Training and Education in Professional Psychology

© 2019 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 13, No. 3, 194 –199
1931-3918/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tep0000240

Supervisory Experiences of Trainees With Disabilities: The Good, the Bad,

and the Realistic
Jennifer G. Pearlstein and Peter D. Soyster
University of California, Berkeley

Clinical trainees with disabilities often have unique training needs. These can include requiring adequate
supervision in navigating disability disclosure with clients, responding to disability-related stigma and
discrimination in professional contexts, and developing an identity as a therapist that respects potential
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

disability-related limitations and maximizes the trainee’s strengths. The ability of supervisors to address
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

these needs can greatly impact the professional development of trainees with disabilities. The present
article offers 3 de-identified supervision experiences encountered by trainees with disabilities in the
context of a clinical psychology PhD program. We share both positive and negative supervision
experiences, highlighting the effect these interactions have on trainee development, and offer suggestions
for improved supervision of trainees with disabilities.

Public Significance Statement

People with disabilities are underrepresented in clinical training programs, and this may be in part
because clinical trainees with disabilities may have unique training needs. Supervision has the
potential to improve or interfere with the professional development of trainees with disabilities,
depending on how well the supervisor addresses these training needs. This article discusses three
examples of trainee experiences with supervisors and provides suggestions for improving supervision
of trainees with disabilities.

Keywords: disability, trainees with disabilities, trainee experience, supervision, professional development

Supervisory relationships are formative for the professional
development of clinical trainees. Clinical trainees with physical
disabilities often have unique training needs, including adaptations
in clinical assessment, intervention, and professional development
practices. Given the unique experiences and needs faced by clin-
ical trainees with differences in ability, supervisors’ receptiveness,
sensitivity, and flexibility when working with these students can be
JENNIFER G. PEARLSTEIN received BS degrees in Psychology and Cog-
nitive science at Truman State University and MA from the University of
California, Berkeley. She is currently a doctoral student in the Clinical
Science program at the University of California, Berkeley. Jennifer’s
research focuses on the transdiagnostic trait-based tendency to respond
impulsively to emotion. Specifically, she is testing models of neurocogni-
tive mechanisms of poor self-control and psychopathology.
PETER D. SOYSTER received his BA in Psychology from the University of
California, Berkeley. He is currently a graduate student in the Clinical
Science Ph.D. program at the University of California, Berkeley. Peter’s
research employs idiographic methods to understand substance use dynam-
ics and predict future use at an individual level. Specifically, he is inter-
ested in understanding how biological, psychological, and social factors
contribute to momentary decisions to use tobacco and alcohol.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to
Jennifer G. Pearlstein, Department of Psychology, University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, 2121 Berkeley Way, CA 94720. E-mail: jenpearlstein@
berkeley.edu
especially influential in the development of a trainee’s confidence
and clinical skills (Inman, 2006; Jacobsen & Tanggaard, 2009).
Addressing the needs of trainees with differences in ability is of
critical importance. Given the focus of this paper, the term dis-
ability is restricted in its use, describing differences in physical or
neurological functioning that are recognized under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (1990). We refer to students receiving clinical
training who experience differences in physical ability as trainees
with disabilities. We acknowledge some disability advocates pre-
fer identity-first language (e.g., disabled trainees); however, the
American Psychological Association (APA) encourages the use of
person-first language. The best available data estimates that about
3% of graduate-level psychology trainees report having a disability
(Andrews & Lund, 2015), compared with 10.5% of people aged
18 – 64 living in the United States with a disability (Kraus, 2015),
which indicates that people with disabilities are underrepresented
in psychology graduate programs. Barriers for trainees with dis-
abilities may include power differentials and the lack of reciprocity
(i.e., imbalance in relationship needs) in clinical training (Vande
Kemp, Shiomi Chen, Nagel Erickson, & Friesen, 2003).
Beyond structural and systematic barriers faced by trainees with
disabilities, we focus our article on supervision needs. There are
common areas for which trainees with disabilities may need addi-
tional or augmented supervision. Specifically, trainees with dis-
abilities need adequate supervision in the following areas: (a)
navigating disability disclosure with clients, (b) responding to

