Counseling is an exclusive profession. Working directly with people brings forth unique legal and ethical issues for counselors to consider. Increased client consumerism, counselor accountability, and licensure requirements in the field of counseling demand a higher need for ethically responsible supervisors to provide guidance for counselors-in-training (Ellis, Creaner, Hutman, & Timulak, 2015). The counseling profession’s recognition of clinical supervision as a separate specialty requires specific legal and ethical responsibilities to be practiced by the supervisor (Borders et al., 2014). Cormier and Bernard’s (1982) research provided a foundation for clinical supervision and as Bernard (2005) stated, “Since the explosion of the early 1980s, model development in supervision has been relatively low key” (p. 16). The following section situates clinical supervision in Cormier and Bernard’s (1982) pivotal work.
Due Process
The first aspects of ethical and legal responsibilities of the supervisor are those directly involving the supervisee. Due process refers to the supervisee’s right to be knowledgeable of the supervisor’s training objectives and evaluative procedures (Cormier & Bernard, 1982). It is the supervisor’s responsibility to inform the supervisee of their roles, responsibilities, evaluation criteria, expectations, goals, and what successful completion of supervision requires before the start of the supervisory relationship. Cormier and Bernard (1982) stated that a supervisee has a right to periodical feedback of performance and without it, the supervisee’s due process rights are violated. This is especially important when negative feedback is involved. For example, failing or writing a negative evaluation of a supervisee without discussing these weaknesses and ways to improve impedes on the supervisee’s due process rights.
Dual Relationships
The next part of legal and ethical responsibilities directly affecting the supervisee is the managing of dual relationships, or the presence of multiple roles existing between the supervisor and the supervisee. It is not uncommon for a supervisor and a supervisee to participate in dual relationships, especially within an academic setting. Supervisors may play a role as a professor or an advisor to a supervisee, but problems arise when these relationships cross ethical boundaries such as sexually or into a counselor-client relationship. According to Cormier and Bernard (1982), focusing on personal dynamics within the supervisory relationship is not inappropriate; however, personal counseling and sexual contact with a supervisee is inappropriate and can bring about legal complications. If not monitored and handled correctly, dual relationships can cloud the objectivity of the supervisor, which negatively impacts both the supervisee and the client. To that extent, Smith, Riva, and Cornish (2012) discussed that these multiple roles may also foster real or perceived favoritism by supervisors that could undermine supervisee success.
Informed Consent
Cormier and Bernard (1982) discussed the next aspects of ethical and legal responsibilities are those of the supervisor to the client. Informed consent, scopes of confidentiality, and understanding vicarious liabilities are pieces the supervisor must address to ensure ethically sound counseling is provided by the supervisee. Just as informed consent is used in the supervisor-supervisee relationship, it must also be present in the supervisee-client relationship. “The supervisor should ensure no element of consent is withheld from the client” (Cormier & Bernard, 1982, p. 487). Aspects of supervisee-client informed consent should include all parts of therapy such as roles, expectations, confidentiality, goals, and information about the supervisor’s role. The use of taping and observation should also be disclosed to the client and can be declined by the client at any time (Cormier & Bernard, 1982).
Confidentiality
Confidentiality plays an integral role in the legalities of any therapeutic relationship, including the supervisee-client and supervisor-client relationships. “The supervisor also is ethically obligated, as is the counselor, to maintain confidentiality of client communications” (Cormier & Bernard, 1982, p. 487). It is the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure the scopes and limits of confidentiality are discussed with the client at the beginning of therapy. This is a useful way to protect the rights of both the client and the supervisee, as the importance of client confidentiality is well articulated in the APA Ethics Code and in the law (Smith, Riva, & Cornish, 2012). Limits to confidentiality remain grounded in determining whether or not a client poses a serious threat of violence to themselves and/or others, and it is the obligation of the supervisor to confirm the supervisee provides this information to the client (Cormier & Bernard, 1982).
Vicarious Liability
Cormier and Bernard (1982) discussed vicarious liability as the most important legal doctrine that is applied to supervisors’ responsibilities to the client, also known as respondeat superior. This implies that ultimately the supervisor is responsible for the acts of his or her supervisees and for the welfare of the client. Within this, it is the legal and ethical responsibility of the supervisor to ensure supervision does occur, to know when the supervisee is having difficulty, to know the limits of expertise of the supervisee, and to supervise the supervisee-client relationship from referral to termination (Cormier & Bernard, 1982).
