[acb-hsp] Family Therapy: Trainees Evaluation of Best and Worst Supervisory Experiences

[J.Rayl]

Family Therapy Trainees' Evaluations of Their Best and Worst Supervision Experiences
by Stephen A. Anderson , Margaret Schlossberg , Sandra Rigazio-Digilio
National surveys of marital and family therapy training and supervision have played
an important role in charting the course and direction of the field. A most notable
period for the emergence of this methodology was in the late 1980s, when a number
of national surveys were conducted (Coleman, Avis, & Turin, 1990; Henry, Sprenkle,
& Sheehan, 1986; Hines, 1996; McKenzie, Atkinson, Quinn, & Heath, 1986; Nichols,
Nichols, & Hardy, 1990; Saba & Liddle, 1986; Wetchler, 1988). Many of these surveys
sought to describe the predominant characteristics, methods, and theoretical orientations
of contemporary family therapy supervisors (McKenzie et al., 1986; Nichols et al.,
1990; Saba & Liddle, 1986; Wetchler, 1988). Others were interested in various aspects
of family therapy training such as programmatic differences between university training
programs and free-standing training institutes (Henry et al., 1986), the extent to
which gender had been incorporated into family therapy training programs (Coleman
et al., 1990), and whether those who had graduated from accredited academic programs
considered their training as adequate preparation for later professional work (Hines,
1996). Perhaps the most ambitious survey was the Basic Family Therapy Skills Project
conducted by Figley, Nelson, and colleagues (Figley & Nelson, 1989; 1990; Nelson
& Figley, 1990; Nelson, Heilbrun, & Figley, 1993). These authors elicited the views
of the most experienced supervisors and trainers in the field to identify the predominant,
generic, and model-specific skills believed to be needed by beginning family therapists.
In most of these surveys, information was primarily elicited from supervisors, trainers,
or faculty members in family therapy training programs. Two exceptions were the study
by Henry et ai. (1986), which was based upon information collected from both trainers
and trainees, and the 1988 study by Hines (1996), which surveyed graduates of training
programs. While several other recent surveys assessed the perceptions of trainees,
these two focused specifically on the stresses associated with family therapy training
(Poison & Nida, 1998; Sori, Wetchler, Ray, & Niedner, 1996).
Two significant conclusions can be drawn from a review of these previous national
surveys. First, most available data were collected about a decade ago, and newer
data are needed to assess the current status of family therapy training and supervision.
second, data from the perspectives of trainees have been limited, with most information
coming from trainers and supervisors.
The primary purpose of our study was to collect current information about supervision
that occurs as part of family therapy training from the perspective of the supervisee.
A second purpose was to replicate a University of Connecticut study that surveyed
clinical and counseling psychology trainees (Alien, Szollos, & Williams, 1986). Both
studies asked supervisees to describe their "best" and "worst" supervision experiences,
paying particular attention to the context in which the supervision occurred and
to the behavior of the supervisor. It was expected mat this approach would provide
useful information about supervision in family therapy training and highlight differences
in supervisory practices as reported by students in a related discipline. Rather
than examining the overall training experience, the survey focused specifically upon
trainees' supervision experiences, which is only one aspect of the broader training
experience.
METHODS
Procedures
In 1996, we contacted 52 Master's and doctoral programs, listed by the American Association
for Marriage and Family Therapy as COAMFTE-accredited or candidacy programs in the
United States and Canada and asked them to participate in the study. Program directors
were contacted by mail and asked to randomly distribute copies of a 12-page questionnaire
and return envelopes to three male and three female students who had participated
in at least three different supervision experiences. A minimum of three experiences
was deemed essential so that respondents would have a range of experiences to draw
on in reconstructing their best and worst supervision experiences. Asking program
directors to solicit student participation ensured that the identities of both the
respondents and the supervisors they described would remain anonymous to the researchers.
