Skip to main content

Training Counselors to be Consumers of Supervision: Training Counselors to be Consumers of Supervision

Training Counselors to be Consumers of Supervision
Training Counselors to be Consumers of Supervision
  • Show the following:

    Annotations
    Resources
  • Adjust appearance:

    Font
    Font style
    Color Scheme
    Light
    Dark
    Annotation contrast
    Low
    High
    Margins
  • Search within:
    • My Notes + Comments
    • Notifications
    • Privacy
  • Issue HomeVISTAS Online Archive, 2009
  • Journals
  • Learn more about Manifold

Notes

table of contents
  1. Training Counselors to be Consumers of Supervision
    1. Literature review
    2. Survey
    3. Demographics of respondents
    4. Supervision Experience
    5. For those who received training, what was covered?
    6. Themes in comments on finding effective post-master’s supervision
    7. Process Comments
    8. Discussion of survey
    9. Considering the “Supervisory Fit”
    10. Assessing the “Fit”
    11. Interviewing Potential Supervisors
    12. Training content and coverage
    13. References

VISTAS articles are made available for historical reference only and are presented "as is." ACA does not guarantee or represent that the information is current, accurate or indicative of the original or intended quality. These materials are not maintained or updated and may contain outdated or incomplete information. Readers should exercise discretion and verify information independently before relying on it. We assume no responsibility for the use or interpretation of this content.

Training Counselors to be Consumers of Supervision

Presented at the 2007 Association for Counselor Education and Supervision Vanguards for Change: ACES and Social Justice Columbus, Ohio, October 10 -14, 2007

Diane L. Parfitt, Ph.D., Devika Dibya Choudhuri, Ph.D., and Irene Mass Ametrano, Ed.D.

Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti, MI

Download PDF

Abstract: Most states require that professional counselors work under supervision before they receive a full license to practice, yet our data indicate that supervisees often don’t receive training in how to select an effective supervisor. For those who do receive training, topics of importance are often omitted. We present these data, along with training module topics for educating counselors about the process of selecting a supervisor.

Literature review

  • The literature is sparse in exploring the role of universities and professional organizations in preparing pre-licensed counseling students for their required post-master’s supervision for licensure (Magnuson, Norem, & Wilcoxen, 2002).

  • A gap has existed between the supervision regularly provided by universities while students are in graduate school followed by few, if any, linkages provided for the those students when they seek postgraduate supervision for licensure (Magnuson, Norem, & Wilcoxen, 2002).

  • Universities do little to prepare pre-licensed counseling students to seek and determine quality supervision and effective supervisors (Magnuson, Norem, & Wilcoxen, 2002).

  • There are few, if any, studies that have investigated the experiences of pre- licensed counseling students and newly licensed counselors in obtaining required supervision for licensure (Magnuson, Norem, & Wilcoxen, 2002).

  • Supervisees who report that their supervisory relationships and experiences were not beneficial, or not good experiences, report negative effects on their development as counselors. (Anderson, Schlossberg, & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Magnuson, Norem, & Wilcoxon, 2000b; Ramos-Sanchez, Esnil, Goodwin, Riggs, Touster, Wright, et al., 2002).

Survey

  • Online survey was posted from May to October 2007

  • Participation solicited from members of the state counseling association and from those listed as being licensed and limited licensed counselors through the state licensing board. Emails were sent out to association listserv members and 500 postcards were mailed to a random selection of counselors listed with the State Board of Counseling (however, the URLs on the postcard were underscored making it difficult for many to enter the correct web-address for the survey). One follow-up email was sent out in September 2007.

  • 154 respondents completed the survey (an estimated 10% response rate)

Demographics of respondents

A three-dimensional bar graph titled Demographic Data with the horizontal axis labeled Race/Ethnicity and the vertical axis marked from 0 to 140. Four bars represent racial and ethnic groups: White, Black, Asian, and Latino/a. The White bar is by far the tallest, reaching approximately 130–140 units. The Black bar is much shorter at around 15–20 units. The Asian bar is low at about 5 units, and the Latino/a bar is slightly higher than Asian at under 10 units. A legend on the right identifies each group by color, and the graph uses a blue gradient background with gridlines.A three-dimensional bar graph with a blue gradient background showing gender distribution. The vertical axis ranges from 0 to 140, and the horizontal axis is labeled Gender. Two bars are shown: a Male bar at approximately 25 and a Female bar reaching about 130. A legend at the top identifies the two categories by color, and white gridlines indicate values along the vertical axis.A three-dimensional bar graph with a dark blue gradient background showing sexual orientation distribution. The vertical axis ranges from 0 to 100. Four bars represent categories listed in a legend on the right: heterosexual, gay, lesbian, and bisexual. The heterosexual bar is the tallest, reaching just under 100. The gay, lesbian, and bisexual bars are very short, each near the bottom of the scale at under 10. White gridlines mark intervals along the vertical axis.A vertical stacked bar graph showing program accreditation percentages for a master’s-level program. The y-axis is labeled Percentage and ranges from 0 to 100. A single tall stacked bar represents master’s programs, divided into three color-coded segments identified in a legend at the top: CACREP (the largest segment, occupying roughly three quarters of the bar), NON-CACREP (a smaller segment above it), and Other (a very small segment at the top). A second, much smaller bar to the right shows a very low percentage across the same categories. The background is gray with horizontal gridlines, and labels are in bold, high-contrast colors.A three-dimensional bar graph with a blue gradient background labeled Graduate Program. The vertical axis ranges from 0 to 60. Four bars represent program settings identified in a legend: School, Community, College, and Other. The Community bar is the tallest at approximately 55. The School bar is shorter at around 35. The College bar reaches about 20, and the Other bar is the smallest at under 10. White gridlines mark values on the vertical axis, and the legend appears to the right of the bars.A vertical bar graph titled Sites of Employment. The horizontal axis lists five categories: Private practice, Agency, K–12 School, Higher Education, and Other. The vertical axis ranges from 0 to 40. Agency is the tallest bar at roughly 37, followed by K–12 School at about 30. Other is around 25, Private practice is near 24, and Higher Education is the lowest at about 18. The bars are light purple against a gray plotting area with horizontal gridlines and a dark blue background.

