Abstract
The competency of supervision is one that is receiving increased attention in the professional psychology literature. References to supervision in historical and current competency models including the benchmarks are described to illustrate this. Ways in which our understanding of the supervision competency and competency-based education and training broadly is advanced through this major contribution are noted, including focus on empirical support for the essential components of the competency, considerations of how competency models work and do not in other countries, and attention to the interrelationships between competencies. While this major contribution helps expand the scholarly literature on the competency of supervision, challenges remain in the broader adoption of competency-based education and training, including program and systems-level support and the need to identify effective education and training practices to promote competency development.
Competency-based education and training is increasingly a focus within professional psychology as well as in other health professions and at other levels in psychology education and training (e.g., American Dental Education Association [ADEA], 2008; American Psychological Association [APA], 2007, 2011; Fouad et al., 2009). Such an approach extends the focus of the design of the education and training experience to include not only the inputs from the learning environment, such as the instructor qualifications or pedagogical approach, but also a focus on the outputs of the learning experience. Specifically, the focus includes articulation of what the trainee should be able to do as a result of the learning experience defined in the form of a competency (Nelson, 2007). Competencies refer to knowledge, skills, and attitudes (and their integration) that are needed for professional practice (Kaslow, 2004). While many definitions exist for competence, it can be characterized as an “individual’s capability and demonstrated ability to understand and do certain tasks in an appropriate and effective manner consistent with the expectations for a person qualified by education and training in a particular profession or specialty thereof” (Kaslow, 2004, p. 775). As such, competence has been viewed as representing a minimum threshold.
This major contribution of multicultural supervision and the competency benchmarks for professional psychology offer both empirical and theoretical support for the premise that supervision is a competency. Equally important, the discussions in the articles of this major contribution advance our understanding of competency-based education and training broadly. Falender, Burnes, and Ellis (2013) provides an overview of the construct of competence and competency-based supervision in the introduction to this major contribution. However, to fully appreciate how this major contribution may influence our understanding of the supervision competency and competency-based education and training broadly, a brief review of the evolution of supervision in major competency models in professional psychology over time provides a useful context.
Supervision in Professional Psychology Competency Models
A primary purpose of this major contribution was to advance empirical understanding of the process of supervision, from both a competency perspective and with attention to the impact of issues of diversity on the supervision process. This reflects a growing sophistication in efforts to better understand the process of supervision that builds on historical conceptualizations of supervision as a competency for professional psychology. Of significance, a focus on supervision as a core competency for professional psychology can be seen as far back to some of the earliest work on competency models. Specifically, the model that has served as the basis for many subsequent competency models in professional psychology, including the competency benchmarks, is the model developed by the National Council of Schools and Programs in Professional Psychology (NSCPP) beginning in the late 1980s (Peterson, Peterson, Abrams, & Striker, 1997). Six core competencies were articulated in this model, of which one was labeled management/supervision. So while not identified as a stand-alone competency, supervision was noted as a core competency area. In 2002, the Competencies Conference extended the NSCPP competency model in both number of competencies addressed and in the discussions of issues such as education and training experiences that promote competency development and the assessment of competence (Kaslow et al., 2004). Supervision was one of the competency domains of focus, and the product of those discussions was a supervision competency framework that identified the knowledge, skills, and values that compose this competency; overarching social context issues such as diversity that are essential considerations; training; and assessment of competence (Falender et al., 2004). This framework represents a seminal event in the conceptualization of competency-based supervision, specifically by articulating the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes associated with being a competent supervisor and acknowledging the contextual factors that must be addressed for competent supervision to be provided. Another product of the competencies conference, and perhaps more familiar in the professional psychology literature, is the competency cube (Rodolfa et al., 2005). Supervision, as put forth in the competency cube, included teaching, identified as a distinct yet related construct. This conceptualization of supervision carried forward into the 2009 version of the competency benchmarks (Fouad et al., 2009). However, the benchmarks explicated specific essential components (i.e., the critical knowledge, skills, and attitudes that make up the competency) of both supervision and teaching and developmentally informed criteria for each, pointing to the distinctiveness of these constructs. In 2011, the benchmarks document was revised by the Competency Benchmarks Work Group (2011). In this version, supervision is presented as a distinct competency, reflecting the evolving literature emphasizing supervision and competence (e.g., Falender & Schfranske, 2007). Consistent with the framework of the benchmarks, developmentally informed criteria are provided against which the acquisition of the essential components associated with the supervision competency can be assessed. It also important to note that the competency of supervision as it appears in the benchmarks refers to the acquisition of the essential components of the supervision competency needed to provide supervision. The benchmarks document does articulate essential components of competencies that are associated with participating in supervision, however these are nested within other competency domains (e.g., reflective practice/self-assessment/self-care).
Advancing Competency-Based Education and Training
The articles in this major contribution help the profession take a step forward in advancing the quality of competency-based education and training in supervision competency but more broadly with respect to the application of a competency framework, such as the benchmarks to the education and training process. The major contribution does this in several ways.