All of the ethical and legal issues discussed above suggest several implications for actual practice of clinical supervision (Cormier & Bernard, 1982). The proceeding sections further discuss best practices recommended for clinical supervisors in counseling.
Recommended Best Practices and Professional Standards for Supervisors
As discussed in the previous section, legal and ethical responsibilities are the foundation that can be considered supervision competencies, or what a competent supervisor needs to know, while best practices provide the basis for procedural knowledge and provide evidence-based guidelines for implementing or applying competencies (Borders, 2014). Borders and colleagues (2014) noted that the Best Practices in Clinical Supervision provided by the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES) in 2011 were intended to support supervisors in their work as they strive to protect client welfare while meeting the professional development needs of the supervisee. “Importantly, the guidelines are best practices rather than minimally acceptable practices” (Borders et al., 2014, p. 29). This section highlights recommended best practices and professional standards for supervisors to inform supervisees of the legal and ethical obligations discussed in the previous section.
Initiating Supervision
The first section of the Best Practices document is titled “Initiating Supervision.” This outlines proper informed consent practices, including the supervisor’s professional disclosure statement and the components of the supervision contract that describes the roles, expectations, evaluative procedures, responsibilities, goals, and limits of confidentiality (Borders, 2014). Supervisors should lead this discussion in the first meeting with the supervisee, while simultaneously facilitating the development of the working alliance and initiating the discussion of topics such as diversity and the supervisee’s learning style (Borders, 2014). By following these best practice recommendations in the initial supervision session, defined roles, expectations, and due process procedures are explicitly stated and understood by both the supervisor and the supervisee, which will hopefully prevent confusion and unethical dual relationships within the supervisory relationship.
Goal Setting
Once the foundation of supervision is laid and agreed upon by both the supervisor and the supervisee, the supervisor may then move onto “Goal Setting.” To exhibit best practices within this scope, it is important for the supervisor to help the supervisee construct his or her own goals that are realistic, attainable, and measureable. It is not the responsibility of the supervisor to create goals for the supervisee; however, it is necessary and best practice to monitor these goals throughout the course of supervision by intentionally addressing one or two in each session (Borders, 2014). Borders (2014) observed that reviewing supervisee progress on a regular basis also allows the supervisor to conduct ongoing assessments of supervisee’s skills and learning needs that may need to be prioritized for attention.
Giving Feedback
Other areas of best practice recommended by ACES (2011) that address issues concerning the due process rights of the supervisee include “Giving Feedback” and “Evaluation.” It is important for the supervisor to provide regular, ongoing, timely, and concrete feedback to the supervisee regarding his or her counseling skills and practices in the supervisee-client relationships (Borders, 2014). This feedback, balanced with challenge and support, is pivotal in ensuring the supervisee’s awareness of the progress being made and the areas that need attention right away. Without proper feedback, the supervisor may be liable for failure to adhere to due process if negative evaluations are given without prior knowledge of how to address these shortcomings.
Evaluation
Best practices in “Evaluation” begin in the initial session of supervision. “Supervisors clearly communicate the evaluation plan to supervisees…highlighting again the importance of ongoing formative and regular summative evaluations, based on direct observation of a representative sample of the supervisee’s work” (Borders, 2014, p. 156). Supervisors use evaluation to monitor and document the progress and development of the supervisee. Borders (2014) discussed the process of remediation within evaluation, as well. If necessary, the supervisor must immediately notify the supervisee of the remediation plan with clear objectives and a timeline (Border, 2014). This protects both the supervisor and the supervisee from practicing and experiencing unethical supervision.
Ethical Considerations
Finally, it is imperative for the supervisor to remember that protecting client welfare is their primary responsibility. Best practices in “Ethical Considerations” highlight professional ethical codes and strategies for supervisors to implement throughout the course of supervision. Borders (2014) expressed that supervisors should expect the same ethical standards of their supervisees, including providing proper informed consent, role expectations, and stating the limits of confidentiality to the clients. Within these best practices, it is also noted that supervisors monitor their own competence, limit the number of supervisees, regularly seek consultation, and model self care (Borders, 2014). Supervisors work to avoid dual relationships when considered harmful (e.g., acting as a counselor to the supervisee) and are aware of supervisee factors that may impede on this ethical boundary.
