See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303889745

Convergence in Psychotherapy Supervision: A Common Factors,

Common Processes, Common Practices Perspective

Article in Journal of Psychotherapy Integration · June 2017

DOI: 10.1037/int0000040

CITATIONS READS

39 4,527

1 author:

Clifton Edward Watkins, Jr.

University of North Texas
169 PUBLICATIONS 2,977 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Clifton Edward Watkins, Jr. on 03 July 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Psychotherapy Integration © 2016 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, 140 –152 1053-0479/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/int0000040

Convergence in Psychotherapy Supervision: A Common Factors,

Common Processes, Common Practices Perspective

C. Edward Watkins Jr.

University of North Texas

Trans-theoretical and common factors supervision literature is quite limited. Although

supervision similarities may be readily recognized, articulated trans-theoretical and
common factors perspectives are rare (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). Yet I contend that
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

all psychotherapy supervision is most fundamentally guided by a nomological network

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of binding commonalities that foremost enlivens and invigorates, directs and deter-
mines supervisory action. In what follows, I identify 50 (nonexhaustive) commonali-
ties, shared by any and all supervision perspectives, that cut across at least 9 practice-
impacting areas: Supervisee characteristics, supervisor qualities, supervisee change
processes, supervision structures, supervision relationship elements, supervision com-
mon principles, supervisor tasks, supervisor common roles, and supervisor common
practices. I argue that, even if a supervisor practices a particular brand of supervision
(e.g., psychoanalytic, cognitive), practice will be affected by and be delivered via the
cross-cutting commonalities identified here. These commonalities converge to form
what could be thought of as a common factors, common processes, common practices
supervision perspective. I further argue that psychotherapy supervision is eminently an
educational enterprise, an adult learning experience (e.g., Knowles, Holton, & Swan-
son, 2015), and is at its best when those realities are consistently integrated into our
supervisory conceptualization and conduct.

Keywords: supervision, psychotherapy, common factors, education, practices

For nearly a century, psychotherapy supervi- skills; (b) developing/crystallizing a psycho-

