Beginning therapists’ experiences of what constitutes good and bad psychotherapy supervision

Abstract

This article presents a phenomenological study that was conducted as a series of semi-structured qualitative research interviews with eight student therapists, just two months after their debut in this role. Thematically, the interviews focused on specific examples of good and bad supervisory events. Also included were the importance of peers in the supervision group and the organisational setting of the supervision. The objective was to give detailed descriptions in the form of condensed narratives of each student's preferences concerning supervision. Furthermore, a cross-sectional analysis was conducted, in order to determine what typically characterized this sample. As expected, we both found major individual differences, but also similarities within and across the sample that confirm previous findings in the literature. With respect to the latter, our findings are very close to those in the existing literature in the field. The beginning therapists prefer supervision in which advice and clear and specific instructions are given on how to do the job, where theoretical considerations are included, and the supervisor supports, affirms and structures the sessions. However, of particular interest are the major individual differences that emerged. These are conspicuous in the presented narratives of each student therapist. Thus, to some therapists, seemingly frustrating supervisory experiences turned out to be very helpful. Role modelling and the parallel process also were found to be of importance for learning. A practical implication of these differences is that supervisors should not merely follow the general directions given in the literature for supervising beginning

Inadequate and Harmful Clinical Supervision

“…For example, Ellis (2001) identified over a dozen different terms that continue to be used to describe supervision that goes badly, including negative supervision experiences (Ramos-Sánchez et al, 2002), bad supervision (Jacobsen & Tanggaard, 2009), ineffective supervision (Ladany, Mori, & Mehr, 2013), hindering events (Kaduvettoor, O'Shaughnessy, Mori, Beverly, & Ladany, 2009), and unsuccessful supervisory behaviors (Dressel, Consoli, Kim, & Atkinson, 2007). For example, Ellis (2001) identified over a dozen different terms that continue to be used to describe supervision that goes badly, including negative supervision experiences (Ramos-Sánchez et al, 2002), bad supervision (Jacobsen & Tanggaard, 2009), ineffective supervision (Ladany, Mori, & Mehr, 2013), hindering events (Kaduvettoor, O'Shaughnessy, Mori, Beverly, & Ladany, 2009), and unsuccessful supervisory behaviors (Dressel, Consoli, Kim, & Atkinson, 2007).…”

“…Perhaps, we should no longer question whether "bad" supervision occurs (Jacobsen & Tanggaard, 2009); instead, we need to focus on how to detect, solve, and prevent what appears to be a major problem in the field (cf. The most striking findings of the present study were the observed occurrence rates of inadequate and harmful clinical supervision.…”

The Supervisory Relationship Experiences of Turkish First- Time and Advanced Supervisees

“…Supervisors were recommended to use facilitative interventions for first-time supervisees (Loganbill et al, 1982) and a combination of various interventions for advanced supervisees (Borders et al, 1991;Borders & Leddick, 1987;Loganbill et al, 1982). Similarly, previous studies (Bang & Park, 2009;Heppner & Roehlke, 1984;Jacobsen & Tanggaard, 2009;Kennard et al, 1987;Ladany & Lehrman, 1999;Ladany et al, 2013;Worthington & Roehlke, 1979) found that selecting favorable interventions for supervisees was important for their professional development. In Turkey, studies found that the selection of favorable interventions for supervisees at different professional developmental levels increased their professional progress (Aladağ, 2014; developmental levels based on their supervisory needs and expectations.…”

“…According to findings of these studies, supervisory relationship was influenced by supervisor's style (Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & Nutt, 1996;Ladany & Lehrman-Waterman, 1999;Ladany, Walker, & Melincoff, 2001;Lizzio, Wilson, & Que, 2013), self-disclosure (Ladany & Lehrman-Waterman, 1999), and feedback (Heckman-Stone, 2003;Hughes, 2012;Lehrman-Waterman & Ladany, 2001;Scaife, 2009;Worthington, 2006;Worthington & Roehlke, 1979); supervisee's cognitive level (Fong, Borders, Ethington, & Pitts, 1997;Lochner & Melchert, 1997;Swanson & O'Saben, 1993) and performance and supervision anxiety (Bradley & Ladany, 2001;Ladany et al, 1996). Additionally, some studies found that first-time supervisees were mostly expected from supervisors to adopt frequently teacher-role ; needed supportive (Jacobsen & Tanggaard, 2009;Kennard, Stewart, & Gluck, 1987) and didactic supervisors (Bang & Park, 2009;Kennard et al, 1987) who used directive interventions (Jacobsen & Tanggaard, 2009) in structured supervision environment (Miars et al, 1983). First-time supervisees also expected from their supervisors to be warm, accepted, respectful and honest (Hutt, Scott, & King, 1983) and to clarify supervisory expectations and roles in the beginning phase of the relationship (Olk & Friedlander, 1992;Holloway, 1995).…”

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

“…Negative experiences in supervision have been defined in a number of ways (Dressel, Consoli, Kim, & Atkinson, ; Ellis, ; Jacobsen & Tanggaard, ; Kaduvettoor et al, ; Ladany, Mori, & Mehr, ; Ramos‐Sanchez et al, ). In this paper, I use Ellis et al’s () division of negative supervision experiences into ‘inadequate supervision’ and ‘harmful supervision’.…”