Family Therapy Training and Supervision

Literature: A Comparative Review*

Howard Arthur Liddle**
Richard J. Halpin***

The family therapy field is more sophisticated developmentally in its thera-

peutic methodologies than in the areas of training and supervision. Publica-
tions and research efforts on these latter topics have not Kept pace with the
progress of the clinical aspects of the field. Family therapy training and
supervision literature were reviewed and found to be fragmented and dis-
organized. There is a need for a comprehensive source which would synthesize
this literature and compare the existing viewpoints. This paper works toward
this end by reviewing, contrasting, and categorizing the availablepublications
according to a series of content areas frequently appearing in the literature.
These topic areas are: (1) Goals of Training and Supervision and Skills of the
Supervisor; (2) Training and Supervision Techniques; (3) Supervisor-
Supervisee Relutionship; (4) Personal Therapy for Trainees; (5) Politics of
Family Therapy Training; and (6) Evaluation of Training. A comprehensive
table is provided to quickly access references in the content area. Recom-
mendations are offered for future efforts in this area.

Due to the comparative newness of the family therapy field, writing and research
efforts in supervision, teaching, and training have been relatively sparse. Bodin (1969)
placed the teaching of family therapy in developmental perspective with his statement:
“Following in the footsteps of family therapy itself, the training literature is just
emerging &om its infancy.” (p. 272). The Bodin paper offered a %brief‘ guide to the
training literature by surveying and organizing the available references along certain
dimensions. However, since his paper was written, a great deal of additional literature
has emerged. Several authors have provided overviews of family therapy training
opportunities but a comprehensive comparison and discussion of the major training and
supervisory issues has not been attemped (Beal, 1976; Liddle, Vance, & Pastushak,
1979; Stanton, 1975; Williamson, 1973).
Olson (1970) documented the changing qualitative and quantitative dimensions of
publications on marital and family therapy. He reviewed over 500 articles and 30 books
in these areas but made only passing reference to the training and supervision area.

*Portions of this paper were presented to the 1976 American Association of Marriage and
Family Counselors Conference, Phila., Penna., October, 1976.
**Howard Arthur Liddle, EdD,is Assistant Professor of CounselingPsychology and Director of
the Community Counseling Clinic, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
***RichardJ. Halpin, MA, is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Counseling Psychology,
Temple University, Philadelphia, and Staff Psychologist at the Springfield Hospital Center,
Sykesville, Maryland.

October 1978 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING 77

Close Next
 Kaslow (1977) provides a broadly based discussion of a variety of training issues in
family therapy. Beginning with a historical perspective on the development of marital
and family counseling, she describes sample training programs and the leadership role
that a national professional organization (AmericanAssociation of Marriage and Family
Counselors) has assumed in the examination and certification of quality training
programs. Kaslow then outlines some of the salient papers on supervision methods and
techniques.
A number of difficulties arise for the family therapy supervisor interested in
availing himself of the published works in this area. First, the literature reflects the
early developmental phase of training in family therapy. Most papers lack a specificity
of methods and procedures used in training and supervision, creating a less than helpful
situation for the professional interested in exposure to a new approach. Second, ideas
and issues addressed in one paper are not generally utilized or commented upon by other
authors, producing a discontinuous process in the transmittal of knowledge and ex-
perience. Formal theories of supervision and training have not crystallized and hence
the reader is faced with the task of abstracting personally useful information from the
array of literature. Lastly, this literature considered as a whole is fragmented and
disorganized. Although the development of this subspecialty of family therapy is in its
formative stages, a number of divergent perspectives have appeared. The reader cannot
consult a central source which contrasts these points of view but must conduct a
sometimes complicated and always time consuming search for this comparative data.
There exist no comprehensive reviews of even single dimensions of training and super-
vision.
This paper provides a comprehensive examination of the existent status of the family
therapy training and supervision literature. The paper organizes over 100 publications
on this topic according to a number of consistently addressed issues factored from the
literature. The categories are of course arbitrary and were selected and labeled to
increase the authors’ organizational efficiencyand facilitate the reader’s comprehension
and appreciation of the heterogeneity existing in this area.’ Table 1 was constructed to
provide the reader with a n uncomplicated, economical way of assessing information and
facilitates quick location of a number of sources in particular areas of training and
supervision.
Goals of Training and Supervision and Skills of the Supervisor
What should be the objectives of training and supervision and what are the
competencies supervisors and trainers need to possess? The answers to these questions
are dependent upon the theoretical assumptions and orientation of the supervisor.
Supervisoryltraining goals range from an emphasis on the personal growth of the
trainee, which would include family of origin work, to more skills-focused objectives.
Within the training and supervision field momentum is gathering for the develop-
ment of competency-based training programs. One of the first groups to move in this
direction was the McMaster University Medical School faculty in Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada (Cleghorn & Levin, 1973). These authors described a program designed to
demystify the learning of family therapy and move trainees in the direction of active and
goal-directed participation in learning. Their training objectives are divided into three
categories: perceptual (observation skills), conceptual (translate observations into
meaningful language) and executive skills (therapeutic intervention). Examples of the
perceptual and conceptual skills include recognizing and describing interactions,
describing a family systematically, and recognizing one’s idiosyncratic reactions to
family members. The executive skills include developing a collaborative working
relationship with the family, establishing the therapeutic contract, and taking control
of maladaptive transactions.

1978 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING October 1978

Previous First Next

 The foundation of the McMaster Model is the Family Categories Schema (Epstein &
Levin, 1973). The contributions of the McMaster group are the systematized way of
classifying and observing family behavior, the research generated on the predictability
of family therapists’ behavior (Sigal, Guttman, Chagoya, & Lasry, 1973), and the
consistent theoretical and practical implementation of a well-defined model of training.
Behavioral competencies, objectives of training, and evaluation criteria have been
specified for teaching particular models of therapy. In the results of an impressive four
year outcome research and training project a t the Centennial School of Lehigh University
it was concluded that the training of family therapists “. . . requires that learning
objectives and expectations be specified in empirical terms 50 that trainer and trainee
can achieve clear goals, identify areas of progress, and meet the special needs of the
trainee” (Garrigan & Bambrick, 1977, p. 237). These authors operationally define the
major constructs and therapist competencies of Zuk’s “go-between” method of family
therapy (Zuk, 1972; 1975).
Along similar lines, two behaviorally-oriented psychologists at the University of
Utah have also defined sets of therapist skills (Barton & Alexander, 1977). Working
from what they term a Structural-Behavioral Family Therapy model these authors
express concern that a therapist “. . .cannot simply rush willy-nilly into the treatment of
problem families armed solely with an array of techniques” (p. 12). Barton and
Alexander have broadened and defined the classes of skills usually associated with
Behavioral Family Therapy. In researching the kinds of therapist behavior related to
outcome, these authors suggest that training should not only encompass technical and
conceptual competencies but should also include interpersonal skills. This latter set of
behaviors is the “stylistic fashion by which therapists deliver their services” (Barton &
Alexander, 1977, p. 18) and includes relationship and structuring dimensions.
The Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic group is also noted for teaching family
therapy in a competency-based and skills-focusedmanner. Weiner (1972) characterized
this group’s structural approach as a n “apprenticeship model.” This method “. . .implies
that there is a master or an expert with knowledge or skills that he can demonstrate and
transmit, and a student with the commitment, the capacity and the trust to receive the
knowledge first as the expert gives it to him; then to test it; to integrate it; and
ultimately to make it his own” (Weiner, 1972, p. 1).
Similarly working from the structural perspective, Montalvo (1973) addresses
supervisory skills and goals from the standpoint of one utilizing a live supervisory
model. According to this approach, the supervisory task is to prevent the therapist from
being caught in unproductive patterns as well as to enable the therapist to use what is
happening in a way which enables him to recover control and direction. This form of
supervision evolved from the structural approach to family therapy (Minuchin, 1974).
Its therapeutic counterpart, live supervision, seeks to create a new sense of reality.
Whereas Minuchin attempts to create a sense of competence in family members by
reshaping and reframing reality through the creation of therapeutic events, Montalvo
accomplishes similar goals with his trainees through supervisory interventions during
the session.
Also representative of a structurally-oriented position is the work of Jay Haley. In a
characteristically paradoxical style, Haley (1974)delineates “Fourteen Ways to Fail as a
Teacher of Family Therapy”. He views some of the basic tasks of trainers as to:
1. Teach supervisees that family therapy is a new orientation to human problems
and not merely a method of intervening or an additional technique.
2. Teach trainees the specific skills of family interviewing, including how to
conduct a n initial session.
3. Teach trainees to define goals in their work as well as how to give directives and
use strategies in their therapy.

