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

Abstract

The aim of this qualitative study was to retrospectively examine nondisclosure in individual supervision while in training. Interviews were conducted with supervisees two years post-qualification. Specific nondisclosures were examined and reasons for these nondisclosures were explored. Six in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted and data analysis drew on Consensual Qualitative Research. The findings revealed four categories relating to: (i) the nature of the difficulty; (ii) reasons for nondisclosure; (iii) the supervisory relationship; and (iv) facilitative factors. The quality of the supervisory relationship was a significant element in nondisclosure. A key recommendation was that role induction for supervisees should be incorporated into training programmes to assist supervisees in learning how to use supervision more effectively. Limitations of the study and further research are provided in light of current findings.

The unsaid: In‐depth accounts of non‐disclosures in supervision from the trainees’ perspective

“…Similar to the initial findings of Ladany et al. (), and more recent research (Mehr et al., ; Sweeney & Creaner, ), trainees in this study spoke of non‐disclosure as a regular occurrence of mostly conscious or purposeful omissions. The prominent findings of this study, however, revolved around the power dynamics within the supervisory relationship which appeared to perpetuate a cycle of non‐disclosures.…”

“…Other factors that contribute to non‐disclosure include the lack of role induction (Bahrick, Russell, & Salmi, ), and the lack of guidance and knowledge about what to disclose in supervision in order to use it effectively (Sweeney & Creaner, ). Research points to a number of dynamics which possibly exist concurrently within the supervisory relationship potentially impacting non‐disclosure.…”

Current trends in clinical supervision: Introduction to the special section

“…The quality of the supervisory relationship has been widely acknowledged as a central component in effective supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014;Ellis, 1991;Ladany et al, 2013;Worthen & McNeill, 1996). Other positive outcomes of effective supervision comprise increased supervisee self-efficacy (Cashwell & Dooley, 2001;Efstation, Patton, & Kardash, 1990;Lehrman-Waterman & Ladany, 2001); self-awareness (Borders, 1990); enhanced supervisee disclosure (Hess et al, 2008;Mehr, Ladany, & Caskie, 2010;Sweeney & Creaner, 2014) and professional identity development (Worthen & McNeill, 1996). Positive outcomes also refer to facilitating cross-cultural supervision (Wong, Wong, & Ishiyama, 2013); promoting treatment adherence (Sholomskas et al, 2005) along with professional development and skills acquisition (McMahon & Patton, 2000;Ogren & Jonsson, 2003).…”

Patients’ and therapists’ experiences of general change mechanisms during bug‐in‐the‐eye and delayed video‐based supervised cognitive‐behavioral therapy. A randomized controlled trial

“…Live supervision has the advantage that it prevents nondisclosure of the supervised therapist (Jakob, Weck, Höfling, Richtberg, & Bohus, ; Muslin, Thurnblad, & Meschel, ; Sweeney & Creaner, ), whereby the most often used techniques in supervisory practice allow nondisclosure (e.g., discussing case reports instead of reviewing video tapes or using live supervision; Weck, Kaufmann, & Witthöft, ). Nondisclosure is more common among supervisees with fear of negative evaluation (Jakob et al., ; Wilson et al, ).…”