Predoctoral interns’ nondisclosure in supervision

Abstract

Abstract:In interviews with 14 counseling center predoctoral interns regarding a significant nondisclosure in supervision, eight interns reported good supervisory relationships and six indicated that they experienced problematic supervisory relationships. Nondisclosures for the interns in good supervisory relationships related to personal reactions to clients, whereas nondisclosures for interns in problematic supervisory relationships related to global dissatisfaction with the supervisory relationship. In both groups, interns mentioned concerns about evaluation and negative feelings as typical reasons for nondisclosure. Additional reasons for nondisclosure for interns in problematic supervision were power dynamics, inhibiting demographic or cultural variables, and the supervisor's theoretical orientation. Both groups described negative effects of nondisclosure on themselves and their relationships with clients. Interns in problematic supervision also reported that nondisclosures had negative effects on the supervisory relationship.Inherent in most models of supervision is the expectation that supervisees will disclose to their supervisors about themselves, their clients, and the therapeutic and supervisory relationships to facilitate the supervision process and therapist development (e.g., Bordin, 1983;Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982;Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987). When supervisees withhold important information from supervisors, opportunities for therapist development are missed and client welfare may be jeopardized (Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & Nutt, 1996;Yourman & Farber, 1996).Supervisee nondisclosure can occur in two ways. In unintentional withholding, lack of disclosure is the result of NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author's final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.Psychotherapy Research, Vol. 18, No. 4 (July 2008 (Farber, 2006;Wallace & Alonso, 1994). By contrast, willful or intentional withholding is the result of supervisees' conscious decisions to distort or not disclose significant information in supervision (Farber, 2006;Ladany et al., 1996). In this study, we focus on willful withholding. The three empirical studies on supervisee intentional nondisclosure in supervision (Ladany et al., 1996;Webb & Wheeler, 1998;Yourman & Farber, 1996) found that supervisees typically withhold important information from their supervisors. These studies surveyed supervisees with a range of training and experience; however, no studies have examined the phenomenon of nondisclosure from the perspective of trainees who are in the culminating internship year of their doctoral program (predoctoral interns). Therefore, our first purpose was to explore predoctoral interns' experience of nondisclosure.Our second goal was to explore reasons for intentional nondisclosure. From empirical data (Ladany et al., 1996), we know that supervisees sometimes do not disclose to their supervisors because the information is deemed irrelevant...

What's not being said? Recollections of nondisclosure in clinical supervision while in training

“…They also purport that 97.2% of supervisees in training intentionally withhold information from their supervisors and cite the most common reasons for nondisclosures as negative reactions to their supervisor, clinical errors and personal issues that the supervisee may or may not consider relevant to supervision. While Mehr et al's (2010) study reports a lesser 84.3% nondisclosure rate among trainees, their findings are consistent with previous studies which indicate that supervisees are more likely to refrain from disclosing concerns related to the supervisory relationship than clinical concerns (Hess et al, 2008;Ladany et al, 1996). Furthermore, Yourman and Farber (1996) suggest that supervisees' anxiety about performance and/or evaluation may also play a significant role in how they choose to disclose, or not to disclose, in supervision.…”

“…The quality of the supervisory relationship seems to be almost universally implicated in disclosure when examining the current literature (Gray, Ladany, Walker, & Ancis, 2001;Hess et al, 2008;Karpenko & Gidycz, 2012;Ladany et al, 1997;Mehr et al, 2010). Holloway, Freund, Gardner, Nelson, and Walker (1989) noted that supervisees are reported to behave differently when discussing the same client case with different supervisors due to a perceived power differential (Holloway, 1995).…”

Ethical supervision: Harmonizing rules and ideals in a globalizing world.

“…their supervisors (Hess et al, 2008). Supervisee willingness to introduce diversity issues may be substantially diminished by the power differential and perceived lack of integration into supervision of the issues of culture, ethics, and globalization, and their interrelationship.…”

Differences in Perceptions of Supervisee Contribution: Supervisors’ vs. Supervisees’ Evaluations

“…As in a teacher-student relationship, there is an inherent power differential due to the evaluation component of supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 2013;Borders & Brown, 2005;Hess et al, 2008). A strong bond between supervisor and supervisee is important for a positive working alliance in which fear of evaluation does not inhibit supervisee growth.…”

“…In addition to concerns about evaluation (Hess et al, 2008), a poor supervisory alliance, negative reactions to the supervisor, and perceived unimportance of the information kept hidden are all common reasons that supervisees do not disclose information to their supervisors (Ladany et al, 1996). Mixed-method research involving qualitative interviews may help address why supervisees are not following supervisor directives or engaging in other behaviors to contribute to their own supervision.…”