October 1978 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING 79

Previous First Next

 4. Teach trainees that responsibility for therapeutic success or failure is theirs and
patient labels such as resistant or untreatable are often excuses.
The “Boston Model” of family therapy represents an attempt to comprehensively
define and describe a more experientially-oriented philosophy of training (Constantine,
1976).The following quote exemplifies the focus of the training paradigm in effect a t the
Boston State Hospital, Center for Training in Family Therapy:
“. . .we grow family therapists.We do not make family therapists,nor, strictly speaking,
do we teach family therapy as a corpus of concepts, tools and techniques. Like good
gardeners,we strive to create an environment that is conducive to growth and learning,
one that blends spontaneous caring within a carefully laid out plot, that balances
sunshine, and of course, a little rain” (Constantine,1976, p. 373).
Emphasis here is on integrating cognitive and experiential learning styles, with a
focus on nonpathological family processes. Ferguson (1977)has also discussed the im-
portance of exposing trainees to a family life cycle model.
While with the Family Studies Section of the Bronx State Hospital in New York,
Ferber and Mendelsohn (1969)defined supervision as a process concerned with both
the professional and personal development of family therapists. These authors have
enumerated a number of supervisory skills (Mendelsohn & Ferber, 1972). A solid
intellectual grasp of the field, ability to continue to learn as one teaches, the capacity to
control the group process of the seminar, and a high level of clinical expertise are some
of these desirable supervisory behaviors. This latter skill, therapeutic competence, is
crucial to their approach since the supervisor is relied upon as a positive role model for
the trainees. Mendelsohn and Ferber characterize their approach not as transmitting a
body of knowledge but more teaching a method of training. They are explicit on the
topic of the basic supervisory goal: “The supervisor’s task is not to help the therapist
‘solve’his family’s problem, but to teach him to be aware of, and to cope with, the secret
presence of his own family in the treatment room (1972,p. 441).”Ferber and Mendel-
sohn believe the sine qua non of effective supervision is the establishment and per-
petuation of conditions in the training group that allow for openness and trust.
Accordingly, the supervisor needs to be skilled in such group leadership techniques as
the monitoring of nonverbal feedback and the ability to occasionally process the on-
going events of the group.
In summary, the goals of training and supervision and the skills of the supervisor
are dependent upon the theoretical orientation of the particular program. The
experientially-oriented (Constantine, 1977;Ferber & Mendelsohn, 1969;Luthman &
Kirschenbaum, 1974) and psychodynamically-based (Ackerman, 1973;La Perriere,
1977) programs tend to emphasize the personal growth aspects of training and the
affective lives of trainees. In the programs operating more from Structural (Minuchin,
19741,Behavioral (Cleghorn & Levin, 1973),and Strategic (Haley, 1976)therapeutic
perspectives, goals are more cognitively-based and focus more on defining particular
sets of therapist skills and ways of intervening into dysfunctional systems. The overall
trend in this area of the literature is in the direction of establishing clearly defined
therapist competencies according to differing theoretical schools of thought (Garrigan
& Bambrick, 1977).

Supervisory Techniques
Several perspectives exist on the topic of how to supervise family therapy trainees
most effectively. This section offers a comparative overview of some fully developed
modelsof supervision as well as some specific methodologies within and outside of each
model.

80 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING October 1978

Previous First Next

 Kempster and Savitsky (1967) provided an historical account of the development
of family therapy supervision in the training approach developed by Nathan Ackerman
in 1957 a t the Jewish Family Service of New York. The therapist’s use of self emerged
as a supervisory issue which received attention by the group and the supervisor. This
latter emphasis has remained an essential component of psychodynamically oriented
therapeutic and training approaches, such as at Ackerman Institute in New York (La
Perriere, 1977). Similarly, Beatman (1964) gave one of the first accounts of the use of
group supervision and group processes in family therapy training.
Siege1 and Dulfano (1973) detailed another model of group supervision especially
concerned with group process issues. Focus is given to the roles the trainee assumes in
the training group. The beginning positions supervisees adopt, such as isolate, scape-
goat, and overprotector are used as base-line data against which progress can be
measured.
In describing their program a t the Neuropsychiatric Institute of UCLA, Steir and
Goldenberg (1975) also stressed the importance of a group supervision seminar in their
overall training approach. The experientially oriented UCLA group enumerated some
advantages and disadvantages to a group paradigm of training. Economical use of time
and energy, opportunity to focus on many families using different therapists’ input,
trainee capacity to learn about system dynamics and characteristics by observing the
development of the training group, and facilitation of a sense of the therapist’s personal
competence are cited as the major assets of this approach. Several authors have
discussed the benefits of peer supervision within the context of a training group (Allen,
1976; Hare & Frankena, 1972). This area is a n underexplored one in the literature.
An innovative program developed by Papp (1977)’ and her colleagues uses a “team
approach to group supervision and implements the Brief/Strategic Therapy principles
of both the Mental Research Institute (MRI)(Watzlawick,et al., 1974) and the Selvini-
Palazzoli (1974, 1977) group from Milan, Italy. The format consists of two interdis-
ciplinary teams of 4 members each who work together seeing families for one day per
week. Prior to each family interview a “pre-session” is held by each team to review
overall treatment strategies and session-specific goals. A single therapist then conducts
the interview while the remainder of the team views from an observation room. The
family is informed at the outset that a team approach is employed and part of this
procedure includes being observed by the team as well as the eventuality of the team
calling the therapist from the room to offer suggestions. The team may call the therapist
out of the mom after 30 minutes for a conferencelasting up to 10 minutes. Since directives
are key aspects of the Brief Therapy approach; it is at this time that the team and
therapist can jointly formulate a task for the therapist to deliver to the family. The
therapist holds ultimate veto power over any suggestions by the team. A “post-session”
is held following the interview to discuss the previously observed session and future
goals. Staff of the Brief Therapy project believe that the overt discussion of the families
built into the supervisory structure enables a more clear and concrete case concep-
tualization process to occur.
Although focusing more on developing a model of therapy, the group led by Selvini-
Palazolli (1974,1977) also addresses the use of a team of observers who actively assist in
generating therapeutic interventions. These innovations have allowed the observing
group or team to become actively involved in the therapeutic process. Instead of waiting
passively for a session to end to offer suggestions, they can offer ideas a t a time when
they can be implemented4uring a session.
Ferber and Mendelsohn (1969) stressed the need for the supervisor to be free to
select any personally comfortable style or format of supervision and negotiate the
terms of this contract with the supervisee. These authors used supervisory methods
ranging from the conventional format of discussing a trainee’s report of a session to

