Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Watkins2011-Supervisao Meta
Watkins2011-Supervisao Meta
90]
On: 20 June 2014, At: 20:16
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
To cite this article: C. Edward Watkins Jr. (2011) Does Psychotherapy Supervision Contribute to
Patient Outcomes? Considering Thirty Years of Research, The Clinical Supervisor, 30:2, 235-256, DOI:
10.1080/07325223.2011.619417
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
The Clinical Supervisor, 30:235–256, 2011
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0732-5223 print=1545-231X online
DOI: 10.1080/07325223.2011.619417
235
236 C. E. Watkins, Jr.
INTRODUCTION
ment education, and are now seemingly forever inextricably intertwined with
our conceptualizations of responsible, informed, and ethical therapeutic
implementation (American Psychological Association, 2006; American
Psychiatric Association, 2001; Fisher & O’Donohue, 2006; Spring & Walker,
2007; Weisz & Kazdin, 2010). We now also see the concepts of competent
practice and evidence-based practice increasingly becoming more central
considerations in how we think about, conduct, teach, and even supervise
psychotherapy supervision (Falender & Shafranske, 2007; Milne, 2009). Much
as psychotherapy has been called upon to account, psychotherapy super-
vision now finds itself called to do so as well.
While concerns about evidence for and impact of psychotherapy have
actually been with us for more than a century (Coriat, 1917; Eysenck, 1952;
Freud, 1909=1959; Smith, Glass, & Miller, 1980; Wampold, 2008), concerns
about evidence for and impact of psychotherapy supervision have compara-
tively been a much more recent phenomenon. The first empirical efforts to
investigate supervision did not occur until the 1950s (Harkness & Poertner,
1989), and in many respects, it has only been within the past 30 years that
supervision scholarship and study have truly exploded (cf. Bernard, 2005).
As psychotherapy supervision has matured and become ever more substan-
tial, questions about its efficacy have increasingly emerged (Inman & Ladany,
2008; Lambert & Ogles, 1997). Those questions have tended to take one of
two forms: Does supervision have a beneficial effect on supervisees (the
positive impact of supervisor on supervisee)?, or Does supervision actually
have a beneficial effect on supervisees’ patients (the positive impact of
supervisor on supervisee, which in turn positively impacts patients)?
Research thus far suggests that psychotherapy supervision indeed has a
most beneficial effect on supervisees. Some of those positive effects include
supervisee enhanced self-awareness, enhanced treatment knowledge, skill
acquisition and utilization, enhanced self-efficacy, and strengthening of the
Psychotherapy Supervision Outcomes 237
solid form and gather momentum in the mid to late 1990s. Holloway and
Neufeldt (1995), in their review of supervision effects, indicated that research
on the supervision-patient outcome matter was virtually nonexistent (cf.
Neufeldt, Beutler, & Banchero, 1997). But shortly thereafter, Ellis and Ladany
(1997) identified what to my knowledge was the first list of supervision-
patient outcome studies, which included nine such investigations; their brief
critique highlighted a host of methodological problems with that research
and they concluded that there were ‘‘few justifiable conclusions [that could
be drawn] from this set of studies’’ (p. 488). Building on that list, however,
Freitas (2002) provided a more detailed summary and analysis of most of
the nine studies identified by Ellis and Ladany (e.g., number of participants
involved, specific measures used) and included and detailed four other
studies that had not earlier been referenced; he reported no supervision
outcome studies appearing between 1997 and 2001. While not skirting the
methodological problems evident across studies, Freitas presented a more
optimistic view about the available research and focused his attention on
what the data had to offer for future research considerations. Five years later,
Wheeler and Richards (2007) devoted but a paragraph to supervision-patient
outcome, referenced only two other supervision outcome studies appearing
since the Freitas review, and noted the limited attention given to this
all-important matter. Inman and Ladany (2008) also devoted just 1 paragraph
to supervision-patient outcome research, indicated that about 18 such studies
had been done so far, identified 1 new study, and much like previous
reviewers, accentuated the difficulty in researching this subject.