194
 SUPERVISION OF TRAINEES WITH DISABILITIES
disability-related stigma and discrimination in professional con-
texts, and (c) developing an identity as a therapist that respects
potential disability-related limitations and maximizes the trainee’s
strengths. Both visible and invisible disabilities may impact clin-
ical work and necessitate the trainee to navigate effective self-
disclosure to clients and develop skills to adapt the assessment and
therapy format. For example, a trainee with hearing loss may need
to adapt the delivery of interventions and assessments through the
use of an interpreter, and the client may need to be informed about
confidentiality, as well as appropriate etiquette when using an
interpreter. The trainee with hearing loss may benefit from super-
vision that helps the trainee communicate about their hearing loss
in professional contexts, advocate for their needs, and confidently
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
use reasonable accommodations to effectively engage in clinical
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
work.
Clinical training presents unique challenges to trainees with
disabilities because such training often includes a focus on enhanc-
ing interpersonal effectiveness to improve the delivery of inter-
ventions. Supervision of this type can include feedback aimed at
shaping the trainee’s nonverbal and verbal communication skills,
including patterns of speech, body posture and movement, and eye
contact. The inherent challenge for students with disabilities is that
disability could interfere with rapport. For example, a trainee with
cerebral palsy may demonstrate irregular muscle movements and
atypical gaze direction. These behaviors, outside the context of
physical disability, are targets to hone in clinical training for the
purposes of developing effective rapport with clients. However,
for trainees with disabilities, supervision focused on these invol-
untary nonverbal and verbal communication patterns would be
inappropriate because it calls immutable aspects of the trainee’s
ability and identity into question in a professional context. Instead,
we argue that supervision focused on enhancing trainee’s strengths
may be more effective. All trainees present with particular
strengths, and, anecdotally, it is common for trainees with disabil-
ities to possess strengths related to resilience, compassion, humil-
ity, and openness. The skilled supervisor will work with the trainee
with disabilities to identify and harness their strengths and mitigate
the potential disruptions their disability could cause.
This artily described three deidentified, composite supervision
experiences encountered by two trainees with disabilities in a
clinical science PhD program. While we do not aim to provide a
comprehensive list of scenarios in which self-disclosure or accom-
modations would be warranted, we offer specific examples to
illustrate the role of supervisory experiences for trainees with
disabilities that we believe generalize to other forms of disability.
The first vignette exemplifies how supervisors can work collab-
oratively with trainees with disabilities to improve clinical skills
related to self-disclosure with clients. Because trainees with dis-
abilities often navigate self-disclosure of vulnerable health infor-
mation, this presents an especially important aspect of professional
development. The second example portrays how well-intentioned
supervisors can articulate stigma and bias that negatively shapes a
trainee’s professional development and also illustrates the benefits
of additional consultation and identifying reasonable accommoda-
tions. The third example points to the detrimental consequences of
supervisors’ assumptions about ability, as well as the potential for
repair in the supervisory relationship.
195
Case Examples
The Good: Transparency Around Self-Disclosure
Before seeing her first client, the trainee asked her supervisor to
discuss the topic of self-disclosure. The trainee has low vision,
which impacts clinical work because of her inability to see stan-
dard print materials, make eye contact, and perceive others’ emo-
tional expressions. While most trainees experience anxiety before
beginning clinical work, the trainee with vision loss experienced
anxiety specific to disclosure of her disability. The trainee worried
about how sharing her disability status would impact clients’
perceptions of her abilities and competence. The trainee wanted to
maintain focus on the client, while also providing an explanation
for the ways her disability impacts her social interactions. The
trainee also experienced fears about self-disclosure to her super-
visor; similar to her fears with clients, the trainee worried about
how the supervisor would perceive her abilities and competence,