sion has been enshrined as an eminently impor-
tant educational means by which therapists in
training learn to become competent practitio-
ners (Watkins, 2013). It is now widely used
internationally, considered to be a highly effec-
tive and efficient pedagogical intervention, per-
haps being our single most powerful contributor
to training effectiveness (Gonsalvez & Milne,
2010; McMahan, 2014). Designated as the sig-
nature pedagogy of the helping professions
(Bernard & Goodyear, 2014), psychotherapy
supervision serves several critical purposes: (a)
developing/enhancing conceptual and treatment
This article was published Online First June 9, 2016.
Portions of this article were delivered as a keynote ad-
dress at the International Interdisciplinary Supervision Con-
ference, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland, May 21st,
2016.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to C. Edward Watkins, Jr., Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle 311280, Denton,
Texas 76203-5017. E-mail: watkinsc@unt.edu
140
therapist identity; (c) developing conviction
about the meaningfulness of psychotherapy it-
self; and (d) monitoring treatment efforts and
safeguarding patient care (American Psycho-
logical Association, 2015; A. K. Hess, K. D.
Hess, & T. H. Hess, 2008b; Watkins & Milne,
2014). Twenty-five years ago, Bent, Schindler,
and Dobbins (1991) stated that “about one half
of a professional psychologist’s formal training
involves learning through supervision” (p. 124);
their statement remains every bit as true today.
Hess (2008, 2011) identified the 1980s as a
time of transformative emergence for supervi-
sion, where it began to truly be recognized as an
educational sine qua non. Still in its adoles-
cence in the early ‘90s (Bernard & Goodyear,
1992), supervision experienced explosive
growth on many fronts over the next 15 years
(e.g., increasing amount of research production,
significant strides made in professionalization;
Bernard, 2006). Since then, supervision has
continued its bold march forward, with continu-
ing empirical work on a host of topics being
 CONVERGENCE AND COMMONALITIES
conducted, new theoretical models being ad-
vanced, and the professionalization of the spe-
cialty area occurring in unprecedented ways
(Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Bernard & Luke,
2015; Inman et al., 2014).
Despite theoretical ferment in supervision,
articulated trans-theoretical and common fac-
tors supervision perspectives remain rare: “. . .
there is little published literature on the topic”
(Bernard & Goodyear, 2014, pp. 60 – 61). But
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
psychotherapy supervision may be far more
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
amenable to a trans-theoretical or common fac-
tors perspective than psychotherapy. Supervi-
sion is about engagement for service provision
education, supervisors being most concerned
about the facilitative educational conditions, ef-
fective educational practices, and meaningful
educational processes that make supervision
work. Whereas psychotherapy approaches and
interventions number in the hundreds (Marks,
Sibilia, & Borgo, 2010; Pearsall, 2011; Tsch-
acher, Junghan, & Pfammatter, 2014), the num-
ber of supervision approaches and interventions
are comparatively limited. Although different
psychotherapies typically reflect different theo-
ries of change, supervision in my view is fun-
damentally powered by a theory of learning and
a learning process that is far more unitary in
nature than otherwise. As one example, Kolb’s
model of experiential learning (Kolb, 2015) has
been profitably used to capture much of what
occurs educationally in supervision (Milne,
2009; Milne, Aylott, Fitzpatrick, & Ellis, 2008).
Analogizing from the field of education to psy-
chotherapy supervision can be eminently useful.
Attending more so to supervision’s essential
instructional, educational, and learning pro-
cesses has been advised (Goodyear, 2014; Wat-
kins & Scaturo, 2013).
Second Generation Models of Psychotherapy
Supervision: Trans-Theoretical and Common
Factors Contributions So Far
Models of psychotherapy supervision can be
grouped into three categories: psychotherapy-
focused, developmental, and social role (or so-
cial process; Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Wat-
kins & Milne, 2014). Psychotherapy-focused
approaches (e.g., Reiser, 2014; Sarnat, 2016)
emphasize the learning and practice of a partic-
ular form of psychotherapy. Developmental ap-
proaches (e.g., Stoltenberg, Bailey, Cruzan,
141
Hart, & Ukuku, 2014) emphasize the therapist’s
unfolding growth process and developmentally
responsive supervision. Social role or social
process approaches (e.g., Bernard, 1997; Hollo-
way, 2014) emphasize supervisee learning
needs and the supervisor roles (e.g., consultant,
counselor, teacher) that best address those
learning needs. The social role/process and de-
velopmental approaches are supervision
metavisions and can be profitably integrated
with psychotherapy-focused supervision per-
spectives.
Bernard and Goodyear (2014) identify trans-
theoretical and common factors perspectives as
being second-generation supervision models.
Second-generation models tend to be more in-
tegrative and evidence based in nature (Bernard
& Goodyear, 2014). At this juncture, eight
trans-theoretical and common factors supervi-
sion publications can be identified (Aten, Strain,
& Gillespie, 2008; Culbreth & Gressard, 2010;
Lampropoulos, 2003; Morgan & Sprenkle,
2007; Watkins, 2012, 2015a; Watkins, Budge,
& Callahan, 2015; Watkins & Scaturo, 2013).
What do we know about supervision when
viewed through a trans-theoretical and common
factors lens?
Aten et al. (2008). Aten et al. (2008) ap-
plied Prochaska and DiClemente’s (1982) trans-
theoretical change model to supervision. Build-
ing on nine assumptions (e.g., no one model is
completely sufficient), Aten et al. (2008)
adapted the trans-theoretical model’s six stages
of change to render them supervision specific.
For example, in the Contemplation Stage, su-
pervisees are described as (a) being anxious and
distressed about therapist development, and (b)
recognizing that change is needed, but not
knowing what exactly to do. Aten et al. (2008)
also described five behavioral and five experi-
ential processes (e.g., consciousness raising) by
which supervisors can stimulate supervisee
change. The 10 processes emphasize ways to
increase supervisee awareness and create a safe,
growth-enhancing supervision space.
Culbreth and Gressard (2010). Culbreth
and Gressard (2010), like Aten et al. (2008),
proposed that the Prochaska/DiClemente trans-
theoretical model of change has relevance for
supervision; they adapted the stages of change
to be supervision specific and considered how
best to intervene in matching stage-specific
ways.
 142 WATKINS
Lampropoulos (2003). Lampropoulos
(2003) proposed a common factors perspective
that emphasized relationship variables (e.g., al-
liance) and learning processes. Building on Je-
rome Frank’s work (Frank & Frank, 1991),
Lampropoulos (2003) identified instilling hope
and combatting demoralization in supervisees
as being important. He accentuated the signifi-
cance of exercising a prescriptive eclectic su-
pervision approach (e.g., in selecting interven-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tions).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Morgan and Sprenkle (2007). Morgan
and Sprenkle (2007) identified three dimensions
or continua that cut across all supervision ap-
proaches: (a) emphasis, ranging from clinical
competence to professional competence; (b)
specificity, ranging from idiosyncratic/particular
to nomothetic/general; and (c) relationship,
ranging from collaborative to directive. They
also identified four common supervisor roles:
coach, teacher, administrator, and mentor.
Watkins (2012, 2015a); Watkins et al.
(2015), and Watkins and Scaturo (2013).
Building on the work of Frank (Frank & Frank,
1991), Watkins (2012) proposed that supervision
approaches involve four common features: (a) an
emotionally charged, confiding relationship; (b)
being delivered in a setting where education and
healing are paramount; (c) a cogent, explanatory
supervision rationale; and (d) a rationale-
consistent form of supervision in which supervis-
ees actively participate. In subsequent papers,
Watkins and colleagues (Watkins, 2015a; Watkins
& Scaturo, 2013) further accentuated a common
set of relationship variables (e.g., real relation-
ship, expectancies) as being cross-theoretically
pivotal; those relationship variables were used to
form the foundation for a contextual model of
supervision (Watkins et al., 2015).
Tying it all together? Across these eight
contributions, relationship, learning, and stages
of change emerge as consistent themes. Perhaps
what we see here can best be captured as fol-
lows: (a) Supervision is most fundamentally a
learning experience where the primary targets
are therapist skills/competence and identity de-
velopment; (b) the supervisor–supervisee rela-
tionship serves as the foundation of the super-
vision experience; and (c) the supervisor
functions foremost from a stance of develop-
mental responsiveness in stimulating supervisee
growth (cf. Friedlander, 2012; Wilson, Davies,
& Weatherhead, 2015).
In Search of Common Supervision Factors
and Practices
Psychotherapy supervision involves at least
three common, broad-band conceptual organiz-
ers: The supervisor’s (and supervisee’s) way of
being, the supervisor–supervisee relationship,
and supervision skills and techniques. The su-
pervisor–supervisee relationship and supervi-
sion skills/techniques are two long-standing,
eminently crucial, cross-theoretically recog-
nized components of the supervision endeavor
(Goodyear, 2014; Milne, 2009; Watkins, 2014a,
2014b). All supervision perspectives also ac-
knowledge that the person and personhood, or
way of being, of the supervisor matter and have
impact (e.g., Gilbert & Evans, 2000). These
three broad-band factors, depicted in Figure 1,
converge to affect supervisee learning and re-
learning (Carroll, 2014; Watkins & Scaturo,
2013). Within that broad-band conceptual con-
text, what are the more specific commonalities
so important to supervision practice?
Unfortunately, that possible array of supervi-
sion commonalities has yet to be more fully iden-
tified and integrated (cf. Bernard & Goodyear,
2014). To address that gap in the literature and
identify a common core of relational, learning,
and intervention essentials, I engaged in a com-
monalities-focused review of the supervision lit-
erature. Such a review would seem important in
illuminating the key ties that bind and potentially
render impactful all forms of supervision. Some of
the most salient common factors, common pro-
cesses, and common practices that educationally
demark and define psychotherapy supervision are
identified subsequently.1
Approach taken. I used the Grencavage
and Norcross (1990) paper to guide my review
1
A point of clarification with regard to the words, “com-
mon practices” is needed. The common and specific factors
distinction can be applied to both psychotherapy and psy-
chotherapy supervision. Common factors typically refer to
those relational variables (e.g., alliance) that cut across
therapeutic and supervision perspectives; specific factors
refer to the interventions that are used. But there is one
critical specific factors difference between psychotherapy
and supervision: Whereas psychotherapy interventions are
quite numerous (Marks et al., 2010) and can vary by ther-
apeutic approach, supervision interventions are few in num-
ber and tend not to vary by supervision approach (Good-
year, 2014; Watkins & Scaturo, 2013). With that
recognized, the specific factors or interventions of supervi-
sion can also be thought of as common practices.
 CONVERGENCE AND COMMONALITIES 143

Learning/Relearning

Supervision
Skills and
Techniques

Supervisory Relaonship
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.

