profession Sent (n)

Sent (%)

Returned (n)

Returned (%)

Psychology 57 27 50 88 Counselling 51 25 50 98 Nursing 50 24 50 100 Business & Accounting 50 24 50 100 Total 208 100 200 96

154

Measures


separate types of information: (A) professional supervision arrangements, (B) the

supervisor’s role, and (C) additional comments (see Appendix C for a copy of the survey

instrument). Table 8.3 provides an overview of the questions asked and the scales

employed for Study Two.

155

Table 8.3

Provides an overview of the questions asked and the scales employed for Study Two

Survey Section Appendix Concept Question Scaling Scales

A1 A B Supervision involvement

“Are you currently involved in supervision?”


A1 A B Role “What is your role?” Nominal 1 = Supervisor 2 = Supervisee 3 = Other

A1 A B Gender “Is this a mixed gender arrangement (e.g., Female/Male)?”


A1 A B Arrangement “What is the arrangement?” Nominal 1 = One to one 2 = One to two 3 = Other

A1 A B How supervision was arranged

“How was supervision arranged?”

Nominal 1 = Work initiative/requirement 2 = Association/body initiative 3= Supervisor contacted from professional list 4 = Supervisor contact through friend/acquaintance 5 = Supervisee is a friend /acquaintance 6 = Supervisor offer to group of supervisees 7 = Other

156


A1 A B How supervisor was determined

“For your work/association, how is a supervisor determined? (check all that apply)”

Nominal 1 = Volunteering 2 = Qualifications 3 = Location 4 = Field of expertise 5 = Other 6 = Years of professional membership 7 = Level of professional membership 8 = Years of experience 9 = Selection/testing by association/body

A1 A B Delivery mode “How do you meet?” Nominal 1 = Face-to-face (work hours) 2 = Face-to-face (after work) 3 = Email 4 = Other, please describe 5 = Phone (work hours) 6 = Phone (after work) 7 = Group Meeting (with 2+ supervisees)

A1 A B Frequency “Do you meet…” Nominal 1 = Regularly 2 = Supervisee decides 3 = Sporadically (when convenient to all) 4 = Supervisor decides 5 = Other

A1 A B Pay “Does the supervisee pay ‘in kind’ to be supervised?”

Nominal 1 = No 2 = Yes, works as ‘understudy’ for < $20/hour 3 = Yes, fixed payment ($60+/hour) 4 = Yes, nominal payment (<$60/hour) 5 = Other

157


A1 A B Frequency

“Please try to estimate how often you have supervision”

Ordinal 1= Daily 2= 2-4 times per week 3= Weekly 4 = Fortnightly 5 = Monthly 6 = Bi-monthly 7 = Quarterly 8 = Half yearly 9 = Yearly 10 = Other, please describe

A2 B C Supervision functions

“Please rate the supervisor on the frequency they use the following modes of interaction” (Monitoring/evaluating Instructing/advising Modelling professional behaviour Consulting with supervisee Sharing experience/information)

Ordinal 5 point Likert scale: 1 = Very often 2 = Often 3 = Sometimes 4 = Rarely 5 = Never 6 = NA

158


A2 B C Supervision tasks

“Which of the following are skills you expect the supervisor to teach you?” (Counselling Case Experience Professional experience Emotional awareness Ability to self-evaluate Listening skills How to apply theory to cases Ethical issues facing practitioners How to reflect on own cognitions Understanding own limits)

Ordinal 5 point Likert scale: 1 = Critical 2 = Very important 3 = Important 4 = Useful 5 = Not useful 6 = NA

A1 C B Intended Supervision Outcome

“Please look at your definition of supervision in part B again and indicate whether your supervisee/supervisor seems to share the same definition as you”

Nominal 1 = Yes 2 = No 3 = Sometimes 4 = Don’t know

159


A3 B D Satisfaction with supervision

“Are you happy with how the supervision has progressed over the past 12 months?”

Ordinal 5 point Likert scale: 1 = Very happy 2 = Happy 3 = Neutral 4 = Unhappy 5 = Very unhappy

A2 A C Definition “How do you define the term supervision?” This question was included to confirm the reliability of the data collected in the first study.

Open-ended question

160

Measures (continued)

The intended supervision outcomes section consisted of the following heading,

“critical skills for your supervisor to teach” and included key themes drawn from the

previous study. These included counselling, case experience, professional experience,

emotional awareness, ability to self-evaluate, listening skills, how to apply theory to

cases, ethical issues facing practitioners, how to reflect on own cognitions, and

understanding own limitations. These themes were rated using a Likert scaling ranging

from 1 (critical) to 5 (not useful). A “not applicable” option was also available.

An additional question regarding satisfaction with supervision was asked (“Are

you happy with how the supervision has progressed over the last 6 months?”). The item

was rated using a five point Likert scale where 1 = very unhappy and 5 = very happy

with a mid-point category of 3 = neutral. This question was included to provide an

exploration of potential differences related to supervision delivery modes.

One open-ended question included in the survey, was as follows:

“How do you define the term supervision?” This question was included to

confirm the reliability of the data collected in the first study. The text was analysed in

the same way as in the first study to determine whether a similar set of concepts could be

arrived at.

Results

Descriptive statistics, qualitative and quantitative analyses were conducted on the

data obtained. Descriptive statistics provide an overview of the types of data collected.

Qualitative analyses were conducted in the same way as identified in the previous study.

Text was first entered into NUD*IST, coded, and then analysed (see Study One for a full

description of the process used). Quantitative analyses were conducted using the

demographic and rating scale data in a number of stages: data cleaning, evaluation of the

sample manipulations, and hypothesis testing.

161

Other Sample Demographics

Supervision arrangement. It should be noted that the way in which supervisees

and supervisors established their supervision arrangements varied in a number of ways.

Extra information regarding supervision contexts are provided here.

Current involvement in professional supervision. This item was asked with

“yes” or “no” response options. The “no” option also included those who had put their

supervision on hold. Only those who answered “yes” to this question were included in

the study.

Role in the supervision arrangement. This item was included to determine

whether the respondent was a supervisor or supervisee.

Gender similarity between supervisee and supervisor. This item was included to

evaluate the degree of gender-based diversity in the sample. In total, 200 supervisees

answered this question with results indicating that the intended allocation of same

gender/different gender supervisee-supervisor dyads had been included in the study.

Supervision ratio. This item was included to evaluate whether the relationship

involved a one supervisor to one supervisee or alternate arrangement. In total 200

supervisees answered this question with 183 (92%) indicating a one-to-one ratio and 17

(9%) indicating an alternative ratio.

Supervision was arranged by. This item was included to evaluate how the

supervision was arranged. In total 200 supervisees answered this question (refer to Table

8.4):

162

Table 8.4

The number and percentage of how supervision was arranged

Category n % Work initiative/requirement 60 30 Supervisor contacted from professional list 46 23 Association/Body initiative (e.g., function/event/meeting) 42 21 Supervisor contact through friend/acquaintance 32 16

Supervisee is a friend/acquaintance 11 6 Supervisor offer to group of supervisees 3 2 Other 6 3 Total 200 100

How was the supervisor selected? This question was included to evaluate the

minimum requirements for supervision. In total 200 supervisees answered this question

and were allowed to select more than one (refer to Table 8.5):

Table 8.5

The number and percentage of how a supervisor was selected

Category n % Level of Professional membership 185 93 Years of Professional membership 157 79 Qualifications 143 72 Years of Experience 126 63 Location 86 43 Volunteer basis (i.e., supervisor volunteered/available) 76 38 Field of expertise 53 27 Other 3 2 Selection/Testing by Association/Body 0 0 Total 829 415

163

Supervision delivery mode. This item was included to identify the primary

mechanism in which supervisees obtained supervision. In total 200 supervisees answered

this question (refer to Table 8.6):

Table 8.6

The number and percentage of supervision delivery mode.

Category n % Face-to-Face (after work) 62 31 Face-to-Face (work hours) 47 24 Email 38 19 Phone (after work) 19 10 Group (2+ supervisors) face-to-face (after work)* 17 9 Phone (work hours) 14 7 Other 3 2 Total 200 100 *This was a scientifically derived category from the supervisor ratio question.

Of the “other” responses 3 (2% of the total sample) indicated having more than

one mechanism (i.e., no primary means of supervision).

Regularity of supervision. This item was included to assess the consistency of

the supervision arrangements. In total 200 supervisees answered this question (refer to

Table 8.7):

164

Table 8.7

The number and percentage of the regularity of supervision

Category n % Regularly 152 76 Sporadically (when convenient to all) 21 11 Supervisor decides 18 9 Supervisee decides 9 5 Total 200 100

Supervision related payment. Supervisees were asked whether they paid for the

supervision they received. Based on the confusion in the previous study regarding the

difference between employment and payment for supervision, it was expressly defined

that this question related to specific payment agreements on the basis of supervision. In

total 200 supervisees answered this question (refer to Table 8.8):

Table 8.8

The number and percentage of supervision-related payment options

Category n % Yes, fixed payment ($60+/hour) 79 40 Yes, nominal payment (<$60/hour) 61 31 No 34 17 Yes, works as ‘understudy” (outside of standard work arrangements) for <$20/hour 20 10

Other 6 3

Frequency of supervision. Supervisees were asked how often they met with their

supervisors. In total 200 supervisees answered this question with the following outcomes

(refer to Table 8.9):

165

Table 8.9

The number and percentage of the frequency of supervision

Category n % Daily 0 0 2-4 times/week 18 9 Weekly 24 12 Fortnightly 87 44 Monthly 46 23 Bi-monthly 18 9 Quarterly 4 2 Half yearly 0 0 Yearly 0 0 Other 3 2 Total 200 100

Qualitative Analyses

Definition of Supervision

Based on the process used in Study One, a grounded content analysis was

employed (with a different sample) to analyse the qualitative data returned from the two

open-ended questions. In the current study, 208 professional rrespondents defined

supervision in 12 distinct ways, which mapped very similarly to the SAS models

supervision tasks (see Table 8.10 and 8.11). There was 100% agreement between 3

raters on the matching of the empirical categories to the SAS model concepts. Given

that the original coding process was largely unchanged, it is not surprising that the order

and nature of categories emerging here were also largely unchanged.

Checks of coding adequacy suggested even greater semantic matches for this

data than in the previous study. Whilst some of this could be attributed to larger sample

sizes from a smaller number of professions, it is also likely that some cueing of

responses had occurred. Specifically, this survey included Likert scale items relating to

supervisor tasks and functions, which may have served to guide respondent comments.

Even though open-ended questions were provided prior to the Likert scaled items, it is

166

likely that some respondents returned to the open-ended questions after having

completed the scaled items. Nevertheless, respondents were able to indicate anything

they want for the open-ended questions and the thematic consistency and relative

similarity in prevalence suggest support for the findings of the previous study.

Table 8.10


to definitions of supervision

Stage Number of themes Categories

Final 12 themes Caring / open - attentive attitude / support / understanding Conceptualisation / theory / reflection / active concept

refinement Active listening / questioning / inquiry / debating / interpersonal

skills Professional development / training / guidance / career planning Networking development / socialising / referrals Range of case review techniques - Reflecting / Role modelling /

Hypothetical / Critical cases Self awareness / reflection / evaluation / analysis / testing Documentation management / usage (e.g., report interpretation /

legislation / adhering to recent professional standards of communication)

Skills development / enhancement versus acquiring new skills Situational guidance / case modelling / training / development /

hypothetical / mentoring Stress management / emotional coping / emotional maturity Client management skills (e.g., time management, marketing,

referrals, payments)

167

Table 8.11

Comparison between SAS model concepts and the results of the empirical content

analysis

SAS Model Concept Empirical Categories

Counselling Active listening / questioning / inquiry / debating / interpersonal skills Caring / open - attentive attitude / support / understanding

Case experience Range of case review techniques - Reflecting / Role modelling / Hypothetical / Critical cases Conceptualisation / theory / reflection / active concept refinement Situational guidance / training / development / hypothetical / mentoring

Professional experience Networking development / socialising / referrals Professional development / training / guidance / career planning* Documentation management / usage (e.g., report interpretation / legislation / adhering to recent professional standards of communication) Skills development / enhancement versus acquiring new skills Client management skills (e.g., time management, marketing, referrals, payments)

Emotional awareness Stress management / emotional coping / emotional maturity

Ability to Self-evaluate Self awareness / reflection / evaluation / analysis / testing *In the previous study, career planning was originally coded under a separate category but was, after reanalysis, grouped with professional development.

Quantitative Analyses

All of the analyses were performed using SPSS 7.5 for Windows statistical

program. Results confirmed, via investigation of the intercorrelation matrix, that

similarly oriented measures were significantly correlated at levels higher, than measures

of dissimilar themes.

Assumptions

Inspection of the statistics revealed that the data met the assumptions of

normality (including skewness and kurtosis) using a ratio of 3.5 as the cut-off when

dividing skewness and kurtosis by SE skewness and SE kurtosis respectively

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989) and homogeneity of variance required for ANCOVA.

168

Data Cleaning

The data was checked for both univariate and multivariate discrepancies. The

univariate analyses involved calculating missing data percentages. Missing data

increased in order of the items in the survey but never exceeded 2% of the sample.

Multiple responses to questions were the cause of most missing data. In cases where

individuals have entered more than one response to a single Likert scale, where the

responses are two or more sequential options to the scale (e.g., 4 and 5, 2 and 3) then the

response closest to the mid-point of the scale was recorded. In cases where individuals

gave two or more non-sequential options (e.g., 2 and 4, 1 and 3) then a missing response

was recorded. Means-based substitution was not possible due to the limited number of

missing data present.

Investigation of the distributions of the scaled responses indicated a negative

skew in most items. Transformations (square root) were applied to the data to

compensate for skewness, however, upon final analysis the pattern of results using

transformed and non-transformed data revealed no substantial differences. Therefore

results presented here represent non-transformed data.

Investigation of the multivariate distributions revealed three outlier cases

identified using Mahalanobis distances. Further testing revealed no substantial

differences based on the inclusion or exclusion of the three cases and therefore the

results presented here include all cases. Analyses based on the satisfaction with

supervision question indicated heteroscedasticity may be present and therefore the

regression analyses of this variable should be interpreted with some caution.

Collinearity was not indicated in the correlation matrix with all correlations falling

below .80.

Investigation of the interrelationship between rating variables indicated that non-

linear relationships were not present. This was further supported by a range of trend

analyses into the variables, which failed to reveal significant quadratic or cubic

relationships between the rating scales.

169

Comparisons between the four sample professions

To test for the degree of comparability or similarity between the four

professions, a series of crosstabulated chi-squares and one-way ANOVAs were

conducted. This was done to confirm similarities between the professional groups.

Chi-square tests revealed no significant differences between the professions on

gender, gender mix (as expected), method of payment for supervision, and frequency of

supervision. Differences were identified based on supervision delivery mode with the

business consulting profession more likely to have supervision conducted via e-mail than

the other groups (see Table 8.12). These results are similar to those identified in the

previous study.

170

Table 8.12

The number and percentage of participants, by professional grouping, distributed across delivery mode

Category Psychology

n = 50

Counselling

n = 50

Nursing

n = 50


n = 50

Total

N = 200

Email 4 (8%) 2 (4%) 0 (0%) 32 (64%) 38 (19%)

Face-to-Face (after work) 22 (44%) 27 (54%) 8 (16%) 5 (10%) 62 (31%)

Face-to-Face (work hours) 12 (24%) 11 (22%) 23 (46%) 1 (2%) 47 (24%)

Group (with 2+ supervisees) 0 (0%) 2 (4%) 15 (30%) 0 (0%) 17 (9%)

Phone (after work) 8 (16%) 6 (12%) 1 (2%) 4 (8%) 19 (10%)

Phone (work hours) 3 (6%) 2 (4%) 2 (4%) 7 (14%) 14 (7%)

Other 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 3 (2%)

Total* 50 (100%) 50 (100%) 50 (100%) 50 (100%) 200 (100%)

*Totals are calculated for columns

171

A series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to test the difference between the

professions on age, ratings of supervision tasks and functions, and supervisee

satisfaction. No significant differences were identified between the professions on any of

the variables except for supervision satisfaction, where business consulting scored lower

than the other professions, F (3,196) = 9.82, p<.05. The difference in supervision

satisfaction is likely to be due to the fact that business consulting participants had a much

higher rate of supervision via e-mail. These differences should be considered when

interpreting the results of the hypothesis testing presented next.

Table 8.13 outlines descriptive statistics regarding the use of supervision

tasks broken down by each type of delivery mode.

172

Table 8.13

Descriptive statistics for supervision tasks by supervision delivery modes

Variable n M SD Counselling Email 38 3.79 .58 Face-to-face (work hours) 47 4.04 .68 Face-to-face (after work) 62 3.69 .48 Group (with 2+supervisees) 17 3.95 .62 Phone (work hours) 14 3.67 .62 Phone (after work) 19 3.86 .54 Other* 3 3.94 .66 Case Conceptualisation Email 38 3.71 .73 Face-to-face (work hours) 47 3.94 .67 Face-to-face (after work) 62 3.54 .66 Group (with 2+supervisees) 17 3.79 .54 Phone (work hours) 14 4.07 .59 Phone (after work) 19 3.93 .48 Other* 3 3.94 .56 Professional Role Email 38 3.79 .70 Face-to-face (work hours) 47 4.03 .65 Face-to-face (after work) 62 4.15 .55 Group (with 2+supervisees) 17 4.00 .67 Phone (work hours) 14 3.87 .64 Phone (after work) 19 3.86 .54 Other* 3 3.88 .70 Networking and Social Connections Email 38 3.71 .83 Face-to-face (work hours) 47 4.01 .66 Face-to-face (after work) 62 4.31 .48 Group (with 2+supervisees) 17 3.79 .63 Phone (work hours) 14 3.60 .63 Phone (after work) 19 3.86 .53 Other* 3 3.94 .75 Self-evaluation Email 38 3.71 .73 Face-to-face (work hours) 47 4.02 .65 Face-to-face (after work) 62 3.85 .80 Group (with 2+supervisees) 17 3.84 .60 Phone (work hours) 14 4.07 .60 Phone (after work) 19 3.79 .43 Other* 3 3.88 .60 * Please note: the “Other” category was not included in the ANOVA analyses.

173

Hypothesis Testing

In order to evaluate the range of supervision delivery modes in the Australian

context and the differences related to expected supervision outcomes, five one-way

between subjects ANOVAs were performed on supervision meeting arrangements

towards supervision outcomes. The dependent variable was supervision outcomes

(obtaining counselling skills, case conceptualisation professional role, networking and

social connections, and self-evaluation). Independent variables consisted of the

supervision meeting arrangement (face-to-face (during work hours), face-to-face (after

work hours), e-mail, other, phone (during work hours), phone (after hours), and group

meeting (with 2+ supervisees).

Hypothesis 1(8H1)

The first hypothesis was aimed at testing the effect of delivery mode on

supervisees’ satisfaction with supervision. Table 8.14 provides the descriptive statistics.

Significant differences, using ANOVA, were identified for supervision delivery mode on

mean ratings of supervisee satisfaction with supervision, F(6,190) = 9.62, p < .01.

Tukey HSD post hoc analyses revealed that face-to-face (combined after and during

work) delivery modes for individuals (not groups) were significantly more satisfied than

the other options (see Table 8.14). Investigation of the means suggested that face-to-face

modes were more satisfying than phone modes which were in turn more satisfying than

group and e-mail modes. It should be noted that the group mode had the greatest

variance of all modes.

174

Table 8.14

Descriptive statistics for supervisee satisfaction with supervision by delivery mode

Variable n M SD Supervisee satisfaction with supervision Email 38 3.28 .69 Face-to-face (work hours) 47 4.16 .41 Face-to-face (after work) 62 4.01 .57 Group (with 2+supervisees) 17 3.36 .83 Phone (work hours) 14 3.48 .43 Phone (after work) 19 3.53 .49 Other* 3 3.88 .51 * Please note: the “other” category was not included in the ANOVA analyses.

Hypothesis 2(8H2)

Hypothesis 2 was not supported. As summarised in Table 8.15, the ratings of

intended supervision tasks were not different across the various modes of supervision

delivery, Counselling F (6, 190) = .05, ns; Case Conceptualisation F (6, 190) = 1.22, ns;

Professional Role F (6, 190) = .70, ns; Networking and Social Connections F (6, 190) =

1.35, ns and Self-evaluation F (6, 190) = .92, ns. Please note that the supervision

delivery mode category of “other” was excluded from the analyses due to sample size

restrictions.

Overall, the results suggested that supervisees do not tailor their supervision

delivery mode to their desired supervision tasks. Some relationship was possible with

face-to-face supervision scoring higher than other types of supervision arrangements (e-

mail, face-to-face (during work hours), face-to-face (after work), group, phone (during

work hours), phone (after work hours). Sample distributions were also limited with most

being face-to face arrangements. In sum, results demonstrated that the selection of

delivery mode did not differ according to supervision tasks.

175

Table 8.15

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of supervision delivery mode and supervision tasks

Source of variance SS df MS F* Counselling 3.36 6 .56 1.35 Case Conceptualisation 2.99 6 .50 1.22 Professional Role 1.74 6 .29 .70 Networking and Social Connections 5.25 6 .88 2.01 Self-Evaluation 2.30 6 .38 .92 * Note: no statistical differences using a 95% confidence interval were identified.

Hypothesis 3 (8H3)

To investigate hypothesis 8H3, the relationship between supervision tasks and

supervision functions as outlined in accordance to the SAS model, five standard multiple

regressions were performed between supervision functions and supervision tasks. The

supervision functions of monitoring/evaluating; instructing/advising; modelling;

consulting; and supporting and sharing were the predictors. The supervision tasks of

counselling, case conceptualisation, professional role, emotional awareness, and self-

evaluation were the dependent variables.

Table 8.16 to 8.20 display the correlations between the variables, the

unstandardised regression coefficients (B) and intercept, the standardised multiple

regression coefficients (β), the semipartial correlations (sr2) and R, R2 and adjusted R2.

Multiple regressions were used in preference to correlations to display the cumulative

effect of the five supervision functions on each supervision task and the degree of

association (indicated by amount of variance explained).

Hypothesis 8H3a was partially supported. Table 8.16 illustrates that the use of

counselling in supervision was predicted by the supervisor functions of

monitoring/evaluating (β=.71); advising/instructing (β=.12); and supporting/sharing (β=

-.18), F (5,194) = 54.40, p < .001, 58.4% of variance was explained. A negative

relationship was identified for support/sharing and counselling.

176

Hypothesis 8H3b was partially supported. Table 8.17 illustrates that the use of

case conceptualisation in supervision was predicted by the supervisor functions of

consulting (β=.138); advising/instructing (β=.89); and monitoring/evaluating (β=-1.52),

F (5,194) = 128.12, p < .001, 76.8% of variance was explained. A negative relationship

was identified for monitoring/evaluating and case conceptualisation.

Hypothesis 8H3c was found to be partially correct. Results in Table 8.18 indicate

that the use of professional role in supervision was predicted by the supervisor functions

of modelling (β=.80); and advising/instructing (β= -.14), F (5,194) = 82.36, p < .001,

68% of variance was explained. A negative relationship was identified for

advising/instructing and professional role.

Hypothesis 8H3d was found to be partially correct. Results in Table 8.19 show

that the use of emotional awareness in supervision was predicted by supervisor functions

of supporting/sharing (β=.80), F (5,194) = 62.48, p < .001, 61.7% of variance was

explained.

Hypothesis 8H3e was found to be partially correct. Results in Table 8.20

demonstrate that the use of self-evaluation in supervision was predicted by consulting

with the supervisee (β=-.19); and modelling (β=.70), F (5,194) = 27.57, p < .001, 41.5%

of variance was explained. A negative relationship was identified for modelling and self-

evaluation.

177

Table 8.16

Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of counselling

Variables Counselling

(DV) Monitor Advise Modelling Consult Support B β t

Monitor .74 .74 .71 11.36***

Advise .50 .53 .12 .12 2.23*

Modelling .35 .51 .34 -.01 -.01 -.12

Consult .37 .48 .36 .50 .07 .08 1.31

Support .14 .39 .16 .47 .44 -.18 -.18 -3.26**

Means 3.41 3.40 3.42 3.42 3.43 3.37 R2 = .58

Stddev .76 .73 .82 .75 .77 .75 Adjusted R2 = .57

R = 76

Note** =Significance level <.01 Note *** = Significance level < .001

178

Table 8.17

Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of case conceptualisation

Variables Case

Conceptualisation (DV)

Monitor Advise Modelling Consult Support B β T

Monitor .41 -.163 -.152 -3.26**

Advise .86 .53 .84 .89 21.33***

Modelling .31 .51 .34 -.02 -.02 -.34

Consult .41 .48 .35 .50 .140 .138 3.19**

Support .20 .39 .16 .47 .44 .07 .07 1.63

Means 3.41 3.40 3.42 3.42 3.43 3.37 R2 = .77

Stddev .76 .73 .82 .75 .77 .75 Adjusted R2 = .76

R = .88

Note** =Significance level <.01 Note *** = Significance level < .001

179

Table 8.18

Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of professional role

Variables Professional Role

(DV) Monitor Advise Modelling Consult Support B β t

Monitor .40 .03 .03 .50 Advise .16 .53 -.12 -.14 -2.84* Modelling .81 .51 .34 .72 .80 15.28*** Consult .42 .48 .35 .50 .02 .02 .314 Support .45 .39 .16 .47 .44 .08 .09 1.74 Means 3.42 3.40 3.42 3.42 3.43 3.37 R2 = .68 Stddev .73 .73 .82 .74 .77 .75 Adjusted R2 = .67 R = .82 Note* = Significance level < .05 Note *** = Significance level < .001

180

Table 8.19

Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of emotional awareness

Variables Emotional Awareness (DV) Monitor Advise Modelling Consult Support B β t

Monitor .32 .02 .02 .36 Advise .17 .53 .05 .06 1.13 Modelling .37 .51 .34 .01 .01 .22 Consult .29 .48 .35 .50 -.09 -.10 -1.72 Support .78 .39 .16 .47 .44 .81 .80 15.05*** Means 3.37 3.40 3.42 3.42 3.43 3.37 R2 = .62 Stddev .75 .73 .82 .75 .77 .75 Adjusted R2 = .61 R = .79 Note *** = Significance level < .001

181

Table 8.20

Standard multiple regression of supervision functions on the supervision task of self-evaluation

Variables Self Evaluation (DV) Monitor Advise Modelling Consult Support B β t

Monitor .26 .01 .01 .15 Advise .21 .53 .01 .01 .18 Modelling .18 .51 .34 -.19 -.19 -2.74* Consult .63 .48 .36 .49 .67 .70 10.22*** Support .25 .39 .16 .47 .44 .02 .02 .285 Means 3.34 3.40 3.42 3.42 3.43 3.37 R2 = .42 Stddev .74 .73 .82 .75 .77 .75 Adjusted R2 = .40 R = .65 Note* = Significance level < .05 Note *** = Significance level < .001

182

Table 8.21 demonstrates that significant associations between the SAS model’s

tasks and functions were found in this study. In other words, if a supervisee needs to

develop counselling skills, the supervision functions of monitoring/evaluating and

advising/instructing are recommended to be employed by the supervisor as successful

teaching strategies. If the supervisee needs development in case conceptualisation, the

supervisor would be best to use the functions of advising/instructing and consulting to

enhance their learning experience. It is suggested that professional role is best taught via

the function of modelling. Supervisees are best taught the skill of emotional awareness

when the supervisor uses a supportive/sharing approach whereas, developing self-

evaluation skills is best taught via a consulting approach.

