Search

Given that at least half of supervisees (therapist trainees) never have their clinical work monitored or observed, supervisees who withhold salient information in clinical supervision compromise supervisors’ ability to monitor client welfare and promote supervisees’ professional development. Attempting to further understand the factors explaining supervisee nondisclosure, we tested the supervisory working alliance as a mediator of the hypothesized inverse relations of cultural humility and collaborative supervision with supervisee nondisclosure (supervision-related and clinically-related nondisclosure) among a diverse sample of 214 supervisees in applied psychology and allied mental health programs. Results supported the hypotheses that (a) descriptively, supervision-related nondisclosure was more prominent than clinically-related nondisclosure; (b) cultural humility substantially inversely predicted supervisee nondisclosure; and (c) the supervisory working alliance fully mediated the inverse relations of cultural humility and collaborative supervision with supervisee nondisclosure. Understanding the mechanisms underlying supervisee nondisclosure has broad implications for clinicians and researchers alike.

This study investigated the effects of supervisee characteristics (rejection attachment), the supervisory relationship (supervisory working alliance, role conflict), and Asian cultural values on supervisee nondisclosure (clinically related and supervision related nondisclosures) for South Korean and U.S. American supervisees. Participants were 474 predominantly female supervisees in counseling and clinical psychology programs (227 South Korean, 247 U.S. American). Three major findings emerged: (a) the four predictors collectively predicted both types of supervisee nondisclosure jointly in both countries, (b) the supervisory working alliance predicted the two types of supervisee nondisclosure jointly in both countries, and (c) post hoc tests suggested that the supervisory working alliance mediated the relations of role conflict and rejection attachment with supervisee nondisclosure in both countries, and the relation of Asian cultural values with supervisee nondisclosure for South Korean supervisees. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

Supervisees’ experiences in supervision vary remarkably. To capture such variability, Ellis and colleagues offered a framework for understanding and assessing inadequate, harmful, and exceptional supervision. Although their framework was supported, it did not offer a nuanced understanding of these supervision experiences. Using consensual qualitative research–modified, this study sought to obtain a rich description of inadequate, harmful, and exceptional supervision. Participants ( N = 135) were presented with definitions and provided responses ( n = 156) to open-ended questions describing their inadequate ( n = 63), harmful ( n = 30), and/or exceptional ( n = 63) supervision experiences. Supervisees reporting harmful experiences described supervisors as neglectful and callous, whereas inadequate supervision reflected inappropriate feedback, unavailability, and unresponsiveness. Conversely, exceptional supervision involved safety, clinical paradigm shifts, and modeling specific techniques or theories. Implications for supervision research, theory, and practice are discussed.

We assessed the occurrence of inadequate and harmful clinical supervision experienced by supervisees engaged in post-degree supervision for licensure. Among 310 supervisees receiving post-degree su...

Applying the relational humility model to address gaps in the clinical supervision literature, we tested the interpersonal constructs of relational humility, supervisory working alliance, and relational behavior as predictors of supervisee nondisclosure (i.e., clinically-related and supervision-related nondisclosure). We hypothesized that relational humility moderates the relation between supervisory working alliance and supervision-related nondisclosure and that the supervisory working alliance and relational behavior each uniquely predicts supervisee nondisclosure. Self-report data from 312 trainees in the United States receiving clinical supervision across training settings found relational humility, supervisory working alliance, and relational behavior explained over a quarter of the variance in the multivariate construct of supervisee nondisclosure. Relational humility significantly moderated (and amplified) the inverse relation between the supervisory working alliance and supervision-related nondisclosure. The supervisory working alliance and relational behavior did not uniquely predict clinically-related or supervision-related nondisclosure. Results are discussed for their practical, theoretical, and research implications.