Programs were given numeric codes so that investigators could track response rates
from each participating program. This also permitted investigators to issue a second
mailing after the initial surveys were circulated. Within 4 months of the initial
mailing, 98 (31.4%) of a possible 312 completed questionnaires were returned. Investigators
then contacted all program directors with fewer than six returned questionnaires,
discussed possible obstacles to student participation, and then asked if they would
be willing to solicit participation again. Within three months of the second mailing,
an additional 62 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a 51.3% response rate
(n = 160). Two questionnaires were dropped from the study because respondents had
not experienced at least three different supervisory relationships. An additional
nine questionnaires with missing data reduced the number of cases available for some
analyses.
Overall, 45 (86.7%) of the 52 programs holding COAMFTE accreditation or candidacy
status were represented in the study. This included 100% participation among the
eight accredited doctoral programs and the three programs that offered both accredited
Master's and doctoral programs. Seven of the 36 accredited Master's programs and
one of the five Master's-level candidacy programs contacted did not respond.
Instruments
Two cover letters describing the purposes of the survey were used to introduce directors
and students to the survey. Most items were taken from the Alien et al. (1986) questionnaire
but were adapted to better fit family therapy training and supervision contexts.
The survey consisted of three parts: (1) biographic and background information, (2)
questions on the respondents' best supervisory experience, and (3) a matching set
of questions on the respondents' worst supervisory experience.
In the first part of the survey, information on the respondents' background and experience
(e.g., age, gender, years of graduate training, intern status) was ascertained. Respondents
also were asked to rate their satisfaction with their clinical and academic training
on 6-point scales. In addition, several items assessed subjects' preferred theoretical
orientation and anticipated area of primary professional involvement.
The second and third parts focused on how respondents perceived their best and worst
supervision experiences. They were first asked to think about all of their formal
supervision experiences and to select the one that they were most satisfied with
and then answer a series of questions about this experience. They were then asked
to select the supervision experience that they were most dissatisfied with and to
answer a corresponding set of questions about that experience. The set of questions
that comprised parts 2 (the best supervision) and 3 (the worst supervision) focused
on three aspects of each experience. The first aspect examined contextual factors
related to the structure and format of each supervisory experience (e.g., length,
frequency of contacts, primary modality, time devoted to personal growth, time devoted
to technical training).
The second aspect focused on the attributes of each supervisor, such as the supervisor's
gender, theoretical orientation, and years of experience. Following Alien et al.
(1986), the survey also included subscales from a short version of the Barak and
LaCrosse (1975) Counselor's Rating Form developed by Corrigan and Schmidt (1983).
While this instrument was developed to evaluate counselors and therapists on three
dimensions of interpersonal attractiveness, expertness, and trustworthiness, these
attributes are thought to be relevant to the supervisor-supervisee relationship (Anderson,
Rigazio-DiGilio, & Kunkler, 1995; Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Giblin, 1994). Each dimension
was measured by four items assessing the following qualities: friendly, likable,
sociable, warm (attractiveness), experienced, expert, prepared, skillful (expertness),
honest, reliable, sincere, and trustworthy (trustworthiness). Respondents evaluated
each supervisor on these items using a 7-point scale, weighted from "very" to "not
very."
The concurrent validity of this instrument is well established (Bachelor, 1987; Wilson
& Yager, 1990), and the construct validity of both the original and the short form
has been consistently documented through factor analysis (Corrigan & Schmidt, 1983;
Epperson & Pecnik, 1985; Tracey, Glidden, & Kokotovic, 1988). Interitem reliabilities
for the three subscales were consistently found to range between .82 and .93 (Corrigan
& Schmidt, 1983). In this sample, alpha reliabilities for ratings of supervisors
in the best experiences were .86, .68, and .86, respectively. In the worst experiences
they were .91, .86, and .90.
