Systemic Dual-Developmental Supervision

Abstract

Counseling programs utilize supervision to train ethical and effective professionals. Faculty supervisors may incorporate systemic interventions into their supervision of students from mental health, school counseling, and marriage and family therapy tracks, as students may encounter systemic clients in their tenure as therapists. Further, many existing supervision models focus on supervisee development and neglect the developmental considerations of supervisors. The systemic dual-developmental supervision model integrates systemic supervision to address the developmental needs of not only the supervisee but the supervisor as well.

Keywords

supervision supervisor development systemic supervision counselor education

Counselor education and training programs focus on preparing individuals to be best suited to handle clients in the community. Specifically, marriage and family therapy (MFT) programs train marriage and family therapists to work with couple and family systems. Students in MFT programs are provided supervision that addresses the specific systemic needs of their clients. However, faculty supervisors in counselor education programs may train students from varying tracks (mental health; school; or marriage, couple, and family therapy). Thus, when these students are placed in a practicum experience, they may be exposed to clients who they are unfamiliar with and have little to no knowledge of how to conceptualize. Although coursework in mental health and school counseling programs focus mostly on individual interventions and conceptualizing clients through an individual lens, students may be exposed to client systems (e.g., school counselors may have parent–child sessions and mental health counselors may have an individual’s spouse or family member attend a session). As such, it is important for all counseling students to have an experience with learning systemic techniques; systemic supervision is one avenue through which students may gain this exposure.

Most systemic supervision models emerged in the 1980s and were based on major MFT theories (i.e., intergenerational supervision; Beck, 1984; symbolic-experiential supervision; Connell & Russell, 1986; and structural/strategic supervision; Nevels & Maar, 1985). In 1995, Betchen created an integrated model of systemic supervision for couple’s therapy which incorporated individual, interactional, and intergenerational therapies. Additionally, supervision models have been created to address systemic supervision in couples and family counseling (Hill, 2009; Montgomery, Hendricks, & Bradley, 2001; Roberts, Winek, & Mulgrew, 1999). The aforementioned models of supervision provided frameworks through which supervisors could provide supervision through a systemic lens to marriage and family counselors in training.

The purpose of this article is to provide a model of supervision that adds to the existing models of systemic supervision by addressing the developmental needs of counselors in training as well as supervisors while incorporating systemic interventions. This article will provide a review of the models of supervision that are integrated into the systemic dual-developmental supervision (SD-DS) model and introduce SD-DS as an integrative model of supervision. The tenets of the SD-DS model are discussed as well as practical implications, limitations, and a case study outlining the application of SD-DS. SD-DS differs from existing systemic supervision models in its focus on the developmental needs of supervisors and supervisees through a systemic lens.

Systemic Developmental Supervision (SDS)

Carlson and Lambie (2012) created a model for systemic supervision that added to the systemic supervision literature by providing a systemic supervision model that addressed the developmental needs of supervisees. SDS is a model for marriage and family supervisors that focuses on the use of systemic techniques in supervision while accounting for the developmental levels of the supervisee. The SDS model focuses on promoting professional growth through self-awareness and counseling skill development. The SDS model integrates two developmental models of supervision, the Integrated Developmental Model (IDM: Stoltenberg & McNeill, 2010) and the Life Span Development Model (Ronnestad & Skovholt, 1993; Skovholt & Rønnestad, 2003), in addition to systemic supervision (Beck, 1984; Pearson, 1987) to address the needs of the family counselor supervisee at each developmental level.

SDS integrates these three models with the goal of facilitating supervisee professional self-awareness and skill acquisition through interventions that are developmentally appropriate for the supervisee. SDS categorizes supervisees in three developmental levels: beginning family counselor, intermediate family counselor, and experienced family counselor. Each of these levels is characterized by varying levels of anxiety, experience, and needs. Similar to Level 1 supervisees in IDM, beginning family counselors are characterized by high levels of anxiety and limited willingness to participate in self-exploration in supervision. Intermediate family counselors generally have lower levels of anxiety, desire for autonomy, and are more willing to participate in self-exploration in supervision. Experienced family counselors have high levels of confidence, limited anxiety, and a strong willingness to participate in self-exploration in supervision. As with other developmental models of supervision, SDS recognizes the differences among developmental levels of supervisees and provides supervisors with methods to address these differences within the supervisory relationship.