October 1978 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING 81

Previous First Next

observation of the trainee’s work live or via video playblack, to the “sit-in” or supervisor
as co-therapist approach. In a similar way, Rubinstein (1964)discussed his preference
for a direct tutorial model of training where the supervisor and trainee are co-therapists.
Several techniques used in therapy with couples and families have also been
described in terms of their usefulness as training tools. Several authors have made
innovative use of family photos and home movies to bring family members more in touch
with feelings they have toward one another which are carried over from the past
(Anderson & Malloy, 1976;Kaslow & Friedman, 1977).The use of this technique with
trainees is advocated in order to allow greater self-awareness and sensitivity to trainees’
families of origin. Family choreography or sculpting, the use of physical and spatial
metaphors in helping family members gain a clearer view of their family and themselves,
has also been used as a training technique within a group context (Papp, 1976).
Other therapeutic methods have been described in terms of their usefulness as
training techniques. Multiple Impact Therapy, a multidisciplinary team approach to
family therapy (MacGregor,et al., 1964;Kraft, 1966)the diagnostic home visit (Tooley,
1975),and a multiple family marathon (Goldenberg,et al., 1975)have all been portrayed
as having beneficial effects in training family therapists.
Perhaps the most innovative techniques of supervision involve less traditional
behaviors on the part of the supervisor. Contemporary but still controversial methods of
supervision permit the supervisor to assume a more active and directive stance in
relation to the trainee and the family. The Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic (PCGC)
groups has developed a model of training termed “live supervision” (Montalvo, 1973).In
this model the supervisor can actively guide the therapist during a session by providing
corrective feedback through telephone communication between the consultation and
observation rooms. The supervisor observes the interview from behind a one-way mirror
and can interrupt the session to guide the trainee’s actions at the moment the behavior
is occurring. Montalvo (1973,p. 345)stated that “the most basic assumption of all is that
any family can absorb and orient the therapist and direct him away from his function as
a change agent . . .” This method views the supervisory process as a means of providing
a n outside base which the therapist can use to help to disentangle himself from cyclical
and non-helpfid sequences of therapist-familyinteraction. Both Montalvo (1973)and Hare-
Mustin (1976)provide useful case studies of use of live supervision.
In a n excellent chapter on training family therapists, Haley (1976)enumerated
several guidelines for using a live supervision model. One basic principle is that in
considering consultation with a therapist during a session, supervisors should adopt a
“call with reluctance” philosophy to protect against overuse of this technique. When a
call is made to the trainee during a session, only one or two ideas should be introduced.
These suggestions should be highly specific and no attempt should be made to discuss
process issues or family dynamics at this point.
Minuchin adds an additional component to the live supervision by entering the
therapy room to act as a consultant to the trainee (Malcom, 1978).He may remain in the
room for a few minutes or for the remainder of the session. He will telephone in
suggestions and/or directives initially and if these fail to take effect he attempts to
break the impasse by entering and intervening in his own manner. In this way his
therapeutic expertise can be modeled first hand with the trainee present in the inter-
view. This “sit in” method of supervision has also been discussed by Ard (1973)and
Phillips (1975)of the Claifornia Family Study Center.
For Whitaker (1976),the co-therapist provides the corrective feedback during a
session that a supervisor or an observing group can offer within a live supervision
framework. His position on the effects of live supervision is an unequivocal one.

82 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING October 1978

Previous First Next

 “In contrast with the Minuchin pattern, ours is not a vertical model but more a hori-
zontal one. It is assumed that the student’s intuitive methodology for making inter-
personal relationshipsis of significant value. It assumes that the experienceof working
with the supervisor is more valuable than technical indoctrination of a particular
methodology. We are quite convinced in contrast with the Minuchin pattern that
observation and technical indoctrination by the supervisor tends to make the supervisee
less confident of himself and more dependent on a technical method”(Whitaker, 1976,
p. 24).
Russell (1976) has similarly expressed concern on the efficacy of live supervision.
He advocates observation while doing and learning therapy, however, he states:
“I question some procedures used. Should a trainee be forced to listen exclusively to
signals from a ‘bug” in his ear instead of to the family? Other extreme training
procedures noted involved the ‘trainer‘ rushing in every few minutes, yelling some-
thing at the trainee and/or the family, and then rushing out again . . . The use of such
dubious means cannot be justified (p. 246).”
Russell’s (1978) concern is that trainers be attuned to “the misuse and abuse of other-
wise acceptable” training procedures.
The supervisory method espoused by Nichols (1975) also differs substantially from
the live supervision model. Nichols believes therapists and supervisors overrate
methods such as videotape playback and can be overly reliant on them, disregarding
their own memory and judgement in the process. Nichols does not observe sessions live
nor review audiolvideotapes with his supervisees, preferring to allow and encourage
trainees to “bring their mistakes” to the supervisor. He considers the potency and
modeling effect of trainees observing their supervisors conducting therapeutic inter-
views to be potentially disadvantageous; his concern is that supervisees will imitate
their supervisors too literally and fail to develop a style of their own. Nichols focuses on
the anxieties, resistances, and feelings of the supervisee as opposed to a more tech-
nique or skills-oriented approach, which would stress specific therapist behaviors
related to goals and strategies.
To summarize, a distinct evolution of supervisory techniques can be traced which
parallels the development of therapeutic methodologies. Early in the life of family
therapy, supervisors met with their trainees to discuss their cases. Case notes and the
social work tradition of process recording were relied upon heavily by supervisors as
the primary means of supervision. Although not as common now, these procedures are
still used in family therapy training programs. Due to economic advantages and the
benefits of peer group influences in learning, group supervision seminars became more
popular. The technological development and versatility of videotape has allowed this
innovation to become a useful teaching tool, especially in group settings (Messner &
Smith, 1974; Perlmutter, et al., 1967).
As supervisory techniques have developed, the supervisor’s role within certain
models has become a more active one. Live supervisory methods, those procedures
allowing for the therapist to be guided during a session, exemplify this more involved
supervisory stance. These latter techniques are highly controversial, however, and
much less accepted than videotape and group supervision. Some common criticisms of
live supervision include: therapist dependency on supervisory interventions, disrup-
tion of the therapeutic process, and interference with the therapist’s evolvement of his
own style.
The techniques employed by supervisorsltrainers are reflective of one’s theoretical
and therapeutic orientation. For example, Bowen’s (1978) model of therapy involves
“family voyages” as a way of differentiating oneself from one’s family of origin.

October 1978 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING 83

Previous First Next

Trainees of Bowen then are encouraged to “define a self” in relation to one’s own family
of origin.
On the other hand, the Philadelphia Child Guidance Clinic, Milan (Selvini-
Palazollo, 1974, 19771, and MRI (Watzlawick et al., 1974) groups represent a model of
therapy and training which emphasizes more directive, symptom-focused,prescriptive
and hierarchically-based methods. Those latter groups assume more of a skills-focused
and cognitive position in traininglsupervision than a more insightlunderstanding and
affectively based stance such as that of the Ackerman Family Institute (La Perriere,
1977; Kempster and Savitsky, 1976).Supervisory and training methods thus become a
metaphor of one’s beliefs, values, and assumptions regarding how therapy should be
conducted.

