Clinical supervision: An intensive case study.

Abstract

We used a rigorous case study methodology to examine one supervisory dyad's work together during one semester. We used the "best-worst" strategy of several recent researchers, multiple sources of qualitative and quantitative process data, and the perspectives both of the participants and of observers. A number of findings provide hypotheses to guide future research. For example. Session 2 was identified as best by both participants. That it focused on relationship issues between the participants is consistent with other findings that the supervisor-supervisee relationship was a primary focus during the first several supervisory sessions.Despite its shortcomings, the science of counseling and psychotherapy rests on a solid empirical foundation. Yet the same is not true for the science of clinical supervision, which is still very much in its infancy. In commenting on this, Holloway and Hosford (1983) observed that scientific endeavor progresses through a series of stages, the first of which is observing a phenomenon in its natural environment. They maintained that observation should be the proper research emphasis at this particular stage of the science of supervision.At first glance, this prescription would seem inappropriate, for observational data are amply represented in the supervision literature. For example, Searles (1955) used case material to introduce a phenomenon that others since have called parallel processes; Markowitz (1958) presented a retrospective, comparative account of supervision that he received from each of several supervisors; and Mueller and Kell (1972) used observations of supervision for their rich formulations of supervisory processes. The supervision literature is replete with such examples.

Correspondence between supervisors and trainees in their perception of supervision events

“…Strozier, Kivlighan, and Thoresen (1993) uncovered meaningful sequential relationships between a supervisor's intentions and a trainee's reactions during the course of supervision. Martin, Goodyear, and Newton (1987), combining quantitative measures with a qualitative analysis, compared the trainee's and the supervisor's shared judgment of best and worst sessions. One of their findings was that the participants had similar perceptions of the best sessions, but diverged in their perception of what constituted the worst sessions.…”

The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision Volume 4, Number 1

“…In therapeutic settings, research has linked session impact to client improvement (Stiles, Shapiro, & FirthCozens, 1988 and has found session impact ratings to significantly predict termination (Mallinckrodt, 1993). Only one study has been conducted in a supervisory setting (Martin, Goodyear, & Newton, 1987). In that study, session impact was found to vary more for supervisees than for supervisors.…”

“…The SEQ developed by Stiles (1980) was initially aimed at measuring dimensions of immediate impacts of a counseling session and later was used to measure immediate impacts of a supervision session (Burke, Goodyear, & Guzzard, 1998;Kivlighan, Angelone & Swafford, 1991;Lichtenberg & Goodyear, 2000;Martin et al, 1987). The SEQ is composed of 21 bipolar adjectives normally rated on a 7-point scale allowing participants to rate how they evaluate their session and how they feel concerning the supervision session.…”

web‐assisted vocational test interpretation

“…The SEQ has been used in supervision studies and studies of counseling outcomes (Jones & Markos, 1997;Kivlighan, 1989;Martin, Goodyear, & Newton, 1987;Nocita & Stiles, 1986). Tryon (1990) found, for example, that the SEQ Depth score differentiated clients who returned from those who did not return for counseling after the initial session.…”