In my view, the essence of this outcome concern—despite its problem-
atic researchability—was perfectly captured by Lichtenberg (2007) in his brief
commentary: ‘‘ . . . the reason for providing supervision and the ethical justi-
fication for requiring it are that it makes a difference with respect to client
outcomes’’ . . . . ‘‘supervisors’ impact on psychotherapy outcomes is critical
238 C. E. Watkins, Jr.
lenge (see Milne, 2009, 2010; Stoltenberg, 2009; Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2009),
as some study of the supervision-patient outcome issue continues to be
conducted (Bambling, King, Raue, Schweitzer, & Lambert, 2006; Bradshaw,
Butterworth, & Mairs, 2007; White & Winstanley, 2010), and as we now
already have about 18 such studies (Inman & Ladany, 2008) spanning a gen-
eration of supervision research (from 1981 through mid-2011), I thought it
might be interesting to take a fresh look at this matter. Since Freitas’ (2002)
review, which largely built upon the work of Ellis and Ladany (1997), no
effort has been made to integrate the first two decades of supervision-patient
outcome research with research produced in the past decade. Where do we
now stand with regard to those ‘‘acid test’’ data? I would like to consider that
question by assembling all previously identified supervision-patient outcome
studies, complement those by including any recent studies that have been
conducted, and then examine the group of investigations as a whole for
any new insights or directions that they might have to offer. What does
our first generation of supervision-patient outcome research tell us?
That definition will be used here because (1) it is a widely accepted super-
vision definition in the United States and abroad (Milne, 2007), (2) its ele-
ments seem to nicely capture the essence of supervisory practice across
mental health specialties (cf. Gold, 2006; Hess, Hess, & Hess, 2008; Munson,
2001; Watkins, 1997), and (3) it distinguishes supervision as an actual
intervention separate from graduate course work and psychotherapy skills
training (cf. Hill & Lent, 2006; Robertson, 1995; Stein & Lambert, 1995). A
supervision-patient outcome study will be defined as follows: A study in
which (1) one of its stated objectives is the investigation of a supervision-
patient outcome link and=or (2) a measure (or measures) of patient outcome
is taken over time and that is then related back to supervision in some way. I
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
chose not to adopt stringent exclusionary review criteria that would only
further restrict an already restricted field of supervision-patient outcome stu-
dies. Instead, I chose to include any quantitative or qualitative investigations
that emerged, but then subject them to critical examination.
Articles to be included in this review were drawn from two sources: (1)
studies that had been previously identified by Ellis and Ladany (1997), Freitas
(2002), Wheeler and Richards (2007), and Inman and Ladany (2008); and (2)
a computer search for any new studies that would have appeared in the past
few years. Drawing on the reviews of Ellis and Ladany, Freitas, Wheeler and
Richards, and Inman and Ladany, 16 studies—which spanned from 1981
through 2006—were identified for inclusion (see Table 1). Using PsycINFO
and Google Scholar databases, computer searches were conducted for the
January 2006 through May 2011 period, with such keywords as ‘‘psycho-
therapy supervision outcomes,’’ ‘‘clinical supervision outcomes,’’ and ‘‘super-
vision outcomes’’ being inputted for article identification purposes. For that
approximate five-year period, two additional articles were identified for
inclusion (Bradshaw et al., 2007; White & Winstanley, 2010), bringing the
total number of supervision-patient outcome articles from 1981 through
mid-2011 to 18. A synopsis of each of the 18 articles is provided in Table 1.
Those 18 studies have involved the full spectrum of mental health disciplines,
with the most recent investigations emerging from psychiatric nursing
(Bradshaw et al., 2007; White & Winstanley, 2010). The studies have ranged
from experimental research (Bambling et al., 2006), correlational research
(Harkness, 1995), case studies (Alpher, 1991), to surveys of perceptions
and opinions (Vallance, 2004). Participating supervisors and patients have
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
TABLE 1 Eighteen Actual or Purported Psychotherapy Supervision-Patient Outcome Studies, 1981–May 2011
Alpher (1991) NSOS: Intensive case study analysis involving 1 female patient, 1
male therapist, and 1 male supervisor. Purpose of study to
examine parallel process between therapy and supervision.
Patient improvement ratings across treatment were made by
patient, therapist, and supervisor. Structural Analysis of Social
Behavior ratings made by patient (for therapist) and therapist
(for patient and supervisor). Supervisor provided ratings of his
relationship with therapist. The effects of supervision on
patient outcome not considered at any point in article.
