Supervisory and Counseling Process: A Comparative Study

Abstract

This study compared the process of supervision with that of counseling by examining the behavior of five professional therapists in both situations.Counselors recorded their counseling sessions with 10 clients and their supervisory sessions with 10 trainees. A total of 180 three-minute samples were selected for study. The level of facilitative conditions (empathy, respect, genuineness, and specificity) was assessed. The Hill Interaction Matrix was also used to compare the verbal interactions in both counseling and supervising situations. Results indicated that the level of respect and genuineness were equal in the two situations. Contrary to the assumptions made by researchers in the area, the levels of empathy and specificity were significantly lower in supervision than in counseling. When interactions were rated with the Hill Matrix, supervision was significantly less therapeutic than was counseling. The differences found were discussed in terms of their implications for the teaching and learning of psychotherapy, as it related to both the theoretical literature and in terms of its effect on trainees and clients.

Structured Group Supervision (SGS): A Pilot Study

“…And the study results supported earlier research flndtngs that increases in trainees' empathy followed positive supervisory experiences (Blane. 1968;Lambert, 1974). The data were likewise consistent with previous findings concerning skill development, such as increases in trainees' feedback skills through the use of a structured supervision procedure (Friesen & Dunning.…”

Research on Training Counselors and Clinicians

“…Additionally, there is evidence that a facilitative therapy style does not guarantee a facilitative supervisory approach (Lambert, 1974). The same counselors communicated significantly less empathy and concreteness, and fewer "confrontive" or "speculative" or "therapy relationship" statements in supervision than they did in therapy, although they were equally warm and genuine.…”

“…Very few studies reported conforming to the latter two guidelines. Many studies also failed to observe the first two precautions, or failed to check reliability at all, or reported low (i.e., less than .75) reliability coefficients on some (Bailey, Deardorf, & Nay, 1977;Berenson, Carkhuff, & Myrus, 1966;DiMattie & Arndt, 1974;Dooley, 1975;Frankel, 1971;Ivey, Normington, Miller, Morrill, & Haase, 1968;Lambert, 1974;Martin & Carkhuff, 1968;Perry, 1975;Rappaport, Gross, & Lepper, 1973;Ryan & Budner, 1970;Selfridge, Weitz, Abramowitz, Calabria, Abramowitz, & Steger, 1975) or on all dependent variables data (Blane, 1968;Canada, 1973;Carkhuff & Truax, 1965;Carlson, 1974;Carter & Pappas, 1975;Delaney, Long, Masucci, & Moses, 1969;Dowd & Blocher, 1974;Gade & Matuschka, 1973;Hountras & Redding, 1969;Kanfer & Pomeranz, 1965;Kingdon, 1975;Kuna, 1975;Miller, Morrill, Ivey, Normington, & Uhleman, 1973;Miller, Morrill, & Uhleman, 1970;Ornston, Cicchetti, & Towbin, 1970;Roark, 1969;Saltmarsh & Hubele, 1974;Schoch, 1966;Silverman & Quinn, 1974;Ward, Kagan, & Krathwohl, 1972;Werner & Schneider, 1974).…”

Developing clinical supervision research through reasoned analogies with therapy

“…To illustrate, Lambert (1974) analysed the therapeutic relationship by drawing on Rogers' work in the 1960s, directly comparing the process of supervision with that of counselling. He studied how five professionals behaved in both situations.…”