According to Carlson and Lambie (2012), the supervisor in SDS helps the supervisee develop through creating an optimal supervisory environment, utilizing appropriate interventions, and accounting for additional supervisor-specific logistical considerations. Whereas supervisors create structured and encouraging environments for beginning supervisees, the supervision environment shifts to more reflective and more consultative with intermediate and experienced counselors, respectively. Additionally, supervisor interventions shift from more hands-on and directive approaches, such as psychoeducation and role-plays, to more abstract approaches like parallel process and interpersonal process recall (IPR). SDS emphasizes the importance of tailoring supervisor interventions to address the developmental needs of the supervisee. As such, beginning supervisees, who inherently desire more structure and prescription, benefit more from structured interventions. On the other hand, intermediate supervisees, who desire somewhat more autonomy than beginners, benefit more from more reflective interventions. Finally, experienced supervisees, who are more autonomous, benefit from more consultative interventions such as reflective listening or parallel process.

Additional considerations supervisors must account for in SDS include assessing supervisee levels of anxiety, becoming aware of and processing transference and countertransference, maintaining a process-oriented approach to supervision, and using self-disclosure appropriately. Each of these considerations is important for supervisors to address in the supervisory relationship; however, this is not an exhaustive list of items supervisors may need to handle in the supervisory relationship. Researchers have asserted that there are different developmental levels for supervisors. As such, supervisors have different considerations they need to address at varying levels of their individual development (Culbreth & Cooper, 2008; Hess, 1986; Kassan, Fellner, Jones, Palandra, & Wilson, 2015; Rodenhauser, 1994; Watkins, 1990, 1993, 1995).

Supervisor Developmental Models

Watkins (1995) described and critiqued four models of supervisor development. Included in this critique were Hess’s (1986) three-stage model, Stoltenberg and Delworth’s (1987) developmental model of supervisors, Rodenhauser’s (1994) four-stage model, and Watkins’s (1990, 1993) supervisor complexity model. Within each of these models, supervisors are conceptualized and described based on their developmental level. Watkins asserted that each of these models of supervisor development is more similar than different. The aforementioned supervisor development models imply that the main stages developing supervisors experience center on role confusion, as they involve navigating the new role of becoming a supervisor, becoming comfortable in the role, and developing a sense of competence as a supervisor. Additionally, in a more recent study on developing supervisors, Majcher and Daniluk (2009) outlined specific challenges faced by doctoral students in a supervision course. They found that beginning supervisors struggle with role ambiguity, the need to set boundaries, and a sense of competence/incompetence. These specific stages of supervisor development should be considered in supervision as supervisor factors may impede the therapeutic relationship (Gard & Lewis, 2008; Gazzola, De Stefano, Thériault, & Audet, 2013; Wrape, Callahan, Ruggero, & Watkins, 2015).

Discrimination Model

The transition into a supervisor is a major challenge for beginning supervisors, as Majcher and Daniluk (2009) found beginning supervisors often struggle with role ambiguity and confusion. To address the specific factor of role confusion in supervisor development, the discrimination model of supervision (Bernard, 1979) is incorporated into the SD-DS model. Due to the large emphasis in the supervisor development literature on role adjustment and issues with anxiety surrounding role confusion, this model is being integrated to clarify how supervisors can reduce their role anxiety by following the prescriptive nature of this model. According to Bernard, the goal of supervision is to produce competent counselors through the development of process skills, conceptualization skills, and personalization skills. Process skills refer to the more overt counseling skills such as restatements or challenging a client in session. Conceptualization skills refer to more covert skills of the counselor such as identifying themes and meaning in what the client is saying. Personalization skills refer to the counselor’s personal learning and comfort in the role of a counselor. These skills provide a framework for supervisors to evaluate the development of the counselor in training. Additionally, it is within these three functions that supervisors tend to the needs of the supervisee through various supervisor roles.

The roles of the supervisor are outlined as that of a teacher, counselor, and consultant. Supervisors within the role of teacher are more likely to utilize interventions like providing psychoeducation or assigning homework to assist the supervisee in their development. Supervisors in the counselor role explore process within the counseling session as well as within the supervision session to aid the supervisee in professional development through self-exploration. Finally, supervisors in the consultant role take less of a hierarchical stance in the supervisory relationship and use discussion and reflection to help supervisees address their clients.