This article describes an initiative to train public sector clinicians in competency-based clinical supervision. It was delivered as an 18-session course taught online to clinicians employed in departments of behavioral health in nine Southern California counties. The curriculum was co-constructed by a team of clinical supervision scholars and leaders who then served as instructors. Each two-hour meeting addressed a specific topic for which a training video had been prepared, usually featuring a member of the training team who had expertise in that topic. The second part of each meeting focused on a class member’s supervision case presentation. Those presentations revealed 35 themes; the four most frequently occurring were: developing supervisees’ clinical competencies, addressing countertransference and parallel process, balancing clinical and administrative supervisory roles, and addressing record keeping/paperwork. Participants’ pre-to-post supervisory self-efficacy changes demonstrated a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = .46) for the training, with the greatest pre- to post-training changes being in the use of technology, multicultural competencies (awareness of oppression, bias, and stereotyping in clinical work and in clinical supervision), and contracting. They reported that the strengths of the course included an inclusive learning environment and opportunities to reflect on and apply new knowledge and skills, though they also reported struggling with the assignments and the course platform software. Lessons learned reflected the use of technology in this online program, the importance of obtaining buy-in from agency decision makers and being prepared to address challenges related to the use of direct observation in supervision, gatekeeping, and enacting the simultaneous roles of administrative and clinical supervisor.

The purpose of the study was to address shortcomings in the literature by applying conservation of resources theory to assess and identify predictors of burnout and vigor among health service psychology doctoral trainees. Descriptively, most of the 203 health service psychology doctoral trainees experienced burnout (74.9%) and vigor (76.8%) at some point during their doctoral training. Compared to the norm samples, the trainees evidenced substantively more burnout and less vigor. Collectively, five predictors—pressure, threat, financial strain, relationship conflict, supervisory working alliance—explained 22% of the variance in the multivariate construct of burnout and vigor. Although the supervisory working alliance and a type of work-related stress (threat) uniquely predicted burnout and vigor, pressure, financial strain, and relationship conflict did not. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggested future research are provided based on the study findings.

Despite the ethical mandate “do no harm,” harmful clinical supervision seems to be occurring internationally among mental health disciplines at an alarming rate. Harmful supervision appears to be largely unacknowledged, unrecognized, and not understood, especially from the supervisees’ perspective. This Special Issue presents 11 anonymous narratives written by supervisees across four mental health disciplines and four continents, plus three reaction articles from supervision experts. The introduction article delineates the rationale for and procedures utilized in obtaining the narratives. The closing article synthesizes the Special Issue contributions, offering conclusions, implications, and recommendations to address harmful supervision systemically across disciplines and internationally.

Given the alarming prevalence rates for harmful clinical supervision, it is surprising that scant accounts (i.e., narratives) of supervisees’ experiences of harmful supervision exist in the literat...

Scarce information exists that considers supervisees’ experiences of harmful supervision despite research that indicates occurrences at startling rates (e.g., Ellis, Creaner, Hutman, & Timulak, 2015). This Special Issue attempts to serve as a starting point for stimulating conversation, action, and change around harmful supervision practices across disciplines and internationally. Specifically, in this article we aim to synthesize the introductory, narrative, and reaction articles (Ammirati & Kaslow, 2017; Beddoe, 2017; Ellis, 2017; Ellis, Taylor, Corp, Hutman, & Kangos, 2017; Reiser & Milne, 2017). In addition, we offer implications and recommendations to minimize the occurrence of and redress harmful supervision.

(Adapted from Bernard & Goodyear, 2004 & McCarthy et al., 1995)The purpose of this form is to acquaint you with your clinical supervisor, to describe the supervision process, to involve you in stru...