Interesting, the following relationships were also significant but in a negative

direction. It was shown that the teaching function of supporting/sharing was not effective

in teaching the skill of counselling. Similarly the teaching function of

monitoring/evaluating was perceived to be ineffective in the skill of case

conceptualisation. Advising/instructing was not conducive to enhancing a supervisee’s

understanding of professional role. Furthermore, the teaching function of modelling was

not perceived to be helpful in a supervisee’s self-evaluation.

As discussed in Chapter 5, these findings support Holloway’s model (1995) that

postulated that the best selection of function to task is vital in ensuring a supervisee’s

professional development and supervision success.

183

Table 8.21

Matrix of statistically significant relationships found between supervision tasks and supervision functions as outlined in accordance with

the SAS model

Supervision Tasks Supervision Functions Counselling Case

Conceptualisation Professional Role Emotional Awareness

Self-Evaluation

Monitoring/ Evaluating √

(positive relationship)

√

(negative relationship)

Advising/ Instructing √ (positive relationship

√ (positive relationship

√ (negative

relationship)

Modelling √ (positive relationship

√ (negative

relationship)

Consulting √ (positive relationship

√

(positive relationship

Supporting/ Sharing

√ (negative

relationship)

√ (positive relationship

184

Discussion

Responses from supervisees in the present study identified a relationship

between supervision tasks and functions that was similar to that proposed by Holloway

(1995). It should not be inferred that supervisees were solely responsible for supervision

task function match as it’s more likely that this decision was instigated by the supervisor

however an exploration of this decision was beyond the scope of the study. The findings

also suggested a number of modifications and enhancements to Holloway’s original

conceptualisation of the SAS model and matrix.

Hypothesis 8H1 was not supported. In other words, no significant differences

were found between supervision delivery mode and supervision outcomes. These results

suggested that individuals do not tailor their supervision arrangements to their desired

supervision outcomes. However, it was shown that there were significant differences

between supervision delivery mode and supervision satisfaction. Face-to-face

supervision was perceived to be more satisfying than the other supervision delivery

modes. For example, face-to-face supervision was reportedly more satisfying than

supervision over the telephone. Holloway (1995) did not discuss the role of delivery

mode in the supervision process. However this finding does support the Psychologists’

Board of Queensland (2005) policy that the majority of supervision should be conducted

via face-to-face interviews.

Hypothesis 8H2 was not supported. That is, the selection of delivery mode was

not associated with different supervision tasks. The ratings of intended supervision tasks

(e.g., counselling, case experience, professional experience, emotional awareness, and

ability to self-evaluate) were not different across the various modes of supervision

delivery (e.g., face-to-face at work or after work, phone at work or after work or via e-

mail).

Overall, Hypothesis 8H3 was only partially supported. The selection of

supervision tasks was partially associated with different intended supervision functions.

185

Hypothesis 8H3a was partially supported in that counselling in supervision was

predicted by the supervisor functions of monitoring/evaluating, and advising/instructing.

As predicted by Holloway’s (1995) SAS model, it is suggested that the functions of

monitoring/evaluating and supporting/sharing might be employed by the supervisor to

assist supervisees to develop counselling skills. The functions of monitoring/evaluating

and advising/instructing specifically allow the supervisor to utilise their own knowledge

and skills to develop the supervisee’s counselling skills.

However, it was shown that imparting counselling skills through the use of a

supporting/sharing teaching strategy was not satisfying for supervisees. This might be

because early on in the supervision process, supervisees might have required more of a

directive approach in learning counselling skills. The functions of modelling and

consulting were not associated with learning counselling skills. In the case of modelling,

this might have occurred if supervisors and supervisees did not utilise role-play or direct

observation methods to learn counselling skills. It is difficult to say why the consulting

function was not associated but one possibility might be due to the supervisees’

developmental level. That is that at the beginning stage there is more emphasis on direct,

rather than bi-directional communication patterns. Holloway (1995) proposed that the

supervisor controls the most of the communication in this early stage of supervision

particularly when supervisees are learning rudimentary yet vital skills.

Hypothesis 8H3b indicated that case conceptualisation taught in supervision was

predicted by the supervision functions of advising/instructing and consulting with

supervisee. As predicted by the SAS model (Holloway, 1995), the functions of

advising/instructing and consulting were instrumental in learning and enhancing

conceptualisation skills. Similar to learning counselling skills, supervisees appeared to

require expert opinion and knowledge when learning how to conceptualise a case.

However, the teaching strategy of monitoring/evaluating was not perceived as helpful in

assisting a supervisee learn case conceptualisation skills. This result might have occurred

because of the early developmental stage of the supervisees in this study and the idea

186

that a negative evaluation might have resulted in a fear of providing an opinion about a

case. The function of supporting and sharing was not associated as being particularly

important to developing case conceptualisation skills. This result was surprising,

however, it could be argued that the function of consulting might have overlapped with

the underlying concepts of supporting/sharing in that both processes are based on bi-

directional communication interactions and in valuing supervisee opinions.

Hypothesis 8H3c showed that the development of professional role in the

supervision process was significantly predicted by the supervisor function of modelling.

As proposed by the SAS model (Holloway, 1995), modelling plays a significant role in

the development of a supervisees’ professional role. This makes sense as the term

modelling infers that the supervisor teaches the supervisee how to conduct themselves

and practice in a professional manner within the supervision experience (Holloway).

Interestingly, the function of advising/instructing was not effective in the development of

a supervisee’s professional role in supervision. This might have occurred because

supervisee’s could prefer to have some autonomy over how they develop professionally

according to their own values and experiences. The functions of monitoring/evaluating

and consulting were not associated with developing a professional role in supervision. It

is difficult to explain why consulting was not a predictor in developing this skill but

perhaps again this could be due to the supervisees early developmental stage in the

supervision process and perhaps a need for direction rather than a consultancy

communication approach (Holloway). Monitoring/evaluating might not be a crucial

function at this early stage of supervision as the focus is on developing and agreeing on

supervision goals and expectations (Holloway).

8H3d demonstrated that emotional awareness was predicted by the supervisor

function of supporting/sharing. As expected by the SAS Model (Holloway, 1995), the

function of supporting/sharing was essential in the development of a supervisee’s

emotional awareness. According to Holloway, emotional awareness training allows a

supervisee to reflect on his/her own feelings, thoughts and actions arising from work

187

with clients. It makes sense that a supporting/sharing environment would be required to

enhance the effectiveness of this process particularly given this task has the potential

problem of counter-transference (Holloway). Interestingly, monitoring/evaluating was

not a predictor of learning emotional awareness. Perhaps the use of this function might

have been perceived as a potentially punitive/judging process which could have hindered

a supervisee’s confidence in being truthful in sharing negative professional experiences

with a supervisor.

Hypothesis 8H3e showed that supervisee self-evaluation was predicted by the

supervisor function of consulting with the supervisee. Holloway (1995) defined self-

evaluation as a task in which a supervisee is allowed to examine themselves as a

professional in a non-judgemental environment. The role of supervisor is to encourage

the supervisee to gain awareness of their limits of competence, effectiveness and client

progress. The consulting function predicted the development of self-evaluation in

supervisees which seemed logical as this function allows both parties to share opinions

and communicate openly (Holloway). Interestingly, modelling was perceived as being

unhelpful in teaching supervisees self-evaluation skills. It was difficult to interpret why

this result occurred, however, one suggestion could be that supervisors do not or are not

good at self-evaluating their own work. It could be argued that if supervisors modelled

insightful and constructive self-evaluation behaviour, then supervisees would develop

this skill more successfully. In addition, supervisors would need to demonstrate ethical

and professional behaviour so that their supervisee has a benchmark to work from when

reviewing their own behaviour. Again, the function of supporting/sharing was not shown

as a predictor, which might be due to the similarity in properties it shares with the

consulting function. Monitoring/evaluating was also not a predictor of developing self-

evaluation skills and might have been due to a perception of being judged negatively and

inhibiting open communication processes.

188

Summary

Overall, supervision delivery mode was a significant predictor of supervisee

satisfaction. It seems that face-to-face was the preferred method for supervision with

more than half of the respondents sampled indicating a face-to-face arrangement was

already in place. As discussed in Chapter 2, this might have occurred because the

supervisee and supervisor could observe and interpret non-verbal communication more

effectively rather than via the phone or e-mail. However, there was no significant

variance found between supervision delivery mode and supervision outcomes indicating

that supervisees did not plan and/or consider a specific type of delivery mode as being

more desirable to teach a task than others. However as shown in Table 8.21, there was

support for the SAS matrix (1995) in that particular supervision functions were

employed to teach certain supervision tasks. A number of significant associations were

found, for example, it was shown that to teach a supervisee the skill of emotional

awareness, a supervisor might be best to take a supportive/sharing approach. If a

supervisee needs to learn self-evaluations skills, the supervisor might be best to employ a

consultative and modelling approach. It is acknowledged that the task matrix findings in

this study were preliminary and that further confirmation is needed to draw any definite

conclusions. These particular results are important in that they provided support for the

task function matrix (Holloway, 1995) and the use of face-to-face supervision in

ensuring supervision satisfaction and success.

Limitations

As previously mentioned in Chapter 7 pertaining to Study One, one of the

limitations of Study Two was the sole use of self-report measures. As with all self-report

measures, there is an element of subjectivity. The SAS model (Holloway, 1995) is

complex and it was only possible to test the contribution of supervision functions and

tasks in this study. However, the other aspects of the SAS model such as power,

supervision contract, the phase of supervision, the contextual factors (e.g., organisational

structure), supervisor factors, supervisee factors, and the clientele should be tested to

189

determine their role in supervisee satisfaction and effectiveness. In addition, the

respondents in this survey had only participated in supervision for about 6 months and

were therefore in the early stages of professional development. This might have

mitigated their perceptions of which function would be best to teach each particular task.

Implications

In essence, this study provided preliminary evidence in support of the SAS

model (Holloway, 1995) as a frame of reference and as a training mechanism to teach

professionals how to become effective supervisors. It seemed that the supervision

experience would be enhanced if supervisors and supervisees spent more time planning

and thinking about the direction of the supervision from the beginning. Supervisors need

to be aware of the task function matrix (Holloway) of teaching supervision in order to

achieve the maximum supervision benefits. Future research should be aimed at

operationalising the task function matrix across professional groups. This study also

extended the SAS model by demonstrating that the face-to-face supervision delivery

mode was a critical factor in supervision satisfaction and effectiveness. In conclusion,

supervisors would benefit from training in the task function matrix to ensure they are

proactive about ensuing supervisee satisfaction and effectiveness.

This study supported the general notion put forward by Holloway’s (1995) SAS

model that particular supervision tasks and functions were likely to be related. The next

study in this research program, detailed in the next chapter, sought to confirm the

relationship between supervision task function match and supervisee performance.

190

CHAPTER 9

Testing the Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS) Model

This chapter outlines the results from Study Three. As mentioned previously, this

was a confirmatory study where intern psychologists’ performance was tracked over a

twelve-month period to determine whether or not professional supervision contributed to

ratings of their professional performance. Holloway’s Systems Approach to Supervision

(1995) model was employed to frame the study theoretically. Results from Study One

which provided definitions and outcomes of supervision and were associated with the

SAS model informed the questions used to determine psychologists supervision and

work performance. Study Two confirmed and extended the SAS model which could

therefore be applied as a theoretical framework for understanding the psychologists’

supervision and work performance. For example, it was established that the match of

supervision SAS functions to tasks is crucial in professional development and the role of

delivery mode also determines supervisee satisfaction with supervision. Study Three

investigated whether particular supervision delivery types (e.g., face-to-face versus over

the phone or email) and supervisor and supervisee characteristics impacted on supervisee

performance. Both the supervisees’ development in specific areas as well as overall

work ability was rated by both supervisor and work manager after 12 months of

supervision. By combining such work ability and development ratings with information

about supervision tasks and functions, as suggested by Holloway (1995), a

comprehensive investigation of the relationship between such factors was achieved.

Methodology

Sample

This study comprised a sample of 513 supervisees reporting over a 12 month

period from their initial supervision meeting. Supervisees were selected from a single

professional grouping, psychology. Work managers and supervisors were asked to rate

the supervisees’ performance at both Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2). Performance was

quantified as perception of developmental improvement in a range of specific outcome

191

areas identified in the two earlier studies of this research program as well as an overall

rating of work ability improvement.

The sample consisted of 288 (56%) female and 225 (44%) male prospective

psychologists. The average age of the supervisees was 21.9 years (ranging from 21 to 23

years) and the average age of the supervisors was 34.6 years (ranging from 25 to 49

years). Average hours of supervision training for supervisors was 2 hours (M = 2.24

hours, SD = 4.57 hours, ranging from 0 to 16 hours). Average years of professional

experience for supervisors in the same profession for the sample was 4 years (M = 4.11

years, SD = 6.22 years). Using independent sample t-tests with Bonferroni adjustment to

the confidence interval (or chi-square in the case of education level), no statistical

differences were found on any of these demographics for the male and female subjects.

Procedure

The procedure for this study was provided in detail in Chapter 6.

A total of 600 surveys were mailed to psychology supervisees. The surveys were

sent out by March 2001 and each included a reply paid envelope in which to submit the

completed forms. In line with QUT ethical guidelines, each survey was also

accompanied by a covering letter that indicated that participation was voluntary,

participants could withdraw at any point without penalty and that all data would be kept

confidential.

The sample was selected to represent each of 96 cells (see Table 9.1 & Table

9.3) with a minimum of 5 cases per cell as recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell

(1989). Prior to the study, the minimum necessary sample size was determined to be 480

cases. The various variables and categories are presented in Table 9.1.

192

Table 9.1

An overview of the independent variables and their levels of discrimination

Independent Variables Levels 1 Supervision Arrangements (2 levels) Allocated

Selected by supervisee 2 Delivery Modes (2 levels) Face-to-Face supervision

Other 3 Function versus Task Match (3 levels) High Match

Some Match No Match

4 Gender Match (2 levels) Match No Match

5 Cultural Match (2 levels) Match No Match

6 Supervision Frequency (2 levels) Weekly or more Less than weekly

As discussed in Chapter 5, function versus task match was defined by Holloway

(1995) as a matrix of supervision functions (e.g., consulting, sharing, modelling) that can

be employed to assist supervisees learn specific supervision tasks (e.g., counselling

skills, case experience, professional role). Holloway argued that the matrix allows for an

evaluation of function and task match effectiveness. For the purposes of the present

study “some match” was deemed to occur when 1 to 2 of the relationships between task

and function suggested by Holloway were found to be present. “High match” was

determined by three or more similarities between task and function as proposed by

Holloway.

In all, 600 initial surveys were distributed to participants in April 2001 (Time-1)

and the second round of surveys were distributed in April 2002 (Time-2), from which

521 completed surveys were received with a response rate of 87%. The initial survey

sample was distributed on a convenience basis and continued until a sample of 600

participants was achieved. Each supervisee/supervisor group was sent two reminder

notices during the 12 months between initial survey and final survey. Supervisees were

also e-mailed prior to the final survey to prepare them for the arrival of the follow-up

193

survey. Of the 521 surveys received at T2, eight surveys were discarded because they

were either (1) incomplete, (2) not from the target population of psychology supervisees,

or (3) scores were not provided by supervisees and work managers at T1 and/or T2. Two

supervisees had changed organisations during the study and their managerial ratings

were provided by managers in different firms. As a result they were excluded. After

examination of multivariate outliers in the data set, a further supervisee was excluded

leaving a total sample of 510 respondents. As the final sample exceeded the minimum

projected sample size of 480 (with all cells containing at least 5 cases), the analyses were

conducted as planned and without modification. Table 9.2 displays the response rate.

Table 9.2

Survey distribution and response rate

Returned Initial Survey

(n)

Returned Second Survey after 12 months

(n)

Response Rate

(%)

Discarded

(n)

Initial Sample

(n)

Cases dropped

from analyses

(n)

Final Sample

(n) Total 600 521 87 8 513 3 510

Measures


separate types of information: (A) professional supervision arrangements, (B)

supervision experience, (C) supervisee development, (D) supervisor performance rating

of supervisee, and (F) manager performance rating of the supervisee (see Appendix D

for a copy of the survey instrument). Table 9.3 provides an overview of the questions

asked and the scales employed for the third study.

194

Table 9.3

Provides an overview of the questions asked and the scales employed for Study Three

Survey Section Appendix Concept Question Factors and Level of Measurement Scales A1 B B Culture match Dummy coding based on comments that indicated

cultural differences in professional or personal backgrounds that were relevant to the supervision experience [Nominal]

1 = Cultural Difference commented on 2 = No Cultural Difference commented on

A2 Part A C Gender match “Is this a mixed gender arrangement (e.g., Female/Male)


A3 Part B D Skills development

“Which of the following are skills you think you have developed over the last 12 months as a result of the supervision experience?”

Counselling Case experience Professional experience Emotional awareness Ability to self-evaluate Listening skills How to apply theory to cases Ethical issues facing practitioners How to reflect on own cognitions Understanding own limits. [Ordinal]

1 = Major improvement 3= Some improvement 5 = No change

A3 Part B D Supervision task

“On which of the following, please rate how effective the supervisor was in sharing their knowledge with you?”

Counselling Case Experience Professional experience Emotional awareness Ability to self-evaluate Listening skills How to apply theory to cases Ethical issues facing practitioners How to reflect on own cognitions Understanding own limits [Ordinal treated as interval]

5 Point Likert Scale: 1 = Able to share most knowledge 3 = Able to share some knowledge 5 = Not able to share knowledge

195

Survey Section Appendix Concept Question Factors and Level of Measurement Scales Shared

intention “Do you feel that you are on the same wavelength as your supervisor-supervisee?”

“Do you feel that you are on the same wavelength as your supervisor-supervisee?”

Ordinal

5 = yes to both questions 4 = yes to q2 and sometimes to q1, 3 = yes to q1 and no to q2, 2 = no to q1 and yes to q2, 1 = no to both questions.

A2 Part A C Delivery mode “How do you typically meet?”

Nominal 1= Face-to-face (work hours) 2= Face-to-face (after work) 3 = Phone (work hours) 4 = Phone (after work) 5 = Email 6 = Group meeting (with 2+supervisees) 7 = Other, please describe

A2 Part A C Supervision frequency

“Please try to estimate how often you have supervision”

Ordinal

1= Daily 2= 2-4 times per week 3= Weekly 4 = Fortnightly 5 = Monthly 6 = Bi-monthly 7 = Quarterly 8 = Half yearly 9 = Yearly 10 = Other, please describe

A3 Part B D Supervision experience/ satisfaction

“Are you happy with how the supervision has progressed over the last 6 months?”

Ordinal treated as interval 5 point Likert scale: 1= Very happy 2= Happy 3 =Neutral 4 =Unhappy 5 =Very unhappy

196

Survey Section Appendix Concept Question Factors and Level of Measurement Scales “In the last 12 months do

you feel that you have learnt useful professional skills from the supervision process?”

Ordinal 1= Yes, I owe everything I have learnt 2 = from the supervision process 3 = Yes, I have learnt a lot from the supervision process 4 = Yes, I have learnt some useful things from the supervision process 5 = Yes, I have learnt one or two things from the supervision process 6 = No, I have not learnt anything useful from the supervision process 7 = No, I am now worse off from having completing supervision process than I was 12 months ago

“In the last 12 months do you feel that your work has benefited from the supervision process?”

Ordinal 1= Yes, the quality of my work has substantially improved as a result of supervision 2= Yes, the quality of my work has improved as a result of supervision 3= Yes, the quality of my work has slight improved as a result of supervision 4= No, the quality of my work has not improved as a result of supervision 5 = No, the quality of my work has declined as a result of supervision 6 = No, I am reconsidering a change of employment as a result of supervision

A3 Part B D Supervision functions

“Over the last 12 months please rate your supervisor on the frequency they use the following modes of interaction?”

Monitoring/evaluating Advising/instructing Modelling professional behaviour Consulting with supervisee Sharing experience/information [Ordinal treated as interval]

5 point Likert scale: 1 = very often 2 = often 3 = sometimes 4 = Rarely 5 = Never 6 = NA

197

Survey Section Appendix Concept Question Factors and Level of Measurement Scales

A3 Part B D Supervisee, supervisor and work managers assessment of supervisee development

“Please rate the supervisee on the following”

Emotional maturity Theoretical knowledge Moral/ethical development Ability to problem solves Ability to work alone Ability to work efficiently Ability to stay focused Ability to think creatively Ability to time manage Ability to communicate ideas Ability to source knowledge Ability to listen to others Ability to inspire others Ability to act professionally Ability to manage multiple tasks Ability to cope under pressure Ability to learn from mistakes Awareness of own limits Overall work ability [Ordinal treated as interval]

5 point Likert scale: 1 = much improved 2 = improved 3 = same 4 = declined 5 = much declined 6 = NA

198

Measures (continued)

Due to the complexity required to analyse all of the data collected, the present

study focused on a number of specific variables. This resulted in a 2x2x3x2x2x2 design

(already described in Table 9.1) assessed against supervisee satisfaction with

supervision, supervisor rating of supervisee development, and various raters of

supervisee overall work ability.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were developed from the literature to investigate

supervision success in the field of psychology.


development will be found for in-training psychologists who have experienced a

matching of supervision functions and tasks when compared to those who have not.

According to the SAS model (Holloway, 1995) matrix, supervisors can choose

from a number of supervision functions (such as monitoring/evaluating,

advising/instructing, modelling, consulting, and supporting/sharing) to assist a

supervisee to achieve a number of supervision tasks (such as skills in counselling, case

conceptualisation, professional role, emotional awareness and self-evaluation) to

enhance professional development and growth. The SAS model proposed that this matrix

will allow for the evaluation of function task match and its effectiveness in planning

supervision sessions. It is assumed that a supervisee’s skill development will be most

effective when the best method of teaching (function) is selected. This is the first time

this model will be tested scientifically on psychology supervisees.


development will be found for in-training psychologists who have greater matching of

gender and cultural characteristics.

Research (Putney et al., 1992; Wester et al., 2004) reviewed suggested that

gender appeared to moderate aspects of the supervision experience. More specifically, it

199

was found that male supervisees could have difficulty expressing their emotions in

supervision. Furthermore, it seems that there is a difference in the way males and

females communicate which could impact on the supervisory relationship and

subsequently skills development and supervision satisfaction. Ladany et al. (1999)

reported on a number of qualitative comments made by supervisees that tended to

suggest that supervisors who made racial or discriminatory comments or even ignored

cultural differences in a supervisory relationship were given negative reviews by their

supervisees. The concept of gender and cultural effects has rarely been studied

scientifically in supervision research.


development will be found for in-training psychologists who experience face-to-face

supervision in comparison to those who receive supervision via mechanisms other than

face-to-face supervision.

As shown in Chapter 8, it is reasonable to expect that psychology supervisees

will confirm a preference for face-to-face supervision as opposed to phone, e-mail and

group mechanisms. The Psychologists’ Board of Queensland (2005) implies that face-to-

face supervision is the delivery method of choice as it insists that the majority of

supervision be engaged in this way.


development will be found for in-training psychologists who have been able to select

their supervisors in comparison to those who have supervisors allocated.

While there is no research to support that supervisor selection impacts on

supervisee skill development and supervision satisfaction, it is logical to infer that there

could be a number of self-serving agendas that contribute to this decision making

process and that the freedom to choose inherently provides an element of self-

satisfaction.

200


development will be found for in-training psychologists who have more frequent

supervision than for those who have less frequent supervision.

There is no specific scientific research from which this hypothesis is drawn but

again, it seems logical that the more supervision supervisees receive the more likely they

are to develop necessary skills and feel satisfied with the supervision experience due to

the amount of supervision attention they will be likely to receive.

Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was employed for the analysis of

hypotheses 9H1 to 9H4 in which (1) degree of match between supervision tasks and

functions, (2) match between supervisee and supervisor gender, (3) supervision delivery

mode, (4) supervisor allocation type and (5) supervision frequency were included as the

independent variables (IVs) and mean supervisee satisfaction as well as skill

development (i.e., (generic) work skills, relationship skills, professional skills,

academic/technical skills, emotional awareness/personal skills, and ability to self-

evaluate) were used as the dependent variables (DVs). The MANOVA was used for two

reasons. First, the MANOVA allowed for the control of Type I error associated with

multiple ANOVAs. Second, the MANOVA allowed for investigation of possible

interactions between the independent variables.



supervision commenced for in-training psychologists.

This hypothesis was developed as a way of assessing the SAS model’s

(Holloway, 1995) applicability to evaluating supervisee performance at work as well as

in supervision. As an additional test, the external ratings of supervisees by their

workplace managers was sought to evaluate the validity of the supervisees/supervisors

ratings. A hierarchical multiple regression was applied to analyse hypothesis 9H5. The

independent variables of shared intentions, supervision tasks, supervision functions, and

supervisor ratings of supervisee development were entered in successive blocks into the

201

analyses. The independent variables were regressed on the dependent variable of

managerial ratings of supervisee performance 12 months after commencement of

supervision.



in-training psychologists.

This hypothesis was included to assess the validity of a supervisor’s evaluation

of supervisee performance. Bivariate intercorrelations were applied to evaluate

hypothesis 9H6. It is expected that significant positive intercorrelations between

supervisor and manager ratings of supervisee performance will be found.

Results

The following section of this chapter provides a preliminary validation of the

measure employed to assess the supervision experience, the research findings and

hypotheses results, and a discussion of the findings, limitations and implications.