SD-DS

The following sections will outline SD-DS as a novel, integrative model of systemic supervision, including a case study illustrating practical application of SD-DS. The SD-DS model integrates SDS with specific interventions from the discrimination model (Bernard, 1979) for how the supervisor develops (in roles—teacher, consultant, and counselor) and uses systemic interventions in each role to help the supervisee move to the next developmental level. Additionally, the SD-DS model addresses specific concerns supervisors may have as they navigate their development as a supervisor. These concerns include issues with role adjustment, maintaining boundaries with supervisees, and developing an identity as a supervisor. This model incorporates systemic interventions to further the personal and professional development of counselors in training through skill acquisition as well as personal and professional identity development. The overall goal of this supervision model is for the supervisor to facilitate supervisee professional self-awareness and skills acquisition while supporting the development of a beginning counselor and considering their (the supervisor’s) own developmental level (Carlson & Lambie, 2012).

SD-DS in Practice

SD-DS incorporates constituents from both SDS (Carlson & Lambie, 2012) and the discrimination model of supervision (Bernard, 1979) to address the developmental needs of supervisors and supervisees while incorporating systemic interventions into the supervision process. As such, the structure of SD-DS mimics most closely that of SDS, as SD-DS has similar goals and interventions. SD-DS, however, provides more structure and is more prescriptive in nature than SDS. Additionally, SD-DS may be incorporated in the supervision of individual or family systems clients, as all clients exist within a system and may be conceptualized through a systemic lens. The practical application of SD-DS follows.

In the beginning stages of the supervisory relationship, the focus of supervision is on developing a strong relationship between the supervisee and supervisor. The supervisor may utilize common factors that build relationships such as warmth and empathy. Assessment in SD-DS is ongoing and informal. Supervisees are assessed for their level of systemic knowledge as well as their level of development. Evaluation is formative as well as summative. Supervisees should receive weekly written and verbal feedback, and supervisors are encouraged to keep weekly supervision case notes to track the progress of supervisees. It is also important for the supervisor to establish boundaries early in the supervisory relationship. This may be done through a supervision contract delineating the expectations the supervisor and supervisee have of one another. Additionally, the supervision contract may provide an avenue through which the supervisor and supervisee may establish mutual goals for the supervision process. Granted, the goals of supervision depend on the developmental level of both the supervisee and the supervisor.

Beginning Counselors

Beginning level counselors are characterized as counselors who have very little experience with seeing clients and as such exhibit characteristics such as high anxiety and the desire for more structure within the supervision process. With beginning supervisees, supervisors should take care to provide ample support for these supervisees while fostering a collaborative supervisory atmosphere (Carlson & Lambie, 2012). Additionally, the following are paramount in fostering growth in the beginning counselor: (a) encouraging autonomy while providing support and structure; (b) assessing supervisee level of systemic knowledge and introducing systemic constructs and interventions such as differentiation, joining, and reframing; and (c) maintaining a supportive stance.

Goals for the supervisee and the supervisor may parallel, as beginning supervisors have similar concerns to address in the beginning stages of supervision. Supervisee goals may include developing basic counseling skills, reducing anxiety in the role of counselor, and increasing professional self-awareness. As beginning supervisors report difficulty establishing comfort in their role as a supervisor, supervisor goals may include setting appropriate boundaries with their supervisee, developing and explaining evaluation strategies for the supervisee, and decreasing role ambiguity as a beginning supervisor (Carlson & Lambie, 2012; Majcher & Daniluk, 2009).

The primary role of the supervisor with beginning counselors is that of the teacher. That is, the supervisor provides structure and utilized more directive interventions in the supervision process. These interventions include live observation, modeling, role-plays, psychoeducation, and assigning homework. Additionally, supervisors may incorporate systemic concepts through psychoeducation on specific systemic constructs, asking supervisees to research family systems theories as homework or role-play practicing systemic interventions such as reframing or circular questioning.