Bambling, 127 patients (87 f, 40 m), 127 therapists (96 f, 31 m), and 40 Patients in supervised as Supervision pretreatment
King, Raue, supervisors (31 f, 9 m) participated. Patients with major opposed to unsupervised training session and therapist
Schweitzer, depression were randomly assigned to receive 8 sessions of treatment rated the working allegiance effects were
& Lambert problem-solving therapy (PST) from either a supervised or alliance higher, their identified as potential
(2006) unsupervised therapist; the 3 supervision conditions, to which symptoms lower, their confounds; total power was
240
therapists were randomly assigned, were alliance skill focus, satisfaction with treatment insufficient to eliminate
alliance process focus, and no supervision: all therapists higher, and were more apt to possibility of Type II errors.
received manual-driven training on PST; all supervisors stay in treatment.
received manual-driven training in either alliance skill or
alliance process supervision. Effects of supervision on
client-rated working alliance and symptom reduction were
evaluated.
Bradshaw, 89 schizophrenic patients (sex not specified), 23 mental health Both experimental and control Nurses in experimental group
Butterworth, nurses (14 f, 9 m), and several nurse supervisors (number not groups showed significant significantly older and more
& Mairs specified) participated. Supervisors received 2-day course increases in case experienced than control
(2007) about clinical supervision from study’s first author. All nurses management knowledge and group nurses; only
received 36 days of formal training in Psychosocial their patients demonstrated supervision training for
Intervention (PSI) and small-group clinical supervision. In significant reductions in supervisors was a 2-day
addition, those nurses assigned to experimental group also affective and positive course, which was not
received workplace clinical supervision (whereas control symptoms and significant described; no non-PSI
group nurses did not). Nurses’ knowledge about serious improvements in social education control group;
mental illness and patients’ symptom changes were assessed. functioning; nurses in retrospective comparison
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
Data were gathered twice—at very beginning of PSI training experimental group, group used; study
and at its end. however, also showed quasi-experimental in
greater knowledge about design; ‘‘[s]upervisors’ fidelity
psychological intervention to the model of clinical
and schizophrenia and their supervision was assessed via
patients demonstrated monthly meetings with the
significantly greater first author’’ (p. 6) but
reductions in both positive nothing beyond that single
and total symptoms. statement was offered to
help us understand what that
entailed.
Couchon & 32 clients (19 f, 13 m), 21 counselors (17 f, 4 m), and 7 supervisors Supervision approximately Inadequate sample size (Ellis &
Bernard (3 f, 4 m) participated. Clients were being seen at a university 4 hours before next Ladany, 1997); while each
(1984) clinic for a variety of personal issues. Effects of timing of counseling session emerged counselor was to see a
supervision were examined across three conditions: as more of a ‘‘planning different client in each of the
supervision occurring (1) within 4 hours of next counseling session’’ comparatively. 3 timing conditions, that
session, (2) 1 day before next counseling session, or (3) 2 days Supervisor tended to objective was not achieved;
before next counseling session. All supervision and counseling function as more of a instead, ‘‘some counselors
241
sessions were audio-taped and rated for strategies generated consultant and be more saw the same client twice
and time orientation employed. Client satisfaction and focused than in other 2 (under different treatment
counselor satisfaction ratings were taken. treatment conditions. conditions)’’ (Couchon &
Supervision session timing, Bernard, 1984, p. 6).
however, had no significant Homemade measures
effect on either client or created to assess counselor
counselor satisfaction. satisfaction with supervision
and counseling.
Dodenhoff 59 master’s-level counseling student therapists (34 f, 25 m) and 12 Student therapists who scored Patient outcome only rated at
(1981) supervisors (5 f, 7 m; 8 PhDs, 2 master’s degrees, 2 doctoral higher on interpersonal one point in time (around
students) participated; number of patients involved not attraction toward supervisor fifth session); no pre-post
specified; focus of study was on supervision as a social were rated to be more patient outcome data
influence process; student therapists completed an effective by their supervisors; collected; no random
interpersonal attraction (to supervisor) measure at week 3 of higher ratings of patient assignment; modification of
semester, supervisors completed (1) an effectiveness measure outcome were associated non-equivalent groups
for their supervisees (week 3 and at semester’s end) and (2) an with a direct supervisory design used.
outcome measure for their supervisees’ patients (around week style.