Way of Being

Figure 1. The Supervision Pyramid. From “The Therapeutic Pyramid: A Common Factors
Synthesis of Techniques, Alliance, and Way of Being,” by S. T. Fife, J. B. Whiting, K.
Bradford, and S. Davis 2014, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40, 20 –33. Copyright
2013 by the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. Reprinted with
permission. See the online article for the color version of this figure.

and deliberations; in their study, Grencavage
and Norcross identified frequently proposed
common factors across five superordinate cate-
gories (e.g., client characteristics). Using those
same five categories, I set out to identify com-
mon factors across supervisee characteristics,
supervisor qualities, supervisee change pro-
cesses, supervision structures, and supervision
relationship elements. As my review unfolded,
it was deemed necessary to add four other su-
perordinate categories— common supervision
practice principles, supervisor common tasks,
common roles, and common interventions—to
get the most comprehensive supervision per-
spective.
I specifically (a) examined critical supervi-
sion handbooks, books, and book chapters ap-
pearing since 1980 (the time of supervision’s
transformative emergence; Hess, 1980a, 2008,
2011); (b) examined various supervision arti-
cles appearing since 1980 in supervision jour-
nals (e.g., The Clinical Supervisor) or journals
that publish supervision articles (e.g., Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration); and (c) studied re-
cently created supervision competence frame-
works from around the globe, all products of the
last 15-year period (e.g., Psychology Board of
Australia, 2013). Examined books and hand-
books were authored or edited by a host of
international contributors (e.g., Fleming &
Steen, 2012; Hawkins & Shohet, 2012; Wat-
kins, 1997). Examined journals were interdisci-
plinary in nature, drawing from clinical and
counseling psychology, psychiatry, counselor
education, social work, and psychiatric nursing.
(A complete list of surveyed books and journals
is available from the author upon request.)
Analysis. I developed preliminary lists of
common factors and practices across the nine
identified areas. Based on my continued study
and reflection, those lists were repeatedly re-
vised, with common factors and practices being
added and, in some cases, combined. I con-
cluded that revision process once a reasonable,
defensible core of supervision common factors
and practices was in place. Text and table in-
formation follows, identifying 50 supervision
commonalities spread across those nine areas.
(A much extended report, which provides ref-
erence support for each table’s commonalities,
is available from the author upon request.)
Results
Supervisee Characteristics
Supervisee characteristics identified as com-
mon factors are presented in Table 1. These
seven characteristics reflect a mix of supervisee
features widely deemed necessary for making
 144 WATKINS
Table 1
Supervisee Characteristics Identified as
Common Factors
Psychological-mindedness Active help seeking
Engagement/investment Positive expectations/hope
Openness Reflectivity
Supervisor viewed as credible educational provider
supervision happen. Desire for, belief in, and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
investment in supervision are all eminently im-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
portant. Supervisees are propelled by their ed-
ucational incongruence (e.g., wanting to remedy
their skill deficiencies), seek help via supervi-
sion, and have faith that supervision can be an
incongruence-corrective measure. Reflectivity
and psychological-mindedness form the very
bedrock that makes the work of supervision
possible. That these seven features are highly
conducive to any and all supervision learning is
a well-recognized, seemingly indisputable real-
ity (cf. Rodenhauser, Rudisill, & Painter, 1989).
Supervisor Qualities/Features
Supervisor qualities/features identified as
common factors are presented in Table 2. These
qualities and features give loud voice to the
fundamentally relational nature of supervision.
The supervisor–supervisee relationship has
been identified as a (if not the) crucial mediator
that renders supervision intervention increas-
ingly impactful (Goodyear, 2014; Watkins,
2014b). This table captures the supervisor fea-
tures that appear most important in building and
maintaining the supervision relationship. Three
decades ago, Carifio and Hess (1987) stated that
“the ideal supervisor seems to embody the same
personal characteristics [e.g., being respectful,
empathic, and genuine] as the ideal psychother-
apist . . .” (p. 244); that that would be the case
is not surprising. The relationship is founda-
tional in building a learning sanctuary for su-
Table 2
Supervisor Qualities/Features Identified as
Common Factors
Engagement/investment Positive regard
Warmth/support Empathy
Concreteness Genuineness
Acceptance Reflectivity
Cultivates positive expectations/hope
pervisees, and Table 2 bears testament to some
of the essentials so necessary for that construc-
tion. It may well be that “the relationship, the
relationship, the relationship . . . is everything in
supervision . . .” (A. K. Hess, C. E. Hess, &
J. H. Hess, 2008a, p. 164).
Supervisee Change Processes
Supervisee change processes identified as
common factors are presented in Table 3. In a
most prescient early supervision paper, Ches-
sick (1971) stated that beginning therapists are
confronted with three troubling issues: (a) deal-
ing with the anxiety attendant to the further
development and refinement of psychological
mindedness; (b) developing a psychotherapist
identity; and (c) developing conviction about
the meaningfulness of psychotherapy. These
seven change processes (see Table 3): (a) cap-
ture primary ways by which supervisees strug-
gle with and work to resolve those three issues,
making skills/competence and identity develop-
ment increasingly likely; and (b) provide the
supervisor with useful points of orientation for
thinking about how to best stimulate supervisee
development over supervision’s course. For ex-
ample, anxiety, distress, and tension reduction
may be most acutely needed early on, but as
supervisees gain in experience, skills, and sense
of therapist identity, that need can be expected
to diminish (cf. Aten et al., 2008; Culbreth &
Gressard, 2010). Supervisee change processes
forever exist within a supervisee-specific devel-
opmental context and appear best understood
with that reality in mind (Lambie & Blount,
2016; McNeill & Stoltenberg, 2016).
The supervisee learning experience typically
involves change that results from building on
existing skills and frames of reference and
Table 3
Supervisee Change Processes Identified as
Common Factors
Opportunity for catharsis/sharing (e.g., about therapist
development concerns)
Anxiety, distress, and tension reduction
Activation of self-observation
Self-reflection and insight development
Exposure and confrontation of learning problems