SupervisorSupervisee Relationship
How should the relationship of the trainer and trainee be defined? Who should
define it? Must it be characterized by a hierarchy, which some believe to be a natural
occurrence, by the mere definition of the two roles? Should the supervisory relationship
include exploration of the trainee’s nuclear family or family of origin issues? These are
some of the questions emerging from the literature on this topic.
Johnson (1961)defines this relationship in a six stage sequential or developmental
process. The relationship moves from the traineee’s view of the supervisor as a judge-
evaluator in the initial stage, to that of a teacher-helper in the final phase. Ard (1973)
broadens this analysis by pointing out that the relationship develops in a reciprocal
fashion with the supervisor also viewing his counterpart differently over time. Ard
proposes a five stage model addressing the mutual nature of the relationship, suggest-
ing that supervision involves evolving roles over time for both trainer and trainee.
Rubinstein (1964) observes that the trainees usually contribute very little initially, but
gradually become a more active and equal member of the co-therapy team.
The issue of the hierarchical nature of the supervisor-supervisee relationship has
been a controversial subject. On the one side there are those who maintain that just as
in therapy “one cannot not be directive”, in supervision “one cannot not have a
hierarchical trainer-trainee relationship” (Haley, 1976). This position states that it is
a n error to deny or minimize the directive aspect of therapy and the hierarchical
nature of the supervisor-supervisee relationship.
Ackerman’s (1973) idea on the nature of the teacher-student relationship is best
represented in this statement: “Whatever the method of supervision, the relations of
trainee to instructor are egalitarian, not hierarchical” (p. 206). He believed psycho-
therapy and supervision were capable of existing as democratic processes.
Conflict was defined as part of the supervisor-supervisee relationship. Ackerman
and his colleagues argued that true learning occurs when supervisors and trainees
alike can actively address and resolve these differences and reciprocally share their
feelings in process-oriented ways. According to this approach, a crucial component of
a n effective trainer-trainee relationship is empathy-the supervisor’s ability to under-
stand the trainee’s experience (Ackerman, 1973).
Bowen and his followers a t Georgetown have developed a form of therapy and
supervision which has a unique and distinctive component. Just as family members are
guided through “family voyages” in order to differentiate themselves from their family
of origin, trainees of Bowen are required to make similar excursions with the super-
visor serving as a ‘koach” (Bowen, 1978). Guerin speaks of the importance of super-
visors working on their own differentiation so as to serve as a model for the trainees.
He believes the supervisor’s work with his own family demonstrates a willingness to be
open about one’s self and personalizes the work. It further communicates that this kind

84 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING Odober 1978

Previous First Next

of effort is important while providing a framework of reference from which the trainees
can launch their own work with their own families (Guerin & Fogarty, 1972).
Fogarty, like Guerin, a former Bowen trainee, is interested in developing a
personal relationship with his supervisee. To accomplish this, he tells of his own
family, orientation, training, & viewpoints, in a n effort to set the scene for more mutual
self-disclosing behavior in future contacts. He is concerned about triangulation oc-
curring in supervisor-supervisee relationships in which the family is discussed so that
the two professionals can remain distant. His position, a common one in the George-
town group, is reflected in the following excerpt.
“. . . there is no difference between treatment, teaching, living in one’s own family, or
one’s professional life. Any supervision which limits itself to the trainee and the family
he is seeing is practically worthless. It becomes an intellectual exercise. Supervision
should cease as such. The whole family of the supervisee should be involved just as in
treatment or having a family picnic . . . A professional who comes to me with a family
problem invariably learns more about family therapy than any pure supervision
experience can produce by itself‘ (Guerin & Fogarty, 1972. p. 465).

For Ferber (1972)as well, the boundaries between life, education, supervision, and
therapy are diffuse. He draws a parallel between the relationship of a “Zen master” and
his apprentice to that between a supervisor and supervisee. Although now involved in
other activities, Ferber, like Guerin and Fogarty, once advocated the “trainee must
work with his own family” posture and believed in having trainees present their own
families to ongoing seminars. Ferber adopted the stance that this kind of work on one’s
own family is useful as one of several experiences, but if taken alone has limited value
in training.
Proponents of structural family therapy (Minuchin, 1974)take a n opposite view-
point from the psychodynamically oriented therapists and supervisors. This latter
group believes that the supervisor-supervisee relationship should be egalitarian and
democratic while the structuralists argue that such hierarchy-minimizing relation-
ships lead to inefficient supervision and therapy. Structural proponents also disagree
with Bowen, et al. on the topic of the usefulness of working with one’s own family. The
latter group attaches great significance to this activity while the Philadelphia Child
Guidance group essentially attaches no importance to such “family voyage” activities.
Structural theory states that problems in families develop when the interpersonal
or hierarchical boundaries between relationships are transgressed. Similarly, super-
visors working from this therapeutic perspective believe that when the hierarchical
nature of the relationship is consistently violated the efficacy of both trainer and
trainee is diminished. Structural family therapy views both families and supervisory
relationships as being, by their very nature, nondemocratic or hierarchically bound.
Haley (1976)does not devote time prior to the family sessions trying to establish a
personal supervisor-supervisee relationship with his trainees. Instead, he prefers to
define, organize and develop the relationship around the task a t hand, that of assisting
the therapist to help the family.
Montalvo (1973)stresses the importance of adopting a set of ground rules when
conducting live supervision. Prior to the initial interview the pair meet to agree on
rules such as: the supervisor can either call the supervisee out from a session, or the
trainee can come out for feedback or discussion when he wishes. Montalvo cautions
that communication problems in the supervisory dyad invariably influence the out-
come of the therapy. He concluded that just as elusive relationship shifts occur in
families and between families and therapists, similar processes can occur without
awareness between supervisor and supervisee. Birchler (1975)echoes this position,
cautioning that a live supervisory or instant feedback model “. . . has inherent in it the

October 1978 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING 85

Previous First Next

potential for interpersonal difficulties between supervisor and trainee” (p. 335).
In summary, just as the literature on techniques and methods of supervision
reflects a wide variety of opinions as to which approach is most effective, the existing
material on the definition and task of the supervisor-supervisee relationship is
similarly heterogeneous. A continuum emerges with some believing in an equal,
personal, and more process-focused definition, while at the opposite pole a more task,
skills, and goal-oriented philosophy exists eschewing the assumption that a non-
hierarchical structure to any trainer-trainee relationship is possible. Finally, there are
those that define the relationship in developmental terms. In this way the early phases
of the relationship are viewed from a structuralistic perspective while the later stages
are believed to develop along more egalitarian, colleague-like lines.

Personal Therapy for Trainees

Although the question of the merits of a personal therapeutic experience for family
therapy trainees is a very controversial topic, relatively little handling of this topic
exists in the literature. Ferber (1972) sets the stage for a discussion of this topic with
his statement, “. . . the boundaries between life, education, and therapy have blurred
(p. 31).
Several authors have discussed the involvement of the trainee’s spouse or to a
lesser extent the involvement of the trainee’s family in training. Guldner (1978) states
“. . . the involvement of trainees in marital and family therapy should be an essential
component of family therapy training” (p. 132). His program a t the Interfaith Pastoral
Counseling Centre in Kitchner, Ontario, Canada, only accepts trainees on the basis of
a contractual agreement specifying the involvement of the trainee’s family as part of
training.
Other authors also discuss the importance of spousal involvement in training
(Ackerman, 1973; Ard, 1973;Jurasky, 1964; LaPerriere, 1977; Siege1 & Dulfano, 1973;
Phillips, 1975). Like Guldner, Kaslow (1977) also contracts for supervisees to include
their mates for several therapy sessions as part of training. “In this way, they ex-
perience what it is like to be in the client role, how painful it can be to open up sub-
merged conflict areas, and how difficult it may be to accept interpretations and
confrontations” (Kaslow, 1977, p. 231). Nichols (1968)provides an extensive discussion
of the rationale for personal therapy during a training experience. He believes that a
trainee’s therapeutic effectiveness with clients increases as a result of personal therapy
during training.
In a personal account of his experience in doing family therapy, Framo (1975)
suggests that a n experience in family therapy is most helpful for trainees. He em-
phasized that family therapy is a stressful undertaking which requires an emotional
support system both a t a personal and a professional level.
Several other programs, falling in the categories of growth or process orientation,
included experiences similar to therapy for trainees (Luthman & Kirschenbaum, 1974;
Satir, 1963).As noted previously, Ferber (1972) considered work with one’s own family
as crucial to achieving competence as a family therapist. To this end the trainer and
trainee make presentations of their own families in the course structure. Steir and
Goldenberg (1975) touched briefly on the issue of personal growth and awareness of
intrapsychic functioning. While this was labeled as important in the training process,
the authors cautioned that the consequence of a loss of balance could lead to a therapy
group, which by inference, is to be avoided. Self-awareness, a goal of the program, was
achieved by encouraging the trainee to be cognizant of his af€ective responses to the
families. Haley (1974) takes an unequivocal position in questioning the efficacy of any
form of personal therapy in family therapy training programs. He suggests that