Previous research indicates that trainees often withhold important information related to their clients' progress and their reactions to supervision. Moreover, factors associated with the occurrence of supervisee nondisclosure (SND) are not well established. As one of the few studies to compare clinically related with supervision-related nondisclosure, we tested the relation of these two dimensions of the construct, as measured by Siembor and Ellis's (2012) Supervisee Nondisclosure Scales, to three important process variables: perceptions of (a) the supervisory alliance, as measured by Bahrick's (1989) Working Alliance Inventory-Trainee; (b) collaborative supervision, as measured by Rousmaniere and Ellis's (2013) Collaborative Supervision Behavior Scale; and (c) explicitly relational supervisor behaviors, as measured by Shaffer and Friedlander's (2017) Relational Behavior Scale. Participants were 257 North American trainees, predominately White female doctoral students receiving supervision in a practicum or internship setting. As hypothesized, the three process variables inversely contributed to the multivariate composite of SND, jointly accounting for roughly one quarter of the variability; alliance and relational behavior were uniquely significant contributors (24.5% and 7%, respectively). Follow-up analyses indicated that only alliance perceptions contributed unique variance (23%) to supervision-related nondisclosures, which were endorsed much more frequently than clinically related nondisclosures in this sample. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Two studies were conducted to revise and empirically test Ellis’s framework for inadequate and harmful supervision, and to determine the occurrence of inadequate and harmful clinical supervision from the supervisees’ perspective. For Study 1, we delineated 10 criteria for minimally adequate clinical supervision and defined inadequate and harmful supervision by differentiating self-identified and de facto supervision for each. Ratings from 34 supervision experts were used to generate a taxonomy of 16 de facto inadequate and 21 de facto harmful supervision descriptors. Because harmful supervision was distinct from, yet subsumed by, inadequate supervision, we revised the taxonomy and definitions accordingly. In Study 2, the occurrence of inadequate and harmful supervision was assessed for 363 supervisees; 93.0% were currently receiving inadequate supervision and 35.3% were currently receiving harmful supervision. Over half of the supervisees had received harmful clinical supervision at some point. Implications for research, training, and practice are discussed.

The authors responded to the commentaries on the Major Contribution, “Multicultural Clinical Supervision and Benchmarks: Empirical Support Informing Practice and Supervisor Training.” The commentaries provided a structure of consensus, critical questions, and requests for additional elaboration. The commentators advocated for the urgent need to move forward translating clinical supervision, a distinct professional competency, directly into training and practice in the United States. They also agreed on the essential multicultural framework and the imperative for empirical research to provide validation for the Competency Benchmarks as a developmental training schema. The authors also provided responses with regard to future directions for supervision and training parameters.

To provide cross-cultural empirical data for the advancement of supervisor competencies, we investigated differences in clinical supervision between South Korean and the United States from the supervisees’ perspective. Specifically, the comparative descriptive study had 191 South Korean and 187 U.S. supervisee participants receiving clinical supervision. Pursuing a hypothesis testing approach, comparative descriptive data across several variables suggested that there were more similarities than differences between supervision practices between the two cultures. Implications for theory, research, and practice were discussed.

The purpose of this Major Contribution is to provide background knowledge and context for competency-based clinical supervision and to showcase a diversity of methodologically sound empirical approaches to study effective supervision, including multiculturally competent supervision, and comparative perspectives on supervision cross-culturally. The intent is to begin to provide the empirical data necessary to assist the supervisor in supporting supervisees’ development of the benchmark competencies and to provide direction for future training of supervisors. Specifically, the articles in this major contribution address competencies in clinical supervision and the Competency Benchmarks on three pivotal topics: empirical support defining effective supervision, innovative empirically based approaches to cross-cultural and international supervision, and an empirical analysis of feminist supervision in a multiculturally diverse group context. Each of the articles addresses particular Competency Benchmarks and provides prototypical models of rigorous research procedures to inform the practice of multicultural supervision and training of supervisors, and implications.