It is evident that the roles and responsibilities of the supervisor are demanding and must be practiced methodically. “Supervisors following best practices spend a good bit of time planning for supervision sessions” (Borders, 2014, p. 157). Proper training and understanding of roles and responsibilities will allow supervisors to not only practice ethically, but also effectively. The sections following will address the specific roles held by the supervisor to promote supervisee development and ensure client welfare, and how a supervisor can navigate between these roles to fulfill the dual purposes of clinical supervision.
Supervisor Roles and How to Navigate Between Them
Supervision is not an easy task. Throughout the course of supervision, supervisors are asked to fulfill the following roles: Teaching, Counseling, Consulting, and Monitoring/Evaluating. This balancing act may seem daunting, but if supervisors realize the full potential of these roles, it can have a significant impact on the supervisee’s development as a professional and as an individual (Barnett, Youngstrom, & Smook, 2001). The following sections address these roles individually and how a supervisor might navigate between them to fulfill the dual purposes of supervision.
Teaching
As it stands in all professions, counselors do not simply become so overnight. Through obtaining substantial amounts of knowledge, novice counselors transform into professional counselors across the course of their education. Although supervisors may not be directly referred to as “teachers,” teaching plays an integral part in the supervisory relationship. Luke and Bernard (2006) defined the role of supervisor as teacher as one “wherein the supervisor instructs, models, provides feedback, and evaluates” (p. 284-285).
It is important for the supervisor to distinguish when practicing the teaching role is appropriate. According to Timm (2015), “The trainee’s attainment of clinical competence is typically a main goal of clinical supervision” (p. 117). This means that the supervisor may assume a teaching role if he or she finds it necessary to provide information that will benefit the supervisee’s development. A supervisor may also assume a teaching role if a different intervention strategy would better serve the client (Carnes-Holt, Meany-Walen, & Felton, 2014). Teaching supervisees how to appropriately address multicultural issues with the client, the proper use of risk-assessments, how to better conceptualize a case, and practicing skills in-session are examples of assuming the role of teacher as a supervisor, as well.
Counseling
Counseling within supervision is tricky. As stated in previous sections, it would be unethical to assume the role of personal counselor to the supervisee; however, the supervisor-as-counselor is an important role in supervisee development when done appropriately and within boundaries. Carnes-Holt, Meany-Walen, and Felton (2014) suggested that it would be an appropriate role to assume when a supervisee is “experiencing a sensitive, challenging, or awkward interaction with a client and how those feelings impact the counselor-client relationship” (p. 501).
Counseling within supervision is appropriate if the supervisor believes the supervisee would benefit from reflecting on a particular moment – similar to the approach a supervisee would take with a client (Carnes-Holt, Meany-Walen, & Felton, 2014). In these moments, the supervisor is not telling or teaching the supervisee how to move forward; rather, they guide the supervisee in a critical moment of self-reflection (Luke & Bernard, 2006). Exploring internal reality, processes, thoughts, and feelings encourage supervisees to address personal bias, countertransference, and other issues that may arise within the supervisee-client relationship. Crunk and Barden (2017) stated the role of counselor becomes “appropriate for when the supervisor aims to increase supervisee reflectivity… related to his or her professional development or work as a counselor” (p. 65). Supervisor as counselor should be used cautiously, but when carried out in the appropriate context it can create substantial growth within the supervisee.
Consulting
Similar to consultation with professional colleagues, the consulting role within supervision creates a shared experience in processing and decision-making instead of the supervisor holding all of the responsibility. This role is appropriate to assume when the supervisee’s developmental level is high enough “to think and act more independently” (Crunk & Barden, 2017, p. 65). The supervisor acts as a resource while encouraging supervisees to trust their own insights, thoughts, and intervention strategies in their work (Luke & Bernard, 2006). The supervisor intentionally avoids providing answers by lessening his or herself from the position of authority (Carnes-Holt, Meany-Walen, & Felton, 2014). This role creates a collaborative approach to supervision and can be utilized with more experienced or developmentally sound supervisees.
Monitoring/Evaluating
The role of supervisor as evaluator may be considered the most important. As counselor educators and supervisors, one of our main jobs is to function as gatekeepers to our profession. Lumadue and Thelma (1999) postulated the importance of this role because of the “increased awareness of the possible damage caused by counselors who do not possess the personal qualities and requisite skills” to perform ethically and responsibly (p. 101). It remains the responsibility of the supervisor to act in such a manner to monitor and evaluate supervisees’ development progress and to ensure goals are met or exceeded by the termination of the supervisory relationship. According to the ACA Code of Ethics (2014):
Through initial and ongoing evaluation, supervisors are aware of supervisee limitations that might impede performance. Supervisors assist supervisees in securing remedial assistance when needed. They recommend dismissal from training programs, applied counseling settings, and state or voluntary professional credentialing processes when those supervisees are unable to demonstrate that they can provide competent professional services to a range of diverse clients. Supervisors seek consultation and document their decisions to dismiss or refer supervisees for assistance. They ensure that supervisees are aware of options available to them to address such decisions (Section F.6.b., p. 13).
