Supervision of counseling services is a crucial component to professional counselor development (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). A common and pervasive threat to cross-cultural interpersonal relationships, such as supervision, is the presence of racial microaggressions (Constantine & Sue, 2007). According to Carter (2007) and Helms, Nicholas, and Green (2012), microaggressions are so damaging, that they may even trigger traumatic responses in recipients. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among racial microaggressions in supervision, the supervisory working alliance, and traumatic symptomatology in supervisees. This study collected survey data from 86 participants who self-identified as racial, ethnic, or cultural minority group members and who were counselors-in-training, professional counselors, or counselor educators. Data collection included responses to demographic questions, the adapted Experiences of Black Supervisors Scale (EBSS adapted; Barnes, 2011), the Trauma Symptom Check-list 40 (TSC-40; Elliot & Briere, 1992), and the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory – Trainee Version (SWAI-T; Efstation, Patton, & Kardash, 1990). Bivariate correlations revealed significant relationships among all three of the main variables. The SWAI-T full-scale scores had a moderate negative correlation with the EBSS (adapted) full-scale scores (r = -.637, p < .01) and a moderate negative correlation with the TSC-40 full-scale scores (r = -.372, p < .01). The EBSS (adapted) full-scale scores had a moderate positive correlation with the TSC-40 full-scale scores (r = .513, p < .01). Regression analysis yielded a model whereby 40.6% of the variation in the supervisory alliance can be explained by microaggressions in supervision F (1, 48) = 32.752, p < .01. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis determined that the presence of traumatic experiences does not add to the predictive capacity of the model. The results suggest that the presence of racial microaggressions is an important impediment to the supervisory working alliance. Implications, limitations, and future directions were provided.

abstract: This study examined the factor structure of supervisee disclosure in clinical supervision. An original survey measure was created for this study, the Supervisee Disclosure Scale (SDS). Through exploratory factor analysis eight specific content areas of supervisee disclosure were identified. The eight specific content areas of supervisee disclosure include: Perceived Clinical Inadequacy, Transference Issues, Strengths of the Supervisory Relationship, Clinical Successes, Self, Weaknesses of the Supervisory Bond, Dissatisfaction with the Clinical Setting, and Own Clinical Voice. Furthermore, this study examined the potential relationship of clinical experience with the content areas of supervisee disclosure. The results of this study support a relationship between greater clinical experience and disclosure of items related to Self but not with the other content areas. Additionally, the bi-level factor structure of the Working Alliance Inventory/Supervision-Short (WAI-SS) was validated via confirmatory factor analysis. The bi-level factor structure of the WAI-SS identifies a hierarchical structure of general alliance in addition to the specific factors of task, bond, and goal. Lastly, this study preliminarily evaluated the relationship between WAI-SS factors of general alliance, task, bond, and goal and the preliminary specific content areas of supervisee disclosure. The hierarchical factor of general alliance was a statistically significant predictor for all specific content areas of supervisee disclosure. The preliminary findings of this study, highlight the important differences in the relationships among the specific factors of the supervisory working alliance and content areas of supervisee nondisclosure. The factor of task was not significantly correlated with content areas of supervisee disclosure and the factor of goal was only a significant predictor for two content areas of disclosure: Strengths of the Supervisory Relationship and Dissatisfaction with Clinical Setting. The factor of bond was significantly correlated with six content areas of supervisee disclosure and significantly predicted five content areas: Strengths of the Supervisory Relationship, Clinical Successes, Self, Weaknesses of the Supervisory Bond, and Dissatisfaction with the Clinical Setting. This study contributes specificity to the supervision literature on supervisee disclosure and nondisclosure. The results of this study provide a psychometrically sound foundation for future research to identify aspects of the supervisory working alliance that may reduce supervisee nondisclosure. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Counseling Psychology 2018

Perfectionism in the counselor trainee has the potential to undermine counseling self-efficacy and relationships with client and supervisor (Arkowitz, 1990). Perfectionism is defined as “a predilection for setting extremely high standards and being displeased with anything less” (Webster’s II New College Dictionary, 1995, p. 816). In this study, 143 counselor trainees and 46 supervisors (46 supervisor-trainee dyads) completed surveys designed to assess the relationships between adaptive and maladaptive perfectionism and counseling self-efficacy, the working alliance between supervisor and trainee, as well as the working alliance between trainee and client. Trainee participants completed the Almost Perfect Scale – Revised (Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), the Self-Efficacy Inventory (Friedlander & Snyder, 1983), the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory – Trainee Version (Efstation, Patton & Kardash, 1990) and the Working Alliance Inventory – Short Form Therapist Version (Horvath, 1991). Supervisor participants completed the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory – Supervisor Version (Efstation, Patton & Kardash, 1990). Results indicated that maladaptive perfectionism was positively correlated with working alliance between trainee and client (r = -.261, p = .002) and positively correlated with the working alliance between supervisor and trainee (from the perspective of the supervisor, r = -.345, p = .019). Results also demonstrated evidence for counseling self-efficacy as a significant moderator between adaptive perfectionism and the supervisory working alliance (from the perspective of the trainee) and between maladaptive perfectionism and the supervisory working alliance (from the perspective of the supervisor). Supervisors should consider perfectionism in counselor trainees as this may affect counseling self-efficacy and working alliances between supervisor and trainee as well as between trainee and client.

