Does Affirmative Training Matter? Assessing CFT Students’ Beliefs About Sexual Orientation and Their Level of Affirmative Training

Abstract

This study examined couple and family therapy (CFT) students' beliefs about sexual orientation, their self-reported competency working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) clients, and the level of affirmative training students received in their CFT programs. One hundred and ninety students from accredited CFT programs completed the study. While participants reported feeling only somewhat competent to work with LGB clients and less than half reported receiving any training on affirmative therapy, the majority of the participants did appear to hold positive attitudes toward LGB clients. The results support the literature arguing for CFT programs to include specific training on affirmative therapy practices, as the level of affirmative training was directly related to participants' self-reported clinical competency working with LGB clients.

A Collaborative-Affirmative Approach to Supervisory Practice

“…Graduates of family therapy training programs have had little training or coursework on sexual orientation (Godfrey, Haddock, Fisher, & Lund, 2006). Research has shown that more than 75% of family therapy graduates have had less than 2 hours of training related to sexually marginalized populations (Malley & Tasker, 1999) and slightly more than 60% of family therapists reported having received no training on affirmative therapy practices and LGB identity development (Rock, Carlson, & McGeorge, 2010). This lack of training on sexual orientation has led family therapists to believe they are only "somewhat" competent in their abilities to work effectively with LGB clients (Rock et al, 2010).…”

“…Research has shown that more than 75% of family therapy graduates have had less than 2 hours of training related to sexually marginalized populations (Malley & Tasker, 1999) and slightly more than 60% of family therapists reported having received no training on affirmative therapy practices and LGB identity development (Rock, Carlson, & McGeorge, 2010). This lack of training on sexual orientation has led family therapists to believe they are only "somewhat" competent in their abilities to work effectively with LGB clients (Rock et al, 2010). Yet despite such limited knowledge and training on sexual orientation, 80% of family therapists report working with LGB clients in therapy (Green & Bobele, 1994).…”

Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Supervisees’ Experiences of LGB-Affirmative and Non-Affirmative Supervision in COAMFTE-Accredited Training Programs

“…A review of the literature indicates that: (a) supervision is often considered one of the most important mediums through which therapy is taught to trainees; (b) LGB issues are not adequately being addressed within supervision; and, (c) there is a dearth of empirical studies that assess the extent to which marriage and family therapy (MFT) faculty and supervisors are attending to LGB issues within clinical training and supervision (Carlson et al, 2012;Rock et al, 2010), and specifically to the ways in which these issues relate to the experiences of LGB supervisees (e.g., Charlés, Thomas, & Thornton, 2005; Hernandez & Rankin, 2008;Long & Serovich, 2003).…”

“…Unfortunately, there are few empirical studies that specifically address the experience of LGB supervisees (Burkard et al, 2009). The few that do exist, however, highlight the importance of creatingLGB-affirming environments for LGB supervisees (e.g., Burkard et al, 2009;Lark & Croteau, 1998) and for supervisees working with LGB clients (e.g., Aducci & Baptist, 2011;Bahr, Brish, & Croteau, 2000;Carlson, McGeorge, & Toomey, 2012;Long, 2002;Rock, Carlson, & McGeorge, 2010).Researchers have noted the importance of providing safety and LGB-affirmative environments for LGB trainees and supervisees (e.g., Burkard et al, 2009;Lark & Croteau, 1998). For example, Lark and Croteau's (1998) study of 14 self-identified LGB doctoral students' mentoring relationship with faculty found that when students felt affirmed and safe in their LGB identities within the training environment, they were able to fully engage in their training.…”

“…For example, Clark and Serovich (1997) While the accrediting bodies of the major mental health professions have called for the infusion of LGB issues into their curricula (Long & Serovich, 2003), there is a paucity of research about how well graduate programs are integrating LGB issues into their training and supervision. The research that does exist raises question about the effectiveness of training programs to incorporate more LGB issues in their curricula (Allison et al, 1994;Bepko & Johnson, 2000;Buhrke, 1989;Carlson et al, 2012;Glenn & Russell, 1986; Graham et al, 1984;Mackelprang, Ray, & Hernandez-Peck, 1996;Morrow, 1996; Murphy, 1991;Murphy et al, 2002;Phillips & Fischer, 1998;Rock et al, 2010; Whittman, 1995).LGB SUPERVISEES' EXPERIENCES OF LGB-AFFIRMATIVE AND NON-AFFIRMATIVE SUPERVISION (Carlson et al, 2012;Charlés, et al, 2005;Godfrey, Haddock, Fisher, & Lund, 2006;Green, 1996; Hernandez & Rankin, 2008;Long & Serovich, 2003;Rock et al, 2010) have offered suggestions for how to integrate sexual minority information into training, but no comprehensive study has looked specifically at the degree to which this is occurring across theory, research, andLGB Other mental health disciplines, particularly psychology and social work, have better addressed the extent to which graduate training is preparing students for work with theLGB population (Charlés, et al, 2005;Rock et al, 2010). However, based on studies that assessed trainees' experiences with LGB issues and/or their attitudes about working with the LGB population, it appears that graduate training does not adequately prepare students to competently work with LGB individuals, couples, and families (Allison et al, 1994; Croteau, Bieschke, Phillips, & Lark, 1998).…”