Graduate training of facilitative counselors: The effects of individual supervision.

Abstract

Using a model developed by Carkhuff for predicting growth in interpersonal functioning, changes over time in the behavior of counseling interns on the facilitative dimensions of empathy, regard, genuineness, and concreteness were examined. The interns having supervisors who themselves were functioning at high levels of empathy, regard, genuineness, and concreteness changed significantly and positively. The interns who had supervisors functioning at low levels on these dimensions did not change, and in fact tended to decline slightly. The implications of the importance of the individual supervisor in training were discussed in terms of demonstrating the efficacy of graduate school training in therapeutic functioning.

Supervisory and Counseling Process: A Comparative Study

“…The results are not in complete agreement with the assumptions made by Pierce and Schauble ( 1970). It would appear that the level of respect and genuineness are constant across supervision and counseling.…”

Research on Training Counselors and Clinicians

“…Supervisees show a significantly greater preference for the former supervisory style (Balsam & Garber, 1970;Barnett, 1973;Rosenblatt & Mayer, 1975), and evidence significantly greater improvements in psychotherapy skills and knowledge with the former (versus the latter) supervisory approach (Austin & Alterkruse, 1972;Blane, 1968;Davidson & Emmer, 1966;Demos & Zuwayliff, 1963;Hansen & Barker, 1964;Pierce, Carkhuff, & Berenson, 1967;Pierce & Schauble, 1970). More facilitative supervisors may also counteract the aversive and reactive effects of grading in supervision (Kinney, 1970).…”

Review of Research on Practicum Supervision

“…According to Pierce and Schauble (1970), significant gains in therapist-offered facilitative conditions were made by supervisees who had high-level supervisors; supervisees with high-level supervisors functioned significantly higher on the dimensions of empathy, regard, genuineness, and concreteness than did supervisees of low-level supervisors; and supervisees of low-level supervisors gained only if they were functioning at a lower level than their supervisor. Furthermore, the assessment of trainee change on core dimensions was detectable early in the supervisory relationship.…”