Intermediate Counselors

Intermediate counselors are characterized as counselors who have more experience than beginning counselors yet still need a bit of guidance from their supervisor. These counselors present as more confident in their abilities as a counselor; however, they may still need additional practice in advanced counseling skills such as conceptualization. Intermediate counselors may be willing to participate in more reflective activities and desire less direction from their supervisor. The supervisor of an intermediate counselor should create a less structured supervisory atmosphere in which the supervisee is expected to explore family-of-origin issues relevant to their professional growth. The supervisor accomplishes this by assuming the primary role of counselor, incorporating more process-oriented interventions. Additionally, it is important that the supervisor promote the professional development of the supervisee through thorough exploration of theoretical orientations.

The goals of intermediate counselors should focus on personal and professional identity development, building upon counseling skills, and increasing clinical autonomy. Supervisor goals in this stage of the supervisor’s development include maintaining boundaries and explicit expectations of the supervisee, developing and solidifying a supervision style, and establishing a level of comfort in determining the focus of supervision.

The primary role of the supervisor with intermediate counselors is that of a counselor. Thus, interventions specifically utilized with intermediate counselors address the changing supervisory atmosphere and the specific needs of the intermediate supervisor. As such, supervisors of intermediate counselors focus more on promoting self-of-the-therapist awareness within the supervisee. That is, supervisors utilize interventions such as genograms, IPR (IPR; Kagan & Kagan, 1997), assigning weekly process journals for the supervisee, and parallel process. Genograms help to promote self-awareness within supervisees by exploring family-of-origin issues that may be impeding the counselor–client relationship. Weekly process journals enhance personal and professional growth, as they allow the supervisee to reflect on their sessions and develop questions to ask in the supervision session. Additionally, weekly journals or homework assignments may promote professional growth through researching and developing theoretical orientation.

Experienced Counselors

Experienced counselors are typically categorized as those who have attained full licensure. As such, these counselors are insightful, confident, and self-aware. Experienced counselors also tend to seek supervision only when they are presented with a client or a situation with which they are unfamiliar and may need consultation. Supervision with experienced counselors is not structured and provides more consultation than education or self-exploration. Supervisors of experienced counselors should create a supervision atmosphere that is flexible, process oriented, and specific to the needs of the supervisee.

Goals of experienced counselors may vary, as their presenting concerns vary. An overall goal of experienced counselors is to continue self-exploration and professional development while recognizing and processing issues with burnout and countertransference. Specific goals of experienced supervisors may also be continued professional and personal growth. Experienced supervisors continue to develop congruence between the self, theory, and supervisory role. Supervisors of experienced counselors utilize interventions such as active listening and appropriate self-disclosure to aid in the continued development of experienced counselors.

Supervisor Development in SD-DS

SD-DS integrates supervisor stages as defined by Hess (1986), Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987), Rodenhauser (1994), and Watkins (1990, 1993). Supervisors in SD-DS model are categorized by three levels of development: beginning supervisor, intermediate supervisor, and experienced supervisor. Similar to counselors/supervisees, supervisors develop in a similar manner. However, supervisor development involves specific concerns and issues different than those of developing supervisees. Beginning supervisors are initially shocked and face issues of ambiguity in the role of supervisor, a lack of confidence, the impostor syndrome, and high anxiety (Hess, 1986; Rodenhauser, 1994; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987; Watkins, 1990, 1993). To combat these feelings of anxiety and confusion, beginning supervisors may gravitate to more structured roles and interventions or draw on previous experiences in supervision to emulate the actions of previous supervisors. SD-DS’s prescriptive nature provides an outline by which beginning supervisors may approach supervision, thus lessening anxiety surrounding overall ambiguity surrounding the supervision process. Goals for beginning supervisors may include becoming comfortable in the role of supervisor, establishing boundaries with supervisees, and lessening anxiety surrounding the supervision process.

Intermediate supervisors are characterized as being less anxious and more self-aware of strengths and weaknesses in their role as supervisor. Additionally, these supervisors begin to formulate an idea of their personal approach to supervision, are autonomous, and recognize the importance of supervision as well as their impact on their supervisees (Watkins, 1990, 1993). SD-DS allows intermediate supervisors to grow in their own supervision style through its flexibility in the type and timing of interventions. Intermediate supervisors may utilize the suggested interventions within the model, or they may address their perceived needs of the supervisee through alternative interventions that may better suit the supervisor. The focus is not on the specific type intervention rather on the intentionality and purpose of the interventions in supervision. Goals for intermediate supervisors may include solidifying a supervision style, determining and effectively utilizing appropriate interventions, and developing comfort in determining the focus of supervision.