especially given her supervisor was in a position of power, eval-
uating her clinical skills and progress.
The trainee’s supervisor approached the conversation with cu-
riosity, asking questions to better understand the possible clinical
impacts of the trainee’s disability on treatment. The supervisor also
inquired about the trainee’s ideas and opinions about possible
options for self-disclosure. The supervisor expressed humility,
acknowledging he had no direct experience with disclosure of a
disability to clients. The supervisor empowered the trainee to share
her experience and perspective. Whereas the trainee may indeed be
an expert on her own lived experience with disability, she none-
theless had very limited experience in the context of clinical
service provision. Hence, collaboration between the trainee and
supervisor was crucial. The trainee benefitted from a safe and
supportive space to fully explore these questions in supervision. In
this case, the supervisor expressed nonjudgmental understanding
of the clinician’s concerns and encouraged that this question be
readdressed regularly over the course of supervision.
The supervisor encouraged the trainee to evaluate the function
of self-disclosure (e.g., Henretty & Levitt, 2010). Why would the
trainee self-disclose? Why not? What would the consequences be?
If the trainee chose to self-disclose, when was the appropriate
time? Should self-disclosure depend on the client? The supervisor
worked collaboratively with the trainee to view ways in which
self-disclosure of her disability could function to aid the client.
After assessing the function of self-disclosure, the supervisor
encouraged the trainee to consider diverse responses from clients.
The supervisor-initiated role-plays with the trainee to practice
responding to various scenarios. How would the trainee respond if
the client questioned her competence and qualifications? What
would the trainee do if her client asked her to read something?
They videotaped diverse examples, reviewed the videotapes to-
gether, and iterated to improve the trainee’s communication and
confidence. The supervisor reviewed the trainee’s videotaped ses-
sions to provide feedback about her interactions with clients about
her disability. Together, the supervisor and trainee harnessed the
trainee’s strengths in communication to engage in effective self-
disclosure.
This collaborative and nonjudgmental approach alleviated the
trainee’s concerns and fostered her sense of self-efficacy. By
practicing self-disclosure, the trainee developed confidence and
 196 PEARLSTEIN AND SOYSTER
comfort. The supervisor validated the trainee’s concerns and en-
couraged the trainee to speak openly and honestly to clients about
her disability when clinically appropriate. It is important that this
collaboration exemplifies parallel process, whereby dynamics in
the supervisory relationship mirror dynamics in the therapy rela-
tionship (Tracey, Bludworth, & Glidden-Tracey, 2012). Specifi-
cally, this interaction illustrates the parallel experience of anxiety
related to self -disclosure, encountered here by the trainee in
supervision and commonly encountered by clients in therapy. By
role-playing strategies to cope with this anxiety, the trainee gains
additional empathy for clients and the anxiety they encounter
during self-disclosure. In this way, the parallel process in super-
vision provides valuable skills and experiences relevant for the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
trainee when delivering therapy.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
During one therapy session, the trainee’s client professed ex-
treme shame and self-stigma tied to his recent diagnosis. He
questioned what his life would look like now that he “officially has
a mental illness.” He doubted himself and his worth, asking “How
could anyone love me now?” The trainee chose to disclose her
experiences with transformations in her identity related to the
receipt of a diagnosis for chronic illness. The client cried and
expressed profound gratitude for the clinical trainee’s self-
disclosure, articulating that knowing others have struggled with
similar challenges helped normalize his experience and reduce his
feelings of shame.
The Bad: Stigma and Prejudice During Self-Disclosure
in Supervision
Trainees with disabilities often require accommodations to
adapt the structure and format of interventions and assessments.
The APA has documented one of the greatest barriers to clinical
psychology training is providing reasonable accommodations for
psychological testing and assessment, as it is often difficult to
obtain accessible versions of materials and many disabilities in-
terfere with the clinician’s ability to administer and score assess-
ments according to standardized protocols (APA, 2011).
When the trainee with low vision began her assessment training,