Preliminary validation of the measure

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 18-item measure of

supervisee development using supervisor ratings (refer to Table 9.4). The 18-items were

drawn from survey 3, section b, supervisor ratings of supervisees’ performance over 12

months (refer to Appendix D). The 18 items were originally derived from Study One and

Study Two, in which content analyses of responses to open-ended questions referring to

the outcomes of supervision were conducted. The 18-items also included five generic

items designed to assess general work ability (e.g., ability to problem solve, ability to

work efficiently). The five general work ability items were put forward by an expert

panel of supervisors for the current study. The “networking” items identified in the

previous studies were excluded from the analysis as fewer than 50% of respondents for

half of the professions in earlier studies in the current research program indicated that

this was a relevant outcome of supervision.

202

Using an oblique rotation, 6 factors were identified with an eigenvalue over 1.00.

An oblique rotation was deemed the most appropriate extraction technique because the 6

factors were expected to be related to each other. The factor loadings of items are

presented in Table 9.4. A loading cut-off value of 0.3 was used. The selection of the 0.3

cut-off value was arbitrarily based on the cut-off values suggested by Tabachnick and

Fidell (1989). With the exception of two loadings, the pattern of loadings represented a

simple structure. The six factors accounted for 73.8% of variance (refer to Table 9.4).

Two items “split loaded” on more than one factor, factors 1 and 3 (refer Table

9.4). It appears that these items were primarily associated with Professional Skills and to

a lesser extent Generic Work Skills.

203

Table 9.4

The loadings of items of the factors in the oblique rotation

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

ability to problem solve .92

ability to work efficiently .81

ability to stay focused .56

ability to work alone .42

ability to think creatively .38

ability to communicate ideas .78

ability to inspire others .72

ability to listen to others .69

ability to act professionally .77

ability to time-manage* .42 .74

ability to manage multiple tasks* .39 .73

moral/ethical development .69

theoretical/technical knowledge .76

ability to source knowledge .70

emotional maturity .71

ability to cope under pressure .69

ability to learn from mistakes .61

awareness of own limitations .55

% accounted for 23.1 17.9 15.2 8.1 6.3 3.2

* Items denoted with an asterisk were found to load on more than one factor (i.e., split loading). This was supported by the presence of more than one loading greater than 0.35 for the identified items.

The factor structure was interpreted as representing the following concepts and

included the items as per Table 9.5 (please see Table 9.6 for Cronbach alphas):

Development Factor 1 – (Generic) Work Skills

Development Factor 2 – Relationship Skills

Development Factor 3 – Professional Skills

Development Factor 4 - Academic/Technical Knowledge

204

Development Factor 5 - Emotional Awareness/Personal Skills

Development Factor 6 - Ability to Self-evaluate

Table 9.5

Results from the factor analysis of the survey

Empirical categories from Study One Items Relationship (or Counselling) skills ability to communicate ideas

ability to listen to others ability to inspire others

Work skills ability to problem solve ability to work alone ability to work efficiently ability to stay focused ability to think creatively

Professional skills moral/ethical development ability to time-manage ability to act professionally ability to manage multiple tasks

Emotional awareness/personal skills emotional maturity ability to cope under pressure

Ability to Self-evaluate ability to learn from mistakes awareness of own limitations

Academic/Technical (or Case related) knowledge

Theoretical/technical knowledge ability to source knowledge

Networking Not measured

The intercorrelations between factors with the alpha coefficients of reliability are

presented in Table 9.6.

205

Table 9.6

The intercorrelations between the factors in the survey

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F1 .86 F2 .38 .79 F3 .62 .34 .84 F4 .38 .09 .26 .73 F5 .13 .46 .20 .13 .68 F6 .18 .07 .21 .08 .59 .57 All correlations above .10 were significant at p < .05.

Hypothesis testing results

Hypotheses 9H1 to 9H4

MANOVA was employed for the analyses. Prior to the analyses, the data set was

examined to check for missing values and data entry accuracy. Normality, linearity,

multicollinearity, homoscedasticity were checked from the histograms, tolerance values,

scatter-plots, and residual plots respectively. This process resulted in the removal of a

single case as described earlier.

Pillai’s criterion was employed instead of Wilks’ Lambda to evaluate

multivariate significance as the sample sizes were unequal and the Box’s M

(homogeneity of variance) test could not be calculated by SPSS due to the small cell

sizes and large number of cells involved in the analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). It

should also be noted that for every univariate effect studied, Levene’s Test of Equality

was violated. As a result, the alpha level of .01 for determining significance in the

univariate F-test was employed (Tabacknick & Fidell, 1989).

Order of entry of IVs was as follows: supervision arrangements, delivery modes,

function versus task match, gender match, cultural match and supervision frequency. The

dependent variable was supervisor ratings of supervisees on counselling skill, case

conceptualisation, professional role, emotional awareness, self-evaluation, and generic

work skills. Supervisee satisfaction was also included as a dependent variable.

206

The following section provides the results on the MANOVA employed to answer

Hypotheses 9H1 – 9H4. It was deemed to be less efficient to analyse the data separately

hence the use of MANOVA rather than individual ANOVAs. Therefore there are no

individual headings for each of these hypotheses. The significant results are presented. A

summary of the overall results in relation to answering the hypothesis is presented before

the hypothesis 9H5 and 9H6 results. Even though 6 independent variables were used, the

largest interaction term identified was a three way interaction and this will be presented

first. The largest effect on the dependent variables were the main effects of delivery

mode (η2 =.74) followed by task function match (η2 = .49). The least effect was the main

effect of supervision arrangement (η2 =.009).

Multivariate Effects – Three Way Interaction

Results indicated a significant three way interaction for the factors of

supervision arrangement, supervision delivery type and tasks versus function, F (93,416)

= 5.62, p < .001; partial η2 = .09.

Post hoc analysis was employed to test for differences between means on the

interaction effect where the independent variables compromised more than two levels.

The Student Newman Keul post hoc analysis indicated that each level for task function

match was significantly different (p < .05) for each of the dependent variables of

satisfaction, work skills, relationship skills, professional skills, academic/technical skills,

emotional awareness/personal skills and ability to self-evaluate.

Univariate Effects - Three Way Interaction

Table 9.7 shows that the only significant univariate effect was satisfaction F (2,

416) = 28.39, p < .001; partial η2 = .13. In other words, there was an association found

for supervision arrangement, supervision delivery and supervision task function match

on supervisees’ satisfaction with their supervision experience. Figure 9.1 demonstrates

this interaction for the dependent variable of satisfaction.

207

Table 9.7

Tests of supervision arrangement, delivery mode and task function match on the

dependent variables of satisfaction and development factors 1-6

IV DV df F α Partial

Eta Square

Satisfaction 2, 416 28.39 .000*** .13 Work skills 2, 416 1.32 .268 .007 Relationship skills 2, 416 .92 .402 .005 Professional skills 2, 416 .35 .704 .002 Academic/technical skills 2, 416 1.12 .327 .006 Emotional awareness/personal skills

2, 416 .15 .863 .001

Supervision Arrangement by Delivery by Task function match

Ability to self-evaluate 2, 416 .14 .868 .001 Note *** = Significance level < .001

Figure 9.1 Displays the three-way interaction of supervision arrangement,

delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction

Three Way InteractionDependent Variable of Satisfaction4.89

4.64

3.793.59

3.29

4.07

4.754.51 4.31

3.51

3.893.70

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

High Some LowTask Function Match

Mea

n

Supervision Selected Face to FaceSupervision Selected OtherSupervisor Allocated Face to FaceSupervisor Allocated Other

208

Multivariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Delivery and Function/Task)

Results indicated a significant two way interaction for the factors of supervision

delivery type and tasks versus function, F (14, 784) = 25.21, p < .001; partial η2 = .32.

Univariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Delivery and Function/Task)

Supervisee’s satisfaction and work skills, relationship skills, professional skills,

academic/technical skills, emotional awareness/personal skills and ability to self-

evaluate were significantly associated with supervision delivery mode and task function

match. Table 9.8 displays the six significant univariate effects. For example, satisfaction

F (2, 416) = 100.91, p < .001; partial η2 = .34; Work skills F (2, 416) = 77.45, p < .001;

partial η2 = .29; Relationship skills F (2, 416) = 3.58, p < .001; partial η2 = .02;

Professional skills F (2, 416) = 3.74, p < .01; partial η2 = .02; Emotional

awareness/personal skills F (2, 416) = 6.38, p < .01; partial η2 = .03; Ability to self-

evaluate F (2, 416) = 4.09, p < .01; partial η2 = .21.

Descriptive information is provided visually in Figures 9.2-9.7.

Table 9.8

Tests of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variables of

satisfaction and development factors 1-6


Eta Square

Satisfaction 2, 416 100.91 .000*** .33 Work skills 2, 416 77.45 .000*** .29 Relationship skills 2, 416 3.58 .000*** .02 Professional skills 2, 416 3.74 .025* .02 Academic/technical skills 2, 416 1.57 .210 .01 Emotional awareness/personal skills

2, 416 6.38 .002* .03

Supervision Delivery Type and Tasks versus Function

(ability to self-evaluate) 2, 416 4.09 .018* .02 Note* = Significance level < .05 Note *** = Significance level < .001

209

Figure 9.2 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and task function

match on the dependent variable of satisfaction


match on the dependent variable of work skills

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Satisfaction

4.734.58

4.26

4.18

3.65

3.29

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

High Some Low

Task Function Match

Mea

n

Face to Face

Other

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Work Skills4.85

4.063.79

3.883.67

3.11

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

High Some Low

Task Function Match

Mea

n

Face to Face

Other

210


match on the dependent variable of relationship skills


match on the dependent variable of professional skills

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Relationship Skills

4.35

3.95

3.323.81

3.62

3.24

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Professional Skills

4.36

3.93

3.283.86

3.51

3.18

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

211


match on the dependent variable emotional awareness/personal skills


match on the dependent variable ability to self-evaluate

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Ability to Self Evaluate

4.27

3.95

3.29

3.70 3.64

3.20

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

High Some Low

Task Function Match

Mea

n

Face to Face

Other

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Emotional Awareness/Personal Skills

4.27

3.95

3.29

3.70 3.64

3.20

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

212

Multivariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Supervision Arrangement and

Delivery)

Results indicated a significant two-way interaction for the factors of supervision

arrangement and supervision delivery type, F (7, 392) = 34.23, p < .001; partial η2 =

.39.

Univariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Supervision Arrangement and

Delivery)

Table 9.9 demonstrates three significant univariate effects of satisfaction, F (1,

416) = 110.86, p < .01; partial η2 = .22; work skills, F (1, 416) = 31.62, p < .01; partial

η2 = .08; and relationship skills, F (1, 416) = 1.09, p < .01; partial η2 = .003 using the

independent variables of supervision delivery and supervision arrangement.

Figures 9.8-9.10 demonstrates the interaction for the dependent variables of

satisfaction, work skills and relationship skills.

Table 9.9

Tests of delivery mode and supervision arrangement on the dependent variables of


IV DV df F α Partial Eta Square

Satisfaction 1, 416 110.859 .000*** .22

Work skills 1, 416 31.62 .000*** .08

Relationship skills 1, 416 1.09 .000*** .003

Professional skills 1, 416 .68 .410 .002

Academic/technical skills 1, 416 .16 .686 .000

Emotional awareness/ personal skills

1, 416 .00 .998 .000

Supervision Arrangement and Delivery

Ability to self-evaluate 1, 416 .54 .464 .001

Note *** = Significance level < .001

213

Figure 9.8 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and supervision

arrangement on the dependent variable of satisfaction


arrangement on the dependent variable of work skills


4.03 3.98

3.433.65

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Supervisor Allocated Supervisor SelectedSupervision Arrangement

Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Work Skills

4.48 4.59

4.113.90

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

214


arrangement on the dependent variable of relationship skills

Main effect – Supervision Delivery Mode

A main effect result indicated that supervision delivery mode significantly

impacted on the dependent variables, F (7, 392) = 156.8, p < .001; partial η2 = .99.

Univariate results (refer to Table 9.10) displays significant univariate effects for

all independent variables on the dependent variable of supervision delivery mode. For

example, satisfaction, F (1, 416) = 312.20, p < .001; partial η2 = .45; work skills, F (1,

416) = 311.59, p < .001; partial η2 = .45; relationship skills, F (1, 416) = 23.37, p < .01;

partial η2 = .06; professional skills, F (1, 416) = 41.30, p < .001; partial η2 = .001;

academic/technical skills, F (1, 416) = 25.35, p < .001; partial η2 = .06; emotional

awareness/personal skills, F (1, 416) = 25.43, p < .001; partial η2 = .06; and ability to

self-evaluate, F (1, 416) = 54.43, p < .001; partial η2 = .12.


3.89 3.80

3.53 3.59

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

215

Table 9.10

The test of supervision delivery mode on the dependent variables of satisfaction and

development factors 1-6


Eta Square

Satisfaction 1, 416 312.20 .000*** .45 Work skills 1, 416 311.59 .000*** .45 Relationship skills 1, 416 23.27 .000*** .06 Professional skills 1, 416 41.30 .000*** .01 Academic/technical skills 1, 416 25.35 .000*** .06 Emotional awareness/personal skills

1, 416 25.43 .000*** .06

Supervision Delivery

Ability to self-evaluate 1, 416 54.43 .000*** .12 Note *** = Significance level < .001

Main effect – Function versus Task

A main effect indicated that function versus task significantly impacted on the

dependent variables, F (14, 762) = .51.71, p < .001; partial η2 = .48.

Univariate results (refer to Table 9.11) displays significant univariate effects for

all independent variables on the dependent variable of task function match. For example,

satisfaction, F (2, 416) = 1497.35, p < .001; partial η2 = .89; work skills, F (2, 416) =

960.59, p < .001; partial η2 = .83; relationship skills, F (2, 416) = 76.51, p < .001;

partial η2 = .28; professional skills, F (2, 416) = 91.52, p < .001; partial η2 = .32;

academic/technical skills, F (2, 416) = 51.50, p < .001; partial η2 = .21; emotional

awareness/personal skills, F (2, 416) = 53.18, p < .001; partial η2 = .22; and ability to

self-evaluate, F (2, 416) = 126.30, p < .001; partial η2 = .40.

216

Table 9.11

The test of task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction and



Satisfaction 2, 416 1497.35 .000*** .89 Work skills 2, 416 960.59 .000*** .83 Relationship skills 2, 416 76.51 .000*** .28 Professional skills 2, 416 91.52 .000*** .32 Academic/technical skills 2, 416 51.50 .000*** .21 Emotional awareness/ personal skills

2, 416 53.18 .000*** .22

Task Function Match

Ability to self-evaluate 2, 416 126.30 .000*** .40 Note *** = Significance level < .001

Hypotheses 9H5 and 9H6

Hypothesis 9H5 postulated that the SAS model will predict manager ratings of

supervisee performance (improvement) 12 months after supervision commenced.

Hypothesis 9H6 expected that supervisor ratings of supervisee performance will


supervision commenced.

The predictors of shared intention, supervision tasks, supervisor functions,

supervisee development and satisfaction on performance were ordered according to the

SAS model and logic. The means and standard deviations of these predictors are

presented in Table 9.12 and the correlation matrix is presented in Table 9.13. The data

for the hierarchical multiple regression of predictor variables on performance as rated by

managers is presented in Table 9.14.

However, it is important to understand how the predictors were defined (see

Table 9.5 for more information):

Shared intention. Shared intention was measured by two questions that asked:

1. “Please look at your definition of supervision again and indicate whether

your supervisee/supervisor seems to share the same definition as you.”

217

2. “Do you feel that you are on the same wavelength as your supervisor-

supervisee?”

Supervision tasks. Supervision needs was measured by a Likert scale that asked:

“Which of the following skills do you expect your supervisor to teach you?”

These skills included counselling, case experience, professional experience,

emotional awareness and ability to self-evaluate.

Supervisor functions. Supervisor functions referred to the mode of interaction a

supervisor used to impart knowledge to their supervisees. Consistent with the SAS

model (Holloway, 1995), supervisees were asked to “Rate how often their supervisors

employed the following modes”: monitoring/evaluating, advising/instructing, modelling

professional behaviour, consulting, supporting/sharing.

Supervisee development. Supervisee development (over a 12 month period)

referred to how supervisors and managers rated their supervisees’/employees’

development on the following skills of relationship, work, professional, emotional

awareness/personal, ability to self-evaluate, academic/technical knowledge, and ability

to network.

Supervisor satisfaction. Supervision satisfaction was measured by the question

that asked: “Are you happy with how supervision has progressed over the past

12months?”

218

Table 9.12

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for hierarchical regression of

predictor variables on manager ratings of supervisee performance

Variable N M SD

Shared intention: 510 3.72 .62

Supervision tasks:

Counselling 510 3.04 1.38

Case experience 510 3.73 .68

Professional experience 510 3.70 .69

Emotional awareness 510 3.65 .69

Ability to self-evaluate 510 3.65 .67

Supervisor functions:

Monitoring/Evaluating 510 3.72 .66

Advising/instructing 510 3.64 .68

Modelling 510 3.67 .66

Consulting 510 3.65 .66

Supporting/Sharing 510 3.63 .68

Supervisee development:

Work skills 510 3.77 .69

Relationship skills 510 3.70 .68

Professional skills 510 3.69 .68

Academic/technical skills 510 3.66 .68

Emotional awareness/personal skills 510 3.68 .70

Ability to self-evaluate 510 3.72 .67

Supervisor satisfaction: 510 3.70 .69

219

Table 9.13

Correlation matrix of the hierarchical regression predictor variables on performance as rated by managers

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Performance Shared Intention .014 Counselling .69 .04 Case Experience .41 -.03 .54 Professional Experience .46 .00 .50 .41 Emotional Awareness .37 .02 .40 .45 .41 Ability to Self-Evaluate .30 -.02 .37 .34 .35 .47 Monitoring/Evaluating .66 .11 .88 .46 .45 .37 .30 Advising/instructing .31 .52 .36 .34 .29 .35 .31 .38 Modelling professional behaviour .39 .07 .50 .40 .63 .43 .70 .43 .31 Consulting .37 .12 .43 .44 .39 .90 .46 .39 .42 .43 Supporting/Sharing .28 .10 .36 .33 .35 .45 .90 .31 .37 .70 .46 Work skills .78 .08 .74 .46 .55 .35 .29 .76 .34 .47 .34 .29 Relationship skills .48 .09 .57 .42 .62 .55 .49 .53 .36 .65 .58 .50 .55 Professional skills .50 .12 .64 .45 .67 .59 .47 .60 .37 .66 .60 .48 .61 .72 Academic/technical skills .44 .13 .54 .43 .54 .63 .62 .50 .35 .68 .64 .61 .51 .65 .68 Emotional awareness/personal skills

.44 .04 .53 .39 .59 .44 .70 .48 .30 .79 .44 .69 .50 .66 .67 .66

Ability to self-evaluate .56 .07 .71 .47 .62 .35 .38 .70 .30 .61 .35 .39 .67 .60 .67 .55 .62 Supervisor satisfaction .78 .06 .68 .40 .48 .33 .26 .70 .25 .42 .33 .23 .82 .54 .55 .45 .47 .60

220

Overall, the predictors of supervision tasks, supervisor functions, supervisee

development and satisfaction significantly predicted supervisee performance as rated by

their managers F (18,491) = 58.46, p < .001. Table 9.14 shows that, combined, these

predictors accounted for 70% of the variance.

Table 9.14

Beta weights, R squared, R squared change, F, and F change values for predictors

on supervisee performance as rated by managers

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Shared intention .01 -.01 -.06 -.06 -.08 Supervision tasks Counselling .56 .26 .17 .13 Case Experience .01 .01 -.03 -.03 Professional Experience .14 .14 .04 .04 Emotional Awareness .07 .03 .01 .00 Ability to Self-Evaluate .01 .07 .07 .01 Supervisor functions Monitoring/Evaluating .33 .04 -.01 Advising/instructing .06 .04 .07 Modelling professional behaviour -.03 -.07 -.06 Consulting .03 .12 .11 Supporting/Sharing -.05 -.02 .06 Supervisee skill development Work skills .63 .36 Relationship skills .02 -.03 Professional skills -.13 -.12 Academic/technical skills -.04 -.03 Emotional awareness/personal skills .06 .03 Ability to self-evaluate .01 .02 Supervisor satisfaction .43 R2 .00 .47 .50 .64 .70 R2

Change .00 .47 .03 .14 .06 F .09 63.91*** 42.21*** 48.44*** 58.46***FChange .09 83.86*** 5.23*** 30.54*** 82.89***Note *** = Significance level < .001

221

Upon further inspection, the relative contributions of each step varied as follows:

1). Step 1 failed to identify a significance for shared intention, F (1,508) =

.93, ns. This result may have occurred because over time it is reasonable to assume that

both supervisor and supervisee would have established similar supervision outcomes,

those who did not do this were not included in this study.

2). Step 2, supervision tasks, significantly predicted performance, FChange (5,503)

= 83.06, p < .001. R2 Change = 47%. More specifically, significant prediction was

identified for the supervision needs of counselling (β=.56***) and professional

experience (β=.14**). In other words, if we know the performance rating of a

supervisee, 47% of the time we can predict their supervision tasks. The higher the

perceived supervision task, the more likely performance will improve during

supervision.

3). Step 3, supervisor functions, significantly predicted performance, FChange

(5,498) = 5.23, p < .001. R2 Change = 3%. More specifically, significant prediction was

identified for the supervisor function of monitoring/evaluating (β=.33***). In other

words, if we know the performance rating of a supervisee, 3% of the time we can predict

the supervisor mode. The more a supervisor employs monitoring/evaluating during

supervision, the more likely performance will improve during supervision.

4). Step 4, supervisee development (over a 12 month period) significantly

predicted performance FChange (6,492) = 30.54, p < .001. R2 Change = 14%. More

specifically, significant prediction was identified for work skills (β=.63***) and

relationship skills (β=-.13**). In other words, if we know the mean supervisor ratings of

supervisee development (in the areas of work and relationship skills), 14% of the time

we can predict supervisee performance as rated by their managers 12 months after

commencement of supervision. The more a supervisee develops in work skills the more

likely their performance will improve. The results regarding relationship skills are more

difficult to interpret as it was found that skill development in building relationships

actually suggested poorer supervisee performance at work.

222

5). Step 5, supervisor satisfaction with supervision, significantly predicted

performance FChange (1,491) = 82.89, p < .001. R2 Change = 6%. In other words, if we

know the supervisor satisfaction, we can predict supervisee performance 6% of the time.

The following correlation matrix (see Table 9.15) identified significant

correlations between supervisees, supervisors, and managerial ratings of supervisee

development. The smallest correlation identified was 0.65 between managerial and

supervisee ratings indicating 42.3% shared variance between ratings. The largest

correlation identified was 0.84 between supervisor and supervisee ratings indicating

70.6% shared variance between ratings. The correlation between supervisors and

managers was 0.71 or 50.4% shared variance between ratings. These results suggested

that supervisors, supervisees and managers in the current study shared a significant and

substantial proportion of uniformity between ratings of supervisee development.

Table 9.15

Significant correlations of overall work performance (improvement) 12 months after

supervision commenced

Supervisee Supervisor Supervisor .84** Manager .65** .71** Note** =Significance level <.01

223

Discussion

Responses from psychology supervisees in the present study confirmed that

supervision satisfaction and skill development were significantly dependent upon

appropriate task function match as proposed by the SAS model (Holloway, 1995). The

research extended the SAS model in that it was shown that delivery mode was also a

crucial element in supervisee satisfaction and skill development. It seemed that gender

and culture did not have a significant impact upon the supervision experience, however

the measurement of culture might have been compromised and should be researched

more thoroughly. It was shown that when a psychology supervisee chooses their own

supervisor and participates in face-to-face supervision, they are more likely to report

significantly higher supervision satisfaction and to enhance their skills in the areas of

work and relationship building. It seems that the frequency of supervision does not

impact upon supervisee skill development and satisfaction. Supervisors and managers

appear to be consistent in their ratings of supervisee performance suggesting that the

SAS model is an objective tool and that supervisor input could be valuable to

organisational development.

Hypothesis 9H1 was partially supported. Significantly higher psychology

supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were found for those who have

experienced a matching of supervision functions and tasks and were attending face-to-

face when compared to those who did not. More specifically, it was shown that

supervisees where there was a task function match and where the supervision was

provided face-to-face, developed the following skills: work skills, relationship skills,

professional skills, emotional awareness/personal skills and ability to self-evaluate. They

also reported a higher level of supervision satisfaction. However, it appears that the

development of academic/technical skills was not dependent upon a higher task function

match and face-to-dace supervision delivery. This result provided support for the SAS

matrix where supervision tasks were matched with supervision functions to enhance

personal and professional development (Holloway, 1995). In addition, this result

224

extended the model by identifying that the task match function significantly predicts

supervisee satisfaction with supervision. Furthermore the concept of delivery mode also

played a significant role in supervisee satisfaction and skill development and could be

added to the SAS model as an enhancement.

Hypothesis 9H2 was not supported. Significantly higher psychology supervisee

ratings of satisfaction and skills development were not found for those who have greater

matching of gender and cultural characteristics. In other words, in the present study,

supervisees matched for gender or culture did not impact on the supervision process

(e.g., the development of work skills, relationship skills, professional skills,


evaluate) and their supervision satisfaction. This result was not expected as according to

the SAS model (1995), cultural influences were thought to impact upon the supervision

relationship. This idea was tested by researchers Ladany et al. (1999) who found that

ignoring cultural differences within a supervision relationship could be detrimental to the

supervision process. Researchers (Putney et al., 1992; Wester et al., 2004) demonstrated

in their respective studies that gender differences appeared to contribute to the

supervision experience, particularly in relation to autonomy and conflict management

and emotional expression and regulation. It is argued that perhaps the way in which

culture was measured in this particular research was not operationalised appropriately

and therefore these results should be interpreted with caution. Alternatively, it could be

that there were minimal cultural differences in this sample of participants.

Hypothesis 9H3a was supported. Significantly higher psychology supervisee

ratings of satisfaction and skills development (e.g., the development of work skills,

relationship skills, professional skills, academic/technical skills, emotional

awareness/personal skills and ability to self-evaluate) were found for those who

experienced face-to-face supervision in comparison to those who received supervision

via other delievery modes (such as via the telephone, e-mail etc.). As discussed in Study

Two, this result is confirmation of the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland’s (2005)

225

policy that the majority of supervision must be face-to-face and one-to-one to achieve

maximum results. Other supervision delivery modes, such as, phone, e-mail and group

supervision are probably best used as adjunct options.

Hypothesis 9H3b was partially supported. Significantly higher psychology

supervisee ratings of satisfaction and the skills of development of work and relationship

building were found for those who have been able to select their supervisors and those

who experience face-to-face supervision in comparison to those who have supervisors

allocated and receive supervision via mechanisms other than face-to-face supervision.