The third aspect focused upon the interactional dynamics related to each supervisory
experience. Respondents were asked to consider 40 specific supervisor behaviors from
the Alien et al. (1986) instrument that, when present, notably helped make this their
best (or worst) supervision experience. The construction of these items was based
upon four broad themes of clinical supervision: (1) structural and organizational
components, such as scheduling time exclusively for supervision, canceling sessions,
and encountering frequent interruptions; (2) didactic components, such as teaching
practical skills, providing demonstrations, and suggesting readings; (3) evaluation
and feedback issues, such as clearly communicating expectations and treating mistakes
as learning experiences; and (4) role and power dimensions, represented by issues
of respect versus exploitation, tolerance of value differences, sexist practices,
and respect for supervisees' privacy (Alien et al., 1986).
Respondents were asked to check off only those items that they perceived to have
been important in helping to make a particular experience their best (or worst) experience.
Respondents also were directed to leave items blank to indicate which supervisor
behaviors were not critical in determining their best or worst supervisory experience.
RESULTS
Participants
Despite efforts to balance the sample by gender, 39% of the participants were male
and 61% were female. Although the average age was 33.4 years, students ranged from
22 to 59 years of age. Students had been in their current graduate training for an
average of 3 years, were predominantly full time (86.9%), and had accrued almost
500 hrs of client contact during training (M = 496). Respondents' total years of
clinical experience ranged from one to 16 years (M =3 years). The majority of respondents
were practicum students (69.4%), earning their Master's degree (65%), with the remainder
enrolled in doctoral programs (35%). The vast majority reported being very satisfied
(68%) or moderately satisfied (30%) with their clinical training. The results for
academic training were similar, with 56% reporting they were very satisfied, 36%
reporting moderate satisfaction, 6% reporting slight satisfaction, and 1% reporting
slight dissatisfaction.
In regard to theoretical orientation, there was a wide distribution. Thirty-one percent
described themselves as integrative, 13% constructionist, 11% structural, 9% solution
focused, 9% strategic, 6% experiential, 6% psychodynamic/object relations, 4% intergenerational,
4% behavioral, and 7% other. The most frequently chosen secondary theoretical preferences
were solution focused (23%), integrative (17%), and structural (13%).
The overwhelming majority of the respondents anticipated working primarily as clinical
practitioners (73%) or academicians (19%). When asked about their secondary interests,
the most frequently selected future activities were becoming a supervisor (22%) or
administrator (21%). This group of students reported very little experience being
clients themselves. Less than a third (31%) reported ever being in therapy or counseling.
Of this group, many reported going to therapy as a result of an implicit (24%) or
explicit expectation (10%) for all students in their training program. Others (14%)
reported that they attended therapy as a result of their supervisor's suggestion.
However, many respondents (48%) who had attended personal therapy stated that they
did so for reasons other than those outlined on the questionnaire.
In the next three sections, the data comparing best and worst experiences are presented.
First, descriptive data on the training context and supervisors' attributes are reported.
second, statistical comparisons of additional contextual factors and supervisor attributes
are presented. Finally, the specific behaviors enacted by supervisors in the best
and worst supervision experiences are reported.
Comparison of Best and Worst Supervision Experiences: Descriptive Data
Table 1 lists the frequencies and percentages of categorical variables checked by
respondents as present in their best and worst supervision experiences. The factors
are divided into three categories that describe the general training context, the
specific supervision context, and the perceived attributes of the supervisor.
General training context. There were several similarities in the general training
context in which best and worst supervision experiences took place. Both were most
likely to occur during a practicum experience (74% and 68%, respectively), as opposed
to an introductory- (prepracticum) or doctoral-level internship. This finding probably
reflected the fact that the majority of respondents were enrolled in Master's degree
programs and had received supervision from more than one supervisor during the practicum
experience. Families comprised the largest percentage of clients served in both experiences
(58% and 51%), followed by adults (16% and 15%), and couples (11% and 13%). Both
supervision experiences most commonly occurred in a university clinic (81% and 69%).