she experienced these barriers firsthand. Given that reliability and
validity of assessments depend on their delivery using a standard-
ized protocol, the trainee saw little space for accommodating
testing materials. The trainee therefore felt insecure about her
abilities to fulfill the training requirements of her program, and
worried she would not be able to find ways to accommodate the
assessment process. She worried she would be unable to gain
required competency in assessment. She sought mentorship from
other psychologists with disabilities, supervisors, and faculty to
understand how trainees with disabilities might accommodate the
assessment process.
While many of these consultations were informative, some
people responded with rampant stigma, bias, and discrimination. In
one such interaction, the trainee disclosed to the supervisor the
nature of her disability and how it impacted her ability to admin-
ister assessments. The supervisor responded, “I just don’t know
how you could ever be a clinical psychologist if you can’t see to
do assessments.” The trainee attempted to advocate for herself,
stating that she was aware of other psychologists with disabilities
modifying the assessment process. The supervisor maintained her
stance, repeating, “You’ll never be a neuropsychologist, that’s for
sure.” The trainee was mortified. She questioned her choice to
pursue clinical psychology and wondered if the supervisor was
right.
The trainee’s experience with a supervisor who viewed her
disability as an insurmountable roadblock to clinical development
was upsetting and unhelpful. The trainee’s experience coheres with
a growing body of literature on the attributes that characterizes
effective and competent supervision, which include respect for
diversity, encouragement of trainee autonomy, open communica-
tion, and a strong relationship (e.g., Falender et al., 2004; Ladany,
Mori, & Mehr, 2013). Through invoking the trainee’s disability
status as proof that she could not be a competent clinician, the
supervisor disrespected diversity, damaged the supervisory rela-
tionship, and discouraged autonomy, all of which interfered with
building the trainee’s assessment skills.
In contrast to this stigmatizing and rigid response, several su-
pervisors, faculty, and psychologists with disabilities provided
actionable suggestions for accommodating the assessment process.
Many recommendations involved the use of assistive technology,
such as adapting materials by digitizing, magnifying, or converting
materials to Braille. Another recommended the use of a psycho-
metrician or test administrator for neuropsychological tests. In
practice, the trainee with low vision has sought diverse accommo-
dations catered to each assessment. The trainee with low vision
now conducts clinical interviewing using standardized instruments
by digitizing and enlarging, enabling her to use a tablet or laptop
for interview-based assessments. With support from her training
clinic and guidance from supervisors, the trainee with low vision
has recruited and supervised psychometricians to administer neu-
ropsychological tests that are particularly challenging to adapt.
Each assessment has required an evaluation of the trainee’s ac-
commodation needs and a collaborative plan with her supervisor to
meet those needs. This flexible, personalized, and collaborative
approach has benefited the trainee by providing a sense of efficacy
and confidence. The trainee has also successfully obtained assess-
ment competence by delivering or observing all assessments,
working alongside the psychometrician to score and interpret
results in integrative reports.
The Realistic: Making and Repairing Mistakes in Self-
Disclosure in Supervision
In a diverse training program, it seems inevitable that even
well-intentioned supervisors will make errors during supervision.
These can include the use of stigmatizing or outdated language,
incorrect attributions about the cause of disability-related behav-
iors, and prejudiced assumptions about the potential of trainees
with disabilities. However, just as clinicians work to repair rup-
tures in alliance with clients (Safran, Muran, & Eubanks-Carter,
2011), the skilled supervisor can work to repair the working
relationship with trainees with disabilities after an error has been
made.
A first-year graduate student has Tourette syndrome. The train-
ee’s symptoms manifest as involuntary facial and motor tics and
throat clearing of mild to moderate severity. The trainee was
generally comfortable discussing his diagnosis and symptoms and
disclosed this in his graduate application materials and interviews.
While the trainee’s symptoms had never prevented him from
succeeding in clinical experiences, he felt some concern when
 SUPERVISION OF TRAINEES WITH DISABILITIES 197