(Continued )
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
TABLE 1 Continued
242
(1995) Hensley (1991; see below) used. Test of Shulman’s between therapist ratings of over volunteer subjects
interactional helping theory. 36 correlations performed to supervisory empathy and increased error variance’’
examine possible relations between supervisory skills, client ratings of contentment, (Harkness, 1995, p. 70);
relationship, and helpfulness and practice and client supervisory helpfulness and ‘‘Causal inferences cannot be
outcomes. client contentment, and made from the findings of
supervisory relationship and this investigation, and the
client contentment and goal narrow scope of its sample
attainment. mitigates against
generalization about skills,
relationships and outcomes
of practice in other settings’’
(Harkness, 1995, p. 70);
‘‘ . . . one is left wondering
what can be inferred . . .’’
(Freitas, 2002, p. 361).
Harkness Same data set=measures=participants from Harkness and Findings interpreted as Large number of causal tests
(1997) Hensley (1991; Harkness, 1995; see subsequent entry) again supporting and altering conducted; limitations under
used; test of Interactional Social Work theory; multiple interactional view of social Harkness (1995) and
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
regression in cross-lagged panel design employed; examined work practice; supervision Harkness and Hensley
causal connections among the skills, relationships, and problem-solving and (1991) entries also apply
outcomes of supervised practice; 81 causal tests of association empathic skills found to have here (see above).
conducted. a causal influence on ratings
of supervisory relationship
and supervisory helpfulness
but not in ways expected;
empathy actually found to
have a direct negative effect
on the supervision
experience (a truly unique
finding in empathy=
supervision research).
Harkness & 161 patients (87 f, 74 m), 2 male therapists (master’s-level Under client-focus=mixed Multiple-baseline research
Hensley psychologists), 2 female therapists (master’s-level social focus-supervision as design; ‘‘any combination of
(1991) workers), and 1 female supervisor (certified social worker) opposed to mixed-focus order effects, sampling error,
participated; 4 therapists first exposed to 8 weeks of (only) supervision, patient and the interaction of testing
mixed-focus supervision (case management=consultation) depression decreased; and treatment may have
243
followed by mix of 8 weeks of client-focus (individual=group ratings of therapist confounded the findings’’
supervision)=mixed-focus supervision. Effects of mixed-focus helpfulness, goal attainment, (Harkness & Hensley, 1991,
versus client-focus=mixed-focus supervision were evaluated and patient-therapist p. 511); throughout article,
for: depressive symptoms, patient satisfaction with therapist partnership all increased. client-focused supervision is
helpfulness, goal attainment, and patient-therapist partnership. contrasted with mixed-focus
supervision but in reality
client-focused group was a
supervision amalgam, not a
pure type.
Iberg (1991) NSOS: Examined what were designated as 3 supervision themes:
Give more empathic responses, don’t give advice or
suggestions, and don’t ask questions. 6 doctoral student
therapists in clinical psychology (5 f, 1 m) each recruited 8
volunteer pseudo-clients (27 f, 21 m) to participate. Therapists
were assigned to each level of the 3 experimental conditions
(empathy: few versus many statements; suggestions:
(Continued )
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
TABLE 1 Continued
244
compared on patients’ ratings of working alliance and session have an accelerative learning non-equivalent groups
smoothness-ease and depth-value. effect on supervisees. design used.
Mallinckrodt & NSOS: 50 counselor-client dyads participated; after third session,
Nelson counselor and client completed Working Alliance Inventory;
(1991) effects of counselor training level (novice, advanced,
experienced) on working alliance formation investigated;
though having potential supervision implications, this study
involved no supervision at all.
Milne, NSOS: Intensive qualitative and quantitative case study analysis
Pilkington, involving 1 male patient, 1 female therapist, and 1 male
Gracie, & supervisor. Purpose of study to examine thematic content
James (2003) similarities between cognitive-behavioral therapy and
supervision. 10 supervision and 10 therapy sessions coded
using qualitative and quantitative content analysis
methodology. Supervision themes nicely reflected in therapy
process; a ‘‘parallelism’’ occurred. No measures of patient
outcome taken, effects of supervision on patient outcome not
addressed. Focus of study on the process of supervision to
specifically impact therapist behavior.
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
245
Global Assessment Scale (GAS) for each patient at treatment’s patient improvement; times; cause-effect
beginning and at time of study. Effects of amount of amount of supervision was conclusions not possible.
supervision and therapist-supervisor theoretical congruence unrelated to trainee ratings
on patient outcome were evaluated. of patient GAS.