However, it is noteworthy that nearly twice as many worst experiences occurred in
community clinics (18%) compared to best experiences (10%).
Supervision context. The most frequent modality for both supervision experiences
was individual supervision (52% and 54%). However, about three times as many subjects
reported having their worst experience in group supervision (29%), compared to only
10% who reported having their best experience in group supervision. Having the same
supervisor for both individual and group supervision was more often associated with
a best experience. Thirty-eight percent of the subjects reported having their best
experience when they had the same supervisor for both individual and group supervision,
while only 17% reported that their worst experience occurred under these same conditions.
Another important aspect of the supervisory context was the primary sources of supervisory
data associated with each experience. Best experiences were more likely to involve
live supervision as the primary source of supervisory data (35%) than were worst
experiences (21%). In contrast, worst experiences more often involved reliance on
verbal reports (38%) than did best experiences (23%). Videotape review did not appear
to differentiate the two experiences (38% and 35%, respectively).
Supervisors' attributes. Respondents described the supervisors in their best and
worst experiences as roughly similar in terms of years of experience, primary role,
and theoretical model. For example, supervisors in both experiences typically held
primary roles as either clinical practitioners or academicians. However, there was
some indication that worst experiences occurred more often than best experiences
when the supervisor's primary role was that of an administrator (10% worst vs. 1%
best) or when the supervisor's primary theoretical orientation was behavioral (13%
worst vs. 2% best). The other interesting difference was hi regard to the supervisor's
gender. Although the gender of the supervisor in the best experiences was distributed
somewhat evenly, nearly two-thirds of the supervisors in the worst experiences were
reported to be male. This contrasts with the fact that most survey respondents were
female.
Another noteworthy finding is the wide variation in supervisors' levels of experience
and the range of theoretical orientations represented. Supervisors in both the best
and worst experiences were described as ranging in experience from less than 5 years
to greater than 15 years. The range of supervisors' theoretical orientations in each
experience also was quite diverse. Clearly, however, the largest group of supervisors
in both categories was described as integrative (36% best and 24% worst), a finding
that mirrors the results of other surveys that have asked about supervisors' and
trainers' theoretical orientations (McKenzie et al., 1986; Saba & Liddle, 1986; Wetchler,
1988).
Comparison of Best and Worst Supervision Experiences: Statistical Comparisons
Table 2 reports the results of the remaining comparisons between best and worst supervisory
experiences on contextual factors and supervisor traits. These data were analyzed
using f-tests to assess mean differences between correlated groups. Of the 12 mean
comparisons performed, 10 were significant at the p < .01 level or better.
Contextual factors. These results indicated that the best supervision experiences
were longer in duration, involved more weekly contact, included more frequent contacts
per week, and addressed a greater number of cases per supervisory session as compared
to worst experiences. Respondents also reported that better experiences involved
seeing more couples and family cases per week than did poorer experiences. Furthermore,
supervision in best experiences was more likely to balance personal growth with the
development of technical skills, whereas supervision in worst experiences tended
to emphasize technical skills over personal growth.
Supervisors' attributes. Supervisors in best experiences were rated higher than those
in worst experiences on all three subscales from the Counselor Rating Form. They
were rated significantly higher on interpersonal attractiveness, trustworthiness,
and expertise.
Supervisor Behaviors in Best and Worst Experiences
Table 3 lists the specific supervisor behaviors that distinguished the best and worst
supervisory experiences. The items are ranked according to the actual number and
percentage of respondents who reported each behavior to be present in their best
experience. Sixteen items were checked by two-thirds or more of the respondents for
their best supervisory experience.