86 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING October 1978

Previous First Next

encounter exercises and work with one’s own family are not important and in fact may
be detrimental distractions from the acquisition of therapeutic skills.
In summary, programs that involve trainees’ families have expanded the
boundaries of supervision to include therapeutic or personal growth objectives. Most
programs utilizing this model tend to be psychodynamic or experiential in therapeutic
orientation and place more emphasis on the importance of affect in therapy and
training than do structurally or behaviorally oriented models. The assumption of
involving the families of trainees is that unresolved feelings about family of origin
members or current conflicts in one’s nuclear family can effect therapeutic efficacy.
Although this premise seems a logical one, some “common sense” approaches have
been demonstrated to be a t best unhelpful or even harmful (Watzlawick,et al., 1974).To
date no empirical study has validated the claim that personal therapy or the involve-
ment of the trainee’s family in training produces more effective therapists.

Politics of Family Therapy Training

Family therapy can unbalance the context in which it exists. Professionals trained
in intrapsychially oriented clinical and medical models naturally resist acceptance of a n
interpersonal definition of human problems. It is not surprising then, to discover that
trainees are generally not prepared for the personal and systemic reverberations of
adopting a family systems perspective. This section examines various perspectives on
these socio-political implications of family therapy training.
Framo (1976) describes the frustrations, difficulties, and resistances encountered
in establishing an independent family therapy unit within a mental health center. He
details the delaying tactics in the grant preparation and funding stages by local and
federal administrations. His paper produces an illustrative case study to accompany
Haley’s (1975) humorous but accurate description of the implications of adding family
therapy to a clinic’s services. Similarly, Selig (1976) cites several areas that contribute
to the resistance in adopting a family systems model of treatment. Most professional
training reinforces an individual orientation to defining and solving human problems.
Agency values and organizational structure constitute other areas of difficulty.
Several papers describe the interaction effects of family therapy training and the
context in which it occurs. Miyoshi and Liebman (1969) and Shapiro (1975b) report on
the difficulties medical personnel experienced when shifting from an intrapersonal to
a n interpersonal view of etiology. The introduction of family therapy training into a
university setting has similar equilibrium disturbing effects. In drawing a parallel
between the systemic characteristics of academic departments and family systems,
Liddle and Halpin (1976)discuss the personal and professional implications of teaching
and learning family therapy in an academic context. The reluctance to accept a
systems viewpoint has also been described in terms of a public school setting (Tucker &
Dyson, 1976).
Living systems, such as families, hospital environments, school systems, academic
institutions, and community mental health clinics are naturally resistant to the
prospects ofchange. When the status quo is threatened by the introduction of new data
or stimuli, the system reacts to minimize the effects of such an intrusion. Russell (1976)
suggests that a solution to some of these political rivalries may lie in the creation of
independent institutes for the training and clinical practice of family therapy. Shapiro
(19771, long a n astute observer of the field’s political aspects, takes an opposite view . . .
“It would assure survival, but a t the possible cost of stagnation” (p. 6).
Although the topic of the socio-politicalimplications of family therapy has emerged
in the literature there are as yet no descriptions of programmatic provisions to help
prepare trainees for the less than enthusiastic reception some of them will receive.

October 1978 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING 87

Previous First Next

 Evaluation of Training
Recent surveys of family therapists indicate that only a small percentage of those
responding were involved in family therapy research (GAP,1970; Liddle, Vance, &
Pastushak (In Press). Not surprisingly, the state of the art in training and supervision
literature continues to be the least developed despite several recent additions. This
section reviews the salient contributions to the training and program evaluation
literature.
In a training program at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute, an Interpersonal
Checklist was used to assess change in therapists’ perceptions of interpersonal traits
regarding themselves and their co-therapists during training (Stier & Goldenberg,
1975). They also use pre- and post-training videotapes of trainee therapy sessions. The
students of this program (O’Hare, et al., 1973)reported that this technique allowed the
supervisors and trainees an opportunity to compare changes in student functioning
during the training program.
The use of videotape playback in training was reported by Perlmutter et al. (1967)
for the therapists’ personal review in “self supervision”. A related but somewhat
different use of videotape playback in the Mental Research Institute’s training pro-
gram has also been described (Bodin, 1972). In their family therapy course, students
were instructed to make videotape self-presentations which relate to their assessment
of their personal and professional growth. Subsequently, students were asked to
critique their own presentations. Bodin suggests that this exercise might be used at
both the beginning and end of training to note the trainee’s growth. Although not
using videotape, Satir (1963) too made use of trainee self report as a method of
evaluation.
Schopler, et al. (1967) were involved in demonstrating the effects of family inter-
action to medical students in the Department of Psychiatry at the university of North
Carolina. Students used rating scales on personality characteristics for individual
members of a family before and after observing them complete a structured family
interaction test.
Some trainers have relied on behavioral changes in trainee work settings follow-
ing exposure to family therapy training. Flomenhaft and Carter (1974) sent question-
naires to mental health professionals throughout Pennsylvania who had worked at
least one year after completing the training program a t the Philadelphia Child Guid-
ance Clinic. The results indicated an average gain of 21% in the amount of time
devoted to direct service to families. Other researchers have also looked at job related
behaviors as indices of evaluation (Abel, et al., 1974).
An interdisciplinary training team a t the University of Texas Medical Branch has
compared the interaction between trainers and trainees in a year long family therapy
seminar to the process that evolves over the course of therapy between therapist and
family (Dell, et al., 1977). A five stage developmental process is described along with
the elements of each stage.
In summary, the slow rate of progress in training program evaluation is partially
due to the complexity of this area. Training programs are rarely fully described in
terms of objectives, content and process, making replicability difficult. Further, the
wide variability of training contexts similarly makes replication of successful pro-
grams a complex task.
The family therapy field has been advanced through the work of many charismatic
leaders. If the field is to advance further, the work of these masters must be extended
in quantifiable and observable directions. The most advanced work in the evaluation
area seems to be coming from trainers who are rigorously trying to systematize the
objectives of their programs (Barton & Alexander, 1977; Constantine, 1977; Cleghorn

88 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING October 1978

Previous First Next

& Levin, 1973; Garrigan & Bambrick, 1977). The specification of therapist behaviors
according to these various schools is one step in allowing valid programmatic assess-
ment to occur.
The areas of family therapy evaluation and training evaluation cannot be separated.
Th.e question of what kinds of therapist behavior produces change must be answered
before any training program can define its goals. Even if therapist behaviors are
clearly defined according to each school, these skills must be related to therapeutic
outcome so that trainers can be sure they are teaching the most relevant behaviors.
The ultimate criteria for training program efficacy then must be therapeutic outcome.
The interdependent relationship between therapy and training cannot be denied when
we consider that trainees are not being trained to practice their skills in isolation but
to utilize them in relation to families for the purpose of solving problems.