Development of Evidence-Based Competency Models
Existing models such as the benchmarks have been developed by consensus and refined over time to reflect emerging trends in education and training. This is generally accepted as a necessary first step in the development of a competency model (DeMers, 2009). However, the next step in the evolution of models, such as the benchmarks, is to gather empirical support for both the essential components of the competencies and to ascertain if the competencies are associated with better performance outcomes at the completion of training. Ladany, Ori, and Mehr (2013) provide evidence for essential components of effective supervision and identified the supervisory relationship, trainee empowerment, and supervisor disclosure of clinical knowledge and feedback that was positive and challenging as specifically contributing to such. Wong, Wong, and Ishiyama (2013) also examined components of effective supervision, specific to cross-cultural supervision, and found that the supervisor-supervisee relationship, supervisor competence in supervision and multicultural competence, personal attributes of the supervisor (e.g., appreciative, accepting, supportive), and mentoring were identified as characteristics of helpful or good cross-cultural supervision. It is important to note the convergence of the components of supervision found in both these investigations.
Burnes, Wood, Inman, and Welikson (2013) obtained support for a model of process-focused supervision that identified process-focused variables that impacted the trainees’ experience of supervision. Three clusters were identified and include variables specific to the supervisor (supervisor use of self in the supervisory relationship, supervisor action/intervention), variables related to the process of group therapy (variables that impacted the process, variables that impacted the structure), and variables related to the theoretical approach of the supervisor—in this case, feminist theory (cultural, equality, and women-centered variables and ethical, relationship-centered variables). These results add needed empirical data with which to begin to evaluate the competencies and essential components of the supervision competency.
Considering Competency Models in an International Context
Competency models with their focus on student learning outcomes offer an opportunity to better understand the similarities and differences of education and training experiences across countries. That is, competency models describe behaviorally based criteria that offer a richness of information that is not as readily discernible from evaluation of transcripts or hours of supervised experience. In addition, through focusing on agreed upon standards of performance, we have a common vocabulary of expectations. Son, Ellis, and Yoo (2013) provide descriptive data that helps enrich the understanding of supervision in the United States and South Korea. Some differences were noted—for example, students in South Korea received fewer hours of supervision and were more likely to be enrolled in a master’s program and were more likely to be exposed to an eclectic theoretical orientation. However, what is more interesting is the number of similarities that were found on variables such as supervisor characteristics or trainees’ clinical experience. This provides initial support for how the supervision competency and associated essential components might apply in another country—in this case, South Korea.
Illustrating the Interdependent Nature of Competencies
The cube model was developed to illustrate the fact that competencies are not discrete from one another but are rather integrative (Rodolfa et al., 2005). Models such as the benchmarks have articulated essential components for each of the competencies individually in an effort to limit the complexity of the model. However, as noted by Belar (2009), a “stove piping” approach, while necessary to develop a model that has utility, increases the risk of losing sight of the necessary integration of discrete competencies in order to demonstrate competence. The supervision competency is well suited to advance this conceptual understanding of competencies and competence due to the many roles, responsibilities, and activities that are associated with supervision (Kaslow, Falender, & Grus, 2012). This major contribution begins to address the nature of this complex interaction by demonstrating that an effective supervisor must have also attained the relationship competency and the individual and cultural diversity competency.
Considerations for Education and Training
A rapid expansion of interest in and knowledge of competency-based education and training in professional psychology has occurred in recent years. Although there would appear to be growing support for the adoption of competency models as part of education and training in professional psychology systems, change at the level of individual training programs and the broader education and training community will be necessary for a more widespread shift to occur. Kaslow et al. (2012) described a model in which transformational leadership could be employed to facilitate the adoption of a competency-based approach to supervision within education and training programs. Johnson, Barnett, Elman, Forest, and Kaslow (2012) present the concept of the competent community that offers ideas about how professional psychology broadly might more fully embrace competency-based education and training. A competent community emphasizes values associated with communitarianism such as mutual independence and emotional responsiveness and caring to promote professional competency. They suggest that supervisors teach concepts of communitarianism and openly model the framework in their actions. Furthermore, they highlight the need for systematic attention to diversity issues in training to build a community of psychologists who can then promote professional competence. In sum, a competent community values and promotes quality in the education and training of professional psychologists.
Assuming such a shift toward greater adoption of competency-based education and training models will continue, there needs to be a greater focus on this in the scholarly literature, such as this major contribution. In addition to attention to building an evidence-based approach to inform the development of competency models, there is a need to understand how best to structure education and training experiences to promote competency development. The supervision competency offers a unique challenge in this regard. As Falender et al. (2013) notes, while formal education and training experiences in supervision are becoming more normative for students, it is also true that there remains many psychologists, who have received little or no formal training to be a supervisor, currently providing supervision. This highlights the importance of understanding whether there are differences in the types of training needed for new versus experienced supervisors. While Ladany et al. (2013) did not find supervisor experience level to be associated with characteristics of effective or ineffective supervisors, this does not directly address the question of how best to enhance the competencies of supervisors who are at different stages of professional development. Understanding the answer may enhance recommendations for education and training in other competencies that are also not consistently a focus of the education and training program (e.g., advocacy).
Supervision is a competency with many essential components and requires the integration of other competencies such as relationships and individual and cultural diversity. As noted by Falender et al. (2013), supervision is arguably one of the least understood competencies, as reflected in the limited empirical attention to the process of supervision, in part a compelling rationale for the importance of this major contribution. Yet additional and continued efforts to devote attention to the components and facilitative education and training practices associated with the development of the competency of supervision are needed.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.