However, it seems that the development of the following supervision tasks of

professional skills, academic/technical skills, emotional awareness/personal skills and

ability to self-evaluate was not dependent on supervision delivery mode and/or

supervisor allocation method. It was difficult to say why this result occurred as a full

analysis of how and why the psychology respondents selected particular supervisors is

not known. It could be argued that perhaps psychology supervisees’ selected supervisors

based on a supervisor’s perceived ability to enhance their work and relationship building

abilities and that reported level of high satisfaction with the supervision experience

occurred due to the supervisees’ self-confidence in being able to select the best

supervisor for their needs.

Hypothesis 9H4 was not supported. Significantly higher psychology supervisee

ratings of satisfaction and skills development were not found for those who have more

frequent supervision than for those who have less frequent supervision. That is, in the

present study, the frequency of supervision did not impact on the supervision process

(e.g., the development of work skills, relationship skills, professional skills,


evaluate) and supervision satisfaction. Again, this result seemed counterintuitive given

the purpose of supervision was to provide ongoing and regular support to a professional

in the early stages of their career. Perhaps, there is a need to investigate if there is a

positive association between supervision frequency and quality. It could be, for example,

226

that if the quality of supervision is perceived to be of a poor standard than the frequency

of the supervision will be irrelevant or vice versa.

Hypothesis 9H5 was supported. The SAS model significantly predicted manager

ratings of psychology supervisee work performance 12 months after supervision

commenced. Interestingly, there was an unexpected result found between the

supervision outcome of developing work skills and that of developing relationships at

work. On one hand, it was found that the more supervisees developed in work skills, the

more likely their performance would improve. On the other hand, it was found that the

more a supervisee was perceived by a manager as demonstrating relationship

engagement, the more likely he/she would be assessed as having a poor work

performance. This finding was counterintuitive to what was expected and might have

occurred for a few reasons, for example, managers might have perceived those

supervisees who developed relationships with others at work to be less task-focused.

The12-month lag between T1 and T2 might not have been long enough to determine this

relationship accurately. Or, it could have been the way in which the supervisor

understood the concept of relationship skills and it could have differed to that identified

by the work manager.

Supervisee tasks and supervisor functions as defined by the SAS model were

found to contribute to the prediction of supervisee performance after 12 months. The

results suggested that different configurations of tasks and functions may have led to

development in different areas. Supervisor satisfaction with their supervisee’s

performance also significantly predicted manager’s ratings. This result is particularly

important as not only did it significantly demonstrate that the SAS matrix (task match

function) was a tool in which supervisee performance could be predicted and evaluated,

but it also indicated that it was a tool which organisations could utilise to ensure greater

gains in supervisee performance. As reported by a number of researchers in the field

(Cherniss, 1980; Ekstein & Wallerstein, 1972; Holloway, 1995) organisational norms

and policies have impacted upon the supervision process and supervisory relationship.

227

Furthermore, organisations appeared to have a detrimental effect on a supervisee’s

psychological wellbeing if in opposition to a professional’s ethical and legal

responsibilities. Perhaps the SAS model could assist in building stronger relationships

with supervisors and work managers to ensure there is a shared understanding of

professional and work expectations.

Hypothesis 9H6 was supported. It was shown that supervisor ratings of

psychology supervisee improvement in the six development areas significantly predicted

manager ratings of supervisee performance (improvement in overall work ability) over

12 months. This suggested that supervisors are a valid source of information about

supervisee performance even when considered in the work context. Furthermore,

supervisors may be able to assist in supporting and modifying organisational policies to

ensure that professionals in the early stages of their careers are able to perform well at

work while meeting professional demands.

Summary

Hypotheses testing confirmed results that significantly supported Holloway’s

(1995) SAS model. In addition, these results supported consideration of other conditions

that could be incorporated into the model to enhance supervision effectiveness in a 12-

month period. First, the combination of task function match (as proposed by the SAS

model) and face-to-face supervision were crucial in assisting psychology supervisees’ to

successfully develop the skills of work (generic), relationship building, professionalism,

emotional awareness/personal development and ability to self-evaluate. It should be

noted that as suggested by the finding from Study Two, face-to-face supervision

appeared more effective in developing supervisee skills than other delivery types (e.g. e-

mail, over the phone). Second, it was significantly shown that to improve/enhance the

psychology supervisees’ work and relationship building skills (SAS model), supervisees

should be allowed to select their own supervisors when engaging in face-to-face

supervision, rather than being allotted one. Specifically, the choice of supervisor and the

implementation of face-to-face supervision made learning work and relationships skills

228

more satisfying for psychology supervisees. Third, gender and culture matches did not

significantly contribute to skill development or enhance psychology supervisees’

satisfaction. Fourth, the frequency of supervision surprisingly did not significantly

impact on the development of psychology supervisee skills or satisfaction, although it

should be noted that the average rate of contact for the sample was high (due to

registration requirements). Fifth, the application of the SAS model (more specifically

the task and function matrix) significantly predicted supervisee performance over time.

This means that the use of the task and function matrix (Holloway, 1995) in the

supervision experience suggested an efficient mechanism for ensuring supervision

success. In addition, it was significantly shown that supervisees developed in different

ways (at least six different developmental clusters were suggested by the current and

previous studies) and supervision assessment tools are likely to benefit by taking this

into account. Finally, results significantly indicated that supervisors offered a

valid/relevant account of their supervisee’s performance that was related to actual

supervisee performance at work when assessed by supervisee’s managers.

Limitations

The supervisee sample was limited in that the opinions and perceptions provided

for this research was based on a sub-sample of psychology supervisees who ranged from

20-23 years-old. It was difficult to know if more mature psychology supervisees would

provide the same ratings as their younger and less experienced counterparts. The

responses provided in the survey might be biased by the fact that it can be safely

assumed that most participants (supervisors-supervisees) in the study had a reasonable

relationship with each other. Those who had not maintained their relationship for the

year were not included in the study.

The sole use of a self-report measure also could have had multiple limitations.

The first problem was subjectivity and could have resulted in misunderstandings and

agenda-driven answers, for example, if a relationship was not so good between a

supervisor or supervisee, either may overcompensate in describing performance given

229

the purpose of supervision to safeguard for this phenomenon. To overcome this

limitation, the current study employed ratings by the supervisee’s managers. Reduced

sensitivity may have also been a problem in that some concepts in the survey might have

been too crude to examine finer differences/matches in supervision needs and functions.

Given the limited space available in the survey, a balance between detail and pragmatism

was employed. The findings suggested that relationship between supervision task and

function was relevant to supervisee performance (or supervision success). Future studies

could seek to improve our understanding by targeting specific types of matches and

supervision skills. Nevertheless, the current and previous studies have identified types

of match and development areas that appeared to be relevant to supervision success. To

collect finer information, the use of case studies and or focus groups could have been

used (as also suggested in Study One and Study Two) but were deemed to be too time-

consuming for the purposes of this study. These results were reflective of psychology

supervisees only and were not generalisable to other professional areas. The next study

addresses this issue by analysing the responses provided by business professionals in

supervision.

The lack of findings regarding supervision frequency was also severely limited

by using psychology students as many have a frequency imposed (or strongly

recommended) by the Queensland Psychology Board of Registration. The current

findings relating to this variable may therefore not reflect the true impact of supervision

frequency on findings.

Finally, the current study only tracked supervisees over a 12-month period.

Different results might have appeared after a longer period of time. The current study

also does not evaluate the effect of time on supervisee performance after supervision has

ended. Investigation of the effects that various chronological periods have on supervisee

performance and the relative value of different configurations in supervision in

establishing enduring supervisee performance would be a logical extension of the work

presented here (although outside the scope of this thesis).

230

Implications

For psychology students engaged in the supervision process, it seems that the

delivery mode of supervision requires careful consideration. Certainly, the results

yielded in this study tended to suggest that face-to-face supervision was the preferred

and more beneficial delivery mode in the development of skills in the areas of

relationship building and work. It seems that psychology supervisees should be given the

opportunity to choose their own supervisor if possible. Interestingly, a

supervisee/supervisor culture and/or gender match did not seem to impact on either

satisfaction or performance. Crucially, as outlined by Holloway (1995) in her SAS

model, the matching of supervision tasks (e.g., counselling skills, self-evaluation etc.) to

appropriate methods of delivery (e.g., the functions of advising, consulting etc.) plays a

significant role in the development of supervisee skills (e.g., professional, relationship

and work skills etc.). The selection process in which the SAS tasks and functions are

matched requires further research in the future and is recommended to be included in

supervision training. Furthermore, the SAS model is a tool that can successfully assist in

the assessment of supervisee and supervisor performance. However, assessment

methodologies also need to take into account individual development needs. In addition,

it seems that supervisors generally provide an objective account of supervisee

performance.

231

CHAPTER 10

Confirming the Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS) Model

This chapter outlines the results from Study Four. As mentioned previously, this

was a confirmatory study where intern business consultants and accountants without

CPA performance were tracked over a 12-month period to determine whether or not

professional supervision contributed to ratings of their professional performance.

Holloway’s (1995) SAS model was employed in a manner similar to Study Three to

provide the framework for the design and analysis of the study. Results from Study One

which provided definitions and outcomes of supervision and were associated with the

SAS model informed the survey. Study Two confirmed and extended the SAS model and

could therefore be applied as a theoretical framework for understanding the supervision

and work performance of business consultants and accountants (without a CPA). For

example, it was established that the match of supervision SAS functions to tasks is

crucial in professional development and the role of delivery mode also determines

supervisee satisfaction with supervision. In addition, the study investigated if particular

supervision delivery modes (e.g. individual versus group etc.), supervisor characteristics

and supervisee characteristics impacted on supervisee performance. Both the

supervisees’ development in specific areas as well as overall work ability was rated by

both their supervisor and work manager after 12 months of supervision. By combining

such work ability and development ratings with information about supervision tasks and

functions, as suggested by Holloway, a comprehensive investigation of the relationship

between such factors was achieved. The primary aim of this study was to re-evaluate the

relationships identified in Study Three to determine the degree of consistency with a

different group of professionals.

232

Methodology

Sample

The present study comprised a sample of 480 supervisees over a 12-month

period, with Time 1 being the initial supervision meeting. Supervisees were selected

from a single professional grouping, accounting. Work managers and supervisors were

asked to rate the supervisees’ performance at both Time 1 (T1) and Time 2 (T2), which

was 12 months later. Performance was quantified as perception of developmental

improvement in a range of specific outcome areas identified in the two earlier studies as

well as an overall rating of work ability improvement.

The sample consisted of 103 (21%) female and 377 (79%) male prospective

certified practicing accountants. The average age of the supervisees was 20.8 years

(ranging from 19 to 25 years) and the average age of the supervisors was 26.1 years

(ranging from 23 to 39 years). Average hours of supervision training for supervisors

was 5 hours (M = 4.81 hours, SD = 3.19 hours, ranging from 0.5 to 29 hours). Average

years of professional experience for supervisors in the same profession as the sample

was 6 years (M = 5.81 years, SD = 3.27 years). Using independent sample t-tests with

Bonferroni adjustment to the confidence interval (or chi-square in the case of education

level), no statistical differences were found on any of these demographics for the male

and female subjects.

Procedure

The procedure for this study was provided in detail in Chapter 6.

Of the 487 surveys received at T2, seven surveys were discarded because they

were either (1) incomplete or (2) scores were not provided by supervisees and work

managers at T1 and/or T2. Forty-one supervisees had changed organisations during the

study and their managerial ratings were provided by managers in different firms; in this

case average ratings by the most recent managers were used. Table 10.1 displays the

response rates achieved. After examination of multivariate outliers in the data set, six

respondents were identified for exclusion. Further analyses indicated that exclusion of

233

the six multivariate outliers did not significantly alter the outcomes of the analyses and

therefore the six respondents were retained. As the final sample equalled the minimum

projected sample size of 480 (with all cells containing at least 5 cases) the analyses were

conducted as planned and without modification.

Table 10.1

Survey distribution and response rate

Returned Initial Survey

Returned Second Survey after 12 months

Response Rate

Returned Second Survey

after repeated

follow-up

Discarded Initial Sample

Cases dropped

from analyses

Final Sample

(n) (n) (%) (n) (n) (n) (n) (n) 700 312 44.6 175 7 480 0 480

Measures

The subsequent survey variable used was identical to those described in Chapter

9.

Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were developed from the literature to investigate

supervision success in the field of business consulting and accounting (without CPA).



have experienced a matching of supervision functions and tasks when compared to those

who have not.



have greater matching of gender and cultural characteristics than for those who do not.



234

experience face-to-face supervision in comparison to those who receive supervision via

mechanisms other than face-to-face supervision on a one-to-one basis.



have been able to select their supervisors in comparison to those who have supervisors

allocated.


development will be found for those who have more frequent supervision than for those

who have less frequent supervision.



supervision commenced for in-training business consultants and accountants.



in-training business consultants and accountants.

Preliminary validation of the measure

As for Study Three, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the 18-item

measure of supervisee development using supervisor ratings (refer to Table 10.4) for the

sample of business consultants and accountants (without CPA). Using an oblique

rotation, 5 factors were identified with an eigenvalue over 1.00. An oblique rotation was

deemed the most appropriate extraction technique because the 5 factors were expected to

be related to each other. The resulting factor loadings of items are presented in Table

10.4. A loading cut-off value of 0.3 was used. The selection of the 0.3 cut-off value was

arbitrarily based on the cut-off values suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (1989). With

the exception of two loadings, the pattern of loadings represented a simple structure.

The five factors accounted for 67.3% of variance.

235

Two items “split loaded” on more than one factor, factors 1 and 3 (refer Table

10.2). It appears that these items were primarily associated with Professional Skills and

to a lesser extent Generic Work Skills.

Table 10.2

The loadings of items of the factors in the oblique rotation

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 ability to problem solve .95 ability to work efficiently .90 ability to act professionally* .72 .49 ability to stay focused .71 moral/ethical development* .63 .48 ability to time-manage .55 ability to work alone .53 ability to manage multiple tasks .49 ability to think creatively .36 ability to communicate ideas .86 ability to listen to others .80 ability to inspire others .52 theoretical/technical knowledge .86 ability to source knowledge .73 ability to cope under pressure .83 emotional maturity .71 ability to learn from mistakes .73 awareness of own limitations .69 % accounted for 28.1 16.5 11.9 6.1 4.7 * Items denoted with an asterisk were found to load on more than one factor (i.e., split loading). This was supported by the presence of more than one loading greater than 0.35 for the identified items.

As the factors were similar in structure to those identified in Study Three, with

the exception of the Professional Skills scale, it was decided that the scale scores as

described in Chapter 9 would be used for the purposes of comparison. The scale and

item loadings are used as per Table 9.5 (please see Table 10.3 for Cronbach alphas). The

factor structure was interpreted as representing the following concepts:

Development Factor 1 – (Generic) Work Skills

Development Factor 2 – Relationship Skills

Development Factor 3 – Professional Skills

236

Development Factor 4 - Academic/Technical Knowledge

Development Factor 5 - Emotional Awareness/Personal Skills

Development Factor 6 - Ability to Self-evaluate

The intercorrelations between factors with the alpha coefficients of reliability are

presented in the diagonals are provided in Table 10.3.

Table 10.3

The intercorrelations between the factors

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F1 .81 F2 .45 .86 F3 .73 .17 .80 F4 .36 .29 .11 .76 F5 .10 .23 .07 .20 .80 F6 .16 .13 .11 .17 .37 .73 All correlations above .10 were significant at p < .05.

Reliability coefficients (Cronbach alphas) are provided in the shaded diagonal.

Hypothesis testing results

Hypotheses 10H1 to 10H 4

MANOVA was employed for the analysis. Prior to the analyses, the data set was

examined to check for missing values, and data entry accuracy. Normality, linearity,

multicollinearity, homoscedasticity were checked from the histograms, tolerance values,

scatter-plots, and residual plots respectively. This resulted in the identification of a

number of outliers. As described earlier, initial analyses indicated no substantial

differences resulting from the exclusion of these cases, therefore these cases were

retained.

Pillai’s criterion was employed instead of Wilks’ Lambda to evaluate

multivariate significance as the sample sizes were unequal and the Box’s M

(homogeneity of variance) test could not be calculated by SPSS due to the small cell

sizes and large number of cells involved in the analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). It

should also be noted that for every univariate effect studied, Levene’s Test of Equality

237

was violated. As a result, the alpha level of .01 for determining significance in the

univariate F-test was employed (Tabacknick & Fidell, 1989).

Order of entry of IVs was as follows: supervision arrangements, delivery modes,

function versus task match, gender match, cultural match and supervision frequency. The

dependent variable was supervisor ratings of supervisees on counselling skill, case

conceptualisation, professional role, emotional awareness, self-evaluation, and generic

work skills. Supervisee satisfaction was also included as a dependent variable.

The following section provides the results on the MANOVA employed to answer

Hypotheses 10H1-10H4. It was deemed to be less efficient to analyse the data separately

hence the use of MANOVA rather than individual ANOVAs. Therefore, there are no

individual headings for each of these hypotheses. The significant results are presented. A

summary of the overall results in relation to answering the hypothesis is presented before

the hypothesis 10H5 and 10H6 results. Even though 6 independent variables were used,

the largest interaction term identified was a series of two-way interaction and this will be

presented first. The largest effect on the dependent variables were the main effects of

task function match (η2 =.44) followed by delivery mode (η2 = .38).

Multivariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Delivery mode and Frequency)


delivery type and frequency, F (7, 380) = 3.00, p < .01; partial η2 = .05.

Univariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Delivery mode and Frequency)

Only professional skills were significantly associated with supervision delivery

mode and frequency. Table 10.4 displays the one significant univariate effects. For

example, Professional skills F (2, 386) = 5.33, p < .01; partial η2 = .01. Refer to Figure

10.1 for a diagram of this result.

238

Table 10.4

Tests of delivery mode and frequency on the dependent variables of satisfaction and



Satisfaction 2, 386 0.28 0.594 0.00 Work skills 2, 386 0.10 0.747 0.00 Relationship skills 2, 386 0.00 0.998 0.00 Professional skills 2, 386 5.33 0.022* .01 Academic/technical skills 2, 386 0.20 0.656 0.00 Emotional awareness/personal skills 2, 386 3.58 .059 .01

Supervision Delivery Type and Frequency

Ability to self-evaluate 2, 386 0.43 0.515 0.00 Note* = Significance level < .05

Figure 10.1 Displays the two-way interaction of delivery mode and frequency on

the dependent variable of professional skills


3.62 3.74

3.47 3.39

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

weekly or more (e.g., daily) less than weeklySupervision Frequency

Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

239

Multivariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Delivery mode and Task Function

Match)


delivery type and task function match, F (14, 762) = 4.46, p < .05; partial η2 = .08.

Univariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Delivery mode and Task Function

Match)

Supervisee’s satisfaction and work skills, professional skills, emotional

awareness/personal skills and ability to self-evaluate were significantly associated with

supervision delivery mode and task function match. Table 10.5 displays the five

significant univariate effects. For example, satisfaction F (2, 386) = 24.57, p < .001;

partial η2 = .11; Work skills F (2, 386) = 3.22, p < .05; partial η2 = .02; Professional

skills F (2, 386) = 4.08, p < .05; partial η2 = .02; Academic/Technical skills F (2, 386) =

3.71, p = .01; partial η2 = .02; Ability to self-evaluate F (2, 386) = 4.77, p < .01; partial

η2 = .02. Descriptive information is provided visually in Figures 10.2 to 10.6.

Table 10.5

Tests of delivery mode and task function match on the dependent variables of



Eta Square

Satisfaction 2, 386 24.57 0.000*** 0.11 Work skills 2, 386 3.22 0.041* 0.02 Relationship skills 2, 386 1.96 0.142* .01 Professional skills 2, 386 4.08 .018** 0.02 Academic/technical skills 2, 386 2.46 0.087 .01 Emotional awareness/personal skills 2, 386 3.71 0.025* 0.02

Supervision Delivery Type and Tasks versus Function

Ability to self-evaluate 2, 386 4.77 0.009** 0.02 Note* = Significance level < .05 Note ** =Significance level <.01 Note *** = Significance level < .001

240


match on the dependent variable of satisfaction


match on the dependent variable of work skills


4.10

3.73

3.004.00

3.43

2.79

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther


3.913.70

3.263.85

3.38

3.06

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

241


match on the dependent variable of professional skills


match on the dependent variable of emotional awareness/personal skills


3.983.73

3.293.89

3.363.13

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Emotional Awareness/Personal Skills

4.013.73

3.154.04

3.34

2.94

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

242


match on the dependent variable of ability to self-evaluate

Multivariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Supervision Arrangement and Task

Function Match)


arrangement and task function match, F (14, 762) = 2.94, p < .001; partial η2 = .05.

Univariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Supervision Arrangement and Task

Function Match)



evaluate were significantly associated with supervision arrangement and task function

match. Table 10.6 displays the four significant univariate effects. For example,

satisfaction F (2, 386) = 10.84, p < .001; partial η2 = .05; Work skills F (2, 386) = 4.72,

p < .01; partial η2 = .02; Relationship skills F (2, 386) = 5.08, p < .01; partial η2 = .03;

and Professional skills F (2, 386) = 3.51, p < .05; partial η2 = .02.

Descriptive information is provided visually in Figures 10.7 to 10.10.

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Ability to Self-Evaluate

4.214.00

3.004.00

3.39

2.85

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Face to FaceOther

243

Table 10.6

Tests of supervision arrangement and task function match on the dependent variables

of satisfaction and development factors 1-6


Eta Square

Satisfaction 2, 386 10.84 0.000*** .05 Work skills 2, 386 4.72 0.009** 0.02 Relationship skills 2, 386 5.08 0.007** 0.03 Professional skills 2, 386 3.51 0.031* 0.02 Academic/technical skills 2, 386 2.07 0.128 .01 Emotional awareness/personal skills 2, 386 0.65 0.521 0.00

Supervision Arrangement and Task Function Match

Ability to self-evaluate 2, 386 2.95 .054 0.02 Note* = Significance level < .05 Note ** =Significance level <.01 Note *** = Significance level < .001

Figure 10.7 Displays the two-way interaction of supervision arrangement and task

function match on the dependent variable of satisfaction


4.23

3.62

3.004.00

3.76

2.84

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

Supervisor SelectedSupervisor Allocated

244


function match on the dependent variable of work skills


function match on the dependent variable of relationship skills


4.07

3.62

3.004.03

3.54

2.77

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n



3.93

3.533.33

3.843.55

2.97

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n


245


function match on the dependent variable of professional skills

Multivariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Supervision Arrangement and

Delivery Mode)


arrangement and delivery mode, F (7, 380) = 2.62, p < .01; partial η2 = .05.

Univariate Effects – Two Way Interactions (Supervision Arrangement and

Delivery Mode)



evaluate were significantly associated with supervision arrangement and delivery mode.

Table 10.7 displays the three significant univariate effects. For example, Professional

skills F (2, 386) = 5.43, p < .05; partial η2 = .001; Academic/Technical skills F (2, 386)

= 3.95, p < .05; partial η2 = .001; Ability to self-evaluate F (2, 386) = 7.98, p < .001;

partial η2 = .002. Descriptive information is provided visually in Figures 10.11 to 10.13.


3.99

3.57

3.253.92

3.61

2.96

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

High Some Low

Task Function Match

Mea

n


246

Table 10.7

Tests of supervision arrangement and delivery mode on the dependent variables of



Eta Square

Satisfaction 2, 386 2.01 0.157 .01 Work skills 2, 386 1.51 0.219 0.00 Relationship skills 2, 386 0.91 0.341 0.00 Professional skills 2, 386 5.43 0.020* .01 Academic/technical skills 2, 386 3.95 0.048* .01 Emotional awareness/personal skills 2, 386 0.02 0.902 0.00

Supervision Arrangement and Delivery Mode

Ability to self-evaluate 2, 386 7.98 0.005** 0.02 Note* = Significance level < .05 Note ** =Significance level <.01

Figure 10.11 Displays the two-way interaction of supervision arrangement and

delivery mode on the dependent variable of professional skills


3.77

3.42

3.55 3.48

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

face to face otherDelivery Mode

Mea

n

supervisor selectedsupervisor allocated

247


delivery mode on the dependent variable of academic/technical skills


delivery mode on the dependent variable of ability to self-evaluate

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Academic/Technical Skills

3.80

3.42

3.55 3.50

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

supervisor allocatedsupervisor selected

Two Way InteractionDependent Variable of Ability to Self-Evaluate

3.77

3.41

3.51 3.47

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Mea

n

supervisor allocatedsupervisor selected

248

Multivariate Effects – Main Effect (Frequency)

Results indicated a significant main effect for frequency, F (7, 380) = 9.81, p <

.001; partial η2 = .14.

Univariate Effects – Main Effect (Frequency)



evaluate were significantly associated with Frequency. Table 10.8 displays the two

significant univariate effects. For example, satisfaction F (2, 386) = 2.35, p < .001;

partial η2 = .04; Work skills F (2, 386) = 32.89, p < .01; partial η2 = .17.

Table 10.8

Tests of frequency on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development

factors 1-6

IV DV F df α Partial

Eta Square

Satisfaction 1 2.35 .001** 0.04 Work skills 1 32.89 0.003** 0.17 Relationship skills 1 0.80 0.101 .01 Professional skills 1 27.28 0.986 0.00 Academic/technical skills 1 1.21 .052 .01 Emotional awareness/personal skills 1 0.78 0.063 .01

Frequency

Ability to self-evaluate 1 0.24 0.622 0.00 Note** =Significance level <.01

Multivariate Effects – Main Effect (Task Function Match)

Results indicated a significant main effect for task function match, F (14, 762) =

42.19, p < .001; partial η2 = .44.

Univariate Effects – Main Effect (Task Function Match)



evaluate were significantly associated with task function match. Table 10.9 displays the

249

seven significant univariate effects. For example, satisfaction F (2, 386) = 580.30, p <

.001; partial η2 = .75; Work skills F (2, 386) = 473.52, p < .001; partial η2 = .71;

Relationship skills F (2, 386) = 53.30, p < .001; partial η2 = .22; Professional skills F (2,

386) = 88.88, p < .001; partial η2 = .32; Academic/Technical skills F (2, 386) = 55.17, p

< .001; partial η2 = .22; Emotional awareness/personal skills F (2, 386) =49.66, p <

.001; partial η2 = .20; Ability to self-evaluate F (2, 386) = 142.68, p < .001; partial η2 =

.43.

Table 10.9

Tests of task function match on the dependent variables of satisfaction and



Eta Square

Satisfaction 2 580.30 0.000*** 0.75 Work skills 2 473.52 0.000*** 0.71 Relationship skills 2 53.30 0.000*** 0.22 Professional skills 2 88.88 0.000*** 0.32 Academic/technical skills 2 55.17 0.000*** 0.22 Emotional awareness/personal skills 2 49.66 0.000*** 0.20

Task Function Match

Ability to self-evaluate 2 142.68 0.000*** 0.43 Note *** = Significance level < .001

Multivariate Effects – Main Effect (Delivery Mode)

Results indicated a significant main effect for delivery mode, F (7, 380) = 33.18,

p < .001; partial η2 = .38.