Recommendations
1. Evaluation
Since assessment is sorely needed in all aspects of family therapy, this area will
receive the most attention. Research questions simply asking whether or not our
training was effective need more precision. A number of issues can be considered. For
whom was this training effective and under what conditions? What supervisory
methods are most effective with which kinds of trainees? Can or should we match
supervisory approach or supervisor with supervisee? Were some trainees more effec-
tively trained than others, and, if so, how? How did the successful trainees differ from
the non-successful ones? Since some research suggests that therapy can be for better or
for worse, can the same principle be applied to training? That is, were there detri-
mental effects of a training experience?
The following suggestions are offered to serve as a point of departure for the would-
be researcher in the training area. Define the problem areas t o be investigated in
realistic terms. The Brief Therapy philosophy (Watzlawick, et al., 1974) of “thinking
small” in terms of therapeutic goals should be applied to training evaluation as well.
The training process needs specification in order for an adequate assessment to be
made. To increase the generalizability of training outcome results, programs must
describe what the training consisted of, how this was implemented, and the conditions
under which the training occurred. Appropriate, specific, and non-global objectives
must be established with methods of assessment used which are sensitive to the
ant,icipated changes. The program’s goals must be stated in measurable or observable
terms. The trainer/supewisor must be included as a variable in any evaluation of
training, since the characteristics and orientation of these individuals will determine
the kind and quality of any training program.
At least three levels of research or evaluative interventions can be made. We can
assess: 1) level of trainer functioning; 2) level of trainee functioning; and/or 3) therapy
outcome. Since we already have difficulty in evaluating therapeutic outcomes, to
evaluate training only on the basis of therapeutic results seems a questionable pro-
cedure. Assessment efforts could begin concurrently a t all three levels. Clinic adminis-
trators and program evaluators should not only be concerned with the therapist’s
impact upon the family but also mindful of the effects of trainer-trainee relationships on
the supervisee. Differential effects of the various kinds of supervisor-supewisee
relationships are still to be determined. Similarly, there is need for research
and therapeutic outcome.
Videotape is useful in assessing relationship variables as well as the group process
of supervision. Supervisors can monitor and improve upon their supervisory styles by

October 1978 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING 89

Previous First Next

such close observation. Although threatening, examination of one’s own supervisory
techniques, like observation of one’s therapeutic style, can have a powerful and
potentially positive impact as a mechanism of evaluation and change. Further, since
videotape is quite useful as a teaching medium, the production of video training tapes
seems a viable area of effort for trainer^.^

2. TrainerlSupervisor Isolation
Conferences abound on the clinical aspects of family therapy but virtually none
exist solely for trainers and supervisors. Regional/local workshops could provide net-
works of colleagueship as well as a forum for the exchange of ideas, teaching materials,
and videotape examples of supervisory models. These meetings might be held in con-
junction with conferences of established professional organizations.

3. Political Preparedness
Training programs must prepare trainees with coping strategies for the profes-
sional resistances to an interpersonal definition of human problems. Further, trainees
seldom are exposed to research methods or possible instruments for evaluating their
own work with families. Trainers could model this openness toward evaluation by
examining their own supervisory and training efforts.

4. Trainer Qualifications
Research indicates that the quality of training is directly related to the trainer’s
level of functioning. If these results are generalizable to family therapy, our direction
is clear. Standardization of trainerlsupervisory qualifications is a complicated, contro-
versial but necessary step. Other than paper credentials should be utilized to assess the
competency. The interviewing of a supervisor’s former trainees and videotape illustra-
tions of one’s work are possible means of supervisor assessment.

5. Selection
The admission criteria and selection process of training programs seems to be a
fertile area of investigation by trainers. What should the characteristics, background
and experience of trainees be and how should these be determined?
Recent publications indicate that the family therapy field continues to gain in
professional respect and public popularity (Gelman, 1978; Malcon, 1978). The leaders
in family therapy involved in training need to assume an active role in order for this
trend to be perpetuated. It is not enough to only be concerned with such accountability
issues as family therapy outcome or training efficacy. An ethnocentric or in-group
position excluding non-systems oriented professionals seems a sure way of diminishing
the impact and growth of the family therapy movement. Trainers must not only be
concerned with educating and sensitizing their trainees but should also try to expose
other populations to such an ecological view of problems and solutions. The school
systems, personnel from the legal system such as probation and police officers, and the
diverse medical professions are logical choices for this kind of effort. Work has begun in
these areas but more is needed. The degree to which we implement our skills as
teachers with these varied groups is the degree to which the field will remain an
expanding and viable one.

90 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING October 1978

Previous First Next

 Table I
October 1978

Content Categorization of Family Therapy Training and Superv

Y

Training &
Supervisory Tra
Training Training & Supervisor- Goals/ Fa
PrOgralll supervisory Supervisee Supervisor's Pe
JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING

Reference Description Techniques Relationship Skills Th

Abel, et al. (1974) X

' X
Ackerman (1974) X X X X
Allen (1976) X X X
Anderson & Malloy (1976) X
Appel(1961)
Ard (1973) X X X
Bardill (1976) X X
Bartoletti (1973) X
X
tbi Barton & Alexander (1977)
Beal (1976) X X X
Beatman (1964) X X X X

% Birchler (1975) X X X
P Bodin (1969) X X
Bodin (1972) X X X
Bowen (1978) X X X X
Cleghorn & Levin (1973) X X
Cohen, et al. (1976) X X
Colman (1965)
Constantine (1976) X X X X
Dell, et. a1 (1977) X X X X
Dillon (1976)
Ehrlich (1973) X X
Epstein & Levin (1973) X X X
Ferber (1972) X X

'x indicates this topic (e.g., Training Program Description) in addressed references (Abd, et al., 1974)
91

Previous First Next

96
(0
h3 Training &
Supervisory Tr
Training Training & Supervisor- Goals/ Fa
Program Supervisory Supervisee Supervisor‘s Pe
Reference Description Techniques Relationship Skills Th
Ferber & Mendelsohn (1969) X X X X

Ferguson (1977)
JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING

X
Flint & Rioch (1963) X X X X
FlomenhaR & Carter (1977) X X X X
Framo (1975)
Framo (1976) X

s Framo (1977)
Garrigan & Bambrick (1977) X
Goldenberg, et al. (1975) X
Guerin & Fogarty (1972)
Guldner (1978) X
Haley (1971)
Haley (1974)
%b Haley (1975)
Haley (1976) X
Haley (1977)
Hare-Mustin (1976) X X
Hare & Frankena (1972) X X
Johnson (1961) X X
Juraskey (1964) X
Kaslow (1977) X X X
Kaslow & Friedman (1977) X
Knox (1976) X X
Kempster & Savitsky (1967) X X
KraR (1966)
La Perriere (1977) X
October 1978

X X
Leader (1969)
Liddle & Halpin (1976 X
Liddle, et al. (In Press) X
Luthman & Kirschenbaum (1974) x X X
MacGregor, et al. (1964) X

Previous First Next

 X
October 1978
Malcom (1978) X
Malone (1974)
Mendelsohn & Ferber (1969) X X X
c. Messner & Schmidt (1974) X
(D
-a Miyoshi & Liebman (1969) X
CD
Montalvo (1973) X X X
Nichols (1974)
JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE A N D FAMILY COUNSELING

Nichols (1975) X X X
Nierenberg (1972)
Novak & Busko (1974) X X
OHare, et al. (1975) X X X
Ormont (1974)
Papp (1976)
Papp (1977) X
Perlmutter, et al. (1976)
Phillips (1975) X X
Price (1976) X X
Rubinstein (1964) X X
Russell (1976) X X
Sander & Beels (1970) X
Satir (1963) X X
Schneiderman & Pakes (1976) X
Schopler, et al. (1967) X X
Selig (1976)
Selvini-Palazzoli,et a1 (1974) X
Selvini-Palazzoli,et al. (1977) X
Shapiro (1975a) X X
Shapiro (1975b) X
Shapiro (1977)
Sherman (1966) X
Siege1 & DuKano (1973) X X
Sigal, et al. (1973)
Stanton (1975a)
Stanton (1975b) X
Stier & Goldenberg (1975) X X X
(0 Talmadge (1975) X
w