starting graduate school that his disability might be a problem,
because he did not fit the traditional image of a therapist. The
trainee expressed this concern to his supervisor upon entry to the
training program.
As part of an introductory intervention course, the trainee com-
pleted a video-recorded mock clinical intake. The tape of the
session was reviewed by a supervisor to provide feedback on the
trainee’s readiness to begin seeing clients. Although the supervisor
had been previously informed, she had not remembered the train-
ee’s disability status. In written feedback to the trainee about the
mock session, the supervisor wrote that some of the trainee’s
symptoms were potentially therapy-interfering, and suggested an
extinction schedule timeline for reducing these behaviors that were
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ness about learning from this experience, including not making
assumptions about ability status in trainees, paying more attention
to ability status in general among trainees, and recognizing that the
impact of a disability on actual clinical care depends on each
trainee and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The
supervisor’s actions to repair the alliance with the trainee demon-
strate several empirically supported strategies for repairing rup-
tures in therapeutic alliance, including openly discussing and ex-
ploring the rupture, responding openly and nonjudgmentally, and
taking responsibility for the rupture (Safran et al., 2011).
Discussion

directly related to his disability. In addition, the supervisor ex- The supervisory relationship is designed to shape the profes-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

pressed concerns about these symptoms in a faculty meeting
focused on the progress of clinical training of students. At the
meeting, the supervisor was reminded of the trainee’s disability
status by another faculty member, and was told that suggestions
that the trainee attempt to reduce involuntary symptoms were
inappropriate.
The trainee was embarrassed and upset by the written and verbal
feedback, as it seemed to confirm his concerns that his disability
made him unfit for clinical work. In addition, although he had
attempted to be open and transparent about his diagnosis, his
supervisor’s feedback appeared to confirm to the trainee that,
occasionally, his disability would be included in evaluations of his
ability as a clinician. He sought consultation with peers and other
graduate students who suggested that he seek out other faculty
members to discuss this issue.
It is important that after realizing her mistake, the supervisor
made several efforts to correct her feedback and repair the rela-
tionship with the trainee. The supervisor had an in-person meeting
with the trainee to listen to and understand how her feedback had
affected the trainee and to apologize for forgetting this important
information. The supervisor expressed warmth and empathy, char-
acteristics important for alliance and outcomes (Angus & Kagan,
2007). Over the following months, the supervisor worked to pro-
vide appropriate clinical feedback in a way that helped the trainee
to build clinical skills and to navigate disclosure in other clinical
and supervision experiences. The supervisor expressed an open-
sional development of clinical psychology trainees. Trainees with
disabilities present with specific training needs related to self-
disclosure and the need for accommodations. In this paper, we
provided three examples illustrating how supervisors’ responses to
the needs of trainees with disabilities can influence the trainee’s
professional development. Many of the supervisor attributes indi-
cated here are consistent with the consensus statement on compe-
tent supervision (Falender et al., 2004), including transparent com-
munication, collaboration, humility, curiosity, respect, and
flexibility. These examples illustrate ways in which supervisors
can enhance the professional development of trainees with disabil-
ities (Table 1).
The first example depicts the importance of collaboration be-
tween the trainee and supervisor in implementing an effective
clinical training plan, especially related to self-disclosure. The
supervisor expressed humility and respect for the trainee, and
provided space for the trainee to share her experience and perspec-
tive. Through role-playing with the supervisor, the trainee became
equipped to handle various responses to her self-disclosure, bol-
stering her effectiveness and confidence. He also sought out con-
sultation with other supervisors. This supervisory experience em-
powered the trainee, which helped her to build confidence and
improve her clinical skills. The trainee learned not to hide from her
disability in clinical work, and instead developed the ability to use
effective self-disclosure of her own experiences to alleviate her
client’s pessimism and sense of shame. Self-disclosure is an im-

Table 1
Summary of Trainees With Disabilities’ Needs and Supervisory Practices That Address These Needs and Enhance
Professional Development

