A cross-sectional survey of South African psychology interns’ perceptions of negative supervision events

Abstract

Prevalence rates of negative supervision events among Psychology interns in South Africa are non-existent. This article investigates the incidence of negative supervision events and explores the influence of various contextual variables on supervision outcomes. Quantitative data were obtained via a web survey from a sample (N = 92) of Clinical and Counselling psychology interns across nine provinces in South Africa. In all, 42 (or 45.6%) of the 92 participants had a negative supervision event during their internship, 26.19% categorized their experience as ‘Harmful’, and 73.81% (or 31) had an ‘Inadequate’ experience. A total of 14 (or 22.6%) interns experienced a negative supervision event on a weekly basis. Proportionately more White interns reported experiencing negative supervision events and had the highest number of reported harmful experiences. Neither race nor gender significantly impacted the feedback and evaluation process. A significantly larger number of mixed race and mixed culture dyads reported harmful negative supervision compared to same race/culture dyads. There was no significant positive relationship between inadequate or harmful negative supervision event and sexual orientation, theoretical orientation, gender, religion, and language. Implications for training and professional development are discussed.

Relational processes and the emergence of harmful supervision events: A narrative analysis of a single case

“…Ellis et al () found that 36% of their sample ( N = 363) were currently receiving harmful supervision. Similar findings have been reported in other studies, where prevalence rates vary between 20% and 40% (Bang & Goodyear, ; Ellis, ; Ellis, Creaner, Hutman, & Timulak, ; Hendricks & Cartwright, ; Nelson & Friedlander, ; Ramos‐Sanchez et al, ). These prevalence rates are certainly a cause for concern and attention.…”

“…Contextual factors include factors like workload pressures (Hendricks & Cartwright, 2018), organisational culture (Davys & Beddoe, 2010) and challenges that emerge in the therapeutic process that are displaced onto the supervision relationship (Friedlander, 2015).…”

“…Individual characteristics would include supervisor personality characteristics (Nellis, Hawkins, Redico, & Way, 2011), difficulties in managing diversity (Beddoe, 2017;Cook, 1994), lack of adequate training (Hendricks & Cartwright, 2018;Magnuson, Norem, & Wilcoxon, 2000) and lack of supervisor responsiveness (Friedlander, 2012;Friedlander & Shaffer, 2014). Individual characteristics of the supervisee associated with harmful supervision have received less attention.…”

“…All the above are difficult to consider in isolation of the relational processes or dynamics that emerge in supervision itself. This third element includes: the quality of the supervisory working alliance, the way inevitable ruptures in the supervisory alliance are managed and the extent to which the expectations of both parties are clarified (Gray et al, 2001;Hendricks & Cartwright, 2018;Ladany et al, 2013;Moskowitz & Rupert, 1983;Nelson & Friedlander, 2001;Ramos-Sanchez et al, 2002). Although ruptures, misunderstandings and the temporary breakdown of the supervisory process are an inevitable part of the process, poor resolution of these difficulties is often associated with harmful supervision.…”

“…While there has been some research on prevalence rates and some of the factors contributing to negative outcomes (Ellis et al, 2014;Gray, Ladany, Walker, & Ancis, 2001;Hendricks & Cartwright, 2018;Nelson & Friedlander, 2001;Ramos-Sanchez et al, 2002), very little research has explored the experiences, narratives and interpersonal processes associated with harmful supervision events. For this reason, as Ellis (2017) states, the implication of poor supervision practice 'remains largely unrecognized, unacknowledged and not well understood ' (p. 4).…”