Measuring the Supervisory Relationship: A Critical Review of Instruments

By: Jodi L. Bartley

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro

PURPOSE

The supervisory relationship is an important component of supervision (Borders & Brown, 2005; Ladany & Muse-Burke, 2001); however, it is a complex, and multifaceted construct, and thus it can be difficult to measure. Below is a summary description of seven instruments that can be used by supervisors and supervisees to measure the supervisory relationship in both clinical practice and clinical research settings.

MEASURES

Supervisor (SPRS-R) and Trainee (TPRS-R) Personal Reaction Scales – Revised

·      Authors: Holloway and Wampold, 1984

·      Intended Audience: Supervisors (SPRS-R) and Supervisees (TPRS-R)

·      Number of Items: 12 items each, anchored on 5-point Likert scales from 1 = not characteristic of my present feelings to 5 = highly characteristic of my present feelings.

·      Scales: Evaluation of Other, Evaluation of Self, and Level of Comfort (for both versions)

Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory for Supervisory Relationships (BLRI-S)

·      Authors: Schacht, Howe, and Berman, 1988

·      Intended Audience: Supervisees

·      Number of Items: 40 items anchored on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 = I strongly feel it is not true to 6 = I strongly feel it is true.

·      Scales: Regard, Unconditionality, Empathic Understanding, Congruence, and Willingness to be Known

Working Alliance Inventory/Supervision (WAI/S Supervisor and Supervisee Forms)

·      Author: Bahrick, 1990

·      Intended Audience: Supervisors and Supervisees

·      Number of Items: 36 items anchored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = never to 7 = always.

·      Scales: Bond and Goals/Tasks.

Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI Supervisor and Trainee Versions)

·      Authors: Efstation, Patton, and Kardash, 1990

·      Intended Audience: Supervisors and Supervisees

·      Number of Items: 23 items (supervisor version) and 19 items (supervisee version), written on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 = almost never to 7 = almost always.

·      Scales: Client Focus, Rapport, and Identification (supervisor version); and Rapport and Client Focus (supervisee version).

Supervisor Relating Style Inventory (SRSI)

·      Authors: Lizzio, Wilson, and Que, 2009

·      Intended Audience: Supervisees

·      Number of Items: 12 items, written on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1= not at all to 7 = very characteristic.

·      Scales: Support, Challenge, and Openness

Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ)

·      Authors: Palomo, Beinart, and Cooper, 2010

·      Intended Audience: Supervisees

·      Number of Items: 67 items, written on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

·      Scales: Safe Base, Structure, Commitment, Reflective Education, Role Model, and Formative Feedback.

Supervisory Relationship Measure (SRM)

·      Authors: Pearce, Beinart, Clohessy, and Cooper, 2013

·      Intended Audience: Supervisors

·      Number of Items: 51 items, written on a 7-point Likert scale anchored from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree.

·      Scales: Safe Base, Supervisor’s Professional Commitment to Supervision, Trainee Contribution, External Influences, and Supervisor’s Emotional Investment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

            There are benefits and drawbacks to each of the measures; therefore, choosing one for research or practical purposes depends on a person’s intentions. If the intention is to use the measure in clinical research or to use it in clinical practice settings as part of a more comprehensive evaluation, the SRQ (for supervisees) and/or SRM (for supervisors) are recommended. These measures were developed specifically for the supervisory relationship, they are reliable and valid, and they include more items (67 and 51, respectively). In this way, they could provide a nuanced investigation of the relationship.

            On the other hand, if a person intends to use a measure for brief, more practical purposes, one of the shorter measures is recommended. The SRSI includes only 12 items and could be administered to supervisees after sessions to help supervisors gain insight into their balance of support, challenge, and openness in the relationship. The Working Alliance Inventories (the WAI/S and SWAI) are both a bit longer than the SRSI; however, they can be used with both supervisors and supervisees to gain perspective into the alliance of the supervisory relationship. The SPRS-R and TPRS-R are shorter measures like the SRSI; however, they are a bit outdated and were created based on characteristics of the therapeutic relationship. If the intention is solely to understand how a supervisee perceives the supervisor’s use of facilitative conditions, the BLRI-S is recommended.

Taken together, then, it is important that supervisors and clinicians identify their purpose for using the instruments and choose accordingly. Further research is needed to examine the construct of the supervisory relationship and the multiple aspects of that relationship. New research in this area could offer numerous implications for the effectiveness of supervisory practice as it relates to the strength of the supervisor-supervisee relationship.

FOR FURTHER READING  (*Measures reviewed)

*Bahrick, A. S. (1990). Role induction for counselor trainees: Effects on the Supervisory Working Alliance. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

Borders, L. D., & Brown, L. L. (2005). The new handbook of counseling supervision. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

*Efstation, J. F., Patton, M. J., & Kardash, C. M. (1990). Measuring the working alliance in counselor supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 322-329. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.37.3.322

*Holloway, E. L., & Wampold, B. E. (1984). Dimensions of satisfaction in the supervision interview. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the American Psychological Association Convention, Toronto, Canada.