Previous First Next

96

W
Ip Training &
Supervisory Tra
Training Training & Supervisor- Goals/ Fam
Program Supervisory Supervisee Supervisor’s Per
Reference Description Techniques Relationship Skills Th

Tooley (1975) X X
JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING

Tucker & Dyson (1976)

Tucker, et al. (1976) X X X X
Umbarger (1972) X
Weiner (1972)
Williamson (1973) X
October 1978

Previous First Next

 REFERENCES
Abel, R., Bruzzese, D. & Wilson, J. Short-term family therapy for short-term hospitalized
patients: A vehicle for training as well as treatment. In L. R. Wolberg & M. L. Aronson (Eds.),
Group therapy 1974: A n overview. New York: Stratton Intercontinental Medical Book Cor-
poration, 1974.
Ackerman, N. Some considerations for training in family therapy. In Career directions, Volume 11,
East Hanover, N.J.:Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, D. J. Publications, Inc., 1973.
Allen, J. Peer group supervision in family therapy. Child Welfare, 1976,55, 183-189, 1976.
Anderson, C. & Malloy, E. Family photographs in treatment and training. Family Process, 1976,
15, 259-264.
Appel, G. Some aspects of transference and countertransference in marital counseling. Social
Casework, 1966,47,307-312.
Ard, B. Providing clinical supervision for marriage counselors: A model for supervisor and super-
visee. Family Coordinator, 1973,22, 91-98.
Bardill, D. The simulated family as a n aid to learning family group treatment. Child Welfare,
1976,55,703-709.
Bartoletti, M. A community counseler training program for both volunteers and professionals.
Ontario Psychologist, 1973,5, 32-37.
Barton, C. & Alexander, J. F. Therapist’s skills as determinants of effective systems-behavioral
family therapy. International Journal of Family Counseling, 1977,5, 11-20.
Beal, E. Current trends in the training of family therapists. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 1976,
133, 137-141.
Beatman, F. L. The training and preparation of workers for family group treatment. Social Case-
work, 1964,45,202-208.
Birchler, G. Live supervision and instant feedback in marriage and family therapy. Journal of
Marriage and Family Counseling, 1975, I , 331-342.
Bodin, A. Family therapy training literature: A brief guide. Family Process, 1969, 8, 272-279.
Bodin, A. The use of video-tapes. In A. Ferber, M. Mendelsohn & A. Napier (Eds.), The book of
family therapy, New York Science House, 1972.
Bowen, M. Family therapy in clinical practice. Aronson: New York, 1978.
Cleghorn, J. & Levin, S. Training family therapists by setting learning objectives. American
Journal of Orthpsychiatry, 1973,43,439446.
Cohen, M. W., Gross, S. J. & Turner, M. B. A note on a developmental model for training family
therapists through group supervision. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 1976,2,
48.
Constantine, L. Designed experience: A multiple, goal-directed training program i n family
therapy. Family Process, 1976,15, 373-396.
Dell, P., Sheely, M., Pulliman, G., & Goolishian, H. Family therapy process in a family therapy
seminar. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 1977,3,43-48.
Dillon, I. Teaching models for graduate training in psychotherapy. Family Therapy, 1976, 3,
151-162.
Ehrlich, F. Family therapy and training in child psychiatry. Journal of the American A c d m y of
Child Psychiatry, 1973,12,461-472.
Epstein, N. & Levin, S. Training for family therapy within a faculty of medicine. Canadian
Psychiatric Association Journal, 1973,18,203-207.
Ferber, A. Follow the paths with heart. International Journal of Psychiatry, 1972,10,6-22.
Ferber, A. & Mendelsohn, M. Training for family therapy. Family Process, 1969,8, 25-32.
Ferguson, L. The family life cycle: Orientation for interdisciplinary training. Paper presented to
the 85th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association Conference, San
Francisco, Calif. August 27, 1977.
Flint, A. & R i d , M.An experiment in teaching family dynamics.American Journal of Psychiatry,
1963,119,940-944.
Flomenhaft, K. & Carter, R. Family therapy training: Program and outcome. Family Process,
1977, IS, 211-218.
Framo, J. Personal reflections of a family therapist. Journal of Marriuge and Family Counseling,
1975, 1, 15-28.

October 1978 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE A N D FAMILY COUNSELING 95

Previous First Next

Framo, J. Chronicle of a struggle to establish a family unit within a community mental health
center. In P. Guerin (Ed.), Family therapy: Theory and practice. New York Gardner Press,
1976.
Framo, J. A personal viewpoint on training in marital and family therapy. Paper presented to
the 85th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association Conference, San
Francisco, Calif., August 27, 1977.
Garrigan, J. & Bambrick, A. Introducing novice therapists to “go-between” techniques of family
therapy. Family Process, 1977,16, 237-246.
Gelman, D. Families on the couch. Newsweek, May 15,1978, pp. 80-84.
Goldenberg, I., Stier, S. & Preston, T. The use of a multiple family marathon as a teaching device.
Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 1975,1,343-349.
Group for the advancement of psychiatry (GAP). The field of family therapy. Report 78. New York:
GAP,1970.
Guerin, P. & Fogarty, T. Study your own family. In A. Ferber, M. Mendelsohn & A. Napier (eds.),
The book of family therapy, New York: Science House, 1972.
Guldner, C. Family therapy for the trainee in family therapy. Journal of Marriage and Family
Counseling, 4, 127-132,1978.
Haley, J. Family therapy. International Journal of Psychiatry, 1971,9, 233-242.
Haley, J. Fourteen ways to fail as a teacher of family therapy. Family Therapy, 1974, 1, 1-8.
Haley, J. Why a mental health clinic should avoid family therapy. Journal of Marriage and Family
Counseling 1975, 1, 3-12.
Haley, J. Problems in training therapists. In J. Haley, Problem-solving therapy, pp. 169-194. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976.
Haley, J. A quiz for young therapists. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1977, 14,
165-168.
Hare-Mustin, R. Live supervision in psychotherapy. Voices, 1976,12,21-24.
Hare, R. & Frankena, S. Peer group supervision. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1972,42,
527429.
Johnson, D. Marriage counseling. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1961.
Jurasky, J . A sit-in method for training family group therapists. Journal of Psychoanalysis in
Groups, 1964,1, 109-114.
Kaslow, F. Supervision, consultation, and staff training in the helping professions. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1977.
Kaslow, F. & Friedman, J. Utilization of family photos and movies in family therapy. Journal of
Marriage and Family Counseling, 1977,3, 19-25.
Kempster, S. & Savitsky, E. Training family therapists through live supervision. In N. Ackerman
(Ed.), Expnding theory and practice in family therapy. New York: Family Service Association
of America, 1967.
Knox, D. Supervision in marriage counseling. Journal of Family Counseling, 1976,4, 24-26.
KraR, 1. Multiple impact therapy as a teaching device. In S. M. Cohen (Ed.), Psychiatric
Research Report No. 20, American Psychiatric Association, 1966.
La Perriere, K. Toward the training of broad range family therapists. Paper presented to the 85th
Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association Conference, San Francisco, Calif.,
August 27, 1977.
Leader, A. Current and future issues in family therapy. Social Service Review, 1969, 43, 1-11.
Liddle, H. & Halpin, R. The emotional and political hazards of teaching and learning family
therapy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, National Council on Family Relations,
New York, October, 1976.
Liddle, H., Vance, S . & Pastushak, R. Family therapy training opportunities in Psychology and
Counselor Education. In press. Professional Psychology.
Luthman, S. G. with Kirschenbaum, M. The dynamic family. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and
Behavior Books, Inc., 1974.
M a d r e g o r , R., Ritchie, A., Serrano, A., Schuster, F., McDonald, E. & Goolishian, H. Multiple
impact therapy with families. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Malcom, J . A reporter at large (family therapy). The new yorker, May 15, 1978, p. 39.
Malone, C. Observations on the role of family therapy in child psychiatry training. Journal of the
American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 1974, 13,437-458.

