Disclosure—and Lack Thereof—in Individual Supervision

Supervisor Cultural Humility and Supervisee Nondisclosure: The Supervisory Working Alliance Matters

Given that half or more of supervisees (therapist trainees) never have their clinical work monitored or observed, supervisees who withhold salient information in clinical supervision compromise supervisors' ability to monitor client welfare and promote supervisees' professional development. Attempting to further understand the factors explaining supervisee nondisclosure, we tested the supervisory working alliance as a mediator of the hypothesized inverse relations of cultural humility and collaborative supervision with supervisee nondisclosure (supervision-related and clinically-related nondisclosure) among a diverse sample of 214 supervisees in applied psychology and allied mental health programs. Results supported the hypotheses that (1) descriptively, supervision-related nondisclosure was more prominent than clinically-related nondisclosure, (2) cultural humility substantially inversely predicted supervisee nondisclosure, and (3) the supervisory working alliance fully mediated the inverse relations of cultural humility and collaborative supervision with supervisee nondisclosure. Understanding the mechanisms underlying supervisee nondisclosure have broad implications for clinicians and researchers alike.

Supervisees’ Nondisclosure in South Korea and the United States: A Cross-Cultural Comparison

This study investigated the effects of supervisee characteristics (rejection attachment), the supervisory relationship (supervisory working alliance, role conflict), and Asian cultural values on supervisee nondisclosure (clinically related and supervision related nondisclosures) for South Korean and U.S. American supervisees. Participants were 474 predominantly female supervisees in counseling and clinical psychology programs (227 South Korean, 247 U.S. American). Three major findings emerged: (a) the four predictors collectively predicted both types of supervisee nondisclosure jointly in both countries, (b) the supervisory working alliance predicted the two types of supervisee nondisclosure jointly in both countries, and (c) post hoc tests suggested that the supervisory working alliance mediated the relations of role conflict and rejection attachment with supervisee nondisclosure in both countries, and the relation of Asian cultural values with supervisee nondisclosure for South Korean supervisees. Implications for theory, research, and practice are discussed.

Clinical Supervision of Mental Health Services: A Systematic Review of Supervision Characteristics and Practices Associated with Formative and Restorative Outcomes

In this review, the authors examined supervision characteristics and practices associated with formative (e.g., skill development) and restorative (e.g., well-being) provider outcomes. We used qualitative review to summarize supervision characteristics associated with desired outcomes. Then, we applied a distillation approach (Chorpita et al., 2005) to identify practices associated with formative and restorative outcomes. The most common practices for promoting formative outcomes were corrective feedback, discussing intervention, and role play. Findings indicate several supervision strategies have demonstrated empirical support for improving formative outcomes. However, more rigorous research is needed in community settings, particularly for understanding which strategies improve restorative outcomes.