The authors examined 38 school counselor supervisors' perceptions of the Discrimination Model (DM; Bernard, 1979, 1997) of supervision, replicating and extending Ellis and Dell's (1986) investigation of the DM with mental health counselor supervisors. Participants judged the dissimilarity of each unique combination of roles and foci of the DM. The authors conducted a confirmatory multidimensional scaling analysis to compare the implicit dimensions and constructs that school counselor and mental health counselor supervisors used to make decisions. Results suggested partial similarities in the conceptual maps of school counselor and mental health counselor supervisors. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

The authors conducted 3 studies to develop and investigate the psychometric properties of the American Jewish Identity Scales (AJIS), a brief self-report measure that assesses cultural identification and religious identification. Study 1 assessed the content validity of the item pool using an expert panel. In Study 2, 1,884 Jewish adults completed the initial AJIS and various measures of ethnic identity, collective self-esteem, and religiosity. Using confirmatory factor analyses, the authors selected and cross-validated 33 items that loaded highly and differentially on the 2 theorized latent factors. Study 3 assessed the AJIS's short-term stability and its relation to social desirability. Tests of reliability and construct validity provided initial psychometric support for the measure and confirmed the theorized primary salience of cultural identification. Participants reported significantly more private than public collective self-esteem, and the most Jewish-identified participants reported greater private self-esteem, acculturative stress, and perceived discrimination than did their more assimilated counterparts.

This article attempts to bridge the science and practice of clinical supervision by summarizing 28 years of research and supervisory experiences. Seven myths about clinical supervision are debunked by empirical data and discoveries: Supervision theory is accurate, supervisees are anxious, recording sessions is in appropriate, supervisors do not need to monitor supervisees' in-session behavior, supervision is about using the right theory or techniques, supervisors are well trained, and supervisors protect supervisees and clients from harm. Suggestions are offered to build a stronger bridge between supervision research and practice. Some dos and don'ts are identified from my experience as a supervision practitioner and researcher.

Clinical supervision is of growing importance, but poor conceptualization continues to impede research and practice. We conducted a “best evidence synthesis” (empirical review) of the literature to generate an integrative summary of the concepts and models used (implicitly or explicitly) in 24 published empirical articles. Using the qualitative data from these adequately rigorous, successful manipulations of supervision, we constructed inductively a basic model of clinical supervision. That is, we proffer an evidence-based, conceptually integrative, and suitably complex model of supervision. The model features 32 contextual variables of successful supervision (e.g., administrative support), 26 supervision interventions (i.e., corrective feedback), and 28 outcomes (i.e., how supervisees learned from supervision).

We replicated Son, Ellis, and Yoo (2013) and extended Ellis et al.'s (2014) taxonomy of harmful and inadequate supervision by providing and testing cross-national comparative descriptive data about clinical supervision practices in the Republic of Ireland versus the United States. Participants were 149 Republic of Ireland and 151 U.S. mental health supervisees currently receiving clinical supervision. The results suggested that characteristics of supervision in the Republic of Ireland and United States evidenced both similarities and differences. The dissimilar credentialing systems appeared to account for the observed differences, suggesting that Ellis et al.'s (2014) criteria for inadequate supervision need to be modified to account for country-specific standards for supervision. Unexpectedly, no significant differences were observed between the Republic of Ireland and United States in the high occurrence of inadequate, harmful, or exceptional supervision. The results suggested that 79.2% (Republic of Ireland) and 69.5% (United States) of the supervisees were categorized as currently receiving inadequate supervision, and 40.3% (Republic of Ireland) and 25.2% (United States) of the supervisees as receiving harmful supervision. At some point in their careers, 92.4% (Republic of Ireland) and 86.4% (United States) of the supervisees received inadequate supervision--51.7% (Republic of Ireland) and 39.7% (United States) received harmful supervision. On the positive side, 51.0% (Republic of Ireland) and 55.0% (United States) of the supervisees reported receiving exceptional supervision from their current supervisors. Substantial discrepancies were observed between supervisees' perceptions versus more objective criteria of the inadequate or harmful supervision they received. Implications for cross-national supervision research and training are discussed.