Supervisors can accomplish this role through formative assessment and summative evaluations, which should be discussed in the initial supervision session. By formulating operational definitions of supervisee expectations, explaining supervisee learning outcomes, and defining particular skills in which supervisees will be assessed, supervisors can examine these objectively throughout the duration of the supervisory relationship (Lumadue & Thelma, 1999). Formative assessments are used to routinely examine and address supervisee’s skills that are directly observed by the supervisor, as well as the supervisee’s ability to case conceptualize within supervision sessions. These can also be used to assess progress towards goals initially set by the supervisor and supervisee. Summative evaluations are provided periodically to assess supervisee’s competencies and to provide indication of progress necessary for completion of supervisory requirements (Magnuson, Norem, & Wilcoxon, 2000). The role of evaluator should remain present throughout the entirety of supervision as a stepping stone to ensure supervisees possess personal qualities, characteristics, and evidence of readiness as a foundation to effectively and ethically practice in the professional field of counseling (Lumadue & Thelma, 1999).
Integrating the Supervisor Roles
As discussed above, the roles of the supervisor change throughout the course of supervision. Integrating these roles takes practice, intentionality, and a deep understanding of the supervisee’s specific needs. Luke and Bernard (2006) discussed shifting from role to role without intentionality and awareness that one is doing so can make supervision far less impactful and create substantial confusion for the supervisee. The authors also stated, “…supervisor roles are often inadequate in isolation” (p. 287). In order to facilitate learning and create the best experience for our supervisees, it is imperative to navigate carefully through each of these roles and to integrate them when necessary. For example, a supervisor may take on the role of teacher in the beginning of the supervisory experience, especially with novice counseling students. The supervisor may then begin to shift in and out of the counseling role, particularly during case conceptualizations that are seemingly challenging to the supervisee. The consultation role may be more appropriately utilized near the end of the supervision experience, allowing the supervisee to “take the reigns” during sessions. The use of evaluations and monitoring should be present throughout the entirety of supervision, as mentioned previously.
The roles and responsibilities of the supervisor are substantial. It is important to remember that the first obligation of the supervisor is to ensure appropriate treatment is provided to the client, which may play a factor in the roles the supervisor chooses to assume at any given time (Tarvydas, 1995). Navigating through these roles effectively can create the best learning experience and overall preparation for supervisees entering the professional world of counseling. The foundation of this supervision process relies heavily on the supervisory relationship. The sections below will discuss the key factors that impact the supervisory relationship, including supervisee factors, supervisor factors, and the Supervisory Working Alliance (SWA).
The Supervisory Relationship
The sections prior thoroughly discusses the importance of legal and ethical considerations and the specific supervisor roles; however, the supervisory relationship may be the most essential part of the supervision process. Similar to the supervisee-client relationship, it is imperative to build a strong foundation within the supervisor-supervisee relationship in order to accomplish the established goals. Barnett, Youngstrom, and Smook (2001) emphasized the critical nature of this foundation built on respect, safety, clear boundaries, and affirmation of supervisee development. While ensuring client safety and monitoring supervisee progress is pertinent, the supervisor must not forget that supervision is first and foremost a relationship (Johnson, Skinner, & Kaslow, 2014). Grant, Schofield, and Crawford (2012) stated, “Problems in the supervisory relationship can impair supervisee well-being and capacity (p. 529). The following sections describe both supervisor and supervisee factors that may impede on the supervisory relationship, as well as the key factors within the Supervisory Working Alliance (SWA).
Supervisee Factors
Supervision can be a nerve-racking experience. For novice counselors, it may induce high levels of stress due to the high demands of skill development and the evaluative nature of the supervisory relationship. Certain factors are specific to supervisees that may affect the experience of supervision: Supervisee resistance, supervisee attachment, and supervisee anxiety. Nelson, Barnes, Evans, and Triggiano (2008) named supervisee resistance, or supervisee behaviors that communicate an attitude that supervision is not needed, as the most commonly named supervisee contribution to conflict in the supervisory relationship. The authors also discussed the idea that supervisee transference may occur due to past resistance or tension with authoritative figures. To counteract this resistance, it is recommended that supervisors broach the apparent tension with supervisees using interpersonal skills, such as processing factors that may be prompting the behavior, listening carefully and empathetically, and assessing personal and developmental needs of the supervisee (Nelson, Barnes, Evans, & Triggiano (2008).
