Common and specific factors converging in psychotherapy supervision: A supervisory extrapolation of the Wampold/Budge psychotherapy relationship model.

Abstract

In this article, a common and specific factors model of how the psychotherapy supervision relationship contributes to supervisee learning is proposed. Reasoning by analogy (Milne, 2006), the Wampold/ Budge (2012;Budge & Wampold, 2015) psychotherapy relationship model is extrapolated to psychotherapy supervision. We propose a convergence of supervision common and specific factors that emphasizes: (a) the importance of initial supervisor-supervisee alliance bond formation and its maintenance (involving the supervisee's trust for and recognized expertise of the supervisor), and (b) 3 relationship pathways by which supervisee change occurs. Those 3 change pathways are: (a) the supervisor-supervisee real relationship (involving professional attachment, belongingness, and social connection), (b) the supervisor's creation of expectations about the supervision process and implementation of some form of supervision (providing a framework for supervision understanding and enactment of that framework), and (c) the supervisee's participation in facilitative educational actions (where experimenting and refinement beget further experimenting and refinement). When operating in "good enough" fashion, the 3 pathways and supervisory bond converge to produce 3 general supervision outcomes: (a) reduction of supervisee anxiety, shame, and self-doubt; (b) therapist identity development; and (c) therapist skill/competence development. At least 2 learning mechanisms are involved in making those supervisee outcomes possible: (a) exposure and (b) reorganization. This combination of common and specific factors captures potent factors of learning liberation that become actualized in the supervision situation.

A Descriptive Analysis of the Interactions During Clinical Supervision

“…These findings align with the supervision model presented by the FAP (Callaghan, 2006b), the Cube Model for Competency Development (Rodolfa et al, 2013), and the Evidence Based Clinical Supervision Model (Milne and Reiser, 2017). They consider developing theoretical and conceptual skills either as a supervision goal or as a stage for linking them to the clinical skills developed throughout the supervision process (Milne et al, 2011b; Holt et al, 2015; Watkins et al, 2015). It is worth highlighting that this skill needs to be coherent with the supervisee’s approach because this is how their decisions will be guided during therapeutic intervention (Lewis et al, 2014; American Psychological Association [APA], 2015).…”

Supervision of Substance Abuse Therapeutics Emphasizing the Discrimination Model of Supervision and Motivational Interview Practices

“…A final limitation of note was raised by the work of Crunk and Barden [18] who began a discussion of the relative lack of research into the integration of the discrimination model with other supervisory factors. In particular, their work integrated the "common factors" of supervision that by themselves have already received such robust support [30]. Their preliminary efforts are a part of future developments that are spawned by the discrimination model but are yet to be realized.…”

An Investigation of Supervisory Practices to Develop Relational and Reflective Competence in Psychologists

“…These three facets of the supervisory relationship are considered common factors across different supervision approaches, not just those that are psychoanalytically oriented (Watkins, Budge, & Callahan, 2015). Recently, Watkins (2011b) proposed a tripartite model of the supervisory relationship, consisting of the working alliance, transference-countertransference configuration and the real relationship.…”

“…Recently, Watkins (2011b) proposed a tripartite model of the supervisory relationship, consisting of the working alliance, transference-countertransference configuration and the real relationship. These three facets of the supervisory relationship are considered common factors across different supervision approaches, not just those that are psychoanalytically oriented (Watkins, Budge, & Callahan, 2015).…”