Reducing supervisee anxiety: Effects of a role induction intervention for clinical supervision.

Abstract

We investigated the effectiveness of a theoretically based role induction (RI) intervention that aimed to clarify supervisee and supervisor role expectations and reduce supervisee anxiety, compared to standard supervision (no-RI). Initially, a feasibility study investigated whether a RI for beginning supervisees would work in the context of a replicated single-subject experimental design; specifically, it assessed whether the RI condition (n = 2) would result in decreased anxiety compared to baseline and a no-RI condition (n = 2). Results suggested that the RI appeared viable and mitigated supervisee anxiety. To address the deficiencies of the feasibility study, for the main study, a more rigorous experimental multiple-baseline research design with randomization procedures was employed to test the effectiveness of the RI intervention for reducing supervisee anxiety in 2 developmentally different groups: beginning supervisees (n = 4) and predoctoral interns (n = 5). Specifically, this study investigated whether supervisee anxiety would be lower following the RI intervention for both groups and whether beginning supervisees would experience larger decreases in anxiety relative to interns. The 3 most salient findings were (a) the efficacy of a RI procedure for reducing the anxiety of novice counselor trainees was tentatively supported, (b) anxiety varied, sometimes markedly, from session to session, but nevertheless was not as pervasive as theorized, and (c) supervisee developmental level appeared to moderate the effects of the RI on supervisee anxiety, such that the RI decreased anxiety for most beginning supervisees and initially increased anxiety for interns. Implications for theory, research, and training are discussed.

Providing objective feedback in supervision in motivational interviewing: results from a randomized controlled trial

“…The supervisors perceived the behaviour frequency counts as being more objective and less judgemental, and argued that especially supervisees with longer work experience had difficulties handling the global scores on the lower side. This viewpoint is consistent with earlier research which suggests that supervisees may fear negative feedback (Abernethy and Cook, 2011;Bernard and Goodyear, 2014;Clarke and Giordano, 2013;Ellis et al, 2015;Friedberg et al, 2009;Lombardo et al, 2009), and that supervisors often feel critical and worry that their feedback may harm the supervisory working alliance (Chur-Hansen and McLean, 2006). Self-reported data even suggests that supervisors sometimes withhold corrective feedback and/or give higher ratings to avoid negative reactions or harming the supervisory relationship (Turner et al, 2016).…”

Job design, employment practices and well-being: a systematic review of intervention studies

“…subjective well-being, physical health, eudaimonic well-being) and subjective well-being specifically (Cohen and Gagin 2005;Coogle, Head, and Parham 2006;Ellis, Hutman, and Chapin 2015;Glisson et al 2012;Le Blanc et al 2007;Shonin et al 2014). Of these six, five demonstrated impacts on well-being across 50% or more of the well-being indicators (broader range and subjective) assessed in the study (Cohen and Gagin 2005;Coogle, Head, and Parham 2006;Glisson et al 2012;Le Blanc et al 2007;Shonin et al 2014).…”

“…Four interventions were focused on some form of worker welfare: Two demonstrated no effects on well-being (van den Heuvel, Demerouti, and Peeters 2015; Van Wingerden, Derks, and Bakker 2017) and two demonstrated at least one positive effect on well-being (Le Blanc et al 2007;Shonin et al 2014). For those interventions not specifically targeted at worker welfare, four demonstrated at least one positive effect on worker well-being (Cohen and Gagin 2005;Coogle, Head, and Parham 2006;Ellis, Hutman, and Chapin 2015;Glisson et al 2012) and one had no effect on well-being (Yamagishi, Kobayashi, and Nakamura 2008). Training to improve job design may be relatively cheap and relatively straightforward to implement compared to other interventions considered in this review.…”

Predicting Supervision Outcomes: What is Different about Psychological Assessment Supervision?

“…Supervisor variables include supervisory style (Fernando & Hulse‐Killacky, ), formation of an effective working alliance with the student (Ladany, Ellis, & Friedlander, ; Ramos‐Sanchez et al, ), using personal disclosure beneficially (Knox, Edwards, Hess, & Hill, ), evaluation practices (Lehrman‐Waterman & Ladany, ), and clarity in defining roles and expectations (Watkins, ). Student variables include student satisfaction with supervision (Britt & Gleaves, ), trainee self‐efficacy (Cashwell & Dooley, ), anxiety management (Ellis, Hutman, & Chapin, ), and clinical competency development (Milne, Pilkington, Gracie, & James, ). Measurement of client outcomes is in the early stages, and while some deem client outcomes to be the “acid test” for assessing the effectiveness of psychotherapy supervision (Ellis & Ladany, ), others suggest that supervision is primarily intended to promote student growth, and as such, measurement of supervision outcomes must be multi‐dimensional (Reiser & Milne, ).…”