Acquisition and practice of new learning
Success and mastery of new knowledge and skills
 CONVERGENCE AND COMMONALITIES
change that results from upending, interrupting,
and challenging problematic behaviors and
frames of reference (e.g., the struggle of devel-
oping a practice self; Carroll, 2014; Ronnestad
& Skovholt, 2013). Supervisee learning can be
both additive/elaborative and corrective/
constructive, or some mixture of the two. But
whatever the form of learning and change pro-
cesses involved, disruption is introduced. Su-
pervisee change often appears to follow a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
fundamental progression: Disruption ¡ Con-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
struction ¡ Reorganization (Carroll, 2014;
Wolf, 1995). These seven change processes
capture meaningful ways by which disruption
becomes educational fodder for transformative
growth. Perhaps supervision is at its best when
it is a place of peaceful disruption, a zone of
safe uncertainty (Starr, Ciclitira, Marzano,
Brunswick, & Costa, 2013).
Supervision Structures
Supervision structures identified as common
factors are provided in Table 4. These three
factors emphasize those most basic, defining
features of supervision: its forever undeniable
educational nature, its unwavering focus on the
supervisee–patient encounter, and its superordi-
nate mission of enhancing supervisee develop-
ment and service provision (e.g., through the
supervisor’s delivery of constructive feedback).
Whatever the type of supervision practiced,
those three structures are givens and will always
be prominently on display.
Supervision Relationship Elements
Supervision relationship elements identified
as common factors are presented in Table 5.
These four relationship components give em-
phasis to the supervisor–supervisee working re-
lationship, nonworking relationship, and the
impact of our own personal history, personal
reactions and emotional experiences upon the
Table 4
Supervision Structures Identified as
Common Factors
An educational setting or setting with educational mission
Use of supervision interventions (rituals)
Case review: Focused study of therapist–patient
interaction
145
Table 5
Supervision Relationship Components Identified as
Common Factors
Supervisory or learning alliance
Real or personal relationship
Transference (supervisee to supervisor)
Countertransference (supervisee to client; supervisor to
supervisee or client)
supervisory endeavor. As supervision has
evolved, the systemic nature of the supervisory
relationship has been increasingly appreciated
and granted gravitas as never before: We rec-
ognize that the psychology of each supervision
party matters, has relationship effect, and
should accordingly be factored into all supervi-
sion deliberations (e.g., Sarnat, 2016). Across
supervisory perspectives, these four relationship
variables have come to increasingly reflect that
systemic evolution.
First proposed over half a century ago (Fleming
& Benedek, 1964), the supervisor–supervisee al-
liance—supported by about 50 studies (Watkins,
2014a)— has only further gained in stature with
the passage of time and come to be accepted as a
(if not the) foundational variable that ultimately
makes or breaks supervision (Watkins, 2014b).
The real or personal relationship has also seem-
ingly long been a part of supervision (e.g., where
I–Thou relating is concerned; Gilbert & Evans,
2000), but has only recently come to be more
specifically recognized (Watkins, 2011, 2015b).
The real relationship involves more of a supervi-
sor–supervisee personal bond, the alliance more of
a supervisor–supervisee work bond (after Gelso,
2011). Supervision perspectives also appear to
make room for transference and countertransfer-
ence experiences (Watkins, 2015a). Whether de-
fined broadly as “personal experience of the
other” or more restrictively as “bringing pre-
existing problematic personality issues into the
current relationship,” such supervision behaviors
or patterns have cross-theoretical relevance (e.g.,
Holloway, 2016; Liese & Beck, 1997; Reiser,
2014; Sarnat, 2016).
Common Supervision Practice Principles
The preeminent supervision principles iden-
tified as commonly practiced— creating an en-
abling space and tailoring to fit—are presented
in Table 6. These two principles provide the
 146
Table 6
Preeminent Supervision Principles Identified as
Being Commonly Practiced
Create a forever enabling and empowering space that
galvanizes supervisee learning
Tailor supervision to match supervisee developmental
learning needs
foundational substrate upon which the entirety
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of supervision practice is based. We strive to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
construct a consistently galvanizing, optimizing
supervision situation that enlivens and liberates
supervisee learning; we strive to consistently
customize the supervision experience so as to
optimally match the supervisee’s evolving
learning needs and developmental acquisitions
(e.g., Holloway, 2016; Ladany, Friedlander, &
Nelson, 2016; Lambie & Blount, 2016; McNeill
& Stoltenberg, 2016).
Common Supervisor Tasks
Those supervisor tasks identified as com-
monly practiced are presented in Table 7. “The
supervisor . . . is responsible for . . . working to
create and manage the supervisory process so as
to best facilitate the supervisee’s learning at
work” (Scaife, 2009, p. 14). These six tasks
appear to be the primary ways by which super-
visors pursue that objective. Relational devel-
opment, role orientation, needs assessment, plan
development/evaluation, and monitoring are in-
tegral components of any effective supervision
process. There is increasing agreement that su-
pervisees are not well served by a haphazard
supervision experience, that supervision is at its
best where planning and deliberation and col-
laboration are involved (Borders, 2014). These
Table 7
Supervisor Tasks Identified as Being
Commonly Practiced
Develop/nurture facilitative supervisory relationship
Provide education about/orientation to supervision
experience (rationale provision/role induction)
Assess/identify supervisee learning deficits/needs and
strengths/assets
Develop supervision plan (formal or informal) to address
supervisee learning deficits/needs
Implement, evaluate, and revise plan as needed
Provide ongoing monitoring/evaluation of supervisee
performance/progress
WATKINS
six tasks quintessentially reflect those emphases
at work.
Supervisor Common Roles
Supervisor roles identified as commonly
practiced are presented in Table 8. These roles
reflect the flexibility and versatility that are
needed to function as a supervisor. In his hand-
book’s first edition, Hess (1980b) identified six
roles in which supervisors frequently engage:
Lecturer, teacher, case reviewer, collegial peer,
monitor, and therapist. In his book’s second
edition, Hess (2008) added two more roles:
coach and educator. But some of those roles
overlap, appear combinable, and have been so
combined here. If there is one important role