96 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING October 1978

Previous First Next

Mendelsohn, M. & Ferber, A. Is everybody watching? In A. Ferber, M. Mendelsohn, & A. Napier
(Eds.), The book of family therapy. New York: Science House, 1972.
Messner, E. & Schmidt, D. Videotape in the training of medical students in psychiatric aspects of
family medicine. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 1974,5, 269-273.
Minuchin, S. Families a n d family therapy. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974.
Miyoshi, N. & Liebman, R. Training psychiatric residents in family therapy. Family Process, 1969,
8, 97-105.
Montalvo, B. Aspects of live supervision. Family Process, 1973,12, 343359.
Nichols, W. Personal psychotherapy for marital therapists. In W. C. Nichols (Ed.) Marriage and
family therapy. Minneapolis: National Council on Family Relations, 1974.
Nichols, W. Training and supervision. Audiotape #123, American Association of Marriage and
Family Counselors, 225 Yale Avenue, Claremont, Calif. 1975.
Nierenberg, M. Self-help first. International Journal of Psychiatry, 1972,10, 34-41.
Novak, D. & Busko, B. Teaching old dogs new tricks: Issues in the training of family therapists.
Psychiatric Forum, 1974,4, 14-20.
OHare, C., Heinrich, A., Kirschnor, N., Oberstone, A. & Ritz, M. Group training in family therapy:
The student’s perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 1975, 1, 157-162.
Olson, D. Marital and family therapy: Integrative review and critique. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 1970,32, 501-538.
Ormont, L. The use of group psychotherapy in the training of marriage counselors and family
life educators. In W. C. Nichols (Ed.), Marriage and family therapy. Minneapolis, Minn.:
National Council on Family Relations, 1974.
Papp, P. Family choreography. In P. Guerin (Ed.), Family therapy. New York: Gardner Press,
1976.
Papp, P. The family who had all the answers. In P. Papp (Ed.), Family therapy: Full length case
studies. New York: Gardner Press, 1977.
Perlmutter, M., Loeb, D., Gumpert, G., OHara, F. & Higbie, I. Family diagnosis and therapy using
videotape playback. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1967,37,900-905.
Phillips, C. Innovations in the training of marriage and family counselors. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Salt Lake City, August, 1975.
Price, J. Value assumptions in humanistic clinical supervision. Paper presented at the American
Association of Marriage and Family Counselors National Conference, Philadelphia, October,
1976.
Ruhinstein, D. Family therapy. In H. Hoffman (Ed.) Teaching of psychotherapy: International
psychiatry clinics, Volume I, Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1964.
Russell, A. Contemporary concerns in family therapy. Journal of Marriage and Family Counsel-
ing, 1976, 2, 243-250.
Russell, A. Personal Communication, February 1, 1978.
Sander, F., & Beels, C. A didactic course for family therapy trainees. Family Process, 1970, 9,
411424.
Satir, V. The quest for survival: A training program for family diagnosis and treatment. Actu
Psychotherapeutica E t Psychosomatica, 1963,11, 3 3 3 8 .
Schneiderman, G. & Pakes, E. The teaching of family therapy skills on a n inpatient child psychia-
try ward. Family Therapy, 1976,3, 29-33.
Schopler, E., Fox, R. & Cochrane, C. Teaching family dynamics to medical students. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1967,37, 906-911.
Selig, A. The myth of the multi-problem family. American Journal of Orthopsychiutry, 1976, 46,
526-531.
Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G. & Prata, G. The treatment of children through brief
therapy of their parents. Family Process, 1974, 13, 429-442.
Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G. & Prata, G. Family rituals: A powerful tool in
family therapy. Family Process, 1977, 16, 445-454.
Shapiro, R. Problems in teaching family therapy. Professional Psychology, 1975a, 6, 4 1 4 4 .
Shapiro, R. Some implications of training psychiatric nurses in family therapy. Journal of
Marriage a n d Family Counseling, 1975b, 1, 323330.

October 1978 JOURNAL O F MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING 97

Previous First Next

Shapiro, R. The problematic position of family therapy in professional training. Paper presented to
the 85th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association Conference, San Fran-
cisco, Calif., August 27,1977.
Sherman, S. Aspects of family interviewing critical for staff training and education. Social
Service Review, 1966,40,302-308.
Siegel, L., & Dulfano, C. Family therapy: An overview. In Career Directions, Volume 11, East
Hanover, N.J.: Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, D. J. Publications, Inc., 1973.
Sigal, J., Guttman, H., Chagoya, L., Lasry, J. Predictability of family therapists behavior.
Canadian Psychiatric Association Journul, 1973,18,199-202.
Stanton, M. D.Psychology and family therapy. Professional Psychology, 1975a,6, 45-49.
Stanton, M. D.Family therapy training: Academic and internship opportunities for psychologists.
Family Process, 1975b,14,433439.
Stier, S. & Goldenberg, I. Training issues in family therapy. Journal of Marriage and Family
Counseling, 1975,1,63-68.
Talmadge, J. Psychiatric residents, medical students and families: Teaching family therapy to the
uninitiated. Family Thempy, 1975,2,11-16.
Tooley, K. The diagnostic home visit An aid in training and case consultation. Journal of
Marriage and Family Counseling, 1975,1,317-322.
Tucker, B., & Dyson, E. The family and the school: Utilizing human resources to promote
learning. Family Process, 1976,15,125-141.
Tucker, B., Hart, G. & Liddle, H. Supervision in family therapy: A developmental perspective.
Journal of ManWge and Family Counseling, 1976,2,269-276.
Walters, M. On becoming a mystery, in P. Papp (Ed.), Family thempy: Full length case studies.
New York Gardner Press, 1977.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. & Fisch, R. Change: Principles ofproblem formation and resolution.
New York W. W. Norton & Company, 1974.
Weiner, R. B. Supervision: Teaching and training. Paper presented to the National Conference on
Training in Family Therapy, Philadelphia, November 30, 1972.
Williamson, D. Training opportunities in marriage and family counseling. Family Coordinator,
1973,22,99-102.
Zuk, G. Family therapy: A triadic-based approach. New York Behavioral Publications, 1972.
Zuk, G. Process and practice in family thempy. Haverford, Pa.: Psychiatry and Behavioral Science
Books, 1975.
Whitaker, C. Comment. Live supervision in psychotherapy. Voices, 1976,12,24-25.

NOTES
'Some articles were not considered to have enough substantive information or overlapped in
content with other papers and hence were not included in the body of the paper. These sources are
therefore included in the References and in Table 1.
'Peggy Papp co-directs the Brief Therapy Project within the Ackerman Family Institute in
New York.
3Minuchin(1974),Montalvo (1973),Walters (1977),and Haley (1976).Although Haley now
directs the Family Therapy Institute in Chevy Chase, MD., he is classified here as part of the PCGC
group due to his many years at the clinic and his instrumental role in developingStructural Family
Therapy and the live supervision model.
The senior author has produced tapes depicting specificskills oftherapist behaviors according
to particular therapeutic models and tapes showing the developmentalprocess of therapy.

98 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING October 1978

Previous First