Univariate Effects – Main Effect (Delivery Mode)



evaluate were significantly associated with delivery mode. Table 10.10 displays the

seven significant univariate effects. For example, satisfaction F (1, 386) = 143.83, p <

.001; partial η2 = .27; Work skills F (1, 386) = 59.94, p < .001; partial η2 = .13;

Relationship skills F (1, 386) = 14.47, p < .001; partial η2 = .04; Professional skills F (1,

250

386) = 16.28, p < .001; partial η2 = .04; Academic/Technical skills F (1, 386) = 2.01, p

< .001; partial η2 = .05; Emotional awareness/personal skills F (1, 386) = 17.51, p <

.001; partial η2 = .04; Ability to self-evaluate F (1, 386) = 20.38, p < .001; partial η2 =

.05.

Table 10.10

Tests of delivery mode on the dependent variables of satisfaction and development

factors 1-6


Eta Square

Satisfaction 1 143.83 0.000*** 0.27 Work skills 1 59.94 0.000*** 0.13 Relationship skills 1 14.47 0.000*** 0.04 Professional skills 1 16.28 0.000*** 0.04 Academic/technical skills 1 2.01 0.000*** .05 Emotional awareness/personal skills 1 17.51 0.000*** 0.04

Delivery Mode

Ability to self-evaluate 1 20.38 0.000*** .05 Note *** = Significance level < .001

Multivariate Effects – Main Effect (Supervision Arrangement)

Results indicated a significant main effect for supervision arrangement, F (7,

380) = 7.08, p < .001; partial η2 = .12.

Univariate Effects – Main Effect (Supervision Arrangement)



evaluate were significantly associated with supervision arrangement. Table 10.11

displays the seven significant univariate effects. For example, satisfaction F (1, 386) =

15.51, p < .001; partial η2 = .04; Work skills F (1, 386) = 19.96, p < .001; partial η2 =

.05; Relationship skills F (1, 386) = 11.74, p < .01; partial η2 = .03; Professional skills

F (1, 386) = 7.00, p < .01; partial η2 = .02; Academic/Technical skills F (1, 386) = 8.82,

p < .01; partial η2 = .02; Emotional awareness/personal skills F (1, 386) = 7.73, p < .01;

251

partial η2 = .02; Ability to self-evaluate F (1, 386) = 11.39, p < .001; partial η2 = .03.

Investigation of mean scores suggested that the order of effects were inconsistent

Table 10.11

Tests of supervision arrangement on the dependent variables of satisfaction and



Eta Square

Satisfaction 1, 386 15.51 0.000*** 0.04 Work skills 1, 386 19.96 0.000*** .05 Relationship skills 1, 386 11.74 .001** 0.03 Professional skills 1, 386 7.00 0.008** 0.02 Academic/technical skills 1, 386 8.82 0.003** 0.02 Emotional awareness/personal skills 1, 386 7.73 0.006** 0.02

Supervision Arrangement

Ability to self-evaluate 1, 386 11.39 .001** 0.03 Note** =Significance level <.01, Note*** = Significance level < .001 Hypotheses 10H5 and 10H6 - results

Hypothesis 10H5 postulated that the SAS model will predict manager ratings of

supervisee performance (improvement) 12 months after supervision commenced for the

business consulting and accounting supervisees. Hypothesis 10H6 expected that

supervisor ratings of supervisee performance will predict manager ratings of supervisee

performance (improvement) 12 months after supervision commenced for the business

consulting and accounting supervisees.

The predictors of shared intention, supervision tasks, supervisor functions,

supervisee development and satisfaction on performance were ordered according to the

SAS model and logic. The descriptive statistics for the hierarchical regression are

presented in Table 10.12 and the correlation matrix is presented in Table 10.13. The

data for hierarchical multiple regression of predictor variables on performance as rated

by managers is presented in Table 10.14.

The predictors were defined in an identical way as described in Chapter 9 (see

Table 9.5 for more information).

252

Table 10.12

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) for hierarchical regression of

predictor variables on manager ratings of supervisee performance

Variable N M SD Shared intention: 480 3.56 .53 Supervision tasks: Counselling 480 2.96 .59 Case experience 480 3.56 .54 Professional experience 480 3.59 .58 Emotional awareness 480 3.60 .53 Ability to self-evaluate 480 3.60 .55 Supervisor functions: Monitoring/Evaluating 480 3.56 .56 Advising/instructing 480 3.57 .55 Modelling 480 3.59 .52 Consulting 480 3.59 .57 Supporting/Sharing 480 3.62 .56 Supervisee development: Work skills 480 3.51 .54 Relationship skills 480 3.53 .54 Professional skills 480 3.55 .56 Academic/technical skills 480 3.56 .57 Emotional awareness/personal skills 480 3.57 .53 Ability to self-evaluate 480 3.53 .54 Supervisor satisfaction: 480 3.58 .55

253

Table 10.13

Correlation matrix of the hierarchical multiple regression predictor variables on performance as rated by managers

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Performance Shared Intention .09 Counselling .37 .00 Case Experience .43 .03 .48 Professional Experience .56 .05 .55 .43 Emotional Awareness .32 .00 .34 .46 .45 Ability to Self-Evaluate .30 -.07 .31 .34 .36 .50 Monitoring/Evaluating .55 .11 .80 .46 .50 .37 .31 Advising/instructing .54 .50 .24 .30 .29 .32 .28 .33 Modelling professional behaviour .67 .04 .38 .41 .62 .54 .70 .38 .32 Consulting .33 .09 .33 .48 .44 .91 .48 .37 .35 .52 Supporting/Sharing .32 .02 .28 .33 .34 .75 .71 .29 .32 .67 .45 Work skills .63 .09 .68 .42 .53 .33 .25 .71 .32 .35 .32 .25 Relationship skills .43 .11 .50 .45 .61 .62 .53 .49 .30 .64 .62 .51 .45 Professional skills .56 .11 .57 .50 .70 .62 .48 .56 .34 .67 .63 .46 .54 .70 Academic/technical skills .63 .09 .47 .46 .49 .63 .61 .47 .30 .62 .63 .61 .44 .68 .62 Emotional awareness/ personal skills .41 .12 .44 .41 .53 .48 .71 .43 .33 .53 .48 .71 .39 .62 .62 .67 Ability to self-evaluate .55 .08 .72 .40 .64 .39 .42 .73 .29 .55 .37 .40 .67 .57 .66 .52 .57 Supervisor satisfaction .81 .08 .61 .46 .56 .34 .31 .62 .29 .41 .34 .31 .72 .46 .55 .44 .44 .60

254

Overall, the predictors of supervision tasks, supervisor functions, supervisee

development and satisfaction significantly predicted supervisee performance as rated by

their managers F (18,461) = 40.72, p < .001. Table 10.14 shows that, combined, these

predictors accounted for 61% of the variance.

Table 10.14

Beta weights, R squared, R squared change, F, and F change values for predictors

on supervisee performance as rated by managers

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Shared intention .09 .09 -.02 -.03 -.04 Supervision tasks Counselling .02 -.07 -.12 -.08 Case Experience .15 .11 .10 .04 Professional Experience .40 .29 .27 .24 Emotional Awareness .13 .12 .04 -.04 Ability to Self-Evaluate .08 -.13 -.11 -.12 Supervisor functions Monitoring/Evaluating .15 .15 .13 Advising/instructing .14 .12 .12 Modelling professional

behaviour .20 .18 .17

Consulting .07 .12 .10 Supporting/Sharing .13 .14 .12 Supervisee skill development Work skills .36 .11 Relationship skills -.08 -.11 Professional skills .31 .23 Academic/technical skills .21 .17 Emotional

awareness/personal skills .06 .03

Ability to self-evaluate .09 .09 Supervisor satisfaction .55 R2 .01 .38 .42 .49 .61 R2

Change .01 .39 .03 .07 .12 F 4.16* 50.61*** 31.00*** 26.07*** 40.72*** FChange 4.16* 59.39*** 4.94*** 10.26*** 148.42*** Note * = Significance level < .05 Note *** = Significance level < .001

255

Upon further inspection, the relative contributions of each step varied as follows:

1). Step 1 failed to identify a significance for shared intention, F (1,478) = 4.16,

p < .05. This result may have occurred because over time it is reasonable to assume that

both supervisor and supervisee would have established similar supervision outcomes,

those who did not do this were not included in this study.

2). Step 2, supervision tasks, significantly predicted performance, FChange (5,473)

= 59.39, p < .001. R2 Change = 38%. More specifically, significant prediction was

identified for the supervision needs of professional experience (β=.40***), case

experience (β=.15*), professional experience (β=.13*) and ability to self-evaluate

(β=.08*). In other words, if we know the performance rating of a supervisee, 38% of the

time we can predict their supervision tasks. The higher the perceived supervision task,

the more likely performance will improve during supervision.

3). Step 3, supervisor functions, significantly predicted performance, FChange

(5,468) = 4.94, p < .001. R2 Change = 3%. More specifically, significant prediction was

identified for the supervisor functions of modelling professional behaviour (β=.20**),

monitoring/evaluating (β=.15*), advising/instructing (β=.14*), and supporting/sharing

(β=.13*). In other words, if we know the performance rating of a supervisee, 3% of the

time we can predict the supervisor mode. The more a supervisor employs

monitoring/evaluating during supervision, the more likely performance will improve

during supervision.

4). Step 4, supervisee development (over a 12 month period) significantly

predicted performance FChange (6,462) = 10.26, p < .001. R2 Change = 7%. More

specifically, significant prediction was identified for work skills (β=.36***),

professional skills (β=.31***), academic/technical skills (β=.21***) and ability to self-

evaluate (β=.09*). In other words, if we know the mean supervisor ratings of supervisee

development (in the areas of work, academic/technical, professional, and ability to self-

evaluate), 7% of the time we can predict supervisee performance as rated by their

managers 12 months after commencement of supervision. The more a supervisee

256

develops in work, academic/technical, professional, and ability to self-evaluate, the more

likely their performance will improve.

5). Step 5, supervisor satisfaction with supervision, significantly predicted

Performance FChange (1,461) = 148.42, p < .001. R2 Change = 12%. If we know the

supervisor satisfaction, we can predict supervisee performance 12% of the time.

The following correlation matrix (see Table 10.15) identified significant

correlations between supervisees, supervisors, and managerial ratings of supervisee

development. The smallest correlation identified was 0.85 between managerial and

supervisee ratings indicating 72.3% shared variance between ratings. The largest

correlation identified was 0.93 between supervisor and supervisee ratings indicating

86.5% shared variance between ratings. The correlation between supervisors and

managers was 0.86 or 74.0% shared variance between ratings. These results suggested

that supervisors, supervisees and managers in the current study shared a significant and

substantial proportion of uniformity between ratings of supervisee development.

Table 10.15

Significant correlations of overall work performance (improvement) 12 months after

supervision commenced

Supervisee Supervisor Supervisor .93** Manager .85** .86** Note** =Significance level < .01

257

Discussion

Responses from business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees in the

present study confirmed that supervision satisfaction and skill development were

significantly dependent upon appropriate task function match as proposed by the SAS

model (Holloway, 1995). Face-to-face supervision appeared to be more effective than

other methods of delivery. It seemed that the frequency of supervision did not impact

upon business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee skill development and

satisfaction. It was determined that the SAS model could be an effective tool to be

employed by organisations who employ business consultants and accounting graduates

to assess professional performance objectively. Supervisors and managers appeared to be

consistent in their ratings of supervisee performance suggesting that the SAS model was

an objective tool and that supervisor input could be valuable to organisational

development.

Hypothesis 10H1 was supported.

Significantly higher business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees’ ratings

of satisfaction and skills development were found for those who experienced a matching

of supervision functions and tasks when compared to those who did not. More

specifically, supervisee’s satisfaction and work skills, professional skills, emotional

awareness/personal skills and ability to self-evaluate were significantly associated with

supervision delivery mode and task function match. This result provided support for the

SAS matrix where supervision tasks were matched with supervision functions to enhance

personal and professional development for business and accounting (without CPA)

supervisees (Holloway, 1995).

258

Hypothesis 10H2 was not supported.

Significantly higher business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee’s ratings

of satisfaction and skills development were not found for those who have greater

matching of gender and cultural characteristics than for those who did not. Supervisees

matched for gender or culture did not impact on the supervision process (e.g., the

development of work skills, relationship skills, professional skills, academic/technical

skills, emotional awareness/personal skills and ability to self-evaluate) and their

supervision satisfaction. As with Study Three, this result was not expected as according

to the SAS model (1995) and other researchers (Ladany et al., 1999; Putney et al., 1992;

Wester et al., 2004) cultural influences were thought to impact upon the supervision

relationship. It is argued that perhaps the way in which culture was measured in this

particular research was not operationalised appropriately and therefore these results

should be interpreted with caution.

Hypothesis 10H3a was supported.


of satisfaction and skills development were found for those who experienced face-to-face

supervision in comparison to those who received supervision via delivery modes other

than face-to-face supervision on a one-to-one basis. As discussed in Studies Two and

Three, this result was confirmation that face-to-face supervision appeared to be most

conducive to achieving maximum results for business and accounting (without CPA)

supervisees.

Hypothesis 10H3b was supported.

Significantly higher business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees’ ratings

of satisfaction and skills development were found for those who had been able to select

their supervisors in comparison to those who had supervisors allocated. This result was

expected as logic would suggest that supervisees who were able to select their own

supervisor would naturally tend to attempt to find someone who met their needs.

259

Hypothesis 10.4 was not supported.


of satisfaction and skills development were not found for those who had more frequent

supervision than for those who had less frequent supervision. Again, in this research, the

frequency of supervision did not impact on the supervision process (e.g., the

development of work skills, relationship skills, professional skills, academic/technical

skills, emotional awareness/personal skills and ability to self-evaluate) and supervision

satisfaction. This result seemed counterintuitive given the purpose of supervision was to

provide ongoing and regular support to a professional in the early stages of their career.

Perhaps, there is a need to investigate if there is a positive association between

supervision frequency and quality. It could be, for example, that if the quality of

supervision is perceived to be of a poor standard then the frequency of the supervision

will be irrelevant or vice versa.


The SAS model and business and accounting supervisor ratings of supervisee

development predicted manager ratings of supervisee performance (improvement) 12

months after supervision commenced.


Supervisor ratings of business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee’s

performance predicted manager ratings of supervisee performance (improvement) 12


The SAS model significantly predicted manager and supervisor ratings of

supervisee performance (improvement in overall work ability) 12 months after

supervision commenced. The task and function matrix as defined by the SAS model was

found to contribute to the prediction of supervisee performance after 12 months. The

results suggested that different configurations of tasks and functions might have led to

development in different areas. Supervisor satisfaction with their supervisee’s

performance also significantly predicted manager’s ratings. This result was particularly

260

important as not only does it significantly demonstrate that the SAS (1995) matrix was a

tool in which supervisee performance could be predicted and evaluated, but it also

indicated that it is a tool which organisations could employ to ensure greater gains in

supervisee work performance.

Limitations

As the limitations of Study Four were found to be similar to those described in

Study Three, the following will describe those limitations specific to the current study.

The supervisee sample was limited in that the opinions and perceptions provided

for this research was based on a sub-sample of business and accounting (without CPA)

supervisees who ranged from 19-25 year-olds. It was difficult to determine whether more

mature respondents would have reported the same ratings as their younger and less

experienced counterparts. The responses provided in the survey might be biased by the

fact that it could be safely assumed that most participants (supervisors-supervisees) in

the study had a reasonable relationship with each other. Those who had not maintained

their relationship for the year were not included in the study.

Future studies could seek to improve our understanding by targeting specific

types of task function match needed to enhance supervision effectiveness for business

and accounting (without CPA) supervisees. Nevertheless, the current and previous

studies have identified the types of task function match areas that appeared to be relevant

to supervision success. To collect finer information the use of case studies and or focus

groups could have been used (as suggested in Study One and Study Two) but were

deemed to be too time-consuming for the purposes of this study. The results in Study

Four however, provided generalisability across professions as a similar result was shown

for the psychology supervisees in Study Three.

Implications

For business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees engaged in the

supervision process, it seemed that the delivery mode of supervision requires careful

consideration. Certainly, the results yielded in this study tended to suggest that face-to-

261

face supervision was preferred and was more beneficial to skill development in the areas

of relationship building and work. Interestingly, a supervisee-supervisor culture and/or

gender match did not seem to impact on either satisfaction or performance. Crucially, as

outlined by Holloway (1995) in her SAS model, the matching of supervision tasks (e.g.,

counselling skills, self-evaluation etc.) to appropriate methods of delivery (e.g., the

functions of advising, consulting etc.) played a significant role in the development of

supervisee skills (e.g., professional, relationship and work skills etc.). The selection

process in which the SAS tasks and functions are matched effectively requires further

research in the future and is recommended to be included in supervision training.

Furthermore, the SAS model is a tool that can successfully assist in the assessment of

business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee performance. In addition, it seemed

that supervisors and work managers generally provided an objective account of business

and accounting (without CPA) supervisee performance and should be encouraged to

work collaboratively to ensure supervision success.

262

CHAPTER 11

Discussion

This chapter presents a discussion of the research program presented in this

thesis. The aim of this research program was to test the SAS model of supervision

effectiveness in the Australian professional context. Chapter 1 presented an overview,

and Chapter 2 provided an understanding of the professional supervision concept.

Chapter 3 discussed the importance and promotion of professional supervision. Chapter

4 investigated whether or not professional supervision is effective through a review of

the empirical literature. Chapter 5 provided a critique of supervision theories and

models, and the theoretical framework for the study. Chapter 6 presented an overview of

the program methodology. Chapter 7-10 present the research studies in detail. Chapter 7

explored the definitions and outcomes of professional supervision, and Chapter 8

explored the supervision delivery mode. Chapter 9 described the SAS model (Holloway,

1995) tested with a sample of psychology interns, and Chapter 10 confirmed the

application of the SAS model to business-related professions. This chapter synthesises

the findings and the contributions of this work to the literature and discusses (1) the

overall findings and application to the literature including a comparison of Study Three

and Study Four, (2) the six major contributions of the research program to the

supervision literature, (3) the contributions of the research program methodology, (4)

future research suggestions, (5) the limitations of the research program, and (6) a final

conclusion.

263

Overall Findings and Application to the Literature

Overall, results provided support for the effectiveness of the SAS model

(Holloway, 1995) as a tool to assist in the teaching, delivery and evaluation of

professional supervision across professional groups. Furthermore, the constructs of

delivery mode and self-allocation of supervisor were deemed to enhance the SAS model

and it is suggested that they could be integrated into this model (see Figure 11.1) . It was

also suggested that the supervision tasks of academic knowledge and networking could

be added to the task function matrix (Holloway) to enhance its comprehensiveness (see

Figure 11.2).

Discussion of Study One and Study Two

The following Table 11.1 provides a snapshot of the results yielded for the

research questions and hypotheses developed for these first two studies.

Table 11.1

Overview of the results found for the research questions and hypotheses for Study

One and Study Two

Study Research questions and hypotheses Supported

1 7RQ1 Will supervisees report a range of different definitions of supervision that


Yes

1 7RQ2 Will supervisees report a range of intended outcomes and be able to


Yes

2 8H1 The selection of delivery mode will differ according to differing levels of

supervision success. Supervision success here is defined as supervisee satisfaction

with supervision after 6 months of supervision.

No

2 8H2 The selection of delivery mode will differ according to different supervision

tasks.

No

264

Study Research questions and hypotheses Supported

2 8H3a The supervision task of counselling will be associated with the functions of

monitoring/evaluating, instructing/advising, modelling, and consulting.

Partially

2 8H3b The supervision task of case conceptualisation will be associated with the

functions of monitoring/evaluating, instructing/advising, modelling and

consulting.

Partially

2 8H3c The supervision task of professional role will be associated with the


Partially

2 8H3d The supervision task of emotional awareness will be associated with the


Partially

2 8H3e The supervision task of self-evaluation will be associated with the functions

of monitoring/evaluating, consulting, and supporting/sharing.

Partially

Study One

This study aimed to define the term supervision and determine expected supervision

outcomes. Professional supervision was defined in a variety of ways by supervisees and

supervisors. There was strong agreement that supervision is a pathway by which skills

and knowledge can be learned including: counselling, case experience, professional

experience, emotional awareness and an ability to self-evaluate. Supervision was

perceived as effective and satisfying when there was skill development in the areas of

building relationships, work and professional performance, academic/technical

knowledge, networking, emotional awareness and the ability to self-evaluate. For all

supervisees there appeared to be a strong association between the definition of

supervision provided and the intended or anticipated outcomes. However, supporting

information suggested that supervisees did not see a link between the mechanisms of

supervision (e.g., delivery mode, supervision tasks and functions) and the outcomes.

265

Rather they expected the supervisor to be able to structure the supervision sessions in a

way that would achieve these ends.

This study provided a definition of professional supervision that was

generalisable across health and business related professional groups and was

underpinned by a theoretical model, the SAS model (Holloway, 1995). In addition, it

was suggested that the supervision tasks of “developing academic knowledge” and

“networking skills” should be added to Holloway’s (1995) task function matrix to

enhance supervision effectiveness. Chapter 2 of this thesis argued that supervision was

difficult to define and that commonly the definitions described in the literature focussed

on the relationship dynamics between the supervisor and supervisee, were specific to a

certain field of practice, and were atheoretical (Inskipp & Proctor, 1994; Itzhaky, 2000;

Nelson & Johnson, 1999; Ross & Goh, 1993). Study One provided definitions of

supervision success by determining the outcomes expected at the end of supervision by

supervisees and supervisors. Most literature in the field of supervision had failed to

identify what factors would determine supervision success which was the core reason

why it was difficult for them to determine whether or not supervision was in fact

effective (Kozlowska et al., 1997; Ladany et al., 2001; O’Donovan et al., 2001; Steward

et al., 2001).

Interestingly, responses largely indicated that supervisees did not see the link

between the definition of supervision and supervision outcomes which implied that

supervisees were not proactive in developing and implementing supervision goals,

boundaries and expectations. This finding is important to universities and professional

boards as it suggests that more training is needed to adequately prepare graduates for the

supervision process so that they receive maximum benefits.

Study Two

This study aimed to assess supervision delivery mode and Holloway’s (1995)

supervision teaching matrix. It was found that face-to-face supervision was perceived to

be more satisfying by supervisees than any other delivery modes (such as e-mail,

266

telephone). This finding supported the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland’s regulations

that specifically state that supervisees must undertake half of the required supervision

hours face-to-face with their supervisor (refer to Psychologists’ Board of Queensland,

2005). Perhaps other professional boards might need to take this into account when

developing guidelines for supervision delivery modes. Furthermore, it is suggested that

delivery mode be added when defining supervision, given that it contributes to

supervisee satisfaction with supervision. As pointed out by Crago and Crago (2002),

supervisee satisfaction has never been taken into account when defining professional

supervision. Further, support for Holloway’s (1995) task function match matrix was

found. The supervision task of counselling was predicted by the supervisor functions of

monitoring/evaluating and advising/instructing. It was indicated that the task of case

conceptualisation was predicted by the supervision functions of advising/instructing and

consulting. The development of professional role in the supervision process was

significantly predicted by the supervisor function of modelling. It was demonstrated that

emotional awareness was predicted by the supervisor function of supporting/sharing. It

was also found that supervisee self-evaluation was predicted by the supervisor function

of consulting with the supervisee.

However, results indicated that the supporting/sharing teaching strategy was not

useful in developing counselling skills. It was also shown that the teaching strategy of

monitoring/evaluating is not conducive to teaching case conceptualisation skills. In

addition, the advising/instructing method did not help supervisees learn their

professional roles, and supervisors were not deemed to be effective in teaching

supervisees self-evaluation skills via modelling.

It was found that supervisees across health and business-related professional

groups were more satisfied with face-to-face supervision as opposed to other delivery

modes (such as telephone and e-mail). Study Two also supported the notion that the way

in which supervision was imparted or taught to a supervisee determined supervision

effectiveness, satisfaction and supervisee professional development. This finding

267

scientifically supported Holloway’s (1995) definition of supervision and also provided

support for her teaching framework, the task function match matrix (refer to Chapter 5).

This result has important implications as it clearly supported the need for supervisors

across professional groups to be trained in the process of effective supervision. A

number of researchers have voiced their concern over the lack of training for supervisors

and the common assumption that as long as you can reasonably practice a profession,

you can also teach it which is actually not the case (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998;

Campbell & Wackwitz, 2002; McMahon & Patton, 2002; Ross & Goh, 1993; Schofield

& Pelling, 2002; Scott et al., 2000).

Discussion of Study Three and Study Four

A snapshot of the results yielded for the hypotheses developed for these two

studies is found at Table 11.2. Study Three aimed to apply Holloway’s SAS model

(1995) to the supervision experience of psychology interns as assessed by supervisors

and work managers. Where there was a task function match and a face-to-face delivery

mode, psychology supervisees reportedly developed skills in the areas of work,

relationship building, professional development, emotional awareness and an ability to

self-evaluate. The psychology interns also reported higher levels of satisfaction with

supervision.

The model (Holloway, 1995) predicted manager ratings of psychology

supervisee performance 12 months after supervision commenced. It was also found that

supervisor ratings of supervisee improvement in the six development areas predicted

manager ratings of supervisee performance over 12 months. While it was found that

supervisors of psychology supervisees were a valid and reliable source to assess

supervisee performance objectively, it was difficult to determine whether or not the same

applied for work managers of psychology supervisees. As discussed in Chapter 9, there

was a counterintuitive result found between the supervision outcome of developing work

skills and relationships at work. To recap, on one hand, it was found that the more a

supervisee develops in work skills, the more likely their manager will rate their

268

performance as improved. On the other hand, it was found that the more a supervisee is

perceived by their manager as engaging in relationship skill building, the more likely

they were assessed as having a poor work performance.

The findings of Study Three also supported the need for the psychology boards

to continue to place an emphasis on the need to provide supervision via a face-to-face,

one-on-one delivery mode to enhance supervision satisfactions and effectiveness

(Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, 2005). This result was particularly important for

those psychology supervisees living in non-metropolitan areas and the need for

universities, psychology boards, and the Australian Psychological Association to

consider ways in which all psychology interns can access face-to-face supervision to

enhance supervision quality and effectiveness.