We investigated the effectiveness of a theoretically based role induction (RI) intervention that aimed to clarify supervisee and supervisor role expectations and reduce supervisee anxiety, compared to standard supervision (no-RI). Initially, a feasibility study investigated whether a RI for beginning supervisees would work in the context of a replicated single-subject experimental design; specifically, it assessed whether the RI condition (n = 2) would result in decreased anxiety compared to baseline and a no-RI condition (n = 2). Results suggested that the RI appeared viable and mitigated supervisee anxiety. To address the deficiencies of the feasibility study, for the main study, a more rigorous experimental multiple-baseline research design with randomization procedures was employed to test the effectiveness of the RI intervention for reducing supervisee anxiety in 2 developmentally different groups: beginning supervisees (n = 4) and predoctoral interns (n = 5). Specifically, this study investigated whether supervisee anxiety would be lower following the RI intervention for both groups and whether beginning supervisees would experience larger decreases in anxiety relative to interns. The 3 most salient findings were (a) the efficacy of a RI procedure for reducing the anxiety of novice counselor trainees was tentatively supported, (b) anxiety varied, sometimes markedly, from session to session, but nevertheless was not as pervasive as theorized, and (c) supervisee developmental level appeared to moderate the effects of the RI on supervisee anxiety, such that the RI decreased anxiety for most beginning supervisees and initially increased anxiety for interns. Implications for theory, research, and training are discussed.

Using qualitative and quantitative methodologies across 3 samples, the authors investigated the cross-cultural adjustment of Taiwanese students attending graduate school in the United States. First, interviews with 25 Taiwanese students regarding their experiences in the United States revealed themes of language barriers, confidence about speaking English, social contact with Taiwanese and Americans, and cultural differences, which included the importance of being independent. Second, the results of a quantitative study (n = 67) generally supported the hypotheses that communication apprehension and social contact predicted adaptation, whereas actual English ability did not, and that Taiwanese students identified being independent as important to their functioning in the United States. Third, a focus group with 4 graduate students provided a richer conceptualization of the interactions among the constructs.

The authors tested the application of self-regulation and goal theory to self-supervision using a replicated, randomized multiple baseline (MBL) design. Specifically, 4 female novice counselor trainees were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 MBL conditions (self-supervision targeting the use of metaphor first and then empathy, self-supervision targeting empathy and then metaphor, or an attention placebo control) to test the effects of self-supervision on trainees' use of empathy and metaphor across counseling sessions. Although trainees significantly increased their use of metaphor after receiving self-supervision training, no significant effects were found for self-supervision targeting empathy. Tentative conclusions include that self-supervision appears viable with some limitations.

Audio- or videotaping and one-way mirrors are often used in clinical supervision. Yet, the effects of audio- or videotaping on supervisees have yielded equivocal results. Some studies suggest that audio- or videotaping increases trainee anxiety and hinders performance, whereas other studies suggest negligible effects. The authors present 2 studies in which they tested self-focused attention theory (e.g., C. S. Carver & M. F. Scheier, 1982; S. Duval & R. A. Wicklund, 1972) to explain the equivocal findings. In each study, trainees were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 awareness conditions (private or public self-awareness, or subjective awareness) and conducted initial counseling sessions. Analyses of supervisee anxiety and performance found no significant differences due to self-awareness condition in either study. The results suggest that a mirror and audio- or videotaping elicit trivial aversive effects on supervisees.

In this article, we propose that the major challenge facing career assessment scholars and practitioners in the 21st century is the need to affirm cultural diversity. Beginning with a discussion of social constructionist theory, we suggest that existing career assessment practice needs to embrace the "local" realities that exist within diverse cultural contexts. We then present the unificationist perspective as a conceptual lens with which to consider career assessment. Building on the need for psychometric tools that can address the changing cultural context of career assessment, we also advance generalizability and item response theories as viable approaches to developing culturally affirming measures and practice standards for diverse clients. The article concludes with an integrative view of how these conceptual and methodological tools can enhance career assessment in the 21st century.

Theoretically, when the supervisory working alliance is strong, the trainee and supervisor share a strong emotional bond and agree on the goals and tasks of supervision. Tested was Bordin's (1983) proposition that changes in counselor trainees' perceptions of the supervisory alliance over the course of supervision would predict supervisory outcomes. A national sample of beginning practicum- to intern-level trainees were assessed at the beginning and end of an academic semester. Contrary to predictions, changes in the alliance were not predictive of changes in trainees' self-efficacy. However, improvements in the emotional bond between the trainees and supervisors were associated with greater satisfaction.