Ladany, N., & Muse-Burke, J. L. (2001). Understanding and conducting supervision research. In L. J. Bradley & N. Ladany (Eds.), Counselor supervision: Principles, process, and practice (3rd ed.) (pp. 304-329). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.

*Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Que, J. (2009). Relationship dimensions in the professional supervision of psychology graduates: Supervisee perceptions of processes and outcome. Studies in Continuing Education, 31, 127-140. doi:10.1080/01580370902927451

*Palomo, M., Beinart, H., & Cooper, M. J. (2010). Development and validation of the Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) in UK trainee clinical psychologists. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 131-149. doi:10.1348/014466509X441033

*Pearce, N., Beinart, H., Clohessy, S., & Cooper, M. (2013). Development and validation of the Supervisory Relationship Measure: A self-report questionnaire for use with supervisors. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 52, 249-268. doi:10.1111/bjc.12012

*Schacht, A. J., Howe, H. E., & Berman, J. J. (1988). A short form of the Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory for supervisory relationships. Psychological Reports, 63, 699-706. doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.63.3.699

Feminist Supervision: A Relational and Multicultural Approach

by Melissa Fickling

Many supervisors and supervisees desire authentic, egalitarian supervisory relationships. A feminist approach to supervision is characterized by a focus on the supervisory relationship, as well as issues of power, social justice, and multiculturalism. Feminist supervision is multifaceted and complex because feminist discourse extends beyond gender to include race, culture, class, sexuality, and other forms of oppression and privilege. These topics are not always easy or comfortable to discuss, even for experienced supervisors who openly advocate for the use of feminist supervision practices.

A review of the research reveals that there tends to be a discrepancy between supervisors’ and supervisees’ perceptions of a supervisor’s use of feminist supervision practices. Supervisors rate their use of feminist supervision as more frequent than supervisees perceive. One reason for this may be that supervisors are not explicit about their adherence to feminist values so that supervisees are unaware of their supervisors’ intentions. The key themes of feminist supervision, including the supervisory relationship, power, social justice and activism, and multiculturalism are discussed below and recommended strategies for integrating each into clinical supervision are provided.

The Supervisory Relationship

A safe and supportive relationship is a fundamental foundation from which to integrate feminist supervision practices. Obtaining informed consent with supervisees about your expectations at the beginning of the relationship is important, just as it is when establishing a relationship with a new client. Mutual goal setting also helps to establish a tone of collaboration which can carry through the duration of the working relationship. Research indicates that when supervisors practice from a feminist perspective, supervisees report greater learning outcomes and satisfaction with supervision.

Power

Supervisors report feeling uncomfortable with power and tend to downplay their power in the supervisory relationship. It is not surprising, then, that open discussions about differences in power between supervisors and supervisees are rare. Given that power analysis is a central tenet of feminist supervision, it is important that supervisors begin to acknowledge and discuss power with supervisees. Supervisees report that even when positive uses of supervisor power (e.g., setting expectations) feel uncomfortable, they usually contribute to their growth. It is necessary for supervisors to recognize that supervisees, too, bring power into the relationship and can use it in a variety of ways. Feminist supervisors work to empower supervisees to take risks and learn to trust their own experience.

Social Justice and Activism

Feminist supervisors extend their work beyond the traditional supervisory dyad to include roles beyond the training environment. For example, feminist supervisors can educate supervisees about social justice issues, discuss their own activism and service, or be involved in social and professional movements in the community. The emphasis here is on direct and active social change work that addresses issues of oppression and inequality.

Multiculturalism

            Feminist supervisors help supervisees integrate sociocultural considerations into their counseling practice and case conceptualization. This includes, but is not limited to the topics of race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, and class. Feminist supervisors also discuss their own cultural awareness, experiences, biases, and beliefs and how they impact the supervision. It is critical here that supervisors are not silent on the issue of oppression and privilege out of fear of offending or a desire to remain safe from potential conflict. Feminist supervisors also invite supervisees to reflect on their own cultural identity and discuss how it relates to counseling and supervision.

The Feminist Supervision Scale

One tool supervisors may wish to use to facilitate the process of integrating feminist principles into their supervision practice is the Feminist Supervision Scale (FSS) created by Dawn Szymanski (2003). The FSS is a 32-item instrument which can be used to evaluate current feminist supervision practices and to open discussion of feminist principles with students and supervisees. The FSS assesses feminist supervision behaviors along four dimensions: collaborative relationships, power analysis, diversity and social context, and feminist advocacy and activism.