Experienced supervisors have experienced what Watkins (1990, 1993) coined “role mastery.” These supervisors have a high level of self-awareness, a solid identity as a supervisor, are able to integrate supervision interventions intentionally and purposefully, and are aware of and comfortable processing issues of countertransference. Goals for experienced supervisors may include continuing to utilize interventions intentionally and purposefully and solidifying congruence between self, theory, and their supervisory role (see Appendix Table A1).

Case Illustration

The following case study illustrates the application of SD-DS in a specific scenario. Jennifer is a master’s level MFT student in practicum being supervised by Andy, a faculty supervisor at Jennifer’s university. Andy has been supervising for 2 years and follows the SD-DS model. Andy and Jennifer have established the supervision goals of developing basic counseling skills and a basic understanding of systemic therapy and concepts for the current semester. In a triadic supervision session, Jennifer discusses her concerns with a mother and daughter she is seeing in family therapy. Jennifer reports that she is struggling with developing a relationship with the mother and daughter without taking sides.

Andy utilized this supervision session to provide some psychoeducation to Jennifer on the importance of joining the family system. Andy provided literature on joining family systems and provided a brief overview of the techniques of reframing and circular questions. Andy educates Jennifer on how reframing and asking circular questions in session are used to develop a relationship with the family system and help the therapist appear nonbiased. Andy then asks Jennifer and the other supervisee in the supervision session to role-play with Jennifer as the therapist and Andy and the other supervisee as the family. After the role-play, Andy and the other supervisee provide Jennifer with feedback on using the skills discussed. Jennifer was encouraged to utilize these skills in her next session with the family.

In this scenario, Andy would be considered an intermediate supervisor, as he has some experience with supervision and has developed comfort in his role as a supervisor. As an intermediate supervisor, his goals would be to develop comfort in determining the focus of supervision and effectively utilize appropriate interventions for her supervisees depending on what stage the supervisee presents. To achieve these goals, Andy would first need to gauge the developmental level of his supervisees. As Jennifer is a beginning counselor, she has a strong desire for structure and presents with a heightened level of anxiety. Andy needed to assume the role of teacher to reduce Jennifer’s anxiety surrounding the joining stage of therapy. He also utilized psychoeducation and a role-play to reduce her anxiety surrounding joining with the clients’ family system. This level of structure is necessary due to Jennifer’s developmental level. As such, if Jennifer were an intermediate or experienced level counselor, her supervision needs and goals would be different. Thus, it would be Andy’s responsibility to tailor his interventions in supervision to Jennifer’s developmental needs while working to achieve his own developmental goals as a supervisor.

Discussion and Limitations

SD-DS is a model through which beginning, intermediate, and experienced supervisors may integrate systemic concepts and interventions with counselors in training to promote professional growth and development. This model focuses on the supervisory relationship, professional growth through systemic intervention, increasing supervisor self-awareness, and reducing supervisor anxiety. Extant literature on the aforementioned tenets provides empirical support for the importance of these factors in effective supervisory relationships (Huff, Anderson, & Edwards, 2014; Ladany, Constantine, Miller, Erickson, & Muse-Burke, 2000; Ladany, Mori, & Mehr, 2013; Majcher & Daniluk, 2009; Vallance, 2005). However, despite the supporting literature, there are some practical challenges that may arise when implementing SD-DS.

A major challenge that may arise when conducting SD-DS with students from varying counseling tracks may be a lack of awareness of the importance of systemic therapy and, as a result, systemic supervision. Students may be resistant to the self-exploration facet of SD-DS and may not be willing to explore their own family-of-origin issues that are relevant to their professional growth. As such, it is imperative for SD-DS supervisors to effectively provide psychoeducation to students on the process and importance of SD-DS to minimize resistance. On the other hand, supervisees may be overly comfortable with exploring family-of-origin issues in supervision. This willingness to explore may lead to the supervisee utilizing the supervision session as a counseling session and placing the supervisor in a dual role. Supervisors may combat this challenge by establishing clear and overt boundaries for what will and will not be discussed in supervision. Supervisors must be aware that the purpose of supervisee exploration is only to promote professional growth and that only relevant issues need to be discussed in supervision. Additionally, supervising students with no systemic background or knowledge may be a challenge for SD-DS supervisors. In this scenario, supervisors may need to assign more homework to the student and take the time to thoroughly provide a basic knowledge base for the student.