Triantafillou 14 supervisory=management staff and 10 direct care workers (all Both treatment and control Pilot study with very small
(1997) with at least a 3-year child=youth worker college diploma) groups showed reduction in sample size; no random
received 4, 3-hour weekly training sessions in solution-focused serious incidence behaviors assignment; extremely
supervision (SFS). To test effects of training, 5 problem during study but treatment limited study details (entire
residents from one residential facility (where SFS was taught to group showed substantially study given but a single page
staff=workers) were compared against 7 problem residents more (75% less than control in 23-page article).
from a different facility (where SFS not taught) on serious group).
incidence behaviors and medication usage. Pilot study of
training program package. No actual supervision observed or
measured.
(Continued )
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
TABLE 1 Continued
246
to conduct yearlong group supervision of neophyte and maintained difference an appropriately trained
supervisees at their worksites. The control group was a scores 12 months later; clinical supervisor, for 45–60
no-supervision condition. Qualitative diary data were collected supervisee MCSS scores did minutes per session, on a
monthly from supervisors; quantitative data were collected not change significantly over monthly frequency, for
from mental health nurses (baseline=12 months), patients 12 months of supervision; facilitated reflective
(baseline=6 and 12 months), and unit staff (6 months). statistically significant discussion, in confidence,
differences not demonstrated around matters of
in either quality of care or professional relevance and
patient satisfaction. importance’’ (p. 152);
influence of middle
managers facilitated or
frustrated supervision efforts
across work settings.
Notes. NSOS ¼ Not Supervision Outcome Study; if a study was judged NSOS, then no Findings or Limitations were provided. f ¼ females, m ¼ males.
Psychotherapy Supervision Outcomes 247
and Swafford (1991); Mallinckrodt and Nelson (1991); Milne and colleagues
(2003); and Sandell (1985). Alpher (1991) and Friedlander and colleagues
(1989) were both case studies of the parallel process phenomenon. While
study of parallel process would seem to readily lend itself to supervision-
patient outcome inferences, that is not necessarily a given. In Alpher
(1991), patient improvement ratings were taken, but at no point in his article
were those in any way considered in relation to supervision and patient
outcome. Friedlander and colleagues (1989) were also appropriately cautious
in considering the implications of their data; while the therapist provided
ratings about her patient’s outcome, her client failed to provide any post-
treatment outcome data, thus limiting any conclusions that could be drawn.
Friedlander and colleagues (1989) mentioned no supervision-outcome link at
any point in their article. Milne and colleagues (2003) studied thematic simi-
larities between cognitive-behavioral therapy and supervision (parallelism)
in an intensive case design; their investigation’s focus was on how super-
vision actually impacted therapist behavior. The effects of supervision on
patient, however, were not considered.
Mallinckrodt and Nelson (1991), while conducting a study that may have
supervision implications, investigated the impact of therapist training level
(novice, advanced, experienced) on formation of the therapeutic working
alliance. This was strictly a study of psychotherapy; no supervision was
involved. Iberg (1991), while orienting his study around ‘‘supervision
themes,’’ actually conducted an investigation of psychotherapy skills training
(e.g., learning empathic skills), not supervision. Six doctoral-level clinical psy-
chology students recruited pseudo-clients for role-play purposes, with the
skills focus being on empathy, questions, and suggestions. No supervision
or supervisors were involved at any time. Sandell (1985) provided data about
‘‘voluntary small-group peer supervision’’ on patient outcome in short-term
psychodynamic psychotherapy; again, trained professional supervision was
248 C. E. Watkins, Jr.
not part of this study. Kivlighan and colleagues (1991) found that recruited,
compensated (extra course credit) undergraduate ‘‘clients,’’ when exposed
to supervisees receiving live versus videotaped supervision, rated their four
counseling sessions as rougher and the working alliance as stronger during
the live supervision condition. No actual change ratings were taken or made;
this appeared to primarily be an investigation of how live versus videotaped
supervision modalities affected clients’ session and working alliance percep-
tions. How that impacted overall outcome, however, was not assessed. It is
my contention that those seven studies have been identified as supervision-
patient outcome studies (see Ellis & Ladany, 1997; Freitas, 2002; Wheeler &
Richards, 2007) when in fact they are not. While some supervision implica-
tions may be drawn from some of those studies, I believe we should be
quite cautious about specifically drawing any supervision-patient outcome
implications from them.