omitted from Hess’s lists, it would be consultant
(Bernard, 1997; Bernard & Goodyear, 2014);
that addition is reflected in Table 8. These six
roles, whatever the theoretical perspective de-
ployed, are commonly practiced supervision
fare (e.g., Hawkins & Shohet, 2012; Hess,
2011; Holloway, 2016; Lee & Nelson, 2014;
Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007; Sarnat, 2016).
Supervision Common Practices
Supervision interventions identified as com-
mon practices are presented in Table 9. Com-
pared to the large universe of psychotherapy
interventions (Marks et al., 2010), the universe
of supervision interventions is quite small: pro-
viding feedback, modeling, teaching/instruc-
tion, self-reflective questioning, case conceptu-
alization, and discussion (e.g., Goodyear, 2014;
Watkins & Scaturo, 2013). Although other pos-
sible supervision interventions could be put
forth (see Milne et al., 2008), most if not all can
be grouped under one of those six interventions.
Whatever the form of supervision delivered, all
supervisory action will generally be contained
within this small set of educational practices.
Table 8
Supervision Roles Identified as Being
Commonly Practiced
Educator/Teacher Monitor/Manager/Case reviewer
Coach Counselor/Therapist
Collegial peer Consultant
 CONVERGENCE AND COMMONALITIES
Table 9
Supervision Interventions Identified as
Common Practices
Case conceptualization Providing feedback
Teaching/instruction Modeling
Stimulus questions (reflective
instigation) Discussion
A Simple Cross-Theoretical Template
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.
Figure 2 presents a simple visual that shows
how these commonalities fit together: (a) The
supervisor and supervisee bring their character-
istics/qualities/features (Tables 1 and 2) to the
supervision situation (an educational setting,
Table 4) and build a supervisor–supervisee re-
lationship (see Table 5); (b) that relationship
serves as the mediator of supervisory action and
enables enactment of the preeminent practice
principles (see Table 6), tasks (see Table 7),
roles (see Table 8), and interventions (see Table
9); and (c) supervisee change processes are ac-
cordingly instigated by the supervisory relation-
ship (see Table 3). This figure provides a com-
monalities-driven perspective, its purpose being
to capture a general flow or trajectory of how
the commonalities often unfold in supervisory
action and interaction.
Discussion
I contend that these 50 commonalities—
seven supervisee characteristics, nine supervi-
sor characteristics, seven supervisee change
processes, three supervision structures, four re-
lationship components, two practice principles,
Supervisor
Supervisor Principles, Tasks, Roles, and Practices: Tailoring and Intervening
Relationship: Bond,
Engagement,
Understanding,
Expectations, Expertise
Supervisee Change Processes: Awareness, Confrontation, and Practice
Supervisee
Figure 2. The common factors, common processes, and common practices in supervision
action. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
147
six supervisor tasks, six supervisor roles, and
six supervisor interventions— capture much of
what supervision practice is across supervisory
systems. These 50 commonalities, while by no
means exhaustive, go a long way in providing a
cross-theoretical template of contemporary su-
pervision practice: A common factors, common
processes, common practices perspective. We
lack for common factors attention in supervi-
sion (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). I hope that
this proposed commonalties-based perspective
might be useful in stimulating more such work.
Psychotherapy supervisors may draw from a
host of first-generation or second-generation
model possibilities. But I assert that, whatever
might be the psychotherapy-focused, develop-
mental, or social role/process model used, su-
pervision practice will always reflect these 50
commonalities (or at least most of them). These
commonalities can show model-specific varia-
tions (e.g., where the type of delivered feedback
differs by model), but the commonalities will
remain nonetheless. Bernard and Goodyear
(2004) stated that, “most supervisors eventually
develop their own unique integrationist per-
spectives . . . , [and that outcome] probably is
inevitable” (p. 100). I think that a commonali-
ties-informed supervision approach stands to
best developmentally advantage patient, super-
visee, and supervisor alike (cf. Norcross & Hal-
gin, 1997). This template, these 50 commonal-
ities, point to many of the specifics so necessary
for actuating and actualizing an integrationist
view.
Just as a common language of understanding
is important in psychotherapy (Marks et al.,
2010; Tschacher et al., 2014), so too is that the
Outcome: Therapist
Skills/Competency and
Identity Development
 148 WATKINS
case for psychotherapy supervision (Watkins &
Scaturo, 2013). These identified commonalities
provide us with some shared supervision lan-
guage or the beginnings of such a language. For
example, providing feedback is a common in-
tervention that seems to have an agreed-upon
meaning across supervision perspectives. Other
examples where that appears to be the case
include the supervisory alliance (bond-goals-
tasks) and some of the other interventions men-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tioned here (e.g., teaching/instructing). But if
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
we are to have a common and comprehensive
supervision language that is most specific, re-
duce confusion, and speed the evolution of su-
pervision as a science (cf. Marks et al., 2010),
then we may be best served by working to more
finely define some of these 50 factors, pro-
cesses, and practices. In that regard, the Com-
mon Language for Psychotherapy Project
(Marks et al., 2010; www.commonlanguage-
psychotherapy.com) and the Taxonomy Project
(Tschacher et al., 2014) may provide useful
models for possible supervision emulation. “Su-
pervision is truly a conversation (supervision)
about a conversation (conversation with the
work) about a conversation (the conversation
with clients)” (Carroll, 2014, p. 27). That con-
versation would seem best understood and stud-
ied via a common supervision language.
With psychotherapy supervision being an
eminently educational enterprise, these 50 com-
monalities are perhaps best thought of as edu-
cational commonalities. Although psychother-
apy supervisors have frequently turned to
psychotherapy theory to inform their supervi-
sion efforts (Milne, 2006), educational theory
and its substantive contribution has in my view
too often been ignored. Perhaps we are best
served when we look to both psychotherapy and
education for supervision guidance. Equipping
ourselves with knowledge about facilitation of
adult learning (e.g., Knowles, Holton, & Swan-
son, 2015) and the power of educational inter-
vention (e.g., Brookfield, 2013; Brookfield &
Preskill, 2005) has the potential to vastly enrich
supervision practice (e.g., Bartley & Borders,
