Evidence‐based practice within supervision during psychology practitioner training: A systematic review

Abstract

Background Supervision has long been recognised as a highly influential aspect of training within psychology. The scientist–practitioner model underpins postgraduate psychology training programs. During such programs, clinical supervision plays an important role in the development and acquisition of evidence‐based practice and scientist–practitioner competence. Objective The primary objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive, current, and systematic review of the empirical research on supervisory interventions or practice that monitored and/or shaped the development of scientist–practitioner competence among psychology trainees. The secondary objective was to conduct a critical appraisal and assess the methodological rigour of included studies. Methods Four major electronic databases were systematically searched against a priori inclusion criteria. Eligible quantitative studies investigated were located and assessed to identify evidence‐based practice and scientist–practitioner factors within supervision in the psychology training settings. Results A large pool of studies was retrieved but only four studies (N = 724 participants) met inclusion criteria indicating a major gap in the area. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Included studies were of good methodological quality, had small to medium sample sizes, and produced significant and valid results. Included studies used competency evaluation rating forms and compared supervision interventions. Conclusions Despite the large body of literature on supervision, this review highlights a lack of empirical investigations into evidence‐based practice and scientist–practitioner competence within supervision during psychology training. Future research directions are provided, and recommendations and implications for training and supervision are discussed.

What do clinical supervision research reviews tell us? Surveying the last 25 years

“…That three of the most recent supervision reviews surveyed here (Alfonsson et al, ; Barrett et al, ; Kühne et al, ) followed these systematic review and registration guidelines also seems good, reflecting efforts by supervision researchers to maintain the highest research standards, be highly rigorous in the process and produce the promised product for study and scrutiny. Future supervision systematic reviews would do well to follow the lead of these three efforts (Alfonsson et al, ; Barrett et al, ; Kühne et al, ).…”

“…But just as there is much value to be found in their review approach, two of these reviews (Alfonsson et al, ; Barrett et al, ) also raise this question for consideration: At what point does restriction of allowed studies become so restrictive that finding meaningful results becomes a virtual impossibility? Four studies were reviewed in Barrett et al () and five in Alfonsson et al (). It would seem that whereas more studies reviewed do not necessarily lead to quality findings, studies that are both more variable in content and fewer in number will be increasingly apt to lead to highly limited, less robust review findings.…”

“…Moreover, because a spike in supervision research reviews has occurred across these last five years alone (e.g. Alfonsson, Parling, Spännargård, Andersson, & Lundgren, ; Barrett, Gonsalvez, & Shires, ; Forshaw, Sabin‐Farrell, & Schröder, ; Kühne, Maas, Wiesenthal, & Weck, ; Newman, Simon, & Swerdlik, ), the time for such a survey would seem especially apropos.…”

“…The reviews were varied in focus and can be roughly grouped as follows: general reviews, where 'the whole' of supervision was examined (Bogo & McKnight, 2006;Borders, 2006;Buus & Gonge, 2009;Newman et al, 2019;O'Donoghue & Tsui, 2015;Tsui, 1997); reviews primarily focused on supervision effects on supervisees and/or clients (Alfonsson et al, 2018;Carpenter et al, 2013;Freitas, 2002;Kühne et al, 2019;Reiser & Milne, 2014;Watkins, 2011;Wheeler & Richards, 2007); single reviews about evidencebased practice (Barrett et al, 2019), supervision models (Simpson-Southward, Waller, & Hardy, 2017), the supervisee's experience of receiving supervision (Wilson, Davies, & Weatherhead, 2016) and the supervisor's experience of providing supervision (Forshaw et al, 2019); and reviews focused on methodology and rigour (Ellis et al, 2008;Ellis & Ladany, 1997;Ellis et al, 1996).…”

“…The number of reviewed articles across reviews ranged from a low of four (Barrett et al, 2019) to a high of 131 (Ellis et al, 1996) Ellis et al (1996) The same as Ellis et al (1996) half of the reviews involving anywhere from 10 to 40 articles. The total span of years covered ranged from 1964 (Simpson-Southward et al, 2017) up to 2017 (Barrett et al, 2019), with most reviews accounting for a span of 10-30 years. The vast majority of reviewed studies came from the United States.…”