Conclusion

The supervisory relationship is complex and dynamic, and requires skill, care, and attention to navigate in a way that empowers both supervisors and supervisees. In addition, the supervisory relationship is situated within complex social forces. Ultimately, it is the supervisor’s responsibility to initiate open and honest conversation about power, diversity, social issues, and the supervisory relationship. Feminist supervisors model risk taking, appropriate use of power, sharing of power, and authenticity in the relationship so that both supervisor and supervisee can learn and grow in supervision.

For Further Reading

Falender, C. A. (2009). Relationship and accountability: Tensions in feminist supervision. Women & Therapy, 33, 22-41.

Gentile, L., Ballous, M., Roffman, E., & Ritchie, J. (2009). Supervision for social change: A feminist ecological perspective. Women & Therapy, 33, 140-151.

Green, M. S., & Dekkers, T. D. (2010). Attending to power and diversity in supervision: An exploration of supervisee learning outcomes and satisfaction with supervision. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 22, 293-312.

Mangione, L., Mears, G., Vincent, W., & Hawes, S. (2011). The supervisory relationship when women supervise women: An exploratory study of power, reflexivity, collaboration, and authenticity. The Clinical Supervisor, 30, 141-171.

Murphy, M. J. & Wright, D. W. (2005). Supervisees’ perspectives of power use in supervision. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 283-295.

Nelson, M. L., Gizara, S., Hope, A. C., Phelps, R., Steward, R., & Weitzman, L. (2006). A feminist multicultural perspective on supervision. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 34, 105-115.

Szymanski, D. M. (2003). The Feminist Supervision Scale: A rational/theoretical approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 221-232.

Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Feminist identity and theories as correlates of feminist supervision practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 729-747.

Individual and Triadic and Group: Supervisee and Supervisor Perceptions of Each Modality

Researchers

L. DiAnne Borders

Laura E. Welfare

Paige B. Greason

Derrick A. Paladino

A. Keith Mobley

Jose A. Villalba

Kelly L. Wester

Source

Counselor Education & Supervision, December 2012, Volume 51(4), p281-925

What was the purpose of this research?

The purpose of this study was to understand both supervisors’ and supervisees’ perceived advantages and disadvantages of individual, triadic, and group supervision.

If applicable, who were the participants, and what were they asked to do?

Participants were doctoral and faculty supervisors and practicum supervisees who participated in individual, triadic, and group supervision sessions over the course of one semester. Thirty-one supervisees and 12 supervisors participated in interviews in which they provided feedback about their experiences in each modality, including advantages and disadvantages as well as suggested changes.

Major findings or points:

Both supervisors and supervisees described individual supervision sessions as deeper and more challenging than triadic or group supervision sessions. As a result, supervisees expressed feeling safer and more open in individual supervision sessions. Supervisors and supervisees expressed an interest in having more individual supervision sessions, especially at the beginning of the semester.

When asked about triadic supervision, participants generally contrasted it to group supervision. Supervisees reported appreciating the feedback in triadic supervision, saying it tended to be more in-depth, challenging, and personal than in group supervision, often because they felt safer and more comfortable with their peer than they did in the larger group setting. Additionally, supervisees gained considerable knowledge by observing their peers’ work in more depth and over time. Supervisors reported that it was helpful in triadic supervision that one peer would often enhance the supervisor’s feedback to the other peer. The major disadvantage of triadic supervision reported by all participants was limited time. Finally, both supervisors and supervisees mentioned peer mismatch as a challenge of triadic supervision. For example, peers may be at different skill levels or prefer different methods of receiving feedback. Supervisors must be able to manage these session dynamics while making sure each supervisee receives appropriate and needed feedback.

Group supervision was noted as providing multiple perspectives to supervisees, particularly in regard to theoretical orientations and counseling styles. Supervisees enjoyed the educational opportunities in group supervision to learn about particular counseling skills, interventions, or topics (e.g., grief and loss issues). A major disadvantage of group supervision was that the feedback tended to be more limited, less constructive, and less personal than feedback received in individual or triadic supervision.

Major caveats:

All participants were from one CACREP accredited counseling program. In addition, all supervisees were in their first semester providing counseling, and 9 of the 12 supervisors were new clinical supervisors (doctoral students). Although the researchers found that there are distinct advantages for each supervision modality, more effectiveness research is needed.

What does this research mean for counseling practice, settings, and/or training?

Supervisors will want to balance the number of individual, triadic, and group supervision sessions offered. Supervisees value personal, in-depth feedback and report getting more of this in individual and triadic sessions.

In triadic supervision, it is important for both supervisors and supervisees to prepare for their roles in this modality. Supervisors can provide a structure for feedback as well as a normalization of the ambiguity inherent in triadic supervision. Supervisors should plan to rely on their skills in group or couples counseling when facilitating triadic supervision in order to develop strong rapport and encourage constructive feedback between peers. Supervisors will likely want to allot 90 minutes for triadic sessions as time was consistently a concern among participants for this modality.