2015). Supervision is a pedagogy of engage-
ment (Carroll, 2014). Having an informed edu-
cational perspective can be both engagement
enhancing and outcome affecting (cf. Barkley,
2010). As Cabaniss (2008) made clear, much
can be learned by examining what is “happen-
ing in classrooms from elementary schools to
graduate programs” (p. 268). Because supervi-
sion is most fundamentally a relationally medi-
ated learning experience (Wilson et al., 2015)
that involves educational processes and prac-
tices taking place in an educational setting (or
setting with an educational mission), educa-
tional theory, educational psychology, and edu-
cational intervention seemingly would be
highly supervision relevant. Thus, we could
greatly benefit by attending far more so to su-
pervision’s essential instructional and learning
processes (Bartley & Borders, 2015; Goodyear,
2014). Making that educational/instructional
emphasis into substantive reality, I believe, is a
most critical next step in advancing the practice
and science of psychotherapy supervision.
References
American Psychological Association. (2015). Guide-
lines for clinical supervision in health service psy-
chology. American Psychologist, 70, 33– 46. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038112
Aten, J. D., Strain, J. D., & Gillespie, R. E. (2008). A
transtheoretical model of clinical supervision.
Training and Education in Professional Psychol-
ogy, 2, 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1931-3918.2
.1.1
Barkley, E. F. (2010). Student engagement tech-
niques: A handbook for college faculty. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bartley, J. L., & Borders, L. D. (2015, June). Not as
easy as ABC: Applying the science of learning to
the supervision of struggling students. Presentation
given at the Eleventh International Interdisciplin-
ary Conference on Clinical Supervision, Adelphi
University, New York.
Bent, R. J., Schindler, N., & Dobbins, J. E. (1991).
Management and supervision competency. In R.
Peterson (Ed.), Core curriculum in professional
psychology (pp. 121–126). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Bernard, J. M. (1997). The discrimination model. In
C. E. Watkins, Jr., (Ed.), Handbook of psychother-
apy supervision (pp. 310 –327). New York, NY:
Wiley.
Bernard, J. M. (2006). Tracing the development of
clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 24,
3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J001v24n01_02
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1992). Funda-
mentals of clinical supervision. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Funda-
mentals of clinical supervision (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
 CONVERGENCE AND COMMONALITIES
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Funda-
mentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Bernard, J. M., & Luke, M. (2015). A content anal-
ysis of 10 years of clinical supervision articles in
counseling. Counselor Education and Supervision,
54, 242–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12024
Borders, L. D. (2014). Best Practices in Clinical
Supervision: Another step in delineating effective
supervision practice. American Journal of Psycho-
therapy, 68, 151–162.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Brookfield, S. D. (2013). Powerful techniques for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
teaching adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D., & Preskill, S. (2005). Discussion
as a way of teaching: Tools and techniques for
democratic classrooms (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cabaniss, D. L. (2008). Becoming a school: Devel-
oping learning objectives for psychoanalytic edu-
cation. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 28, 262–277.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07351690801960814
Carifio, M. S., & Hess, A. K. (1987). Who is the ideal
supervisor? Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 18, 244 –250. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0735-7028.18.3.244
Carroll, M. (2014). Effective supervision for the help-
ing professions (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Chessick, R. D. (1971). How the resident and the
supervisor disappoint each other. American Jour-
nal of Psychotherapy, 25, 272–283.
Culbreth, J. R., & Gressard, C. F. (2010). The tran-
stheoretical model of change in clinical supervi-
sion. In J. R. Culbreth & L. L. Brown (Eds.), State
of the art in clinical supervision (pp. 173–190).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Fife, S. T., Whiting, J. B., Bradford, K., & Davis, S.
(2014). The therapeutic pyramid: A common fac-
tors synthesis of techniques, alliance, and way of
being. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40,
20 –33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12041
Fleming, I., & Steen, L. (Eds.). (2012). Supervision
and clinical psychology: Theory, practice and per-
spectives (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Fleming, J., & Benedek, T. (1964). Supervision: A
method of teaching psychoanalysis. The Psycho-
analytic Quarterly, 33, 71–96.
Frank, J. D., & Frank, J. B. (1991). Persuasion and
healing: A comparative study of psychotherapy
(3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press.
Friedlander, M. L. (2012). Therapist responsiveness:
Mirrored in supervisor responsiveness. The Clini-
cal Supervisor, 31, 103–119. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/07325223.2012.675199
Gelso, C. J. (2011). The real relationship in psycho-
therapy: The hidden foundation of change. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12349-000
149
Gilbert, M. C., & Evans, K. (2000). Psychotherapy
supervision: An integrative relational approach.
Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Gonsalvez, C. J., & Milne, D. L. (2010). Clinical
supervisor training in Australia: A review of cur-
rent problems and possible solutions. Australian
Psychologist, 45, 233–242. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/00050067.2010.512612
Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Supervision as pedagogy:
Attending to its essential instructional and learning
processes. The Clinical Supervisor, 33, 82–99.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2014.918914
Grencavage, L. M., & Norcross, J. C. (1990). Where
are the commonalities among the therapeutic com-
mon factors? Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 21, 372–378. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0735-7028.21.5.372
Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2012). Supervision in the
helping professions: An individual, group and or-
ganizational approach (4th ed.). Berkshire, UK:
Open University Press.
Hess, A. K. (Ed.). (1980a). Psychotherapy supervi-
sion: Theory, research, and practice. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Hess, A. K. (1980b). Training models and the nature
of psychotherapy supervision. In A. K. Hess (Ed.),
Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and