Unfortunately, I do not believe those are the only studies in this group
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
of 18 that give us reason for question or concern. We also have studies here
that are purely survey or opinion based (Steinhelber, Patterson, Cliffe, &
LeGoullon, 1984; Vallance, 2004), pilot in nature (Triantafillou, 1997), involve
data duplication (see Harkness, 1995, 1997), or failed to adequately assess
patient outcome (Dodenhoff, 1981). Steinhelber and colleagues (1984) eval-
uated therapist trainees’ questionnaire and single-item rating scale responses
about patient diagnosis and progress, treatment variables, and supervision;
this was really a study about therapists’ perceptions of self, their supervisors,
and their patients. Though the trainees were all in supervision, no actual
supervision was observed or studied. Vallance (2004) conducted a qualitative
study in which she investigated 19 counselors’ opinions about the impact
of supervision on their treatment efforts and its ultimate impact on patient
outcome. This, too, was a study of counselors’ perceptions about self, their
clients, and their supervisors, tapped by means of either an open-ended
questionnaire or semi-structured interview. Again, though all participants
were being supervised, no actual supervision was observed or studied in this
research either. (While I think that therapist perceptual data alone can be
important and have a place in supervision research, I also think that at this
particular point in time we need much more than that for the supervision-
patient outcome area of inquiry to move forward.)
With Triantafillou (1997), we have a supervision training package (four
3-hour meetings of supervision instruction) pilot tested on 12 behaviorally
disturbed residents (5 in treatment group versus 7 in control group); super-
visors trained in solution-focused supervision served the treatment group,
whereas the control group served as a no-supervision condition. While much
attention and care appears to have been given to the training package pres-
entation, no monitoring, observation, or study of actual supervision occurred
once that was complete. Harkness and Hensley (1991) conducted an interest-
ing study that involved 1 supervisor, 4 supervisees, and 161 mental health
Psychotherapy Supervision Outcomes 249
center patients, but much like cutting the same pie up time and time again,
those very same data were reanalyzed on two other occasions (Harkness,
1995, 1997). While Harkness’ two later studies have been recognized as part
of our body of supervision outcome studies (see Freitas, 2002, who did men-
tion the matter of piecemeal publication), I believe that we can certainly
question that wisdom. If nothing else, those are not new data sets, and while
we may cautiously draw implications from them, any such implications
would probably best be placed within the confines of Harkness and
Hensley’s first study (1991). In Dodenhoff’s (1981) investigation, both client
and supervisor completed a client outcome rating scale around the fifth
counseling session; no pretreatment or posttreatment measure was taken,
so any type of pre=post comparison was not possible. This was foremost a
study about supervisor social influence, so the supervisor and client outcome
ratings were used exclusively as measures of counselor trainee effectiveness
(seen as being influenced by supervisor social power). Consideration of
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
provided. There was one other major study difference: A supervision manual
was used to guide the work of supervision. (Therapists also were provided
with their own treatment manual.) To my knowledge, this is only the second
supervision study (other than Patton & Kivlighan, 1997) to ever use a super-
vision manual. While manuals have a definite history of being referenced and
recommended in the supervision literature (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009;
Goodyear & Bernard, 1998; Goodyear & Guzzardo, 2000; Holloway, 1992;
Lambert & Arnold, 1987; Lambert & Ogles, 1997; Watkins, 1998), their use
in supervision research has been virtually absent. It may indeed be that the
‘‘most promising possibility for outcome research on the effects of supervi-
sion . . . appears to be in the area of large-scale outcome studies of manua-
lized treatments . . .’’ (Neufeldt et al., 1997, pp. 519–520). Perhaps what
Bambling and colleagues have done is to also show us that ‘‘manualized’’
has a place in supervision too: Just as psychotherapy research has benefited
from a manualized approach, supervision research could do so as well.
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
While manuals are by no means a panacea (Scott & Binder, 2002), they do
provide us with one viable means of gathering useful research data (see
Lambert, 2004) and might be useful in exposing a supervision data mine that
has yet to be unearthed, explored, and excavated.
Two recent research investigations from psychiatric mental health nurs-
ing (Bradshaw et al., 2007; White & Winstanley, 2010; see Table 1 for more
detail), though not as refined as Bambling and colleagues’ study, also present
a highly focused approach to the specific study of supervision and patient
outcome that could prove quite informative for future study (NURSINGtimes.
net, 2010; Proctor, 2010). Bradshaw and colleagues (2007) examined the
effects of supervision (provided by nurse ‘‘supervisors’’ receiving a two-day
course in clinical supervision) on nurses receiving Psychosocial Intervention
Training (PIT; family and cognitive-behavioral intervention) plus workplace
supervision (treatment group) versus a group of nurses receiving PTI only
(no workplace supervision control group). Supervision was provided every
other week, with there being one supervisor and two supervisees per group.