First, these 16 most frequently checked items were organized according to the four
broad themes of supervision used by Alien et al. (1986) to create the original questionnaire
items. The structural and organizational components of supervision were illustrated
by items such as the supervisor setting aside "time exclusively for supervision"
and being "accessible outside the regular schedule." Didactic aspects of supervision
were reflected in items such as supervisors "providing useful conceptual frameworks,"
teaching "practical skills," and "demonstrating their own therapeutic skills." The
evaluation and feedback dimension of supervision was evident in items such as supervisors
welcoming "mistakes as learning experiences," providing feedback "that was direct
and straightforward," offering "praise and encouragement," and encouraging the exploration
of "new ideas and techniques." The role and power dimension of supervision was reflected
in items such as supervisor's "treating the supervisee as a colleague," "respecting
value differences," and "respecting the supervisee's personal time demands" However,
in examining these findings, it became evident that an alternative set of dimensions
could be constructed to highlight the critical aspects of respondents' best supervision
experiences. Based upon our own examination of the data, the following categories
were developed.
The first was a sense of openness in the supervisory environment. This was reflected
in items that described supervisors as "welcoming mistakes as a part of the learning
experience," being "open to feedback," "respecting value differences," "exploring
new ideas and therapeutic techniques," and providing opportunities for "students
to observe one another's work."
A second dimension emphasized communicating respect, support, and encouragement.
This was evident in such items as the supervisor's providing "praise and encouragement,"
"respecting the personal time demands of the supervisee," treating the supervisee
"as a colleague," scheduling time "exclusively for supervision," and being "accessible
outside the regular schedule."
A third dimension emphasized the personal growth aspect of supervision, noted earlier
in the analysis of mean differences between best and worst experiences. Items such
as the supervisor's "encouragement of personal growth issues" and willingness to
"directly confront supervisees' blind spots and resistances" reflected this dimension.
A fourth dimension highlighted conceptual and technical guidance and direction. This
dimension included the supervisor providing "useful conceptual frameworks for understanding
clients," "feedback that was direct and straightforward," the "teaching of practical
skills," and the supervisors' "demonstration of their own therapeutic skill."
Responses describing the worst supervisory experiences were less consistent. The
only item checked by more than one-third of the respondents as "present" in their
worst experience was, "students' weaknesses and shortcomings were emphasized." Nearly
one-third of the respondents also highlighted the supervisor's "heavy emphasis on
evaluation," "encouraging unthinking conformity," and "intolerance for divergent
viewpoints." These items appeared to reflect the evaluation and feedback and role
and power dimensions used to develop the original questionnaire items. They also
were consistent with the alternative dimensions of openness in the supervisory environment
and communicating respect, support, and encouragement, noted above.
Although limited by the descriptive, categorical nature of the data, we were further
interested in determining if the overall findings would differ with the respondents'
level of clinical experience, type of program (Master's versus doctoral), or gender.
The sample was split according to each of these criteria and the resulting groups
were examined visually and statistically (when appropriate) for differences. Although
several scattered differences were apparent, the overall pattern of findings did
not differ substantially from those based on the entire sample.
DISCUSSION
The primary intent of this study was to conduct an exploratory investigation of the
factors that discriminate between family therapy trainees' best and worst supervisory
experiences. These results offer insights into the kind of supervisory experiences
most valued by students in COAMFTE-accredited and candidacy-status training programs.
A second intent was to replicate an earlier study conducted within an analogous discipline,
clinical psychology, and to compare the findings. These results reveal similarities
that suggest a degree of support for the validity of our findings. Results regarding
differences, while more tentative, may offer some insight into possible variations
in supervisory practices and philosophies across each discipline.
Indeed, the sample characteristics and many of the findings from this study corresponded
with those reported by Alien et al. (1986). The two samples were similar with regard
to response rate, mean age, mean years in the program, stage of clinical training,
level of satisfaction with the quality of training, and personal therapy experience.
In both instances, working primarily as clinical practitioner was the preferred career
option.