To facilitate innovation in applied psychology research, investigators need to be well-informed about available research designs. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of repeated measures research designs (e.g., participants exposed to more than one treatment or measured on more than one occasion). My intent is twofold. First, I underscore the wide range of repeated measures research designs available to researchers in applied psychology. Second, I argue that the differentiation and polarity of group and single-subject research designs is largely arbitrary. I use examples to illustrate each repeated measures design and present its strengths and limitations.

The individual best qualified to design an empirical study is one who is (a) most familiar with the nature of the phenomenon and research area, (b) most familiar with the possible alternative methods for designing and analyzing the study, and (c) most capable of evaluating the potential advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives (Chartrand & Ellis, 1999).

We investigated similarities and differences in clinical supervision in two cultures: South Korea and the United States The study had two parts: (1) a test of the cross-cultural equivalence of four supervision measures; and (2) a test of two competing models of cultural differences in the relations among supervisory style, role difficulties, supervisory working alliance, and satisfaction with supervision. Participants were 191 South Korean and 187 U.S. supervisees currently engaged in clinical supervision. The U.S. measures demonstrated sufficient measurement equivalence for use in South Korea. Cultural differences moderated the relations among supervisory styles, role difficulties, supervisory working alliance, and supervision satisfaction. Specifically, the relations among these variables were significantly stronger for U.S. than for South Korean supervisees. Implications for theory, research, and practice were discussed.

Michael V. Ellis University at Albany, State University of New York Nicholas Ladany Temple University Maxine Krengel Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine Deborah Schult University at Albany, State University of New York The empirical studies in clinical supervision published from 1981 through 1993 were investigated to assess scientific rigor and to test whether the quality of methodology had improved since the review by R. K. Russell, A. M. Crimmings, and R. W. Lent (1984). The 144 studies were evaluated according to 49 threats to validity (T. D. Cook & D. T. Campbell, 1979; R. K. Russell et al., 1984; B. E. Wampold, B. Davis, & R. H. Good III, 1990) and 8 statistical variables (e.g., effect size, statistical power, and Type I and Type II error rates). The data revealed a shift to realistic field studies, unchecked Type I and Type II error rates, medium effect sizes, and inattention to hypothesis validity. Recommendations for designing and conducting a feasible and well-designed supervision study are offered. It can be argued that a primary goal of research in clinical supervision is to test and improve theory and to guide the practice of supervision (Ellis, 1991b). A thorough under- standing of the strengths and weaknesses of supervision research would ostensibly expand supervision theory and provide practitioners with information on how to train ef- fective counselors who, in turn, will provide more effective therapy. Although there have been numerous calls for in- creasing the scientific rigor of research on counselor super- vision and training (e.g., Ellis, 1991b; Hansen & Warner, Michael V. Ellis and Deborah Schult, Department of Counseling Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York; Nicholas Ladany, Department of Counseling Psychology, Temple University; Maxine Krengel, Psychology Section (1168), Boston Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Department of Psychology, Boston University School of Medicine. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 96th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia, August 1988, and at the meeting of the North Atlantic Regional Association of Counselor Education and Supervision, Albany, New York, October 1991. Maxine Krengel completed some of this research while a doc- toral student in the Department of Counseling Psychology, Uni- versity at Albany, State University of New York. We are grateful to Micki Friedlander, Richard Haase, and Erica Robbins Ellis for their insightful comments on earlier versions of this article. We express our appreciation to Eric Adams, Mafoozal Ali, Elizabeth Bhargava, Virginia Flander, David Hahn, Gohpa Khan, Michelle Mautner, Deborah Melincoff, Michael Remshard, Greg Savage, Heidi Weiss, Donna Wilson, and Bradley Wolgast for their data coding and entry assistance. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael V. Ellis, Department of Counseling Psychology, Educa- tion 220, University at Albany, State University of New York, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12222. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to me464@cnsibm.albany.edu. 35 1971; Holloway & Hosford, 1983; Russell, Crimmings, & Lent, 1984), a comprehensive and in-depth investigation of the actual state of scientific rigor has yet to be conducted. If supervision research is going to meet the goal of informing theory and practice, then a thorough assessment of its meth- odological limitations and implications is warranted. At least 32 reviews of empirically based articles pertain- ing to clinical supervision and counselor training have ap- peared in the literature. Although these reviews have made substantial contributions to the field, many did not evaluate systematically the methodological or the scientific rigor of the examined studies (e.g., Harkness & Poertner, 1989; Holloway, 1984, 1992; Holloway & Neufeldt, 1995; Kaplan, 1983; Lambert & Arnold, 1987; Leddick & Ber- nard, 1980; Liddle & Halpin, 1978; Matarazzo, 1971, 1978; Matarazzo & Garner, 1992; Matarazzo & Patterson, 1986; Russell & Petrie, 1994; Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Crethar, 1994; Yutrzenka, 1995) or did so in a cursory fashion (i.e., Baker & Daniels, 1989; Baker, Daniels, & Greeley, 1990; Ford, 1979; Hansen, Pound, & Petro, 1976; Robins, & Grimes, 1982; Hansen & Warner, 1971; Holloway & Johnston, 1985; Holloway & Wampold, 1986; Kurtz, Mar- shall, & Banspach, 1985; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Stein & Lambert, 1995; Worthington, 1987). Only four reviewers presented details of the methodological flaws encountered in the studies reviewed (Alberts & Edelstein, 1990; Avis & Sprenkle, 1990; Holloway, 1987; Russell et al., 1984). The result of not systematically evaluating the methodological issues may have erroneously led to (a) equating (or even outweighing) the findings of excellent research with poor research (Hogarty, 1989; Kline, 1983), (b) exacerbating the theoretical ambiguity in the field (Meehl, 1990), and (c) drawing inaccurate inferences and conclusions (Cooper, 1989; Ellis, 1991a). The most recent review of research in individual clinical supervision that