Counselor trainees’ stress and coping resources have the potential to influence the relationships formed with supervisors and clients. Two hundred thirty two (N = 232) Master-level counselor trainees completed surveys designed to measure perceived stress, coping resources, the working alliance, and the supervisory working alliance. Participants completed a demographic questionnaire, the Working Alliance Inventory – Short Form Therapist Version (WAI-S; Tracey & Kokotovic, 1989), the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory – Trainee Version (SWAI-T; Efstation, Patton, & Kardash, 1990), the Perceived Stress Scale – Short Form (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983), and the Coping Resources Inventory for Stress – Short Form (CRIS; Curlette & Matheny, 2008). The working alliance was negatively correlated with Perceived Stress (r = -.25, p < .01) and positively correlated with the coping resources Situational Control, (r = .23, p < .01), Emotional Control (r = .18, p = .01), Social Support From Family (r = .19, p < .01), Mental Tension Control (r = .18, p < .01), and Making Plans (r = .15, p < .05). The supervisory working alliance was negatively correlated with Perceived Stress (r = -.23, p < .01) and positively correlated with the coping resources Situational Control (r = .17, p < .01), Emotional Control (r = .18, p < .01), Social Support From Friends (r = .14, p < .05), Mental Tension Control (r = .22, p < .01), Asserting One’s Rights (r = .13, p < .05), and Trusting Oneself (r = .14, p < .05). After controlling for the primary internship setting, Stress (∆R2 = .055, â = -.21, p < .001) and Social Support from Family (∆R2 = .021, â = -.21, p < .025) explained 7.6% of the variance in the working alliance, F (10, 221) = 3.71, p < .001. After controlling for the number of counseling sessions and total number of weekly individual counseling hours, Perceived Stress (∆R2 = .047, â = -.14, p < .10) and Situational Control (∆R2 = .026, â = .18, p < .025) explained 7.3% of the variance in the supervisory working alliance, F (4, 170) = 7.73, p < .001. Implications for counselor training and implications for research are discussed.

No description available.

This study aimed to explore supervisee and supervisor experiences of relational depth (RD) within the supervisory relationship and its association with supervisee level of counselor self-efficacy (CSE). Participants in the study were master's level counseling students and their doctoral supervisors in a practicum course. A total of 52 supervisees (aged 22-57; 19.2% male, 80.8% female) and 18 supervisors (aged 25-46; 16.7% male, 83.3% female) participated in the study. Results demonstrated that supervisee perception of the relationship explained approximately 15% of the variance in supervisee CSE. Specifically, supervisee perception of supervisory working alliance (SWA; β = .406, rs2=.997, p = .025) was found to be a significant predictor of CSE while supervisee RD was not a significant unique predictor (β = -.033, rs2=.370, p = .850), with most of the variance explained by RD being shared with SWA. Results also demonstrated that the supervisor perception of the relationship did not significantly explain variance in supervisee CSE. From these results, one may tentatively conclude that the supervisory relationship contributes to CSE, and that RD, as it is currently being measured, may not able to account for variance above or beyond that of the SWA. Extended results are described and summarized using text, tables, and figures. The study has practical and research implications for counselor educators, supervisors, and researchers in the RD field.

No description available.

No description available.

Clinical supervision is integral to promoting the professional development of counselors-in-training and gatekeeping the counseling services provided by counselor trainees (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). Despite the value of studying participants’ retrospective perceptions about or reflections upon supervision, the supervisory process in which supervision transpires is infrequently quantified and measured (Holloway, 1982; Holloway, 1987). As described by most developmental supervision models, clinical supervision is “a process with sequential and qualitatively distinct stages through which supervisors and trainees progress” (Littrell, Lee-Borden, & Lorenz, 1976, p. 134). In order to capture these stages and phenomena with observable and measurable units, the author used six states of interest to measure the supervision process, which exhibit the progressively complex nature of clinical supervision. The six states include: (a) social interfacing (non-skills phase), (b) reflecting on foundational competencies, (c) deepening case conceptualization, (d) processing the relational management, (e) overcoming personal and multicultural barriers, and (f) furthering professional development. These states underpin the codebook of this study and are used to conceptualize the supervision process. Although the interactions between the supervisor and supervisee are transient and difficult to grasp, supervisory interactions move from one state to another. Indeed, state-transitional dynamics of clinical supervision are subject to a constellation of factors that supervisors and supervisees initially bring in and constantly reinforce, such as supervisory styles, supervisee developmental levels, supervisory working alliance, and supervisee satisfaction with clinical supervision. By using Markov chain analysis, this study detects the overall transitional dynamics of supervisory dyads and investigates how transitional dynamics vary based on the aforementioned variables that manifest themselves as supervision dynamics unfold and closely interface with other supervision variables. Results of this study provide implications for clinical supervisors, counselor educators, and counselors-in-training.

No description available.