Furthermore, Holloway’s (1995) teaching matrix has been shown to be

scientifically robust goal-oriented evaluative tool that can be used to teach effective and

satisfying supervision to psychology interns. This finding was substantive as it showed

that supervision could be both an effective, constructive and satisfying experience for

psychologists if it was delivered in a structured and well-considered approach. These

findings are in contrast to much literature that has suggested that there was very limited

scientific evidence to suggest that overall supervision was found to be an effective and

satisfying process across professional groups (O’Donovan et al., 2001; Kozlowska et al.,

1997; Severinsson & Hallberg, 1996; Steward et al., 2001). The SAS matrix (Holloway,

1995) demonstrated that a collaborative approach between supervisees, supervisors and

work managers is needed to ensure that supervisees have every opportunity to be

assessed as objectively as possible.

Chapter 5 of this thesis discussed the lack of a theory or model in the supervision

literature that had been scientifically proven to teach supervisors how to impart

professional knowledge and skill to psychology interns, and to allow for the objective

evaluation of supervisee performance by supervisors and work managers. The following

theories were critiqued: psychoanalytic theory (Embelton, 2002); client-centered

269

supervision (Rogers, 1951); cognitive-behavioural supervision (Kavanagh et al., 2002);

narrative supervision (Crocket, 2002); developmental approaches (Bernard & Goodyear,

1998; Littrel et al., 1979); and other social role supervision processes (Friedlander &

Ward, 1984; Hawkins & Shohet, 1989). Holloway’s Systems Approach to Supervision

Model (1995) is the only model currently available that had been scientifically examined

as a teaching and assessment professional supervision tool for psychologists.

Study Four aimed to replicate Study Three with a sample of business and

accounting (without CPA) supervisees as assessed by supervisors and work managers.

This study was fundamental in showing that the SAS model (Holloway, 1995) was

generalisable across both health and business-related professional groups. Higher

business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees’ ratings of satisfaction and skills

development were found for those who have experienced a matching of supervision

functions and tasks when compared to those who did not. It was demonstrated that

higher business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees’ ratings of satisfaction and

skills development were found for those who experience face-to-face supervision when

compared with those who receive supervision via delivery modes other than face-to-face

supervision on a one-to-one basis. The SAS model and supervisor ratings of supervisee

development predicted manager ratings of business and accounting (without CPA)

supervisees’ performance (improvement) 12 months after supervision commenced. In

addition, supervisor ratings of business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees’

performance predicted manager ratings of supervisee performance (improvement) 12


Study Four confirmed that, like health professionals, business-related

professionals preferred face-to-face supervision. As discussed previously, all

professional boards need to take this finding into account when designing and

implementing registration requirements. Most important, Holloway’s (1995) teaching

matrix was successfully and scientifically applied across both health and business-related

professional groups.

270

Comparison of Study Three and Study Four

Support for the SAS model. Results demonstrated that the best fit with the SAS

model came from the psychology supervisees. While the SAS model was also effective

in describing the psychology supervisees’ supervision experience, the delivery mode

factor was also instrumental in determining its success.

Supervision gender and cultural impacts. It appeared that for both psychology

and business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees, culture and gender did not

impact on the supervision process (refer to Table 11.2). As discussed previously, this

result was counterintuitive to that discussed in the literature (Gatmon et al., 2001; Wester

et al., 2004) and it was suggested that perhaps the way in which culture and gender

match was measured in this particular research was not operationalised appropriately and

therefore these results should be interpreted with caution.

Supervision delivery mode. It was found that delivery mode impacted on

supervisee satisfaction and skills development for both psychology and business and

accounting (without CPA) supervisees (refer to Table 11.2). Both the health-related and

business-related fields preferred face-to-face supervision in comparison to those who

received supervision via other delivery modes (e.g., phone, e-mail, group supervision or,

group supervision).

Supervisor allocation. Results indicated that across both longitudinal studies

supervisees preferred to find their own supervisor, for the psychology supervisees this

was especially true when supervision was provided face-to-face and on a one-to-one

basis. The overall effect sizes identified were very small and this was a secondary factor

to the issue of delivery mode and task/function match.

Supervision frequency. For both groups of supervisees (the psychologists and

the business consultants and accounting graduates), higher ratings of satisfaction and

skills development were not found for those who have more frequent supervision than

for those who have less frequent supervision (refer to Table 11.2). This result was not

expected given that McMahon and Patton (2001) suggested that less frequent supervision

271

was ineffective. As discussed previously, frequency was probably difficult to discern as

the samples examined in the current research program were required to have regular

supervision in order to become fully registered with their professional boards.

Manager performance ratings. Manager ratings of supervisee performance for

both professional groups (psychologists and business consultants /accounting graduates)

predicted supervisee development over a 12 month period and were supportive of the

SAS model (refer to Table 11.2). However, there was an interesting finding that

suggested that perhaps managers’ ratings needed to be investigated further. This issue

was discussed previously in the overall findings section of this chapter.

Supervisor performance ratings. It was found that supervisor ratings of

psychology and business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees’ improvement in the

six development areas predicted manager ratings of supervisee performance over 12

months (refer to Table 11.2). As discussed previously, this result suggested that

supervisors are a valid source of information about supervisee performance in the work

setting. Furthermore, it seemed that supervisors might be able to assist in supporting and

modifying organisational policies to ensure that health and business-related

professionals, in the early stages of their careers, are able to perform well at work while

meeting professional demands.

272

Table 11.2

Comparison of hypotheses results for Study Three and Study Four

Study Three Hypotheses Study Four Hypotheses

1 Support for the SAS model

Significantly higher psychology supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were found for those who have experienced a matching of supervision functions and tasks and were attending face-to-face when compared to those who did not. Effect sizes indicated moderate to large effects.

Partially supported

Significantly higher business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were found for those who have experienced a matching of supervision functions and tasks when compared to those who did not. Effect sizes indicated moderate to large effects.

Supported

2 Cultural and Gender effects

Significantly higher psychology supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were not found for those who have greater matching of gender and cultural characteristics

Not supported Significantly higher business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were not found for those who have greater matching of gender and cultural characteristics

Not supported

3a. Delivery Mode

Significantly higher psychology supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were found for those who experience face-to-face supervision in comparison to those who receive supervision via mechanisms. Effect sizes indicated moderate effects.

Supported Significantly higher business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were found for those who experience face-to-face supervision in comparison to those who receive supervision via mechanisms. Effect sizes indicated moderate effects.

Supported

3b. Supervisor Allocation

Significantly higher psychology supervisee ratings of satisfaction and the skills of development of work and relationship building were found for those who have been able to select their supervisors and those who experience face-to-face supervision in comparison to those who have supervisors allocated and receive supervision via mechanisms other than face-to-face supervision. Effect sizes indicated small effects.

Partially supported.

Significantly higher business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were found for those who have been able to select their supervisors in comparison to those who have supervisors allocated. Effect sizes indicated small effects.

Supported.

273

Study Three Hypotheses Study Four Hypotheses

4. Frequency

Significantly higher psychology supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were not found for those who have more frequent supervision than for those who have less frequent supervision.

Not supported Significantly higher business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee ratings of satisfaction and skills development were not found for those who have more frequent supervision than for those who have less frequent supervision.

Not supported

5. Manager performance ratings

The SAS model and psychology supervisor ratings of supervisee development predicted manager ratings of supervisee performance 12 months after supervision commenced. However, the specific results differed to those found for the business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees.

Supported The SAS model and business and accounting supervisor ratings of supervisee development predicted manager ratings of supervisee performance (improvement) 12 months after supervision commenced.

Supported

6. Supervisor Performance Ratings

It was significantly found that supervisor ratings of psychology supervisee improvement in the six development areas significantly predicted manager ratings of supervisee performance (improvement in overall work ability) over 12 months.

Supported It was significantly found that supervisor ratings of supervisee improvement in the six development areas significantly predicted manager ratings of supervisee performance (improvement in overall work ability) over 12 months.

Supported

274

The Five Major Contributions to the Literature

There were five major contributions of this research program to the field of

professional supervision. First, there was the application and validation of a theoretical

model, Holloway’s (1995) Systems Approach to Supervision, to the supervision

experience. Second, the program reported the development and application of scales to

measure supervision performance and satisfaction objectively and psychometrically.

Third, the methodology including the collection of both qualitative and quantitative

responses from supervisees, supervisors and managers, provided a multi-method

approach to understanding professional supervision across professional groups. Fourth,

supervision success can now be defined across professional groups while taking into

account supervisee and supervisor satisfaction. Finally, the most substantive contribution

of the research program to the professional supervision literature was the investigation of

the supervision experience across professional groups. Specifically, an empirical link

between supervisee and supervisor ratings of supervisee development were linked, over

the course of 12 months of supervision, to manager ratings of supervisee “on-the-job”

performance.

Contributions of the Research Program Methodology

Defining professional supervision. It can be argued that a typology of

supervision exists that can be used to define it. Specifically, that the central purpose of

supervision according to supervisees and supervisors studied was to develop skills in

counselling, case experience, professional experience, emotional awareness, self-

evaluation, academic knowledge and networking. This information is helpful when

designing supervision contracts, particularly when determining the aims and goals of

supervision. This definition could also enhance the supervisory relationship in

establishing both professional and personal boundaries and expectations. Furthermore, it

is now known that supervisors and supervisees across professional groups perceived the

following as expected outcomes of the supervision process: enhancing a supervisee’s

275

ability to self-evaluate, gain academic knowledge, become emotionally aware, develop

profession networks, develop both professional and work skills and to build on

relationship skills. The role of delivery mode and supervisee satisfaction also needs to be

taken in account when defining supervision. Supervisees, however, did not understand

the link between supervision definition and supervision success, suggesting that

universities and professional boards and associations might need to provide graduates

with more pre-supervision preparation so that they understand how to obtain maximum

benefits.

Supervisee individual differences. Results indicated that supervisors and

supervisees do not tailor their supervision arrangements to desired supervision outcomes.

To counteract this problem and to assist in enhancing supervision success, supervisors

and supervisees need to take into account the most appropriate delivery mode to learn a

task. Generally, it was perceived that face-to-face supervision was the most satisfying

mode and needed to be taken into account when designing supervision contracts and

processes. However, delivery mode could be different depending on the type of

supervision task to be learned and depending on the supervisee’s professional group. An

example of this was the special case whereby it was found that there was a difference of

supervision delivery mode across the professions of psychology, counselling, nursing,

occupational therapy, financial advice, and business accounting. For example, most

psychologists attended after work face-to-face supervision in comparison to accountants

where none reported attending after work face-to-face supervision. Furthermore, there

appeared to be differing opinions as to whether group supervision was effective or

satisfying. It is recommended that the SAS model (Holloway, 1995) incorporates the

construct of delivery mode as a predictor of supervision satisfaction and effectiveness.

Supervisor training. As predicted by the SAS model (Holloway, 1995),

professional supervisors need to be aware of the functions of supervision in order to

implement the most effective task/skill required. For example, it is now known from this

research that if supervisees wanted to learn counselling skills, the preferred and most

276

beneficial method for teaching this task is to employ the functions of

monitoring/evaluating, instructing/advising and supporting and sharing. Having

knowledge of the most efficient and effective way to impart information could assist in

the planning of supervision sessions, the development of supervision goals and providing

an effective way of evaluating supervisor performance, supervisee performance and the

supervision process. In essence, this study supported the use of the SAS model

(Holloway, 1995) as a frame of reference and a training mechanism to teach

professionals how to become effective supervisors. It seemed that the supervision

experience would be enhanced if supervisors and supervisees spent more time planning

and thinking about the direction of supervision from the beginning.

Psychology supervisee requirements. For psychology supervisees engaged in the

supervision process, it was found that satisfaction with supervision and skill

development was dependent upon an effective task function match and face-to-face

supervision. This result has important implications for those developing supervision

programs either via the psychologists’ registration boards, universities or those

supervisors practising privately in that it affirms the SAS model (Holloway, 1995) and

the face-to-face delivery of supervision as an effective tool to teach psychologists

professional and personal skills. Furthermore, the employment of these strategies

resulted in a higher level of satisfaction with the supervisory process which could have

positive impacts on the way the supervision program, the supervisor and the profession

of psychology is perceived. This could be difficult for those psychology supervisees who

are locationally disadvantaged and might be resolved with supervision residential

schools whereby these supervisees spend a condensed amount of time with a supervisor

in face-to-face supervision. It is also essential that an individual psychologist’s

development stage be taken into account when prioritising which supervision tasks

should be taught first. Furthermore, it was found that the psychology supervisees

preferred to choose their own supervisor. Again, this has practical implications for

employers and universities who might allocate supervisors to supervisees due to various

277

practical constraints such as access, time and finances. It is suggested that every care be

taken to allow supervisees to select their own supervisors or at least someone who is a

close match to what the supervisee is looking for in order to enhance supervisee

satisfaction and skill development.

Business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee requirements. It was found

that the SAS model function task matrix (Holloway, 1995) was an effective and

appropriate tool to assist business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees as was

found with the psychology supervisees. This result confirmed that the SAS model is a

tool that business-related registration boards, universities and private practitioners-

supervisors could employ to develop successful and satisfying supervision programs.

Business and accounting (without CPA) supervisees also preferred face-to-face

supervision as found for the psychology supervisees. Again, this has implications for

those coordinating supervision programs and implied that other delivery options such as

the phone, e-mail and group supervision should at this stage be utilised as adjunct

supervision options only. Again as with psychology supervisees, business and

accounting (without CPA) supervisees preferred to select their own supervisor. This has

implications for those coordinating supervision experiences for business-related fields in

that every effort should be made to allow supervisees to choose their own supervisor to

enhance their satisfaction with supervision and skill development. As with the

psychology supervisees, it was found that the SAS model predicted manager ratings of

supervised business and accounting (without CPA) supervisee performance at work. In

addition, supervisors generally provided an objective account of supervisee performance.

Again, this finding should alert organisations, universities and private practitioners-

supervisors to the benefits of working collaboratively in order to provide quality and

effective supervision to an inexperienced business-related supervisee, to have an

opportunity to discuss and resolve any ethical dilemmas, and to provide an objective

assessment of supervisee performance in supervision (artificial situations) and at work

(real-life situations).

278

Evaluating supervisor performance. The SAS model (Holloway, 1995) is a tool

that can successfully assist in the assessment of supervisor performance. This model

could be employed by business and health-related registration boards and university

courses to teach supervision and to evaluate and enhance the performance of a supervisor

within the supervision process. Presently, there is no other model or theory that can

solely provide such a comprehensive and scientifically tested framework.

The following diagrams have been modified to include the significant findings

from Studies 1 – 4. Figure 11.1 gives a visual representation of how Holloway’s (1995)

Systems Approach to Supervision could be enhanced to include the supervision factors

of delivery mode and supervisor selection. Holloway’s (1995) task function matrix (see

Figure 11.2) has been amended to include the supervision tasks of networking skills and

academic knowledge to reflect the significant findings yielded from the research project.

279

Figure 11.1 The System Approach to Supervision Enhanced (SAS-E) model.

Modified from “Clinical Supervision A Systems Approach” by E. L. Holloway, 1995, p.

58.

Figure 11.2 Supervision tasks and functions enhanced matrix.

Modified from “Clinical Supervision A Systems Approach” by E. L. Holloway, 1995, p.

59.

The Task Function Enhanced Matrix

The Systems Approach to Supervision Enhanced (SAS-E)

280

Future Research Suggestions

Future research should aim to collect information from both young and mature

age supervisees. It would be beneficial to obtain an equitable gender mix in the

professional supervision sample although this will depend on the professional group

given that generally females are more attracted to the health-related fields than males.

Furthermore, further investigation into the way in which professional supervision is

defined and evaluated by other professional groups is needed. If possible, other data

collection modalities such as focus groups and interviews might offer another

perspective on the supervision experience. The operationalisation of supervision

functions across professional groups is needed. It would be most beneficial to consider a

greater range of professions and various data gathering methodologies (such as focus

groups or interviews) to adequately establish the relationship between delivery mode and

supervision tasks and, in turn, supervision success. Furthermore, other variables such as

supervision format (individual versus group; one supervisor versus multiple supervisors;

university internship programs versus private practitioner supervision) could be

examined to determine their effects of the supervision process and Holloway’s (1995)

SAS model.

Overall Limitations

Sample. Study One comprised mainly young female professional supervisees

across seven professional groups. It was not possible to determine whether or not the

same perceptions of supervision definition and expectations would be reported by

mature-aged supervisees or across other professions. In addition, it was assumed that this

sample was able to define outcomes when they had not yet started supervision. There

was some concern that all supervisees might have had a vested interest in “faking good”

in the surveys given that performance in supervision will determine professional

registration. Although this was counterbalanced by including the manager’s ratings,

managers may also have a vested interest in providing a positive impression. Results

281

suggested that whilst the majority of scores were of a ‘positive’ nature, investigation of

distributions of scores suggested ample variation in the data files. Study Two

compromised small sample sizes for each of the four professional groups which might

have reduced the generalisability of the results. For this reason Study Three and Four

were employed to test and extend the findings of the initial 2 exploratory studies. The

Study Three supervisee sample was constrained in that the opinions and perceptions

provided for this research were based on a sub-sample of psychology supervisees who

were ranged from 20-23 years old, drawn largely from University settings in the first

instance. It was difficult to determine if more mature psychology supervisees would have

provided had the same reaction to task function match as their younger and less

experienced counterparts. There is still considerable support for the notion that

supervision is particularly relevant in early professional development. Future research

could seek to explore differences in supervision experiences for early and mature

professionals. Another limitation could be that the responses provided in the survey

could be biased by the fact that it can be safely assumed that most participants

(supervisors/supervisees) who were in the study had a reasonable relationship with each

other as those who had not maintained their relationship for the year were not included in

the research. As with Study Three, the supervisee sample in Study Four was limited in

that the opinions and perceptions provided for this research were based on a subsample

of business and accounting supervisees who ranged from 19-25 years old. Furthermore,

the supervisors who participated in the studies on average had four years of professional

experience. It is hard to know whether supervisors with more years of experience would

have provided different responses in the self-report measures. In saying that,

Worthington (2006) indicated that years of supervisor professional experience does not

seem to impact on the supervision experience.

Self-report measures. The sole reliance on self-report measures can have

multiple limitations. Responses to the survey items in this research program were

subjective accounts from the supervisees, supervisors and work managers. Furthermore,

282

responses provided by supervisees and supervisors could have been a result of

misunderstandings and agenda-driven answers, for example, if a relationship is not so

good between a supervisor and supervisee, either might overcompensate in describing

performance. To overcome this limitation the current study employed ratings by the

supervisees’ managers. The lack of findings regarding supervision frequency was also

possibly due to the sample employed. For example, using psychology students may

have influenced the results as many have a frequency imposed (or strongly

recommended) by the Queensland Psychology Board of Registration. Hence variance in

relation to this variable was of a limited nature. The current findings relating to this

variable might therefore not reflect the true impact of supervision frequency on findings.

Experimental designs. Studies Three and Four were quasi-experimental designs

which lead to specific categorisations of Holloway’s (1995) task function matrix as

“high match”, “some match”, and “no match”. Reduced sensitivity may have been a

problem in the operationalisation approach of the matrix as the discerned cut-off points

might have been too crude to examine finer differences/matches in supervision tasks and

functions. However pragmatic categorisations were required for sampling reasons.

Timing. The respondents in Study Two had only participated in supervision for

six months and were therefore in the early stages of professional development, which

might have mitigated their perceptions of which function would be best to teach a

particular task. While Studies Three and Four tracked supervisees over a 12-month

period, this might not have been long enough to thoroughly examine supervision and

work performance as for one professional group, the psychology interns, a minimum of

24 months supervision period is required for registration with the professional board.

Further, it was not possible to evaluate the effect of time on supervisee performance after

supervision ended. It was felt however, that the 12-month time frame was a pragmatic

“minimum” from which meaningful results could be drawn.

Definitions. It was difficult to know whether the tasks and functions in the

Holloway (1995) matrix were defined the same way across professional groups. For

283

example, it was reasonable to assume that business-related supervisees would not need to

learn the same tasks as health-related supervisees. As an instance, the task of counselling

would not be applied across professions. To counteract this problem, different labels

from those described in the SAS model (Holloway, 1995) were applied to define

supervision tasks. Content coding employed in Study One suggested that from the data

received similar types of responses were being received across different professional

groupings. These findings were encouraging and suggest similar styles or typologies, at

a broad level, maybe present across professions.

Testing aspects of the model only. The SAS model is complex to test and it was

only possible to test the contribution of supervision functions and tasks in the present

research program. However, the other aspects of the SAS model (such as power

dynamics, the supervision contract, the phase of supervision, the contextual factors,

supervisor factors, supervisee factors, and the clientele) should be tested to determine

their role in supervisee satisfaction and success.

No control group. In the Study Three quasi-experiment, it was not possible to

obtain a control group to ensure that the results of the study were due to the intervention

of supervision rather than a placebo effect. Given that professional supervision was a

requirement of professional registration with the Psychologists’ Board of Queensland, it

was impossible to create a control group for this profession. Unlike Study Three, it

would have been possible to obtain a control group for the business and accounting

supervisee sample (Study Four sample). This was because business consultants and

accountants (without CPAs) are not legally or professionally obligated to undertake a

period of compulsory professional supervision. Supervision in the larger firms does

appear to be the norm as part of the conditions of work and due diligence requirements.

However, this was not done due to pragmatic considerations associated with the

research. The findings are highly suggestive of a relationship between supervision

design, supervision effectiveness, and “on-the-job” performance.

284

Common method variance. This could have been a problem in Studies Three and

Four whereby survey respondents intuitively might have made associations between

concepts in questionnaires that are not really there. For example, if a question was asked

about intelligence quotients (IQ) and personal satisfaction, the respondent might generate

a positive response pattern simply because they perceived a positive relationship

between IQ and satisfaction. To counteract this problem, a researcher can use different

methods to collect the data such as focus groups and interviews. However, it was

impracticable to do this in Studies Three and Four due to limited financial and time

resources. Another strategy to resolve this problem is to run a factor analysis to see if

anything loads on the items. As found in Studies Three and Four, a factor analysis was

conducted and it suggested that common method variance was not a major problem.

Results from different groups, namely supervisees, supervisors, and managers, suggested

considerable convergence between them and further suggesting that common method

variance was not an issue.

Analyses. Moderating variables were not evaluated in Study Two. While an

interaction was found between supervision delivery and the Holloway (1995) matrix of

tasks and functions, this was not investigated further to determine whether there was a

moderating effect. It was not possible to do this as there were not enough cases and

could have resulted in over-interpretation of the data. Regardless, this was not the

purpose of the study. The sample cell sizes made it difficult to identify smaller and

medium effect sizes. Therefore for future research, larger numbers of cases may reveal

finer nuances for example, relationships between different delivery types and

tasks/functions.

Other factors. Other factors not examined in this research program might have

been important to the variables studied in Studies 3 and 4, such as supervision format

(group versus individual supervision), the impact of one supervisor or multiple

supervisors, supervisee-supervisor personality, resources, amount of supervision time

available, perceived reputation of the supervisor, perceived importance of supervision,

285

past experiences, the likelihood of getting good outcomes, university versus private

practitioner supervision, and perceived supervision relevance (refer to Chapter 4 for a

review of the literature on these factors). The breadth of variables possible for inclusion

were numerous, however, due to practical reasons only a limited number of variables

were selected for consideration. Furthermore, the results of the earlier studies of the

current research program suggested that the main variables of interest and possible

confounders (e.g., delivery mode) had been included in the study. The effect sizes

identified also suggested that noteworthy relationships had been identified in the study.

Final Conclusion

Professional supervision can be a highly effective and constructive process with

the employment of Holloway’s (1995) Systems Approach to Supervision model. The

SAS model can be successfully and scientifically applied as a tool to training, teaching,

and evaluating the supervision process across health and business-related professional

groups by supervisors, supervisees and work managers. The constructs of delivery mode,

particularly, face-to-face supervision, and the option for supervisees to choose their own

supervisor should be added to the model to ensure both supervisee satisfaction and

effective professional performance. Furthermore, it was shown the supervision tasks of

developing academic knowledge and networking skills could be added to the SAS matrix

(Holloway, 1995) to enhance its comprehensiveness. It is suggested that the model be

renamed to the Systems Approach to Supervision – Enhanced (SAS-E) to incorporate

delivery mode, supervisee selection of supervisor and additions to the task function

matrix.

286

REFERENCES

Association for Children with a Disability (n.d.). Retrieved on 11 April, 2004, from

http://www.acd.org.au/home/index.htm

Australian Association of Social Workers. (2000). Policy and procedures for

establishing eligibility for membership of AASW. Retrieved on 5 March, 2005,

from http://www.aasw.asn.au/adobe/publications/Eligibility_July%202000.pdf

Australian Human Resource Institute. (2005). Professional development. Retrieved on 5

March, 2005, from http://www.ahri.com.au

Australian Institute of Radiography. (2004). Educational policies. Retrieved on 5 March,

2005, from http://www.a-i-r.com.au/documents/EdPol.pdf

Australian Psychological Society. (2001). Code of ethics. Melbourne, Australia: The

Australian Psychological Society Limited.

Baker, S. B., Daniels, T. G., & Greeley, A. T. (1990). Systematic training of graduate

level counsellors: Narrative and meta-analytic reviews of three major programs.

Counselling Psychologist, 18, 355-421.

Beattie, R. S., & McDougall, M. L. (1995). Peer mentoring: The issues and outcomes of

non-hierarchical developmental relationships. Working paper presented to the

British Academy of Management Annual Conference, Sheffield, UK.

Benshoff, J. M. (1992). Peer consultation for professional counsellors. ERIC Digests.

Retrieved April 11, 2004 from the ERIC CSA version database.

Bernard, J.M. (1997). The discrimination model. In C. E. Watkins (Ed.), Handbook of

psychotherapy supervision. New York: Wiley.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1998). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.

Bowman, C., & McCormick, S. (2000). Peer coaching versus traditional supervision.

Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 256-261.

287

Bradshaw, T., Butterworth, A., & Mairs, H. (2007). Does structure clinical supervision

during psychosocial intervention education enhance outcome for mental health

nurses and the service users they work with? Journal of Psychiatric and Mental

Health Nursing, 41(1), 4-12.

Bramley, W. (1996). The supervisory couple in broad-spectrum psychotherapy. London:

Free Association Books Ltd.

Bryan, L. A., Dersch, C., Shumway, S., & Arredondo, R. (2004). Therapy outcomes:

Client perception and similarity with therapist view. American Journal of Family

Therapy, 32(1), 11-27.

Campbell, J. (2000). Becoming an effective supervisor: A workbook for counsellors and

psychotherapists. Philadelphia: Accelerated Development.