Eighty-nine patients with schizophrenia served as the patient group. Patients
whose caregivers received PIT plus workplace supervision (compared with
the control group) experienced greater reductions in positive and total psy-
chotic symptoms measured. While the Bradshaw and colleagues investi-
gation was not a randomized control trial (RCT) and was certainly the
weakest methodologically of the three studies highlighted here, I include it
because (1) it had as a preeminent intent the examination of supervision-
patient outcome; (2) it provided a corresponding structure that directly
allowed that to be done (contrary to most of the other 18 studies); and (3)
it clearly has the potential to stimulate useful heuristic thought about pushing
the matter under study forward. White and Winstanley (2010) examined the
effects of supervision (provided by nurse ‘‘supervisors’’ receiving a four-day
residential course in clinical supervision) on mental health nurses receiving
Psychotherapy Supervision Outcomes 251
that involves growth over time. Would such a brief training period be suffi-
ciently powerful to render one a good-enough supervisor? (2) How fre-
quently must supervision occur for it to have a beneficial effect? In
Bambling and colleagues (2006), individual supervision was provided once
a week; in Bradshaw and colleagues (2007), supervision was provided to
two supervisees at a time every other week; in White and Winstanley
(2010), supervision was provided in groups consisting of anywhere from
six to nine individuals once a month. If the supervisory alliance is a critical
component of supervision, and accumulating research suggests that it is
(Inman & Ladany, 2008; Ladany, 2004), can such an alliance actually be
established in groups of 6 to 9 supervisees meeting only once a month for
about 45 minutes? It may well be that another reason White and Winstanley’s
nicely conducted RCT failed to find supervision-patient effects was that the
amount of time devoted to supervision was not sufficiently powerful to have
an effect. As Proctor (2010) stated, ‘‘. . . makes me shake my head at the idea
of nine supervisees in a 1 hour (or less) monthly group’’ (p. 171). It may also
be possible that some of what led to positive results in Bradshaw and collea-
gues’ (2007) study was the more frequent supervision conducted with but
two supervisees. Those possibilities would at least be reasonable hypotheses
to consider by means of future research.
Of all the studies considered here, those three—Bambling and collea-
gues (2006), Bradshaw and colleagues (2007), and White and Winstanley
(2010)—provide the best and clearest directions for further thought about
conducting future successful research in the supervision-patient outcome
area. Those investigations show us that, despite jeremiads about the difficult-
ies of researching this subject, it can be done and be done well. As concern
mounts about more substantively demonstrating the effectiveness of super-
vision on patient outcome, we have our first vestiges, tentative though they
may be, of evidence to that effect. But beyond that, I really do not believe
252 C. E. Watkins, Jr.
that we can say any more right now. When we take into account study mis-
identifications along with other issues mentioned earlier (e.g., data dupli-
cation), I am not sure that we can safely draw any further conclusions
about supervision outcome from this very limited group of research investi-
gations. What we do have, in my opinion, is a beginning, and I believe some
of the work done in the past few years opens a door that had not been
opened before. For the first time in supervision’s 100-year history, the
psychotherapy supervision-patient outcome problem does not have to be
the will-o’-the-wisp it has always been.
CONCLUSION
research, we still cannot empirically answer that question. But in this age of
accountability, we can be assured that that question will continue to be an
increasingly preeminent press for psychotherapy supervision in the
twenty-first century. In surveying the last 30 years of supervision outcome
research (actual and purported), the drawing of any conclusions about
supervision’s effects on patient outcome seems premature. In my view, we
have not arrived at the point where we can safely do that. But some recent,
nicely done studies produced in the past few years do provide us with sub-
stantive examples, exciting possibilities, and charted directions upon which
we can build in our quest to further unravel the psychotherapy
supervision-patient outcome riddle.
REFERENCES
Beutler, L. E., & Kendall, P. C. (Eds.) (1995). Introduction to the special section: The
case for training in the provision of psychological therapy. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 63, 179–183.
Bradshaw, T., Butterworth, A., & Mairs, H. (2007). Does structured clinical super-
vision during psychosocial intervention education enhance outcome for mental
health nurses and the service users they work with? Journal of Psychiatric and
Mental Health Nursing, 14, 4–12.