An additional limitation of SD-DS include the lack of empirical support. As SD-DS is a novel supervision model, there is no empirical literature available to support its efficacy. Additionally, SD-DS does not specifically address interventions that may be utilized in group supervision. Although it may be used in a group as well as dyadic/triadic supervision, supervisors would have other factors to consider when conducting supervision (providing adequate time to process supervisee issues while ensuring each student gains from the supervision experience, supervising students at varying developmental levels, etc.).

Conclusion

This article has presented a model for systemic supervision that integrates supervisee development as well as supervisor developmental considerations. This model provides an outlet for family therapy–trained supervisors to incorporate systemic concepts and interventions with supervisees. As MFT supervisors tend to utilize systemic supervision (Carlozzi, Romans, Boswell, Ferguson, & Whisenhunt, 1997), SD-DS provides a framework for supervisors to incorporate systemic supervision with supervisees from all counseling tracks. Additionally, this model provides supervisees with an opportunity to gain systemic knowledge that they may utilize with individual, couple, and family clients throughout their professional development. SD-DS does not, however, replace formal systemic training. Further research should be conducted on the efficacy of SD-DS in various populations with supervisees from varying clinical backgrounds and developmental levels.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A1.

Systemic Dual-Developmental Supervision Model.

Supervisee Aspects	Beginning Counselors	Intermediate Counselors	Experienced Counselors
Supervisee presentation	High anxiety and desire for structure	Confusion, autonomy, and increased confidence	Insightful, confident, and self-awareness
Supervisee developmental goals	– Increase professional self- awareness – Develop basic counseling skills – Develop basic understanding of systemic therapy and concepts – Explore possible theoretical orientations	– Increase personal and professional awareness – Build upon counseling skills – Increase systemic conceptualization skills – Solidify theoretical orientation	– Increase awareness of countertransference – Continue solidifying theoretical orientation
Role of supervisor	Primarily teacher	Primarily counselor	Primarily consultant
Supervisor developmental goals	– Become comfortable in the role of supervisor – Establish boundaries with supervisees	– Maintain boundaries with supervisees – Solidify a supervision style – Develop comfort in determining the focus of supervision – Determine and effectively utilize appropriate interventions	– Solidify congruence between self-, theory, and supervisory role – Continue effectively utilizing appropriate interventions
Supervisor duties	– Encourage autonomy – Provide support and structure – Assess systemic knowledge – Introduce systemic constructs – Evaluate basic skills	– Provide less structure – Explore family-of-origin issues pertinent to professional growth – Establish a process focus in supervision rather than content – Evaluation	– Tend to the needs of the supervisee – Provide community resources for the supervisee – Explore family-of-origin issues relevant to professional growth
Supervisor interventions	– Live observation – Modeling – Role-play – Psychoeducation – Assigning homework	– IPR – Journals – Assigning homework – Genograms – Parallel process	– Active listening – Appropriate self-disclosure – Genograms – Parallel process
Systemic influence	– Basic systemic concepts (psychoeducation)	– Systemic conceptualization – Process versus content reflection – Self-of-the-therapist exploration (genogram, parallel process)	– Continuous systemic conceptualization – Continued self-of-the-therapist exploration (genogram, parallel process)

Note. IPR = interpersonal process recall.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Beck

R. L.

(1984). The supervision of family of origin family systems treatment. The Clinical Supervisor, 2, 49–60.

Bernard

J. M.

(1979). Supervisor training: A discrimination model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 19, 60–68.

Carlozzi

A. F.

Romans

J. S.

Boswell

D. L.

Ferguson

D. B.

Whisenhunt

B. J.

(1997). Training and supervision practices in counseling and marriage and family therapy programs. The Clinical Supervisor, 15, 51–60.