The authors describe one approach to the supervision of novice clinical supervisors. A central feature of this group approach to supervising supervisors is the eight recurring supervisory issues: supervisor anxiety, intervention choices, group cohesion, responsibility, parallel process, power struggles, individual differences, and sexual attraction. Our experience suggests that assessing and successfully confronting these supervisory issues seem to be an integral part of supervisor supervision. Suggestions for addressing these issues are offered.

In examining the process of change in structural family therapy, we observed interpersonal control patterns within and across 15 sessions of inpatient treatment of a chronic anorexic family.

The article by Twohey and Volker (1993) provides a useful point of departure for discussing gender bias in supervision and for offering suggestions for supervisors.

This article presents a critical review of traditional testing practices and offers the unificationist perspective as the next logical step in the evolution of psychological and educational measurement. Building on the notion that any activity involving testing should be unified under the rubric of the scientific method, the unificationist view is defined and contrasted to traditional test validation strategies. Implications for test development and for the use of tests and measures in counseling (e.g., interest inventories, personality measures) are delineated from the unificationist perspective.

Integrative research reviews are conceptualized as empirical research. Guidelines are offered to promote rigorous standards for conducting and reporting reviews in counselor education and supervision.

The purpose of this article was to revitalize and disentangle common misconceptions about a scientific agenda for clinical supervision.

Jerome Kagan has studied the role of biology as a major determinant of human behavior for more than three decades. The results of this research have had significant impact on the field of developmental psychology and on our understanding of temperamental factors. Dr. Kagan discusses his career and the practical implications of his research.

Etude des erreurs d'ancrage dans le jugement clinique. Le sexe n'intervient pas ici. Confrontation de deux hypotheses renales (hypothese de l'ajustement, hypothese de l'attenuation des effets d'ancrage initiaux par un effet d'ajustement