Training needs Supervisory practices

Navigating disability disclosure with clients
Responding to disability-related stigma and
discrimination in professional contexts
Developing an identity as a therapist that respects
potential disability-related limitations and
maximizes the trainee’s strengths
Approach conversation with humility to assess needs for self-disclosure, determine the
function of self-disclosure, and collaborate with the trainee about the appropriate course
of action. With trainee consent, engage in role-plays to practice potential scenarios,
evaluate and iteratively improve.
Consider one’s own biases; engage in trainings to improve knowledge of disability culture,
disability rights, and accommodations; consult with colleagues; ask the trainee how to
best accommodate their needs, solicit feedback; work with the trainee to identify and
implement reasonable accommodations; approach supervision with flexibility; embrace
diversity in clinical work by accepting clinical training requires individualization.
Help the trainee gain confidence with clinical work, collaborate with the trainee to identify
their strengths, ask the trainee about their concerns, problem-solve with the trainee to
mitigate effects of disability, model nonjudgmental acceptance of the limitations because
of the trainee’s disability, process and support client responses (e.g. bias, stigma,
discrimination), connect the trainee to other psychologists with disabilities.
 198 PEARLSTEIN AND SOYSTER
portant and valuable clinical skill (Knox & Hill, 2003), and this
supervisory experience helped the trainee develop and hone her
use of self-disclosure.
The second example highlights the strong stigma, bias, and
discrimination that remains among some supervisors, and con-
tributes to a known need for greater training to increase com-
petence and sensitivity related to disability (Andrews et al.,
2013). Trainees with disabilities are protected under the Amer-
icans with Disabilities Act and are equally deserving of clinical
opportunities and reasonable accommodations. The successful
accommodation of clinical work requires flexibility on the part
of the supervisor to see alternative ways of delivering assess-
ments and interventions. In this supervisory interaction, the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
supervisor lacked the necessary humility and flexibility to con-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sider reasonable accommodations, which in turn halted the
trainee’s professional development. This example also illus-
trates the importance of consultation. Even in cases where
reasonable accommodations are not easily identifiable, super-
visors can play an important role in guiding the trainee through
the experience and can work collaboratively to find an individ-
ualized solution that respects the trainee’s identity.
The third example reveals common misinterpretations and
assumptions supervisors make when working with trainees with
disabilities and how these missteps can be corrected through
transparency, flexibility, and humility. It is challenging for
supervisors to understand the possible impacts a trainee’s dis-
ability can have on clinical work, which can in turn lead
supervisors to misattribute the effects of a trainee’s disability to
a deficit in clinical skills. This misunderstanding can be very
upsetting for trainees, as it suggests the trainee with a disability
is incapable of clinical work due to their disability. Lack of
clear communication, open conversations, and limited under-
standing about disabilities inhibit the ability for trainees and
supervisors to speak honestly about trainees’ abilities and train-
ing needs, especially when power differentials exist between
supervisors and trainees. However, this example also demon-
strates the possibility for reparations. Misunderstandings are
inevitable and the supervisor’s ability to acknowledge and
apologize can attenuate the negative impact of these misunder-
standings. In turn, successful resolution of conflict with super-
visors facilitates the trainee’s professional development, and
can result in a strengthened trainee–supervisor relationship.
In the three examples presented previously, the trainees made
efforts to proactively disclose their disability status with their
supervisors; however, supervisors’ limited understanding man-
ifested in different ways. In the first example, the supervisor
responded with sensitivity, curiosity, and humility, which fa-
cilitated the trainee’s professional development. In the second
example, a supervisor’s bias and discrimination were detrimen-
tal, suggesting the supervisor lacked adequate understanding to
work with trainees with disabilities. In the third example, the
supervisor’s limited understanding manifested as assuming
ability status, leading to negative consequences for the trainee.
While we generally believe open and transparent conversations
about trainees’ disabilities are important for improved supervi-
sion experiences, we also acknowledge that some trainees pre-