Campbell, M., & Wackwitz, H. (2002). Supervision in an organization where counsellors

are a minority profession. In M. McMahon, & W. Patton, (Eds.), Supervision in

the helping professions: A practical approach (pp. 313-324). Frenchs Forest,

Australia: Pearson Education.

Cherniss, C. (1980). Staff burnout: Job stress in the human services. Beverley Hills, CA:

Sage Publications.

Christensen, T. M., & Kline, W. (2000). A qualitative investigation of the process of

group supervision with group teaching. Journal for Specialists in Group Work,

25(4), 376-393.

Commonwealth Bank. (n.d.). Retrieved on 11 April, 2004, from

http://about.commbank.com.au/group_display/0,1922,CH2453,00.html

Copeland, S. (1998). Counselling supervision in organisational contexts: New challenges

and perspectives. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 26(3), 377-387.

Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and

evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.

CPA Online. (2004). Retrieved on 23 March, 2004, from

https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/08_education/8_0_0_0_home.asp

288

Crago, H., & Crago, M. (2002). But you can’t get decent supervision in this country! In

M. McMahon & W. Patton, (Eds.), Supervision in the helping professions: A

practical approach (pp. 79-89). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education.

Crocket, K. (2002). Producing supervision, and ourselves as counsellors and supervisors.

In M. McMahon & W. Patton (Eds.), Supervision in the helping professions: A


Culbreth, J. R., & Borders, L. D. (1998). Perceptions of the supervisory relationship: A

preliminary qualitative study of recovering and non-recovering substance abuse

counsellors. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15(4), 345-352.

Daniels, T. G., Rigazio DiGilio, S. A., & Ivey, A. E. (1997). MicroCounselling: A

training and supervision paradigm for the helping professions. In C. E. Watkins,

Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 277-295). New York:

Wiley.

Dennin, M. K., & Ellis, M. V. (2003). Effects of a method of self-supervision for

counsellor trainees. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 50(1), 69-83.

De Vaus, D. A. (2002). Surveys in social research. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen &

Unwin.

Dyche, L., & Zayas, L. H. (2001). Cross-cultural empathy and training the contemporary

psychotherapist. Clinical Social Work Journal, 29(3), 245-258.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high velocity environments.

Academy of Management Journal, 32(3), 543-576.

Ekstein, R., & Wallerstein, R. S. (1972). The teaching and learning of psychotherapy

(2nd ed.). New York: Basic.

Ellis, M.V. (2006). Critical incidents in clinical supervision and in supervisor

supervision: Assessing supervisory issues. Training and Education in

Professional Psychology, S(2), 122-132.

Embelton, G. (2002). Dangerous liaisons and shifting boundaries in psychoanalytic

perspectives on supervision. Supervision in an organization where counsellors

289

are a minority profession. In M. McMahon & W. Patton, (Eds.), Supervision in

the helping professions: A practical approach (pp.119-130). Frenchs Forest,


Frawley-O'Dea, M., & Sarnat, J. (2001). The supervisory relationship: A contemporary

psychodynamic approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

Fredenberger, J. J. (1977). Burn-out: The organizational menace. Training and

Development Journal, 31(7), 26-27.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright &

A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 259-269). New York: Harper & Row.

French, T., (1952). The integration of behaviour: Basic postulates. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

Friedlander, M. L., & Ward, L. G. (1984). Development and validation of the

Supervisory Styles Inventory. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 31, 542-558.

Gatmon, D., Jackson, D., Koshkarian, L., & Martos-Perry, N. (2001). Exploring ethnic,

gender, and sexual orientation variables in supervision: Do they really matter?

Journal of Multicultural Counselling and Development, 29(2), 102-114.

Grauel, T. (2002). Professional oversight: The neglected histories of supervision.

Exploring the effects of friendship quality on social development. In M.

McMahon & W. Patton (Eds.), Supervision in the helping professions: A


Grover, M. (2002). Supervision for allied health professionals. In M. McMahon & Patton

W. (Eds.), Supervision in the helping professions: A practical approach (pp.

273-283). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education.

Hart, G. M., & Nance, D. (2003). Styles of counsellor supervision as perceived by

supervisors and supervisees. Counsellor Education & Supervision, 43, 146-158.

Hawken, D., & Worrall, J. (2002). Reciprocal mentoring supervision. Partners in

Learning: A personal perspective. In M. McMahon & W. Patton (Eds.),

290

Supervision in the helping professions: A practical approach, (pp. 43-53).

Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education.

Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (1989). Supervision in the helping professions. Milton

Keynes, UK: University Press.

Holbeche, L. (1996). Peer mentoring: The challenges and opportunities. Career

Development International, 1(7). Retrieved on 10 February 2005, from ProQuest

database.

Holloway, E. L. (1987). Development models of supervision: Is it development?

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(3), 209-216.

Holloway, E. L. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Holloway, E. L., & Neufeldt, S.A. (1995). Supervision: Its contributions to treatment to

treatment efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(2), 207-

213.

Holloway, E. L., & Carroll, M. (1999). Training counselling supervisors. London: Sage

Publications.

Howie, L. M., Kennedy-Jones, M., Lentin, P., Macdonald, E., & Giffin, J. (1995).

Supervision in a group training curriculum: Reflections on experiential learning.

Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 42, 167-171.

Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (1992). The art, craft & tasks of counselling supervision:

Making the most of supervision. Portland, OR: Cascade Publications.

Itzhaky, H. (2000). The secret in supervision: An integral part of the social worker's

professional development. Families in Society, 81(5), 529-537.

Itzhaky, H., & Aloni, R. (1996). The use of deductive techniques for developing a

mechanism of coping with resistance in supervision. Clinical Supervisor, 14(1),

65-77.

Jaccard, J., & Choi K. Wan (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple

regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

291

Jones, A. (1999). Clinical supervision for professional practice. Nursing Standard, 14(9),

42-44. Retrieved September 19, 2003 from Medline database.

Kabanoff B. (1996). Computers can read as well as count: How computer-aided text

analysis can benefit organizational research. Trends in Organizational Behavior,

(3), 1-21.

Kavanagh, D. J., Bennett-Levy, J., & Crow, N. (2002). A cognitive-behavioural

approach to supervision. In M. McMahon & W. Patton (Eds.), Supervision in the

helping professions: A practical approach (pp. 313-324). Frenchs Forest,


Kennard, B. D., Stewart, S. M., & Gluck, M. R. (1987). The supervision relationship:

variables contributing to positive versus negative experiences. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(2). Retrieved on 18 July, 2004, from

EBSCOhost Computing database.

Komaki, J. L., & Desselles, M. L. (1990). Supervision re-examined: The role of monitors

and consequences. Boston: Allyn & Unwin.

Komaki, J. L., Desselles, M. L., & Bowman, E. D. (1989). Definitely not a breeze:

Extending an operant model of effective supervision to teams. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74(3), 522-529.

Kozlowska, K., Nunn, K., & Cousens, P. (1997). Training in psychiatry: An examination

of trainee perceptions. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 31(5),

628-640.

Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer

relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1),

110-132.

Krippendorff, K. (1969). Values, modes and domains of inquiry into communication.

Journal of Communication, 19(2), 105-133.

Ladany, N., Lehrman-Waterman, D., Molinaro, M., & Wolgast, B. (1999).

Psychotherapy supervisor ethical practices: Adherence to guidelines, the

292

supervisory working alliance, and supervisee satisfaction. The Counselling

Psychologist, 27, 443-475.

Ladany, N., Walker, J. A., & Melincoff, D. S. (2001). Supervisory style: Its relation to

the supervisory working alliance and supervisor self-disclosure. Counsellor

Education and Supervision, 40, 263-275.

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A theory and a methodology for

personality evaluation. New York: Ronald Press.

Littrell, J. M., Lee-Borden, N., & Lorenz, J. A. (1979). A developmental framework for

Counselling supervision. Counsellor Education and Supervision, 19, 119-136.

Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model.

Counselling Psychologist, 10, 3-42.

Lowe, R. (2000). Supervising self-supervision: Constructive inquiry and embedded

narratives in case consultation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 511-

521.

Lowe, R., & Guy, G. (2002). Solution-oriented inquiry for ongoing supervision:

Expanding the horizon for change. In M. McMahon & W. Patton (Eds.),

Supervision in the helping professions: A practical approach (pp. 143-155).

Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education.

Mackenzie, K. D., & House, R. (1979). Paradigm Development in the social sciences

in Research organisations: Issues and controversies. Santa Monica: Goodyear

Publishing.

Macquarie dictionary (2nd ed.). (1992). Australia: The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd.

Magnuson, S., Wilcoxon, S. A., & Norem, K. (2000). A profile of lousy supervision:

Experienced counsellors’ perspectives. Counsellor Education and Supervision,

39(3). Retrieved 18 July 2004, from EBSCOhost Computing Database.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

293

McBurney, D. H. (1997). Research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Brooks/Cole

Publishing Company.

McMahon, M. (2002). Supervision by email: An option for school guidance and

counselling personnel. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 12, 1-

10.

McMahon, M., & Patton, W. (2000). Conversations on clinical supervision: Benefits

perceived by school counsellors. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling,

28(3), 339-351.

McMahon, M., & Patton, W. (2001). Clinical supervision: The perceptions and

experiences of school counsellors in Australia. International Journal for the

Advancement of Counselling, 23, 201-214.

McMahon, M., & Patton, W. (Eds.), (2002). Supervision in the helping professions: A

practical approach. Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education.

McNeill, B. W., Stoltenberg, C. D., & Pierce, R. A. (1985). Supervisee's perceptions of

their development: A test of the counsellor complexity model. Journal of

Counselling Psychology, 32, 630-633.

Milne, D. L., & James, I. A. (2002). The observed impact of training on competence in

clinical supervision. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 55-72.

Morris, C. (2001). Student supervision: Risky business? International Journal of

Language and Communication Disorders, 36, 156-161.

Morton, T., Alexander, C., & Altman, I. (1976). Communication and relationship

definition. In G. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp.

105-125). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Moskowitz, S. A., & Rupert, P. A. (1983). Conflict resolution within the supervisory

relationship. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 632-641.

Mueller, W. J., & Kell, B. L. (1972). Coping with conflict: Supervising counsellors and

therapists. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

294

Nelson, M. D., & Johnson, P. (1999). School counsellors as supervisors: An integrated

approach for supervising school Counselling interns. Counsellor Education and

Supervision, 39(2), 89-100.

Newman, J., & Lovell, M. (1993). A description of a supervisory group for group

counsellors. Counsellor Education and Supervision, 33(1), 22-31.

Nutt-Williams, E., Judge, A. B., Hill, C. E., & Hoffman, M. A. (1997). Experiences of

novice therapists in prepracticum: Trainees’, clients’ and supervisors’

perceptions of therapists’ personal reactions and management strategies. Journal

of Counselling Psychology, 44(4), 390-399.

O’Donovan, A., Dyck, & M., Bain, J. D. (2001). Trainees’ experience of postgraduate

clinical training. Australian Psychologist, 36(2), 149-156.

Ogren, M-L., Apelman, A., & Klawitter, M. (2001). The group in psychotherapy

supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 20(2), 147-175.

Ogrodniczuk, J. S., Piper, W. E., & Joyce, A. S. (2004). Differences in men’s and

women’s responses to short-term group psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research,

14(2), 231-243.

Page, S., & Wosket, V. (2001). Supervising the counsellor: A cyclical model. New York:

Brunner-Routledge.

Patterson, C. H. (1986). Theories of counselling and psychotherapy. New York: Harper

and Row.

Poulin, K. L. (1994). Towards a grounded pedagogy of practice: A dimensional analysis

of Counselling supervision. Dissertation Abstracts International, B5, (09), 4931.

Power, B., & Perry, C. (2002). True confessions of student teaching supervisors (Vol.

83). Bloomington, IL: Phi Delta Kappan.

Proctor, B. (1994). Supervision-competence, confidence, accountability. British Journal

of Guidance and Counselling, 22, 309-318.

295

Psychologists’ Board of Queensland. (2005). Supervision guidelines: Supervised

practice program. Interim guidelines for probationary registrants and

supervisors. Brisbane, Australia: Author.

Putney, M. W., Worthington, E. L., & McCullough, M. E. (1992). Effects of supervisor

and supervisee theoretical orientation and supervisor-supervisee matching on

interns' perceptions of supervision. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 39(2).

Retrieved on 18 July, 2004, from EBSCOhost Computing Database.

Queensland Counsellors’ Association. (2003). Supervision guidelines. Retrieved on 23

March, 2004 from http://www.qca.asn.au/supervision/supervisionguidelines.php

Ramos-Sánchez, L., Esnil, E., Goodwin, A., Riggs, S., Osachy Touster, L., Wright, L.K.,

Ratanasiripong, P., et al. (2002). Negative supervisory events: Effects on

supervision satisfaction and supervisory alliance. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 33(2). Retrieved on 18 July, 2004, from EBSCOhost

Computing database.

Ray, D., & Altekruse, M. (2000). Effectiveness of group supervision versus combined

group and individual supervision. Counsellor Education and Supervision, 40(1),

19-30.

Reising, G. N., & Daniels, M. H. (1983). A study of Hogan's model of counsellor

development and supervision. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 30, 235-244.

Remley, T. P., Benshoff, J. M., & Mowbray, C. (1987). A proposed model for peer

supervision. Counsellor Education and Supervision, 15, 53-60.

Richards, L., & Richards, T. (1989). The impact of computer techniques for qualitative

data analysis. Technical report, La Trobe University, Department of Computer

Science, Melbourne, Australia.

Robbins, P. (1991). How to plan and implement a peer coaching program. Alexandria,

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

296

Roberts, W. B., Morotti, A. A., Herrick, C., & Tilbury, R. (2001). Site supervisors of

professional school Counselling interns: Suggested guidelines. Professional

School Counselling, 4(3), 208 – 215.

Robiner, W. N. (1987). An experimental inquiry into transference roles and age.

Psychology and Aging, 2(3), 306-311.

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ross, R. P., & Goh, D. S. (1993). Participating in supervision in school psychology: A

national survey of practices and training. School Psychology Review, 22(1), 63-

81.

Sanders Thompson, V. L., Bazile, A., & Akbar, M. (2004). African Americans’

perceptions of psychotherapy and psychotherapists. Professional Psychology,

35(1), 19-27.

Saunders, J. L., & Peck, S. L. (2001). The code of professional ethics for rehabilitation

counsellors: The administrator and supervisor perspective. Journal of Applied

Rehabilitation Counselling, 32(4), 20-26.

Schofield, M. J., & Pelling, N. (2002). Supervision of counsellors. In M. McMahon &

W. Patton (Eds.), Supervision in the helping professions: A practical approach

(pp. 211-222). Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education.

Scott, K. J., Ingram, K. M., Vitanza, S. A., & Smith, N. G. (2000). Training in

supervision: A survey of current practices. Counselling Psychologist, 28(3), 403-

422.

Segesten, K. (1993). The effects of professional group supervision of nurses: Utilising

the nurse self description form. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 7(2),

101-104.

Severinsson, E. I., & Hallberg, I. R. (1996). Systematic clinical supervision, working

milieu and influence over duties: The psychiatric nurse’s viewpoint – A pilot

study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 33(4), 394-406.

297

Sharf, R. S. (1996). Theories of psychotherapy and counselling. Pacific Grove, CA:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Skovholt, T. M., & Ronnestad, M. H. (1992). The evolving professional self: Stages and

themes in therapist and counsellor development. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Smaby, M. H., Harrison, & T. C., Maddux, C. (1996). Outcome-based consultation for

supervisors. Consulting Psychology Journal, 48(1). Retrieved on 24 July, 2004,

from EBSCOhost Computing database.

Spence, S. H., Wilson, J., Kavanagh, D., Strong, J., & Worrall, L. (2001). Clinical

supervision in four mental health professions: A review of the evidence.

Behaviour Change, 18(3), 135-155.

Spouse, J., & Redfern, L. (2000). Successful supervision in health care practice:

Promoting professional development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Stebnicki, M. A., & Glover, N. M. (2001). E-Supervision as a complementary approach

to traditional face-to-face clinical supervision in rehabilitation: Problems and

solutions. Rehabilitation Education, 15(3), 283-293.

Steketee, G., Chambless, D. L., & Tran, G. Q. (2001). Effects of axis I and II

comorbidity on behaviour therapy outcomes for obsessive-compulsive disorder

and agoraphobia. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 42(1), 76-86.

Steward, R. J., Breland, A., & Neil, D. (2001). Novice supervisees’ self-evaluations and

their perceptions of supervisor style. Journal of Counsellor Education and

Supervision, 41(2), 131-142.

Stoltenberg, C. D. (1981). Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective:

The counsellor-complexity model. Journal of Counselling Psychologists, 28, 59-

65.

Stoltenberg, C. D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counsellors and therapists. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

298

Stoltenberg, C. D., & Delworth, U. (1988). Developmental models of supervision: It is

development - Response to Holloway. Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, 19, 134-137.

Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B., & Delworth, U. (1988). IDM supervision: An integrated

model for supervising counsellors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., & Smith, M. S. (1966). The general inquirer: A computer

approach to content analysis. Boston: MIT Press.

Strauss, A. L. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sullivan, S., & Glanz, J. (1999). Supervision that improves teaching: Strategies and

techniques. Pacific Grove, CA: Corwin Press.

Supervisor Solutions. (2002). Retrieved on 24 September 2005, from

https://olt.qut.edu.au/udf/supervisorsolutions/index.cfm?fa=dispHomePage

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper

Collins Publishers.

Tracey, T. J., Ellickson, J., & Sherry, P. (1989). Reactance in relation to different

supervisory environments and counsellor development. Journal of Counselling

Psychology, 36, 336-344.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological

Bulletin, 63, 384-399.

Ung, K. (2002). The complex and diverse landscape of agency and external supervision.

In M. McMahon & W. Patton (Eds.), Supervision in the helping professions: A


Verbyla, D. (2002). Ethics. In Psych, 24, 19.

Vespia, K. M., Heckman-Stone, C., & Delworth, U. (2002). Describing and facilitating

effective supervision behaviour in counselling trainees. Psychotherapy: Theory,

Research, Practice, and Training, 39(1), 56-65.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

299

Wampold, B.E., & Holloway, E.L. (1997). Methodology, design and evaluation in

psychotherapy supervision research. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Ward, L. G., Friedlander, M. L., Schoen, L. G., & Klein, J. G. (1985). Strategic self-

presentation in Counselling. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 32, 111-118.

Watkins, Jr., C. E. (1995). Psychotherapy supervision in the 1990’s: Some observations

and reflections. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 49(4), 568-582.

Watkins Jr., C. E. (Ed.). (1997). Handbook of psychotherapy supervision. New York:

Wiley.

Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., & Archer, Jr., J. (2004). Male-restricted emotionality and

counselling supervision. Journal of Counselling and Development, 82, 91-98.

Wheeler, S., & King, D. (2000). Do counselling supervisors want or need to have

supervision supervised? An exploratory study. British Journal of Guidance and

Counselling, 28(2), 279-290.

Whitman, S. (2001). Teaching residents to use supervision effectively. Academic

Psychiatry, 25(3). Retrieved on 19 July, 2004, from ProQuest Computing

database.

Wiley, M., & Ray, P. (1986). Counselling supervision by developmental level. Journal

of Counselling Psychology, 33, 439-445.

Wolkenfeld, F. (1990). The parallel process phenomenon revisited: Some additional

thoughts about the supervisory process. In R. C. Lane (Ed.), Psychoanalytic

approaches to supervision (pp. 95 – 112). New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.

Worthington, E. L., Jr, & Stern, A. (1985). Effects of supervisor and supervisee degree

level and gender on the supervisory relationship. Journal of Counselling

Psychology, 32, 252-262.

Worthington, E. L., Jr. (2006). Changes in supervision as counselors and supervisors

gain experience: A review. Training and Education in Professional Psychology,

S(2), 133-160.

300

Appendix A An Overview of Supervision Research over the Last Two Decades

Authors Year Aim Methodology Measure/Scale N Population

Kennard, Stewart, & Gluck

1987 To investigate mitigating variables between supervisor and supervisees that contribute to positive and negative experiences in psychotherapy.

Post-test, cross-sectional study. Quantitative research. Inferential data analyses.

Self-report questionnaire (6-point scale) that assessed the students’ perceptions of supervisors’ behavioural style (e.g. supportive, directive, interpretative, instructional and confrontational), and supervisors’ perceptions of student behaviours (such as conscientiousness, commitment, availability, likeability, flexibility, etc). Both groups also provided an overall rating of the quality of the experience.

26 47

Clinical psychology graduate students who had participated in supervision during their studies. Supervisors, who had provided the supervisees with supervision during their studies.

Komaki, Desselles, & Bowman

1989 What team leaders need to do to create an optimal team performance.

Tested the expanded effective supervision model, real experiment (an American sailboat regatta). Method included observer training, random-observer assignment, observational procedures, and averaged scoring.

Operant Supervisory Team Taxonomy and Index to assess the impact of performance monitoring, performance consequences, team coordination, and the categories of antecedents, nonperformance or work-related and not interacting on Supervision practices.

19 36 11 4

Skippers Crew Members Observers Coaching staff

Gatmon, Jackson, Koshkarian, & Martos-Perry

2001

An investigation of cultural variables in supervision and their influence on supervisory satisfaction and working alliance.

Cross-sectional study with quantitative and qualitative data. Inferential data analyses.

The Working Alliance Inventory (36-items), The Supervision Questionnaire-Revised (3-items), cultural variable questions and demographic questions.

289 American Postdoctoral psychology interns

301


Putney, Worthington, & McCullough

1992 Effects of supervisor and supervisee theoretical orientations on supervisees’ perceptions of supervisors’ models, roles and foci. As well as variables impacting on the quality of supervision, and supervisee autonomy.

Cross-sectional study. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected. Inferential data analyses.

Biographical Information. Supervisor data sheet (including questions on theoretical orientation, strength of orientation, number of interns, number of years of post-doctoral therapy experience, formal supervision training, and questions on autonomy). Supervision Questionnaire Revised. Supervisor Role Questionnaire. Supervisor Focus Questionnaire. Supervisor Effectiveness Questionnaire.

84

Interns recruited from APA internship training sites across America who were mostly clinical psychology or counselling psychology graduates.

Ross & Goh

1993 Conducted a national survey of School Psychology practices and training in America.

Cross-sectional study. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected. Descriptive data analyses.

Self-report questionnaire (questions were aimed at eliciting information about the beneficial effects of supervision, their level of supervision training, rating of supervision training, need for training, and methods of supervision e.g., setting goals, modelling, didactic etc.).

331 School psychologist supervisors.

Segesten

1993 Effects of professional group supervision.

Longitudinal (T1-T2 = 4 months) experiment with a self-report questionnaire. Inferential data analyses.

Nurses Self Description Form Nurses (21 items).

25 Orthopedic Nurses (Sweden)

302


Severinsson & Hallberg 1996 Perceptions of the effectiveness of clinical supervision on psychiatric health care

Longitudinal (T1-T2 = 15 months), experiment (2 samples) with structured interviews, 62-item questionnaire. Inferential data analyses.

Views on supervision effectiveness, working milieu and influence over duties.

26 Nurses (Sweden)

Howie, Kennedy-Jones, Lentin, Macdonald, & Giffin

1995 Supervision of occupational therapy educators in a group training curriculum

Expert panel and focus groups. Descriptive data analyses.

Examined motivation to seek supervision and explored surrounding issues.

5 University lecturers in Occupational Therapy (Australia)

Kozlowska, Nunn & Cousens

1997 To probe trainee perceptions of the consultant-trainee relationship.

Cross-sectional study with a self-report questionnaire. Inferential data analyses.

Training Impact Questionnaire 138 Psychiatrist registrars (Australia)

Nutt -Williams, Judge, Hill, & Hoffman

1997 An investigation of trainees’, clients’ and supervisors’ perceptions of trainee’s personal reactions and management strategies during counselling sessions.

Longitudinal experiment with qualitative and quantitative data. Each trainee completed between 9 and 11 sessions. Inferential data analyses.

Demographic information, trainee post session measure (open-ended questionnaire to assess trainees’ reactions to the counselling sessions and strategies used to manage the reactions), Client post session questionnaire, supervisor post session questionnaire (evaluation of the trainee), Counselling Self-Estimate Inventory (37 items), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (20 items), Counter-transference Factors Inventory (50 items) and the Supervisors Report (25-item).

7 30

Prepracticum trainees in a doctoral counselling psychology programme. Volunteer clients who were studying introductory psychology courses and received credit for their participation. However they were unaware of the

303


7

nature of the study and could only participate if they had genuine concerns. Peer supervisors who were advanced graduate students in the same doctoral training program as the trainees. This included two of the authors of the study.

Culbreth & Borders

1998 Exploration of counsellors’ perceptions of the supervisory relationship, variables of supervisor style, social influence, working alliance, and relationship core conditions.

Cross-sectional study with qualitative/narrative data from structured interviews (of 30 minutes duration). Descriptive data analyses.

Interview questions were guided by the following instruments: Supervisory Style Inventory, Supervisor Rating Form-Shortened version, Working Alliance Inventory, Supervisors Style Inventory, the Barrett-Lennard Relationships Inventory. Other questions were asked about overall satisfaction, supervisor’s competence and the contribution to their professional growth.

5 Substance Abuse Counsellors working in outpatient and inpatient settings in America.

Magnuson, Wilcoxen, & Norem

2000 To investigate ways clinical supervision can influence nurses and mental health workers ethical decision-making in the home care of people with mental illness in Sweden.

Cross-sectional study yielding qualitative and quantitative data. Descriptive and correlational techniques. Descriptive data analyses.

Self-report questionnaires including demographical questions, questions from research on ethical issues (such as relationships, security, invitation, privacy, and intrusion and trust) and questions regarding the influence of clinical supervision on these ethical issues.

660 District nurses, psychiatric nurses and mental health workers.

304


McMahon & Patton 2000 Australian school guidance counsellors’ perceptions of clinical supervision.

Cross-sectional study with qualitative data from focus group interviews using teleconference call facilities. Descriptive data analyses.

The interviews were transcribed and analysed.

51

School guidance counsellors (supervised and unsupervised) and Senior guidance counsellors

Ray & Altekruse

2000 Effectiveness of group supervision versus combined group supervision and individual supervision.

Longitudinal (T1-T2 = 16 weeks) experiment. Inferential data analyses.

Counsellor Rating Form – short version (1983). Supervisee Levels Questionnaire-Revised (1992). Videotapes of client sessions.

