This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

This study surveyed the training directors of counseling, clinical, and school psychology programs accredited by the American Psychological Association on training and supervisory practices and perceptions of various modalities of supervision. Response rates were 74%, 56%, and 45%, respectively. Clinical and counseling psychology training directors reported that videotape review was the most used modality of supervision; school psychology training directors reported that self-report only was the most frequently used. The amount of time involved in conducting live supervision and cotherapy as supervision was seen as a moderate barrier to their use. Cotherapy as supervision was rated as having the most strengths by all program directors. Supervision is a central component in the training of graduate students in clinical, counseling, and school psychology. In the context of a supervisory relationship with a more experienced professional who oversees and assumes responsibility for the therapeutic work of the novice, a professional in training, the student is able to develop competence and confidence in the therapeutic role. It has been argued that supervision is "the critical teaching method" in the psychotherapeutic fields, and that "professional education depends on the supervisory process to facilitate the development of the student from the novice to the autonomously functioning professional" (Holloway, 1992, p. 177).Just as there are varied theories of counseling and psychotherapy, there are different theories and modalities of supervi-JOHN S. C. ROMANS received his PhD from the University of Kansas in 1990. He is currently an assistant professor in the Department of Applied Behavioral Studies in Education at Oklahoma State University. His research interests include supervision and career development issues. DONALD L. BOSWELL received his PhD from Indiana State University in 1987. He is currently an associate professor and director of training of the Counseling Psychology Program in the Department of Applied Behavioral Studies in Education at Oklahoma State University. His research interests include professional development of psychologists and personality assessment. ALFRED F. CARLOZZI received his EdD from the University of Houston in 1979. He is an associate professor in the Department of Applied Behavioral Studies in Education at Oklahoma State University. His major professional interests include supervision, ethics, and marital and family therapy, and he has conducted research on empathy and open mindedness in counselors and counselor trainees. DENNIS B. FERGUSON received his MS in counseling from Oklahoma State University in 1984 and is currently a doctoral intern in Counseling Psychology at the University of Denver. WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION to Laura B. Barnes.

A random sample of 220 counseling center client records at a large Midwestern university, was used to assess reliability and validity of the Outcome Questionnaire-45.2 (OQ-45.2). The center uses the OQ-45.2 at intake. Internal consistency coefficients for the three subscales and the total score were acceptable, with high coefficients for the total score and Symptom Distress subscale and moderate coefficients for the Interpersonal Relations and Social Role subscales. Correlations among clients' presenting concerns and OQ-45.2 scores were computed and lend strong support for the validity of the OQ-45.2 total score and the Symptom Distress subscale. Weaker support was found for the Interpersonal Relations and Social Role subscales.

No abstract

Characteristics of patients who failed to appear for their intake interviews at a community mental health center were contrasted with those who did follow through with their appointments. Findings suggest that characteristics associated with dropping out are likely to vary with patient groups. Show rates for adults who were seeking help for themselves were significantly related to parental status and the length of time from the day of scheduling an intake interview until that appointment. Patient-therapist gender matches were related to the probability of children showing for intake interviews.