The aim of this study was to investigate aspects of nondisclosure in a sample of 55 student therapists, working within a group format of supervision. The study constituted one part of a larger study, with the other, parallel part addressing nondisclosure in supervisors. The participants were recruited from seven university-based training clinics in Norway and Denmark. The supervisees answered a questionnaire comprising 11 items about nondisclosure in supervision. The items were answered in a yes/no format, and the respondents were invited to provide examples and justifications for their answers to each item. The examples and justifications provided were analysed in accordance with Hill's guidelines for consensual qualitative research. The study confirmed significant nondisclosure by supervisees in a number of important areas. A high percentage found it difficult to talk about topics related to the supervisory relationship, fearing that they would hurt their supervisor or be met with criticism or interpretation. They were also reluctant to talk to their supervisors about professional matters, particularly related to the perceived incompetence of their supervisors and their expectancy of non-constructive criticism. They felt that their supervisors withheld feedback on their work, as well as advise on what to do, and would like more of this. Several of them thought of the lack of feedback as a conscious strategy helping the students to find out for themselves. A rather striking finding was that a high number of students experienced that the groups became more closed throughout the supervision, and blamed their supervisors for inadequate handling of the group process. This is an issue that needs further exploration.

The aim of this study was to investigate aspects of nondisclosure in a sample of 30 psychotherapy supervisors, working within a group format of supervision of student therapists. The study constituted one part of a larger study, with the other, parallel part addressing nondisclosure in supervisees. The participants were recruited from seven university-based training clinics in Norway and Denmark. The supervisors answered a questionnaire comprising 12 items about feedback withheld by supervisors, supervisors' assumptions about supervisee nondisclosure, supervisors' assumptions about what students think that supervisors withhold, supervisors' use of indirect feedback, and changes in group climate with regard to openness over the course of the supervision. The questionnaire items were answered in a yes/no format, and the respondents were invited to provide examples and justifications for their answers to the individual items. The examples and justifications provided were analysed in accordance with Hill's guidelines for consensual qualitative research. The study confirmed willful and significant nondisclosure by supervisors in a number of important areas, with supervisors having a conscious attitude with regard to what they disclose. To a large extent, they modify their feedback based on assumptions about what will most benefit the individual supervisee's development. Supervisors assume that students act in much the same way, so as not to interfere with the supervisory process. The findings raise the question of whether the widespread cautiousness in terms of

No abstract

The focus of this study is on how the participants in 16 supervisory dyads perceive the content and process in a supervisory session, and on the meaning they attach to supervisory events. A central issue is to what degree the participants in each dyad correspond in their perceptions and evaluation of supervisory events. Another question is how lack of correspondence affects the trainees' experience of satisfaction with the supervision. A majority of the dyads were rated low or moderate in correspondence, and it is discussed whether the influence of low correspondence on trainee satisfaction may be related to supervisory intentions and style characteristics. A main point in the discussion is whether role ambiguity may be related to obscure communication and reduced correspondence, and it is suggested that more attention should be paid to negotiating and renegotiating rules for the supervisory relationship.

An approach to group supervision, applying reflecting team, is described. Interview data showing how the approach is practiced recently are presented and analyzed qualitatively, and the results are discussed in relation to the original approach. The conclusion is that there are many pitfalls in using reflecting teams in supervision, and that following the original approach may guard against these pitfalls, but that some revisions may be needed. Supervisors, supervisees, and reflecting team members are all generally satisfied with the approach, but it remains to be established to what extent it contributes to therapist development.