On the other hand, supervisee attachment is another factor that may negatively affect the supervisory relationship. Supervisors may be natural caregivers, which motivates him or her to be proximal and accessible to supervisees when needed to provide an “attachment safe-have, a secure base, and a provide protection functions” (Gunn & Pistole, 2012, p. 229). Anxious, avoidant, and secure attachment patterns may explain the supervisee’s approach to supervision. Supervisees with highly anxious attachment styles may over rely on supervisors, while avoidant supervisees may over rely on themselves (Gunn & Pistole, 2012). Further, supervisees experiencing secure attachment may rely on supervisors to fulfill certain caregiving roles that are inappropriate in a supervisory relationship (Gunn & Pistole, 2012). Gunn and Pistole (2012) suggest intervention strategies when these attachment styles are recognized. For example, enhancing responsiveness to supervisee stress and teaching supervisees to raise awareness of his or her own attachment style and how this may be affecting learning outcomes and the overall supervision experience.
To conclude, supervisee anxiety is a factor experienced in a variety of ways. Clinical placements can induce high levels of stress and can result in the supervisee feeling overwhelmed and unable to manage the high demands of site placement and supervision (Nelson, Barnes, Evans, & Triggiano, 2008). Evaluative anxiety may also occur due to the hierarchical nature of the supervisory relationship, resulting in an unwillingness to share work and defensive reactions to feedback provided by the supervisor (Nelson, Barnes, Evans, & Triggiano, 2008). The supervisor should be cognoscente of these anxieties and address them accordingly. Providing early and timely feedback, setting realistic expectations, calling attention to supervisee successes, emphasizing supervisee strengths, and making use of humor are ways to counteract supervisee anxiety (Nelson, Barnes, Evans, & Triggiano, 2008). It is the supervisor’s responsibility to attend to the factors above, along with his or her own factors that may be negatively affecting the supervision experience.
Supervisor Factors
Similar to supervisee factors, the supervisor must also address a range of factors that may inhibit the strength of the supervisory relationship. Power dynamics, countertransference, and supervisor anxiety are all elements to consider. Because the structure of supervision is evaluative in nature, hierarchical power dynamics tend to inherently occur (Cook, McKibben, & Wind, 2018). The supervisor-supervisee relationship differs from the supervisee-client relationship in that the supervisor is seen as and acts as the expert in the room. According to Rousmaniere and Ellis (2013), it is the supervisor’s responsibility to determine the amount of collaboration in the supervisory relationship. This can create tension and resistance if the foundation of the relationship is not based on mutual trust, investment in the process, honesty, and facilitating a safe environment for open discussion (Barnett, Youngstrom, & Smook, 2001). In order to address the power dynamics and alleviate the negative outcomes, Cook, McKibben, and Wind (2018) recommend an “open conversation to determine how all parties can utilize power responsibly for the betterment of the supervisee and the protection of clients” (p. 194).
Countertransference is a common phenomenon in the counseling profession and is not void within the supervisory relationship. Supervisor’s unresolved conflicts, interacting with supervisee’s behavior and experiences, may produce several countertransference dynamics within supervision (Messina et al., 2018). For example, feeling anger towards a supervisee for saying something that reminds the supervisor of his or her estranged family member would be an instance of countertransference. In order to properly address these issues, it is suggested that supervisors remain mindful and intentionally monitor internal reactions to the supervisees, as well as consult with a supervisor to debrief and process when these issues occur (Grant, Schofield, & Crawford, 2012).
Finally, supervisor anxiety is another factor to take into consideration. As stated previously, the demands of supervision are high. Playing the role of gatekeeper to the profession of counseling may cause major discomfort related to providing evaluations and hesitancy to address supervisee problems early on in the supervisory relationship (Nelson, Barnes, Evans, & Triggiano, 2008). Grant, Schofield, and Crawford (2012) discussed the value of deep reflectivity about one’s practice as a supervisor. The authors offered the idea that patience and transparency are interventions in which enable supervisors to articulate processes obstructing his or her practice, such as anxiety. Both supervisor and supervisee anxiety must be properly addressed in order to establish a strong Supervisory Working Alliance as discussed in the following section.