Coriat, I. H. (1917). Some statistical results of the psychoanalytic treatment of the
psychoneuroses. The Psychoanalytic Review, 4, 209–216.
Couchon, W. D., & Bernard, J. M. (1984). Effects of timing of supervision on super-
visor and counselor performance. The Clinical Supervisor, 2, 3–20.
Dodenhoff, J. T. (1981). Interpersonal attraction and direct-indirect supervisor influ-
ence as predictors of counselor trainee effectiveness. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 28, 47–52.
Ellis, M. V., & Ladany, N. (1997). Inferences concerning supervisees and clients in
clinical supervision: An integrative review. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
Hess, A. K., Hess, K. D., & Hess, T. H. (Eds.). (2008). Psychotherapy supervision:
Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hill, C. E., & Lent, R. W. (2006). A narrative and meta-analytic review of helping
skills training: Time to revive a dormant area of inquiry. Psychotherapy, 43,
154–172.
Holloway, E. L. (1992). Supervision: A way of teaching and learning. In S. D. Brown
& R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 177–214). New
York: Wiley.
Holloway, E. L., & Neufeldt, S. A. (1995). Supervision: Its contributions to treatment
efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 207–213.
Iberg, J. R. (1991). Applying Statistical Control Theory to bring together clinical
supervision and psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 59, 575–586.
Inman, A. G., & Ladany, N. (2008). Research: The state of the field. In A. K. Hess,
K. D. Hess, & T. H. Hess (Eds.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research,
and practice (2nd ed., pp. 500–517). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014
Kivlighan, D. M., Angelone, E. O., & Swafford, K. G. (1991). Live supervision in indi-
vidual psychotherapy: Effects on therapist’s intention use and client’s evaluation
of session effect and working alliance. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 22, 489–495.
Ladany, N. (2004). Psychotherapy supervision: What lies beneath. Psychotherapy
Research, 14, 1–19.
Lambert, M. J. (Ed.). (2004). Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and
behavior change. New York: Wiley.
Lambert, M. J., & Arnold, R. C. (1987). Research and the supervision process.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 217–224.
Lambert, M. J., & Ogles, B. M. (1997). The effectiveness of psychotherapy
supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision
(pp. 421–446). New York: Wiley.
Lichtenberg, J. W. (2007). What makes for effective supervision? In search of clinical
outcomes. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 27–28.
Mallinckrodt, B., & Nelson, M. L. (1991). Counselor training level and the formation
of the psychotherapeutic working alliance. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
38, 133–138.
Milne, D. (2007). An empirical definition of clinical supervision. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 46, 437–447.
Milne, D. (2009). Evidence-based clinical supervision: Principles and practice.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Milne, D. (2010). Can we enhance the training of clinical supervisors? A national pilot
study of an evidence-based approach. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,
17, 321–328.
Milne, D., Pilkington, J., Gracie, J., & James, I. (2003). Transferring skills from super-
vision to therapy: A qualitative and quantitative N ¼ 1 analysis. Behavioural and
Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31, 193–202.
Munson, C. (2001). Handbook of clinical social work supervision (3rd ed.).
Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Psychotherapy Supervision Outcomes 255
Neufeldt, S. A., Beutler, L. E., & Banchero, R. (1997). Research on supervisor vari-
ables in psychotherapy supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of
psychotherapy supervision (pp. 508–524). New York: Wiley.
NURSINGtimes.net. (2010). Does clinical supervision lead to better patient outcomes
in mental health nursing? (Research report). (Originally appeared April 26,
2010). Retrieved August 20, 2010, from http://www.nursingtimes.net./nursing-
practice-clinical-research/mental-health/does-clinical-supervision-lead-to-better-
patient-outcomes-in-mental-health-nursing/5013977.article
Patton, M. J., & Kivlighan, D. M., Jr. (1997). Relevance of the supervisory alliance
to the counseling alliance and to treatment adherence in counselor training.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 108–115.
Proctor, B. (2010). Review: A randomised controlled trial of clinical supervision:
Selected findings from a novel Australian attempt to establish the evidence base
for causal relationships with quality of care and patient outcomes, as an
informed contribution to mental health nursing practice development. Journal
of Research in Nursing, 15, 169–172.
Downloaded by [69.253.48.90] at 20:17 20 June 2014