Contextual factors and attributes of the supervisor related to best and worst supervision
experiences were quite similar. In neither sample did the majority of respondents
identify contextual factors such as training setting, primary client populations
served, or the supervisor's primary professional role or level of experience as discriminating
between best and worst experiences. However, both samples rated supervisors involved
in best experiences as significantly more interpersonally attractive (friendly, likable,
sociable, warm), trustworthy, and expert than supervisors involved with their worst
experiences.
With regard to the interactional dynamics of supervision, both groups reported that
a greater amount and frequency of supervisor contact corresponded with their best
supervisory experience. Using the interactional items in Table 3, Alien et al. (1986)
identified two broad dimensions that differentiated best and worst supervision experiences.
One was a communication dimension. Best experiences included providing feedback in
a straightforward manner, accepting mistakes, and encouraging experimentation. Poor
experiences included indirect and avoidant communication, emphasizing supervisees'
shortcomings, and supervisors' preoccupations with their own problems. The other
dimension emphasized respect versus exploitation. Supervisor behaviors like assuming
authoritarian or demeaning stances, encouraging unthinking conformity, failing to
accept divergent viewpoints, and subtly devaluing supervisees on the basis of gender
were characteristic of poor supervision experiences. These findings resembled the
creating an open supervisory environment and communicating respect, support, and
encouragement dimensions identified in this study, with the exception of the item
related to gender.
Returning to the findings of this study, what can be suggested in terms of future
developments in the area of supervision in family therapy training programs? First,
it is clear that supervisees were very satisfied with the quality of supervision
and training they were receiving in COAMFTE-accredited and candidacy programs. second,
students reported that their best supervision occurred in a facultative environment
characterized by openness, respect, support, and an appreciation for individual differences.
We have known for some time about the value of such environments for promoting learning
and personal growth (Rogers & Dymond, 1954; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967). It is further
evident that facultative supervisory environments must be balanced with assisting
supervisees to obtain the necessary conceptual and technical skills to address clients'
needs. This conclusion reinforces a long-standing practice in our field (Anderson
et al., 1995; Avis & Sprenkle, 1990; Cleghorn & Levin, 1973).
Third, supervisees associated better-quality supervision experiences with the use
of live supervision and videotape review. In poorer supervision experiences, the
use of live supervision as a primary source of data was less common, while the use
of verbal discussion as a primary source of data was more prevalent. Better-quality
experiences also involved seeing significantly more couple and family cases per week.
These findings affirm many core supervisory practices common in academic training
programs and highlight the importance of exposing supervisees to modalities based
upon raw clinical data.
Another important implication involved the amount of contact between supervisors
and supervisees. The best supervision experiences were significantly longer in duration,
involved more hours of weekly contact between the supervisor and supervisee, and
included discussion of a greater number of cases per session. The amount of contact
appeared to outweigh the supervisor's theoretical orientation or level of experience
since these factors did not differentiate between best and worst supervision experiences.
The importance supervisees placed on regular and sustained contact with their supervisor
raises questions about the practice of providing trainees exposure to a number of
faculty or agency supervisors on a semester by semester basis rather than allowing
supervisees to remain with the same supervisor for a longer period of time. However,
additional research is needed to determine whether one of these approaches to supervision
is actually more effective than the other. For example, supervisees may not prefer
to switch supervisors, but they may, nonetheless, learn a great deal as a result.
The amount of time and contact between supervisor and supervisee may be important
for other reasons as well. Better experiences also involved viewing the supervisor
as significantly more interpersonally attractive, trustworthy, and expert. It may
take time for the supervisee to perceive these qualities in the supervisor. Furthermore,
it also may take time to develop the level of trust needed to achieve the balance
between personal growth and technical skill that supervisees reported to occur significantly
more often in their best supervision experiences.