fer not to disclose their disability status in a professional
context. Supervisors can assist by knowing many disabilities
are not visible, by not assuming ability status, by asking all
trainees about needs for accommodations, and by responding
with curiosity. As the previous examples illustrate, there can be
personal and professional consequences to disclosing disability,
and the choice to do so should be at the discretion of the trainee
(Von Schrader, Malzer, & Bruyère, 2014). However, we also
encourage trainees with disabilities to consider the potential
consequences of nondisclosure. As with any discussion of per-
sonal information in a clinical context, an important first step
for supervisors is to recognize and respect the trainee’s auton-
omy and personal boundaries.
While trainees with disabilities present with unique training
needs, it is important to acknowledge that supervisors are not, and
should not be, expected to be experts on all forms of disability.
Instead, these examples suggest a process by which supervisors
can provide supervision with sensitivity, humility, and respect for
diversity. We hope these examples illustrate that supervisors need
not be perfect to enhance the growth of trainees with disabilities.
Instead, a supervisor’s openness, flexibility, and willingness to
collaborate can build a trainee’s efficacy, confidence, and skills to
improve their clinical work and overall professional development.
References
American Psychological Association. (2011). Training Students with Dis-
abilities in Testing and Assessment. Washington, DC: Author.
Andrews, E. E., Kuemmel, A., Williams, J. L., Pilarski, C. R., Dunn, M.,
& Lund, E. M. (2013). Providing culturally competent supervision to
trainees with disabilities in rehabilitation settings. Rehabilitation Psy-
chology, 58, 233–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033338
Andrews, E. E., & Lund, E. M. (2015). Disability in psychology training:
Where are we? Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9,
210 –216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tep0000085
Angus, L., & Kagan, F. (2007). Empathic relational bonds and personal
agency in psychotherapy: Implications for psychotherapy supervision,
practice, and research. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,
Training, 44, 371–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.44.4.371
Falender, C. A., Cornish, J. A. E., Goodyear, R., Hatcher, R., Kaslow, N. J.,
Leventhal, G., . . . Grus, C. (2004). Defining competencies in psychol-
ogy supervision: A consensus statement. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
60, 771–785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20013
Henretty, J. R., & Levitt, H. M. (2010). The role of therapist self-disclosure
in psychotherapy: A qualitative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30,
63–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.09.004
Inman, A. G. (2006). Supervisor multicultural competence and its relation
to supervisory process and outcome. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy, 32, 73– 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006
.tb01589.x
Jacobsen, C. H., & Tanggaard, L. (2009). Beginning therapists’ experi-
ences of what constitutes good and bad psychotherapy supervision.
Nordic Psychology, 61, 59 – 84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1901-2276.61
.4.59
Knox, S., & Hill, C. E. (2003). Therapist self-disclosure: Research-based
suggestions for practitioners. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59, 529 –
539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.10157
Kraus, L. (2015). 2016 Disability Statistics Annual Report. University of
New Hampshire.
Ladany, N., Mori, Y., & Mehr, K. E. (2013). Effective and ineffective
supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 28 – 47. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0011000012442648
Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C., & Eubanks-Carter, C. (2011). Repairing
alliance ruptures. Psychotherapy, 48, 80 – 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0022140
 SUPERVISION OF TRAINEES WITH DISABILITIES 199

Tracey, T. J. G., Bludworth, J., & Glidden-Tracey, C. E. (2012). Are there Von Schrader, S., Malzer, V., & Bruyère, S. (2014). Perspectives on
parallel processes in psychotherapy supervision? An empirical exami- disability disclosure: The importance of employer practices and work-
nation. Psychotherapy (Chic), 49, 330 –343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ place climate. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 26, 237–
a0026246 255.
Vande Kemp, H., Shiomi Chen, J., Nagel Erickson, G., & Friesen, N. L.
(2003). ADA Accommodation of Therapists with Disabilities in Clinical Received July 25, 2018
Training. Women and Therapy, 26(1–2), 81–94. http://dx.doi.org/10 Revision received January 29, 2019
.1300/J015v26n01 Accepted February 10, 2019 䡲
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.