64 Master of Counsellor Education students (America) Plus, Supervisors Clients 3 Raters

Scott, Ingram, Vitanza, & Smith

2000 Study investigated trends in supervision training in American psychology doctoral and predoctoral internships.

Cross-sectional study with qualitative and quantitative data. Inferential data analyses

Survey booklet including questions pertaining to the academic programme, internship site, specific teaching methods, methods of evaluation, who provides training, months of supervision and how many trainees are supervised by the student conducting supervision. In addition, questions yielded opinions about the importance of training in clinical supervision and the impact of changes in the health care profession on that importance.

256 432

Programme Directors from counselling psychology, clinical psychology and combined professional-scientific psychology programmes. Training directors from APA-accredited pre-doctoral psychology internship programmes.

305


Wheeler & King

2000 To obtain information about how supervision for supervision is viewed and practised by members of the British Association for Counselling.

Cross-sectional study with self-report measure (20 questions). Descriptive data analyses.

Questions pertained to the experience of supervision of supervisors for example, helpfulness, general importance, ethical importance, and desirability of supervision for supervision.

81 Accredited and non-accredited Counselling Supervisors in the United Kingdom

Ladany, Walker, & Melincoff

2001 The relationship between supervisor perceptions of supervisory style and the supervision process specifically, working alliance and supervisor self-disclosure.

Longitudinal (Median = 12 weeks) experiment. Evaluation methods included self-reports, case notes, audiotapes, videotapes and live observation. Inferential data analyses.

Supervisory Style Inventory (33 items) Working Alliance Inventory Supervision Version (36 items) Supervisor Self-Disclosure Inventory (9 items) Demographic Questionnaire (supervisor’s age, sex, race, degree, hours with supervisee per week, methods of supervision etc).

137 137

Psychology supervisors with doctorate or masters. Trainees in counselling education, counselling psychology or clinical psychology programs at varying levels of their courses (e.g. beginning level, advanced level etc). Trainees had been meeting with their supervisors for at least 2 months.

McMahon & Patton

2001 An investigation of the experiences of clinical supervision of School Counsellors.

Cross-sectional study and focus groups. Qualitative and quantitative data. Descriptive data analyses.

Self-report questionnaire eliciting geographic and demographic information. As well as the perceptions and experiences of the guidance counsellors regarding their experiences of clinical supervision (for example, how important is supervision and why, what are your supervision needs, how could these needs to be met and whose responsibility is it to meet them etc.).

227 43

Guidance counsellors (all registered teachers with postgraduate qualifications in guidance and counselling) participated in the self-report questionnaire. Of these guidance counsellors participated in the focus groups.

306


O’Donovan, Dyck, & Bain

2001 Student perceptions of clinical psychology training and supervision.

Cross-sectional study with semi-structured interviews. Descriptive data analyses.

Discussing training satisfaction, effectiveness of course design, supervision effectiveness (supervisor and supervisees characteristics) and professional issues.

16 2nd and/or 4th year Masters and Doctorate Psychology students (Australia)

Ogren, Apelman, & Klawitter

2001 Explored the dynamics and significance of the group in psychotherapy supervision.

Cross-sectional study with two sub-studies. Qualitative and quantitative data was collected. Sub-study 1: Semi-structured interviews (n = 12 students) qualitative and quantitative initial assessments of supervision group experiences. Sub-study 2: A qualitative questionnaire was completed by all supervisors Data analyses not provided.

Group climate ratings (7-items) Competence Assessments (22- items) A description of the four group climates (as had emerged from the first study) and open-ended questions

98 10

Psychology supervisees Supervisors

307


Steward, Breland, & Neil

2001 Investigated supervisees’ perceptions of supervision and its impact on counselling competency.

Cross-sectional study with quantitative data. Descriptive data analyses.

The Evaluation of Counsellor Behaviours-Long Form (50-items), and The Supervisory Styles Inventory (33 items).

36 18

Masters-level counselling supervisees Supervisors (doctoral-level students, doctoral teaching assistants and senior faculty members).

Milne & James

2002 Compared the impact and effect of routine training (consultancy) and routine training with feedback on clinical supervision competence and satisfaction in the United Kingdom.

Longitudinal experiment with qualitative and quantitative data. Descriptive data analyses.

Videotaping and assessment using an observational instrument titled “Teachers PETS (Process Evaluation of Teaching and Supervision)” and the Supervision Feedback form (12-items).

1 6

Supervisor (clinical psychologist) Mental Health Professionals (including a psychiatrist, a qualified GP, and nurses)

Ramos-Sanchez, Esnil, Goodwin, Riggs, Touster, Wright, Rutanasiripong, & Rodolfa

2002 An investigation of the interrelationships between supervisee development, supervisory working alliance, trainee attachment style and negative supervisory.

Cross-sectional study. Qualitative and quantitative data. Inferential data analyses.

Self-report questionnaire eliciting demographic data, negative events in supervision, satisfaction with supervision, supervisory working alliance (measured by the Relationship Questionnaire) and supervisee development level (measured by the Supervisee Level Questionnaire revised) examining self-awareness, motivation, dependency/autonomy.

126 American psychology intern and graduate students.

Vespia, Heckman-Stone, Delworth

2002 1). To define effective supervisee behaviour from both supervisee and supervisor perspectives.

Cross-sectional study. Qualitative and quantitative data. Scale development.

Demographic questions and the SURF (Supervision Utilization Rating Form, 52-items) yielding information about proaction, feedback, listening skills, willingness to grow, asking appropriate questions, collaboration, skills and

145

American counselling psychology graduate students at varying stages of practicum (beginning through to advanced).

308


2). To develop an evaluative scale (SURF) to assess effective use of supervision at specific developmental training levels.

Inferential data analyses.

ethics etc.).

31

Counselling centre supervisors all with doctorates. Some were clinical psychologists.

Hart & Nance 2003 An evaluation supervisor and supervisee preferences for 4 styles of counsellor supervision and the perceived frequency of style usage.

Longitudinal (T1-T2 = 10 weeks) experiment with quantitative and qualitative data. Descriptive data analyses.

Supervisory Styles Inventory, and an ipsative method to determine preference of supervision style (e.g. directive teacher, supportive teacher, counsellor, and consultant).

90 168

American doctoral student supervisors American master’s-degree student supervisees.

Wester, Vogel, & Archer, Jr.

2004

To determine if male supervisees employ defensive styles to cope with socialised restricted emotionality and to assess the impact of the sex of the supervisor on this behaviour.

Cross-sectional study. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected. Descriptive data analyses.

Self-report questionnaires including demographical data, the Gender Role Conflict Scale, the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory – trainee version, and the Counselling Self-estimate Inventory.

103 Male psychology students at PhD, doctorate and masters levels working in American postdoctoral and internship centres.

309 Appendix B Questionnaire 1

Australian Supervision Quality Project Survey

If you are currently undergoing professional supervision….

Your comments are NEEDED!

QUT is embarking on a review of the professional supervision practices in Australia. The project is charged with gathering (1) the opinions of the Australian professionals who are members of professional bodies that require supervision as part of their conditions, (2) their experiences, and (3) the issues that need to be raised with professional bodies. This is not a commercial exercise and your details will not be used for any purpose other than research.We would like to explore some of the opportunities for the future and assess the current state of supervision. Brief: The questions are related to your supervision experience, role, delivery and needs. Your opinion is greatly valued and your input is important to building research into this poorly understood process. Please read each question twice before you answer. Where directed please select the answer that best suits the response for you. Mark your response on the answer relating to the question with a “yes or no” or on the scale of “1 to 5”. Please also write your comments in the spaces provided as your personal experiences are very important to us. All details will remain confidential and the results are likely to form the basis of a series of research papers into (1) the current configuration of supervision, (2) drivers of effective supervision, and (3) the outcomes of effective supervision. Your comments are really important to us and we appreciate the time you spend giving us feedback. SURVEY GROUP: Please Tick a in the box below: Practising Ambulance Officer 1 Practising Lawyer (incl. Solicitor, Barrister) 7 Accredited CPA 2 Practising Medical Doctor 8 Practising Business Consultant 3 Registered Nurse (incl. Level I/II +) 9 Registered ACA member 4 Registered Occupational Therapist 10 Practising Health & Safety Officer 5 Practising Psychologist 11

Practising Financial Adviser 6 Practising Radiographer 12

Other (please specify) ………………………………...………….………………………… 13

Please indicate your sub-discipline here (e.g., obstetrics nursing): ……………………………… NAME:……………………………………………ORGANISATION:………………………………… Return in the reply paid envelope to: ASQ, PO Box 212, The Gap Q. 4061, Aust.

310

Part A - Your Professional Supervision Arrangement Please describe your professional supervision arrangements here. 1. Are you currently involved in professional supervision? 1 Yes 2 No (incl. ‘on hold’) 2. What is your role? 1 Supervisor 2 Supervisee 3 Other 3. Is this a mixed gender arrangement (e.g., Female/Male)? 1 Yes 2 No 4. What is the arrangement? 1 One To One 2 One to Two 3 Other 5. How was supervision arranged?

1 Work initiative/requirement 2 Association/Body initiative (e.g., function/event/meeting)

3 Supervisor contacted from professional list 4 Supervisor contact through friend 5 Supervisee is a friend/acquaintance 6 Supervisor offer to group of supervisees 7 Other

6. For your work/Association, how is a supervisor determined (check all that apply)? a Volunteering f Years of Professional membership b Qualifications g Level of Professional membership c Location h Years of Experience

d Field of expertise i Selection/Testing by Association e Other

7. How do you meet?

1 Face - Face (work hours) 3 Phone (work hours) 2 Face - Face (after work) 4 Phone (after work) 5 Other 8. Do you meet…

1 Regularly 3 Sporadically (when convenient to all) 2 Supervisee decides 4 Supervisor decides 5 Other

9. Does the supervisee pay ‘in kind’ to be supervised?

1 No 2 Yes, works as ‘understudy’ for <$20/hour 4 Yes, Nominal payment (<$60/hour) 3 Yes, Fixed payment ($60+/hour)

5 Other 10. Please try to estimate how often you have supervision?

1 Daily 4 2-4 times/week 7 Weekly 9 Fortnightly 2 Monthly 5 Bi-monthly 8 Quarterly 10 Half yearly 3 Yearly 6 Other

If you selected “Other” to any of the above please describe your situation here:

311

Part B - The Supervision process (your understanding) Please tell us your views of supervision here. 11. How do you define the term ‘Supervision’? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

12. What do you hope to get out of the supervision arrangements (i.e., outcomes)? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

13. What are you willing to put into the supervision to get these outcomes? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Part C - Shared understanding If you are a supervisor with more than one supervisee please rate your most attentive supervisee 14. Please look at your definition of supervision (part B) again and indicate whether your supervisee/supervisor seems to share the same definition as you.

1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes 4 Don’t Know 15. Do you feel that you are on the same wavelength as your supervisor-supervisee?

1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes

16. Are you comfortable with your supervisor-supervisee?

1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes

17. Do you feel that your supervision is helpful? 1 Yes 2 No 3 Sometimes If you selected “No” or “Sometimes” to any of the above please provide more information here: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

312

Part D - Preparation (for SUPERVISEES only) Please tell us how much preparation you were given for supervision. How much of the following did you get PRIOR to commencing supervision arrangements?

Grounding in Supervision prior to commencement

A lot was

given

Some was

given

None at all NA

18 Association/Body seminar or training 1 2 3 na

19 Association/Body reading materials 1 2 3 na

20 In-house work/occupational seminar or training 1 2 3 na

21 In-house work/occupational reading materials 1 2 3 na

22 University work/occupational seminar or training 1 2 3 na

23 University work/occupational reading materials 1 2 3 na

24 Supervisor spent time clarifying goals 1 2 3 na

25 Supervisor spent time clarifying roles 1 2 3 na

26 Time spent developing a supervision contract (together with my supervisor)

1 2 3 na

313

Part E - Preparation (for SUPERVISORS only) Please tell us how much preparation you were given for supervision. 27. What support materials did your Association/Body give you to prepare you for supervision? _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Part F - Additional 28. Are there any other comments you would like to make? If so, please note them here: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Thank you for your time and support. Please make sure you have completed the survey group question (on the front page) to help us make sure we are separating the views of different professionals and different supervision arrangements. If you would like the opportunity to have further feedback, please also place your name and organization in the space provided on the front page. Thank you once again for your support in this important issue.

314 Appendix C Questionnaire 2

Australian Supervision Quality 2 Project Survey



QUT is continuing its review of the professional supervision practices in Australia. The project is charged with gathering (1) the opinions of the Australian professionals who are members of professional bodies that require supervision as part of their conditions, (2) their experiences, and (3) the issues that need to be raised with professional bodies. This is not a commercial exercise and your details will not be used for any purpose other than research.We would like to explore some of the opportunities for the future and assess the current state of supervision. Brief: The questions are related to your supervision experience, role, delivery and needs. Your opinion is greatly valued and your input is important to building research into this poorly understood process. Please read each question twice before you answer. Where directed please select the answer that best suits the response for you. Mark your response on the answer relating to the question with a “yes or no” or on the scale of “1 to 5”. Please also write your comments in the spaces provided as your personal experiences are very important to us. All details will remain confidential and the results are likely to form the basis of a series of research papers into (1) the current configuration of supervision, (2) drivers of effective supervision, and (3) the outcomes of effective supervision. Your comments are really important to us and we appreciate the time you spend giving us feedback. SURVEY GROUP: Please Tick a in the box below: Practising Ambulance Officer 1 Practising Lawyer (incl. Solicitor, Barrister) 7 Accredited CPA 2 Practising Medical Doctor 8 Practising Business Consultant 3 Registered Nurse (incl. Level I/II +) 9 Registered ACA member 4 Registered Occupational Therapist 10 Practising Health & Safety Officer 5 Practising Psychologist 11


Other (please specify) ………………………………...………….…………………………… 13

Please indicate your sub-discipline here (e.g., obstetrics nursing): ………………………………… NAME:……………………………………………ORGANISATION:………………………………… Return in the reply paid envelope to: ASQ, PO Box 212, The Gap Q. 4061, Aust.

315

Part A - Your Professional Supervision Arrangement Please describe your professional supervision over the last 6 months. 1. Are you currently involved in professional supervision? 1 Yes 2 No (incl. ‘on hold’) 2. What is your role?

1 Supervisor 2 Supervisee 3 Other 3. Is this a mixed gender arrangement (e.g., Female/Male)? 1 Yes 2 No 4. How do you typically meet?

1 Face - Face (work hours) 5 Phone (work hours) 2 Face - Face (after work) 6 Phone (after work)

3 Email 7 Group meeting (with 2+ supervisees) 4 Other (Please describe) ____________________________

5. Do you meet…

1 Regularly 3 Sporadically (when convenient to all) 2 Supervisee decides 4 Supervisor decides 5 Other

6. Please try to estimate how often you have supervision?



7. How do you define the term ‘Supervision’?

8. Please describe the role of the supervisor as part of your meetings?

9. Are you happy with how the supervision has progressed over the last 6 months?

1 Very Happy 2 Happy 3 Neutral 4 Unhappy 5 Very Unhappy

316

Part B - The Supervisor’s Role Please tell us your views of the supervisor’s role here. 10. Which of the following are skills you expect the supervisor to teach you?

Critical skills for the Supervisor to teach

Critical Very Important Important Useful Not

Useful NA

A Counselling 1 2 3 4 5 na

B Case experience 1 2 3 4 5 na

C Professional experience 1 2 3 4 5 na

D Emotional awareness 1 2 3 4 5 na

E Ability to Self-evaluate 1 2 3 4 5 na

F Listening skills 1 2 3 4 5 na

G How to apply theory to cases 1 2 3 4 5 na

H Ethical issues facing practitiioners

1 2 3 4 5 na

I How to reflect of own cognitions

1 2 3 4 5 na

J Understanding own limits 1 2 3 4 5 na

11. How often does the supervisor engage in the following? If you are the supervisor please fill this in on yourself. Supervisor’s focus

Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never NA

A Counselling 1 2 3 4 5 na

B Case experience 1 2 3 4 5 na

C Professional experience 1 2 3 4 5 na

D Emotional awareness 1 2 3 4 5 na

E Ability to Self-evaluate 1 2 3 4 5 na

F Listening skills 1 2 3 4 5 na

G How to apply theory to cases 1 2 3 4 5 na

H Ethical issues facing practitiioners

1 2 3 4 5 na

I How to reflect of own cognitions

1 2 3 4 5 na

J Understanding own limits 1 2 3 4 5 na

317

12. Please rate the supervisor on the frequency they use the following modes of interaction

13. Which of the following supervisor characteristics do you perceive to be their strengths?

Part C - Additional 14. Are there any other comments you would like to make? If so, please note them here:

Thank you for your time and support. Please make sure you have completed the survey group question (on the front page) to help us make sure we are separating the views of different professionals and different supervision arrangements. If you would like the opportunity to have further feedback, please also place your name and organization in the space provided on the front page. Thank you once again for your support in this important issue.

Supervisor Mode Very Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never NA

A Monitoring/Evaluating Supervisee

1 2 3 4 5 na

B Advising/instructing Supervisee 1 2 3 4 5 na

C Modelling to Supervisee 1 2 3 4 5 na

D Consulting with Supervisee 1 2 3 4 5 na

E Supporting/Sharing with Supervisee

1 2 3 4 5 na

F Missing Appointments 1 2 3 4 5 na

G Making Inappropriate Comments

1 2 3 4 5 na

H Getting sidetracked 1 2 3 4 5 na

I Talking about self rather than focussing on supervisee’s experiences

1 2 3 4 5 na

Supervisor Characteristics

Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree NA

A Professional experience in supervision

1 2 3 4 5 na

B Professional experience in counselling

1 2 3 4 5 na

C Supervision Style 1 2 3 4 5 na

D Theoretical orientation to counselling

1 2 3 4 5 na

E Presentation 1 2 3 4 5 na

F Social and Moral values 1 2 3 4 5 na

318

Appendix D Questionnaire 3

Australian Supervision Quality 3 Project Survey



QUT is continuing its review of the professional supervision practices in Australia. The project is charged with gathering (1) the opinions of the Australian professionals who are members of professional bodies that require supervision as part of their conditions, (2) their experiences, and (3) the issues that need to be raised with professional bodies. This is not a commercial exercise and your details will not be used for any purpose other than research. We would like to explore some of the opportunities for the future and assess the current state of supervision in Australia. Brief: The questions are related to your supervision experience, role, delivery and needs. Your opinion is greatly valued and your input is important to building research into this poorly understood process. Please read each question twice before you answer. Where directed please select the answer that best suits the response for you. Mark your response on the answer relating to the question with a “yes or no” or on the scale of “1 to 5”. Please also write your comments in the spaces provided as your personal experiences are very important to us. All details will remain confidential and the results are likely to form the basis of a series of research papers into (1) the current configuration of supervision, (2) drivers of effective supervision, and (3) the outcomes of effective supervision. Your comments are really important to us and we appreciate the time you spend giving us feedback. SURVEY GROUP: Please Tick a in the box below: Practising Ambulance Officer 1 Practising Lawyer (incl. Solicitor, Barrister) 7 Accredited CPA 2 Practising Medical Doctor 8 Practising Business Consultant 3 Registered Nurse (incl. Level I/II +) 9 Registered ACA member 4 Registered Occupational Therapist 10 Practising Health & Safety Officer 5 Practising Psychologist 11


Other (please specify) ………………………………...………….…………………………… 13

Please indicate your sub-discipline here (e.g., obstetrics nursing): …………………………………… NAME:……………………………………………ORGANISATION:………………………………… Return in the reply paid envelope to: ASQ, PO Box 212, The Gap Q. 4061, Aust.

319

Part A - Your Professional Supervision Arrangement Please describe your professional supervision over the last 6 months. 1. Are you currently involved in professional supervision? 1 Yes 2 No (incl. ‘on hold’) 2. What is your role? 1 Supervisor 2 Supervisee 3 Other 3. Is this a mixed gender arrangement (e.g., Female/Male)? 1 Yes 2 No 4. How do you typically meet?

1 Face - Face (work hours) 5 Phone (work hours) 2 Face - Face (after work) 6 Phone (after work) 3 Email 7 Group meeting (with 2+ supervisees) 4 Other

5. Do you meet… 1 Regularly 3 Sporadically (when convenient to all)

2 Supervisee decides 4 Supervisor decides 5 Other 6. Please try to estimate how often you have supervision?



Part B - The Supervision Experience Please tell us your views of the supervision experience over the last 12 months. 7. Are you happy with how the supervision has progressed over the last 12 months?

1 Very Happy 2 Happy 3 Neutral 4 Unhappy 5 Very Unhappy 8. In the last 12 months do you feel that you have learnt useful professional skills from the supervision process?

1 Yes, I owe everything I have learnt from the supervision process 2 Yes, I have learnt a lot from the supervision process 3 Yes, I have learnt some useful things from the supervision process 4 Yes, I have learnt one or two things from the supervision process 5 No, I have not learnt anything useful from the supervision process 6 No, I am now worse off from having completed the supervision process than I was 12 months ago

9. In the last 12 months do you feel that your work has benefited from the supervision process?

1 Yes, the quality of my work has substantially improved as a result of the supervision 2 Yes, the quality of my work has improved as a result of the supervision 3 Yes, the quality of my work has slightly improved as a result of the supervision 4 No, the quality of my work has not improved as a result of the supervision 5 No, the quality of my work has declined as a result of the supervision experience 6 No, I am reconsidering a change of employment as a result of the supervision

320

10. Which of the following are skills you think you have developed over the last 12 months as a result of the supervision experience? Supervisee skills Major

Improvement Some

Improvement No Change NA

A Counselling 1 2 3 4 5

na

B Case experience 1 2 3 4 5

na

C Professional experience 1 2 3 4 5

na

D Emotional awareness 1 2 3 4 5

na

E Ability to Self-evaluate 1 2 3 4 5

na

F Listening skills 1 2 3 4 5

na

G How to apply theory to cases 1 2 3 4 5

na

H Ethical issues facing practitioners 1 2 3 4 5

na

I How to reflect on own cognitions 1 2 3 4 5

na

J Understanding own limits 1 2 3 4 5

na

11. On which of the following, please rate how effective the supervisor was in sharing their knowledge with you? Supervisee skills Able to

share most knowledge

Able to share some knowledge

Not able to share knowledge

NA

A Counselling 1 2 3 4 5

na

B Case experience 1 2 3 4 5

na

C Professional experience 1 2 3 4 5

na

D Emotional awareness 1 2 3 4 5

na

E Ability to Self-evaluate 1 2 3 4 5

na

F Listening skills 1 2 3 4 5

na

G How to apply theory to cases 1 2 3 4 5

na

H Ethical issues facing practitioners 1 2 3 4 5

na

I How to reflect on own cognitions 1 2 3 4 5

na

J Understanding own limits 1 2 3 4 5

na

321

12. Over the last 12 months please rate your supervisor on the frequency they use the following modes of interaction Supervisor Mode Very

Often Often Sometimes Rarely Never NA

A Monitoring/Evaluating supervisee professional approach

1 2 3 4 5

na

B Advising/instructing supervisee in professional matters

1 2 3 4 5

na

C Modelling professional behaviour to supervisee 1 2 3 4 5

na

D Consulting (Problem Solving) with supervisee on professional matters

1 2 3 4 5

na

E Exploring professional themes in supervisee’s experiences and reactions

1 2 3 4 5

na

F Posing professional problems for the supervisee to consider

1 2 3 4 5

na

G Sharing experience/information with supervisee 1 2 3 4 5

na

H Organising professional development opportunities for the supervisee

1 2 3 4 5

na

I Organising career opportunities for the supervisee 1 2 3 4 5

na

J Organising social opportunities for the supervisee 1 2 3 4 5

na

K Helping supervisee discuss work issues (non-professional)

1 2 3 4 5

na

L Monitoring/Evaluating supervisee work quality (non-professional)

1 2 3 4 5

na

M Advising/instructing supervisee in work matters (non-professional)

1 2 3 4 5

na

N Modelling work behaviour to supervisee (non-professional)

1 2 3 4 5

na

O Consulting (Problem Solving) with supervisee on work matters (non-professional)

1 2 3 4 5

na

P Emotionally supporting supervisee 1 2 3 4 5

na

Q Helping Supervisee plan career path 1 2 3 4 5

na

R Helping Supervisee work through personal/family issues

1 2 3 4 5

na

S Missing/Cancelling Appointments 1 2 3 4 5

na

T Making Inappropriate Comments 1 2 3 4 5

na

U Getting sidetracked 1 2 3 4 5

na

V Talking about resolving own issues rather than focussing on supervisee’s experiences

1 2 3 4 5

na

13. Are there any other behaviours your supervisor engaged in that were particularly useful or disconcerting? If so, please note them here: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

322

A. Please rate the your development on the following aspects over the last 12 months….. Much

Improved Improved Same Declined Much

Declined NA

A Emotional maturity 1 2 3 4 5

na

B Theoretical knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

na

C Moral/Ethical development 1 2 3 4 5

na

D Ability to problem solve 1 2 3 4 5

na

E Ability to work alone 1 2 3 4 5

na

F Ability to work efficiently 1 2 3 4 5

na

G Ability to stay focussed 1 2 3 4 5

na

H Ability to think creatively 1 2 3 4 5

na

I Ability to time manage 1 2 3 4 5

na

J Ability to communicate ideas 1 2 3 4 5

na

K Ability to source knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

na

L Ability to listen to others 1 2 3 4 5

na

M Ability to inspire others 1 2 3 4 5

na

N Ability to act professionally 1 2 3 4 5

na

O Ability to manage multiple tasks 1 2 3 4 5

na

P Ability to cope under pressure 1 2 3 4 5

na

Q Ability to learn from mistakes 1 2 3 4 5

na

R Awareness of own limits 1 2 3 4 5

na

S Overall work ability 1 2 3 4 5

na

B. Are there any other comments you would like to make? If so, please note them here: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time and support in this research.

323

Please forward the following sheets to your supervisor and work manager respectively.

A. Please rate the supervisee on the following and then place in the envelope and mail to the address provided. The information will not be reported back to the individual but will only be used for research in an aggregated manner. Please rate the supervisee on the following aspects over the last 12 months….. if you are only familiar with their performance over a shorter period of time please answer accordingly Much


Declined NA


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na

B. Are there any other comments you would like to make? If so, please note them here: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time and support.

324

A. Please rate the individual who handed you this sheet on the following and then place in the envelope and mail to the address provided. The information will not be reported back to the individual but will only be used for research in an aggregated manner. Please rate the individual on the following aspects over the last 12 months….. if you are only familiar with their performance over a shorter period of time please answer accordingly Much


Declined NA


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na


na

B. Are there any other comments you would like to make? If so, please note them here:

Thank you for your time and support.

karla johnston, bpsych(hons) faculty of education ... · four studies were conducted in accordance...

Documents