Carlson

R. G.

Lambie

G. W.

(2012). Systemic–developmental supervision: A clinical supervisory approach for family counseling student interns. The Family Journal, 20, 29–36.

Connell

G. M.

Russell

L. A.

(1986). In-therapy consultation: A supervision and therapy technique of symbolic-experiential family therapy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 313–323.

Culbreth

J. R.

Cooper

J. B.

(2008). Factors impacting the development of substance abuse counseling supervisors. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 29, 22–35.

Gard

D. E.

Lewis

J. M.

(2008). Building the supervisory alliance with beginning therapists. The Clinical Supervisor, 27, 39–60.

Gazzola

De Stefano

Thériault

Audet

C. T.

(2013). Learning to be supervisors: A qualitative investigation of difficulties experienced by supervisors-in-training. The Clinical Supervisor, 32, 15–39.

Hess

A. K.

(1986). Growth in supervision: Stages of supervisee and supervisor development. The Clinical Supervisor, 4, 51–68.

10.

Hill

E. W.

(2009). Confronting anxiety in couple and family therapy supervision: A developmental supervisory model based on attachment theory. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 1–14.

11.

Huff

S. C.

Anderson

S. R.

Edwards

L. L.

(2014). Training marriage and family therapists in formal assessment: Contributions to students’ familiarity, attitude, and confidence. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 25, 300–315.

12.

Kagan

H. K.

Kagan

N. I.

(1997). Interpersonal process recall: Influencing human interaction. In Watkins

C. E.

Jr . (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 296–309). New York, NY: John Wiley.

13.

Kassan

Fellner

K. D.

Jones

M. I.

Palandra

A. L.

Wilson

L. J.

(2015). (Re)considering novice supervisor development through a social justice lens: An experiential account. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9, 52.

14.

Ladany

Constantine

M. G.

Miller

Erickson

C. D.

Muse-Burke

J. L.

(2000). Supervisor countertransference: A qualitative investigation into its identification and description. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 102.

15.

Ladany

Mori

Mehr

K. E.

(2013). Effective and ineffective supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 28–47.

16.

Majcher

J. A.

Daniluk

J. C.

(2009). The process of becoming a supervisor for students in a doctoral supervision training course. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3, 63.

17.

Montgomery

M. J.

Hendricks

C. B.

Bradley

L. J.

(2001). Using systems perspectives in supervision. The Family Journal, 9, 305–313.

18.

Nevels

R. M.

Maar

J. E.

(1985). A supervision approach for teaching structural/strategic therapy in a limited setting. The Journal of Psychology, 119, 347–353.

19.

Pearson

D. H.

(1987). The strategic family therapy ritual as a framework for supervision. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 6, 17.

20.

Roberts

T. W.

Winek

Mulgrew

(1999). A systems/dialectical model of supervision: A symbolic process. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21, 291–302.

21.

Rodenhauser

(1994). Toward a multidimensional model for psychotherapy supervision based on developmental stages. The Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 3, 1–15.

22.

Ronnestad

M. H.

Skovholt

T. M.

(1993). Supervision of beginning and advanced graduate students of counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 396–405.

23.

Skovholt

T. M.

Rønnestad

M. H.

(2003). Struggles of the novice counselor and therapist. Journal of Career Development, 30, 45–58.

24.

Stoltenberg

C. D.

Delworth

(1987). Supervising counselors and therapists: A developmental approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

25.

Stoltenberg

C. D.

McNeill

B. W.

(2010). IDM supervision: An integrative developmental model of supervision. New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Vallance

(2005). Exploring counsellor perceptions of the impact of counselling supervision on clients. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 5, 107–110.

27.

Watkins

C. E.

(1990). Development of the psychotherapy supervisor. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 27, 553–560.

28.

Watkins

C. E.

(1993). Development of the psychotherapy supervisor: Concepts, assumptions, and hypotheses of the supervisor complexity model. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 47, 58–58.

29.

Watkins

C. E.

(1995). Psychotherapy supervisor development: On musings, models, and metaphor. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice & Research, 4, 150–158.

30.

Wrape

E. R.

Callahan

J. L.

Ruggero

C. J.

Watkins

C. E.

Jr . (2015). An exploration of faculty supervisor variables and their impact on client outcomes. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9, 35–43.