Even though the data suggest that the bulk of best and worst supervision experiences
occurred in university clinics, there was some indication that worst experiences
may occur more often in community agencies. Given the exploratory nature of this
study, it is reasonable to at least note that, although many programs rely on off-campus
placements as a component of students' training, we actually know very little about
what might distinguish these various supervisory settings. Future research is needed
to determine what, if anything, differentiates the quality of supervision received
in these settings. For instance, the university's traditional emphasis upon integrating
theory, research, and practice may not be as prevalent in off-campus settings (Piercy
& Sprenkle, 1984). Or perhaps other contextual differences such as size of case load,
pressures of managed care, availability of the supervisor, the supervisor's degree
of scrutiny of the supervisee, the setting's openness to a variety of theoretical
and clinical approaches, opportunities for live or videotaped supervision, and more
challenging multineed family cases may differentiate supervision experiences in university-based
and community-based settings.
It is not our intention to call into question the superiority of one setting over
another. In fact, the finding that 69% of all respondents identified their worst
supervisory experience as occurring in a university clinic raises equal concern regarding
variations that exist among supervisors within university settings. What appears
critical, then, is for future research to identify those variables that may constitute
worst-case supervisory scenarios, wherever these occur, so that we can seek to rectify
such factors through additional and more refined training of supervisors and supervision
of supervision.
The role of group supervision within training programs warrants consideration. The
combination of one supervisor providing both group and individual supervision was
reported to be more common in best experiences, while having a supervisor for only
group supervision was more likely to occur in worst supervision experiences. It is
unclear from the data what might account for these differences, nor can we conclusively
say how significant they actually were. It may be, as noted earlier, that greater
time and exposure to the supervisor in more than one supervisory context adds positively
to the quality of the experience. In any event, programs may wish to look more closely
at this variable.
Finally, it is important to note several potential limitations in this study. Although
the response rate for this survey was an acceptable 51%, there was a greater preponderance
of female respondents (61%) despite our efforts to balance the sample with regard
to gender. However, one could suggest that this sample is actually representative
of the family therapy field, given that recent data suggest that our profession is
currently made up of more women (53%) than men (47%; Ambrose, 1997). Furthermore,
other surveys of family therapy trainees also have reported larger percentages of
female respondents (Hines, 1996; Poison & Nida, 1998; Son et al., 1996). Another
limitation is that fact that nine subjects did not complete the section of the questionnaire
designed to assess their "worst" supervision experience. Perhaps the "forced choice"
format of the study was difficult for some who did not consider any of their experiences
to be a "worst" experience. Furthermore, "best" and "worst" are relative terms and
there is no way of knowing specifically what criteria respondents based their comparison
on. Nonetheless, most respondents were able to list a particular set of supervisor
traits and behaviors that distinguished their best and worst experiences, suggesting
that they were actually able to cognitively reconstruct their supervision experiences
and to form some useful comparisons.
CONCLUSION
By examining family therapy trainees' best and worst supervision experiences, many
positive and negative aspects of supervision have been identified. The purpose of
this survey was to provide an overall examination of current family therapy supervisory
practices and to receive student input as to the perceived quality of these practices.
This research only provides an overview of the family therapy supervision landscape.
However, it clearly suggests issues family therapy training programs may want to
address in order to enhance supervisory practices. In addition, the study highlights
areas for future research that might be examined to enhance and modify our current
conceptualizations and practices for supervision in degreegranting institutions.
-1-
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication Information:
Article Title: Family Therapy Trainees' Evaluations of Their Best and Worst Supervision
Experiences. Contributors: Stephen A. Anderson - author, Margaret Schlossberg - author,
Sandra Rigazio-Digilio - author. Journal Title: Journal of Marital and Family Therapy.
Volume: 26. Issue: 1. Publication Year: 2000. Page Number: 79+. © 2000 Blackwell
Publishing. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Next Page

Jessie Rayl
EM: thedogmom63 at frontier.com
PH:304.671.9780
www.facebook.com/eaglewings10

"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall
mount up with wings as eagles. They shall run, and not be weary"--Isaiah 40.31
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/acb-hsp/attachments/20110624/b38dc9bd/attachment-0001.html>