Supervision Experience

Received training in supervision

14.5%

Are satisfied with the training they received

89.5%

Currently receiving supervision(21.4% had completed supervision requirements for licensure when completing survey)

45.3%

Found a supervisor through

Employment site

35.9%

Referral from graduate program

15.5%

Supervisor list from professional association

2.9%

Recommendation from another counselor

10.9%

Supervisor produced a professional disclosure statement

47.6%

Supervisor and supervisee signed a supervisor contract

34%

For those who received training, what was covered?

Legal requirements 84%

How to locate potential supervisor 43%

What to expect from supervision 67%

Goals for supervision 70%

Supervisor qualities 50%

Supervisor professional disclosure 63%

Contents of disclosure statement 47%

Themes in comments on finding effective post-master’s supervision

(open comment; 92 participants responded)

Difficulty in finding a supervisor 24%

“I found my supervisor by chance after working a full year without being able to find one. It is very difficult!!”

Expense and cost. 11%

“The cost is too much and varies greatly --be careful and to not pick someone you can't afford.“

“you might just have to pay out the nose to get your hours.”

Begin supervisor search early 7%

“Start looking early, secure a supervisor willing to make the commitment without a problem for the next 2-3 years.”

“Be aggressive in your search, start looking before you need it.“

Seek help through university 33%

“While still in university, make specific contacts that can help you find supervision or resources that will lead you toward supervision”

Seek names from professional organizations….24%

“Network! …call practicing counselors for referrals.”

Interview before deciding 22%

“Find someone you are comfortable with”

“Find out what his/her experience is with clients and as a supervisor. What is his/her theoretical beliefs and practices. Why are they a supervisor? Can you have a name of someone who they supervised.”

Process Comments

“Although my supervision was provided through employment it was free to me. However I would not report that it was the best quality of supervision. My supervisor had no real desire, but was willing to do it for me. “

“Make sure you keep the group small enough so each person has the time needed for adequate supervision. My group was larger than 5 at one time and it became difficult to find enough time for everyone to share cases.”

“I had established a relationship with a supervisor prior to a period of time I was laid off (3 months). After obtaining another position, the LPC I was working with did not return my phone calls. Since that time, I have repeatedly contacted a variety of counseling offices and Universities and followed several leads to dead ends. A small group of LLPCs I have working relationships with have had similar lack of success. “

“I had no formal training on how to locate supervision and on what may be a reasonable price to pay for supervision. I am very very lucky to have found a job where I can receive supervision from an LPC who has been trained in supervision at no cost to me through my employment. “

“The best way I found was trial-and-error, as well as being willing to change supervisors if I wasn't getting the kind of supervision I desired. “

“Looking back, I would have asked the supervisor to be specific in giving examples on how their supervision would be provided.”

“Look for someone you can feel comfortable admitting mistakes and weaknesses to. Find someone that you can relate to on a morals, standards level.”

Discussion of survey

  • Very few pre-licensure counselors receive any training in finding an effective supervisor. Noteworthy because so many states require post master’s supervision towards licensure.

  • When it occurs, training focuses more on legal requirements for supervision than on the process of finding a supervisor.

  • Most neglected topics of importance are on how to locate potential supervisors—a challenging task for beginning counselors; supervisee expectations; supervisor competencies and qualities, and supervisory fit.

Based on their experience, consumers of supervision suggest :

  • Consulting with university counselor educators and professional counselor organization members regarding potential supervisors.

  • Courses that cover what to expect from the supervisor and supervision process (e.g., contract, expectations, goals; appraisal).