The Supervisory Working Alliance (SWA)
Through the discussions and interpretations above, it is evident that supervision is multi-faceted. It is not merely the evaluation of supervisee skills, but also involves an emotional bond that allows supervisees to develop both professionally and individually. The Supervisory Working Alliance (SWA) is the foundation on which supervision is built. As Nelson, Barnes, Evans, and Triggiano (2008) emphasized, “A supervisee does not develop trust in his or her supervisor automatically. Rather, trust is earned when supervisors are warm and genuine and can effectively aid supervisees in working through difficult issues in their training” (p. 180). The authors elaborated further in expressing that supervisory styles, including humility and a willingness to be vulnerable and transparent with one another, can largely impact critical attitudes towards supervision and can be associated with reaching goals set within the initial session.
In order to build a strong SWA, it is important for the supervisor to establish empathy and supportive tendencies early in supervision. Hernandez and McDowell (2010) found that supervisors who approach supervision as strictly used for personal growth without the use of understanding tend to flatten the supervisory relationship. As a result, absence of unconditional positive regard is met with lessened expression of feelings and discussion of concerns that may be present in the supervisee (Hernandez & McDowell, 2010). It is the supervisor’s obligation to facilitate a safe, responsive, supportive, and collaborative environment for the supervisee to learn and flourish in. For example, by inviting the supervisee to participate in the initial goal-setting aspect of supervision, the supervisor is overtly establishing an SWA that encourages full disclosure and the exploration of supervisee’s feelings towards the supervisory process and the process of counseling clients (Gibson, Ellis, & Friedlander, 2019). In addition, the supervisor develops trust in the supervisee when he or she is able to be open about various experiences, accept feedback, and model positive use of self in supervision (Nelson, Barnes, Evans, & Triggiano, 2008). It takes time and patience to build a strong SWA, but this accomplishment allows for the greatest dividends of growth for both supervisees and supervisors alike.
Summary
The sections above discuss in detail the many intricacies of clinical supervision. Legal and ethical issues, best practices in supervision, roles of the supervisor, supervisee and supervisor factors, and the Supervisory Working Alliance are key factors in creating the highest opportunity for learning and professional development for supervisees. Although the demands are high, the rewards are higher. The act of gatekeeping as a supervisor may be daunting to some, but others may view it in a more positive light, as it is an opportunity to better our profession and ensure the safety of future clients. Barnett, Youngstrom, and Smook (2001) noted the importance of mentorship in developing counselors stating, “It is both a privilege and an honor to mentor and affect the next generation” (p. 229). Supervision is an experience unlike any other, and one that provides great direction for the future of the counseling profession.
References
- Tarvydas, V. M. (1995). Ethics and the practice of rehabilitation counselor supervision. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,38(4), 294-306.
- Crunk, A. E., & Barden, S. M. (2017). The common factors discrimination model: An integrated approach to counselor supervision. The Professional Counselor,7(1), 62-75. doi:10.15241/aec.7.1.62
- Lumadue, C. A., & Duffey, T. H. (1999). The role of graduate programs as gatekeepers: A model for evaluating student counselor competence. Counselor Education and Supervision,39(2), 101-109. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1999.tb01221.x
- Timm, M. (2015). Creating a preferred counselor identity in supervision: A new application of Bernard’s Discrimination Model. The Clinical Supervisor,34(1), 115-125. doi:10.1080/07325223.2015.1021499
- Cook, R. M., McKibben, W. B., & Wind, S. A. (2018). Supervisee perception of power in clinical supervision: The Power Dynamics in Supervision Scale. Training and Education in Professional Psychology,12(3), 188-195. doi:10.1037/tep0000201
- Grant, J., Schofield, M. J., & Crawford, S. (2012). Managing difficulties in supervision: Supervisors perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology,59(4), 528-541. doi:10.1037/a0030000
- Rousmaniere, T. G., & Ellis, M. V. (2013). Developing the construct and measure of collaborative clinical supervision: The supervisee’s perspective. Training and Education in Professional Psychology,7(4), 300-308. doi:10.1037/a0033796
- Barnett, J. E., Youngstrom, J. K., & Smook, R. G. (2001). Clinical supervision, teaching, and mentoring: Personal perspectives and guiding principles. The Clinical Supervisor,20(2), 217-230. doi:10.1300/j001v20n02_16