practice (pp. 15–25). New York, NY: Wiley.
Hess, A. K. (2008). Psychotherapy supervision: A
conceptual review. In A. K. Hess, K. D. Hess, &
T. H. Hess (Eds.), Psychotherapy supervision:
Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–22).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hess, A. K. (2011). Psychotherapy supervision. In
J. C. Norcross, G. R. Vandenbos, & D. K. Freed-
heim (Eds.), History of psychotherapy (2nd ed.,
pp. 703–722). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Hess, A. K., Hess, C. E., & Hess, J. H. (2008a).
Interpersonal approaches to psychotherapy super-
vision: A Vygotskiian perspective. In A. K. Hess,
K. D. Hess, & T. H. Hess (Eds.), Psychotherapy
supervision: Theory, research, and practice (2nd
ed., pp. 157–178). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hess, A. K., Hess, K. D., & Hess, T. H. (Eds.).
(2008b). Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, re-
search, and practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wi-
ley.
Holloway, E. L. (2014). Social process models of super-
vision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr., & D. Milne (Eds.),
Wiley international handbook of clinical supervi-
sion (pp. 598 – 621). Oxford, UK: Wiley. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1002/9781118846360.ch29
Holloway, E. L. (2016). Supervision essentials for a
systems approach to supervision. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/14942-000
 150 WATKINS
Inman, A. G., Hutman, H., Pendse, A., Devdas, L.,
Luu, L., & Ellis, M. V. (2014). Current trends
concerning supervisors, supervisees, and clients in
clinical supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. & D.
Milne (Eds.), Wiley international handbook of
clinical supervision (pp. 61–102). Oxford, UK:
Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118846360
.ch4
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., III, & Swanson, R. A.
(2015). The adult learner: The definitive classic in
adult education and human resource development
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experi-
ence as the source of learning and development
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ladany, N., Friedlander, M. L., & Nelson, M. L.
(2016). Supervision essentials for the critical
events in psychotherapy supervision model. Wash-
ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14916-000
Lambie, G. W., & Blount, A. J. (2016). Tailoring
supervision to supervisees’ developmental level.
In K. Jordin (Ed.), Couple, marriage, and family
therapy supervision (pp. 71– 86). New York, NY:
Springer.
Lampropoulos, G. K. (2003). A common factors
view of counseling supervision process. The Clin-
ical Supervisor, 21, 77–95. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1300/J001v21n01_06
Lee, R. E., & Nelson, T. S. (2014). The contemporary
relational supervisor. New York, NY: Routledge.
Liese, B. S., & Beck, J. S. (1997). Cognitive therapy
supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr., (Ed.), Handbook
of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 114 –133). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Marks, I., Sibilia, L., & Borgo, S. (Eds.). (2010).
Common language for psychotherapy procedures.
The first 80. Norderstedt, Germany: Books on De-
mand.
McMahan, E. H. (2014). Supervision, a nonelusive
component of deliberate practice toward expertise.
American Psychologist, 69, 712–713. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0037832XXX
McNeill, B. W., & Stoltenberg, C. D. (2016). Super-
vision essentials for the integrative developmental
model. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14858-004
Milne, D. L. (2006). Developing clinical supervision
research through reasoned analogies with therapy.
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 215–
222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.489
Milne, D. (2009). Evidence-based clinical supervi-
sion: Principles and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wi-
ley.
Milne, D. L., Aylott, H., Fitzpatrick, H., & Ellis,
M. V. (2008). How does clinical supervision
work? Using a “best evidence synthesis” approach
to construct a basic model of supervision. The
Clinical Supervisor, 27, 170 –190. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/07325220802487915
Morgan, M. M., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2007). Toward a
common-factors approach to supervision. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 1–17. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00001.x
Norcross, J. C., & Halgin, R. P. (1997). Integrative
approaches to psychotherapy supervision. In C. E.
Watkins, Jr., (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy
supervision (pp. 203–222). New York, NY: Wiley.
Pearsall, P. (2011). 500 therapies: Discovering a
science for everyday living. New York, NY: Nor-
ton.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Tran-
stheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative
model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Re-
search & Practice, 19, 276 –288. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/h0088437
Psychology Board of Australia. (2013). Guidelines
for supervisors and supervisor training providers.
Retrieved from http://www.psychologyboard.gov
.au/Registration/Supervision.aspx
Reiser, R. P. (2014). Supervising cognitive and behavioral
therapies. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. & D. L. Milne
(Eds.), Wiley international handbook of clinical
supervision (pp. 493–517). Oxford, England: Wi-
ley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118846360
.ch24
Rodenhauser, P., Rudisill, J. R., & Painter, A. F.
(1989). Attributes conducive to learning in psy-
chotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psy-
chotherapy, 43, 368 –377.
Ronnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2013). The
developing practitioner: Growth and stagnation of
therapists and counselors. New York, NY: Rout-
ledge.
Sarnat, J. (2016). Supervision essentials for psy-
chodynamic psychotherapies. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/14802-000
Scaife, J. (2009). Supervision in clinical practice: A
practitioner’s guide (2nd ed.). London, UK: Rout-
ledge.
Starr, F., Ciclitira, K., Marzano, L., Brunswick, N., &
Costa, A. (2013). Comfort and challenge: A the-
matic analysis of female clinicians’ experiences of
supervision. Psychology and Psychotherapy: The-
ory, Research and Practice, 86, 334 –351. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8341.2012.02063.x
Stoltenberg, C. D., Bailey, K. C., Cruzan, C. B., Hart,
J. T., & Ukuku, U. (2014). The integrated devel-
opmental model of supervision. In C. E. Watkins,
Jr., & D. Milne (Eds.), Wiley international hand-
book of clinical supervision (pp. 576 –597). Ox-
ford, England: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
9781118846360.ch28
Tschacher, W., Junghan, U. M., & Pfammatter, M.
(2014). Towards a taxonomy of common factors in
 CONVERGENCE AND COMMONALITIES 151

