Effective Supervision in Groups

Abstract

In this study, the authors organized group supervision behaviors into categories that represent requirements of effective group supervision. T o determine the requirements for effective supervision in groups, the authors collected reports of behaviors exhibited by a physician and a behavioral scientist acting as co-supervisors. These reports were gathered from 84 2nd-year medical students participating in a practicum designed to improve their patient interviewing skills. The 84 reports of effective supervisory behavior by physicians were categorized by 11 judges. The judges' categories were pooled, and principal component analysis was used to extract a single list of hypothetical latent categories. This procedure was repeated with three other sets of reports: ineffective behavior of physicians, effective behavior of behavioral scientists, and ineffective behavior of behavioral scientists. The results yielded an empirical account of group supervision to augment the conceptual and anecdotal descriptions prevalent in group supervision literature.After reviewing the literature on group supervision, Holloway and Johnston (1985) concluded that supervision in groups is widely practiced but poorly understood. Group supervision seems to be based on theoretical assumptions that lack empirical support. Holloway and Johnston recommended more research on the case presentation approach to group supervision and outlined specific topics to be investigated. In this study we addressed one of the recommended research topics: What roles should supervisors adopt to achieve the goals of group supervision?In addition to recommending research topics, Holloway and Johnston (1985) recommended a research approach. They pointed out that there are neither adequate models of the case presentation approach to group supervision' nor detailed descriptions of the actual process of group supervision. Therefore, they recommended exploratory studies that empirically describe group supervision practices. Following this recommendation, we sought in this study to identify group supervision behaviors and to empirically organize these behaviors into categories representing the requirements of effective group supervision.

Counselor trainees' perceptions of supervisor roles: Two studies testing the dimensionality of supervision.

“…In fact, there is little evidence reported here and in Ellis and Dell to suggest that counselor trainees and supervisors differ in the core dimensions (map) of supervision. These findings appear to be at variance with evidence that (a) more than 12 dimensions were necessary to account for supervisees’ or supervisors’ perceptions of supervision (Reising & Daniels, 1983; Savickas et al, 1986; Worthington, 1984), (b) premaster’s trainees and predoctoral trainees significantly differed in their perceptions of supervision (Heppner & Roehlke, 1984; Reising & Daniels, 1983; Worthington & Stern, 1985), (c) counselor trainees’ perceptions of supervision did not match supervisors’ perceptions (Heppner & Roehlke, 1984; Worthington & Stern, 1985), and (d) supervision (and perceptions thereof) were found to differ significantly from one academic setting to another (Worthington, 1984). Although the reasons for these discrepancies were not conspicuous, one plausible explanation lies in the types of data collected and analysis from the two studies reported here (i.e., paired comparisons and MDS).…”

“…A few researchers have attempted to identify the salient variables or dimensions of supervision (Ellis & Dell, 1986; Reising & Daniels, 1983; Savickas, Marquart, & Supinski, 1986; Worthington, 1984; Worthington & Roehlke, 1979). Worthington and Roehlke (1979) factor analyzed 42 supervisor behaviors rated by neophyte counselor trainees and retained two factors (i.e., Evaluation and Support).…”

“…Of the 12 principal components obtained, four were significantly related to trainee experience levels (i.e., Independence with Direction, Infrequently Taught Skills, Direct Monitoring, and Establishing Goals). In a study of group supervision, Savickas et al (1986) found 27 principal components derived from groupings of 84 effective and 53 ineffective supervisor behaviors, compiled from supervision critical incidents reported by physician trainees in an interviewing skills practicum.…”

Hindering phenomena in group supervision: Implications for practice.

“…Less attention has been given to negative aspects of group supervision, including factors that might hinder supervisees' learning. The literature that exists suggests that personality conflicts may disrupt the group's flow and functioning, taking time away from the supervision of cases (Counselman & Gumpert, 1993); group members may avoid giving constructive criticism to one another (Tebb, Manning, & Klaumann, 1996); critical responses by other group members to the member who is presenting a case may be detrimental to learning by causing shame, embarrassment, and anxiety (Altfeld, 1999); the large amount of feedback gleaned by the presenting therapist might be too overwhelming (Altfeld, 1999); group pressure to conform might stifle individual creativity (Kadushin, 1985); the supervisor may not have the skill to manage the complexities of group supervision (Kadushin, 1985; Tebb et al, 1996); and supervisors may resort to unhelpful storytelling or the reporting of irrelevant experiences (Savickas, Marquart, & Supinski, 1986).…”

A taxonomy of the feedback given in the group supervision of group counselor trainees.

“…Graves and Graves (1973) found that students in group supervision who were rated as giving the most meaningful feedback were more verbal and gave more positive and “owned” feedback than students who were rated as giving less meaningful feedback. Savickas, Marquart, and Supinski (1986) found that trainees in supervision groups rated giving encouraging feedback as one of the most effective supervisor behaviors. Starling and Baker (2000), in a qualitative study of four group supervisees, found that peer feedback was noted as especially important.…”