No abstract

No abstract

Few studies have examined the practice wisdom of expert supervisors. This study addresses this gap by exploring how experienced supervisors manage difficulties in supervision in the context of the supervisory relationship. The supervisors were a purposive sample of 16 senior members of the profession with considerable expertise in supervision. In-depth interviews were first conducted with the supervisors. An interpersonal process recall method was then used to explore their reflections on one of their DVD-recorded supervision sessions. Analysis of transcripts was completed using a modified consensual qualitative research method. Major difficulties included the broad domains of supervisee competence and ethical behavior, supervisee characteristics, supervisor countertransference, and problems in the supervisory relationship. Supervisors managed these difficulties using 4 key approaches: relational (naming, validating, attuning, supporting, anticipating, exploring parallel process, acknowledging mistakes, and modeling); reflective (facilitating reflectivity, remaining mindful and monitoring, remaining patient and transparent, processing countertransference, seeking supervision, and case conceptualizing); confrontative (confronting tentatively, confronting directly, refusing/terminating supervision, taking formal action, referring to personal therapy, and becoming directive); and avoidant interventions (struggling on, withholding, and withdrawing). Two brief case studies illustrate the process of applying these strategies sequentially in managing difficulties. The study highlights the importance of relational strategies to maintain an effective supervisory alliance, reflective strategies-particularly when difficulties pertain to clinical material and the supervisory relationship-and confrontative strategies with unhelpful supervisee characteristics and behaviors that impede supervision.

This study examined the performance of adults with an acquired brain injury (ABI) on social cognition tasks assessing mentalistic interpretation and social problem-solving. These tasks were based on an earlier version described by Channon and Crawford (1999). Twenty participants with an ABI (10 resulting from a traumatic brain injury, 10 from a cerebrovascular accident), were found to be impaired relative to 20 matched control participants in interpreting scenarios involving either actions or sarcastic remarks on the Mentalistic Interpretation Task. When problem-solving ability was examined, the participants with an ABI were poorer at solving social problems on the Social Problem Resolution Task, and generated fewer responses on the Social Problem Fluency Task. They also had greater difficulty in detecting the awkward elements of the social situations, and in selecting appropriate solutions from a range of alternatives. These tasks provide a potential clinical tool for pinpointing an individual's strengths and weaknesses in everyday social communication and problem-solving, which can serve as the basis for designing individualised rehabilitation programmes.

The findings provide further evidence that uncomplicated TS is not associated with widespread executive impairments. However, it was not clear that any differences between the groups could be attributed solely to selective inhibitory impairment.