psychotherapy—results of an expert survey. Clin-
ical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 21, 82–96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1822
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). Handbook of psy-
chotherapy supervision. New York, NY: Wiley.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2011). The real relationship in
psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of
Psychotherapy, 65, 99 –116.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2012). On demoralization, ther-
apist identity development, and persuasion and
healing in psychotherapy supervision. Journal of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2015b). The real relationship in
psychotherapy supervision: A trans-theoretical
common factor. International Journal of Psycho-
therapy, 19, 20 –26.
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Budge, S. L., & Callahan, J. L.
(2015). Common and specific factors converging
in psychotherapy supervision: A supervisory ex-
trapolation of the Wampold/Budge psychotherapy
relationship model. Journal of Psychotherapy In-
tegration, 25, 214 –235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0039561

Psychotherapy Integration, 22, 187–205. http://dx Watkins, C. E., Jr., & Milne, D. (Eds.). (2014). Wiley
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

.doi.org/10.1037/a0028870 international handbook of clinical supervision.

Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2013). The beginnings of psy-
choanalytic supervision: The crucial role of Max
Eitingon. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 73,
254 –270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/ajp.2013.15
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2014a). The supervisory alliance:
A half century of theory, practice, and research in
critical perspective. American Journal of Psycho-
therapy, 68, 19 –55.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2014b). The supervisory alliance
as quintessential integrative variable. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 44, 151–161. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10879-013-9252-x
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2015a). Extrapolating Gelso’s
tripartite model of the psychotherapy relationship
to the psychotherapy supervision relationship: A
potential common factors perspective. Journal of
Psychotherapy Integration, 25, 143–157. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0038882
Oxford, England: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/9781118846360
Watkins, C. E., Jr., & Scaturo, D. J. (2013). Toward
an integrative, learning-based model of psycho-
therapy supervision: Supervisory alliance, educa-
tional interventions, and supervisee learning/
relearning. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration,
23, 75–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031330
Wilson, H. M. N., Davies, J. S., & Weatherhead, S.
(2015). Trainee therapists’ experiences of supervi-
sion during training: A meta-synthesis. Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy. Advance online
publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1957
Wolf, E. S. (1995). How to supervise without doing
harm: Comments on psychoanalytic supervision.
Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 15, 252–267. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/07351699509534032

Convergencia en la supervisión de psicoterapia: Una perspectiva de factores comunes, procesos

comunes y prácticas comunes

La literatura sobre la supervisión transteórica y de factores comunes es limitada. A pesar de que las similitudes en
supervisión son reconocidas, no es común ver perspectivas transteóricas y de factores comunes siendo bien expresadas
(Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). Sin embargo, yo afirmo que la supervisión de psicoterapia es guiada fundamentalmente por
una rede nomológica de los aspectos comunes vinculantes que ilumina y revigoran, dirigen y determinan la acción del
supervisor. En el resto del manuscrito, indentifico 50 aspectos (no exhaustivos) comunes campartidos por todos los
supervisores a través de 9 áreas de práctica: características de la persona siendo supervisadas, cualidades del supervisor,
cambios de proceso del supervisado, estructura de supervisión, elementos de la relación de la supervisión, principios
comunes de la supervisión, tareas del supervisor, roles del supervisor y prácticas comunes de supervisión. Yo sostengo que
a pesar de que el supervisor practique a través de una escuela de supervisión especifica (e.g., psicoanalítica, cognitiva), la
práctica va a ser afectada por y entregada a través de los aspectos comunes identificados aquí. Estos aspectos comunes
convergen para formar lo que pueden llamarse factores comunes, procesos comunes, prácticas comunes en las perspectivas
de los supervisores. También sostengo que la supervisión de psicoterapia es eminentemente un ente educativa, una
experiencia de aprendizaje para el adulto (e.g., Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2015), y esta en su mejor forma cuando estas
realidades son consistentemente integradas en nuestra conceptualización de supervisión y de la conducta.

Supervisión, psicoterapia, factores comunes, educación, prácticas

心理治疗督导的融合：共同因素，共同过程，共同做法的观点
关于跨理论的，共同因素的督导文献相当有限。虽然督导的相似之处可能很容易被认识到，但是清晰的，跨理论
的，共同因素的观点是罕见的（Bernard＆Goodyear，2014）。然而，我认为，所有的心理治疗督导最根本地由
一个具有约束力的（or 密切相关的）共同性的法则网络所指导，而这些共同点最主要地是活跃和鼓舞，指导和
 152 WATKINS

决定督导行动。接下来，我确定了任何及所有督导观点共享的50个（非详尽的）共同点，涵盖了至少9个影响
实践的领域：受督导者（or 被督导者）特征，督导素质，被督导者变化过程，督导结构，督导关系要素，督导共
同的原则，督导任务，督导常务角色和常规做法。我认为，即使督导实行特定类型的督导（例如精神分析，认知），
实践将受到这里所识别出来的交叉共同点的影响并通过他们所传递。这些共同点融合在一起，形成了可以被认为是
共同因素，共同过程，共同做法的督导观点。我进一步认为，心理治疗督导尤其是一个教育事业，一个成人学习体
验（例如，Knowles，Holton，＆Swanson，2015）。而且当我们持续结合这些实体（or 本质）到我们的督导的
概念化和行为时，它(心理治疗督导)处于最佳状态。

督导, 心理治疗, 共同因素, 教育, 实践

Received January 6, 2016

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Revision received May 2, 2016

Accepted May 3, 2016 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be
available online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at https://my.apa.org/
portal/alerts/ and you will be notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become
available!

View publication stats