  • Program coverage on finding out how to select an experienced and well-trained supervisor

  • Aspects of interviewing supervisors for fit regarding approach, style, meeting times, fees, personality and cultural sensitivity

Considering the “Supervisory Fit”

  • The relationship between the supervisor and supervisee is one of the most influential factors in supervisee satisfaction (Ramos-Sanchez, et al., 2002)

  • Four A’s of a good supervisor – Available, accessible, able and affable (Powell & Brodsky, 1998)

  • Supervisees at lower levels of development need supervisors who emphasize the supervisory alliance (focus on building trust, supporting and advocating for supervisee, openness to feedback from supervisee) (Ramos-Sanchez, et al., 2002)

  • Supervisee’s stage of development can influence extent to which supervisee benefits from exposure to different counseling orientations and increased latitude in decision-making (Stoltenberg et al., 1998)

Assessing the “Fit”

  • In what modality (individual? group? combination?) does supervisee learn best? (Magnuson et al., 2002)

  • Supervisory style (attractive, interpersonally sensitive, task-oriented) can influence supervisee satisfaction with supervision and supervisee perceived self- efficacy (Fernando & Hulse-Killacky, 2005)

  • Dual roles: What difficulties, including ethical issues, may arise if the supervisor is both administrative and clinical supervisor? (Thomski-Klingshirn & Davis, 2007)

  • Are goals for supervision and expectations for supervisee performance clear and compatible? (Ramos-Sanchez, et al., 2002)

Interviewing Potential Supervisors

Primary Question: Will this supervisor provide a supervisory relationship in which the supervisee can learn and realize his/her potential as a professional counselor?

  • Inquire about experience, knowledge, & skills:

    • Theoretical approach

    • Areas of specialization/expertise?

    • Training as a supervisor?

    • Ethical and legal issues

  • Focus of supervision: Administrative? Clinical?

  • Nuts and bolts of supervision structure

    • Availability

    • Cost

    • Time & Location

  • Review professional disclosure statement and contract.

Training content and coverage

  • Exploring Supervisee’s Expectations

    • Going beyond experience in graduate program

    • Acknowledging real world realities of expense, accessibility, licensure needs, etc.

  • Help supervisee to formulate goals

  • Clarification of what supervision entails

  • Develop understanding of supervision theory in terms of supervision roles and functions

    • Teacher, counselor, consultant

    • Provides resources and information

    • Supports, understands, and challenges

    • Establishes clear evaluation guidelines

    • Gives feedback

  • Time commitment and availability

  • Resource listings and referrals to supervision providers

References

Anderson, S. A., Schlossberg, M., & Rigazio-DiGilio, S. (2000). Family therapy trainees’ evaluations of their best and worst supervision experiences. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 79-91.

Carifio, M., & Hess, A. (1987). Who is the ideal supervisor? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 244-250.

Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2007). Competence in competency-based supervision practice: Construct and Application. Professional psychology: Research and practice, 38(3), 232-240.

Fernando, D. M., & Hulse-Killacky, D. (2005). The relationship of supervisory styles to satisfaction with supervision and the perceived self-efficacy of master’s- level counseling students. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44(4), 293-304.

Kavanagh, D. J., Spence, S. H., Wilson, J., & Crow, N. (2002). Achieving effective supervision. Drug and Alcohol Review, 21, 247-252.

Magnuson, S., Norem K., & Wilcoxon, S. A. (2002). Clinical supervision for licensure: A consumer's guide. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and development, 41, 52-60.

Magnuson, S., Norem K., & Wilcoxon, S. A. (2000a).Clinical supervision of prelicensed counselors: Recommendations for consideration and practice. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 22(2), 176-188.

Magnuson, S., Norem K., & Wilcoxon, S. A. (2000b). A profile of lousy supervision: Experienced counselors’ perspectives. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39(3), 189-202.

Powell, D. J., & Brodsky, A. (1998). Clinical supervision in alcohol and drug abuse counseling: Principles, models, methods. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ramos-Sanchez, L., Esnil, E., Goodwin, A., Riggs, S., Touster, L. O., Wright, L. K., Ratanasiripong, P., & Rodolfa, E. (2002). Negative supervisory events: Effects on supervision satisfaction and supervisory alliance. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 197-202.

Shanfiled, S. B., Hetherly, V. V., & Matthews, K. L. (2001). Excellent supervision: The Residents’ Perspective. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 10(1), 23-28.

Shanfield, S. B., Matthews, K., & Hetherly, V. (1993). What do excellent psychotherapy supervisors do? American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 1081-1084.

Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM supervision: An integrated developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Studer, J. (2006). Getting started: Setting up the supervisory relationship. In S. Studer, Supervising the school counselor trainee (pp.15-17). Alexandria: VA: American Counseling Association.

Schaeffer, S. S. (2005, Spring). Supervision focus: The ten questions new LLPCs ask most often. MCA Quest, 6, 15.

Thomas, J. (2007). Informed consent through contracting for supervision: Minimizing risks, enhancing benefits. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(3), 221-231.

Thomski-Klingshirn, D. M., & Davis, T. E. (2007). Supervisees’ perceptions of their clinical supervision: A study of the dual role of clinical and administrative supervisor. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46, 294- 304.

Annotate

VISTAS Online Archive 2009
Powered by Manifold Scholarship. Learn more at
Opens in new tab or windowmanifoldapp.org