A Unifying Vision of Psychotherapy Supervision:
Productive and Unproductive Supervision Relations
C. Edward Watkins
Recently, much attention has been given to a unified psychotherapy and its practice; however,focus on supervision of those learning the techniques is lacking. What might be some elements of a unification-informed psychotherapy supervision? What core variables contribute to a productive versus unproductive supervision experience? The Contextual Supervision Relationship Model (CSRM; Watkins, 2016b; Watkins, Budge, & Callahan, 2015) is presented as one potential unifying vision of psychotherapy supervision. The CSRM proposes a common set of variables and pathways that contributes to supervisor-supervisee relationship development and supervisee/patient outcomes. Specific variable/pathway differences between productive versus unproductive supervision relationships are subsequently considered and elaborated upon. What follows might best be thought of as a starting point—perhaps a way to begin thinking more substantively about the implications of a unifying vision of psychotherapy supervision.
Movement toward a unifying perspective has been increasingly evidenced across a host of disciplines and areas of inquiry, some prime examples being in ecological science,biological science, and psychology (Magnavita, 2006; Mayer & Allen, 2013; Melchert, 2016). That certainly has also been the case for psychotherapy, where a growing number of unificationist visions have been proposed (e.g., Henriqus & Stout,2012;Magnavita & Anchin, 2014; Marquis & Elliott, 2015; Millon & Grossman, 2012; Tryon, 2016). Unification may well become the zeitgeist of psychotherapy, a new, defining, and pivotal phase in its evolution (Anchin, 2008, 2012; Magnavita, 2008, 2012a, 2012b).There is increasingly well-documented evidence of the promise and possibility of unification for psychotherapy.
Conversely, any attention to unification and psychotherapy supervision has been virtually non-existent. Articulated trans-theoretical and common factors supervision perspectives are quite rare (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). The word“unification”with regard to supervision has been mentioned minimally if at all. Yet I contend that unification holds much promise and possibility for psychotherapy supervision and would like to consider how that might be so. Because we have lacked for a common, unifying way of understanding change or its absence across supervision models, I subsequently give consideration to one such unifying vision: The Contextual Super- vision Relationship Model (Watkins, 2016b; Watkins, Budge,& Callahan, 2015; Watkins, Wampold, & Budge, 2015). The way in which the model’s proposed common variables and pathways converge to explain productive and unproductive supervision relationships is highlighted.
Setting the Stage:
What is Psychotherapy Supervision?
Why Does It Matter?
Definition. An empirically-based definition of psychotherapy supervision is:
The formal provision, by approved supervisors, of a relationship-based education and training that is work focused and which manages, supports, develops and evaluates the work of colleague/s [and student trainees]. . . . The main methods that supervisors use are corrective feedback on the supervisee’s performance, teaching, and collaborative goal-setting....Supervision’s objectives are “normative” (e.g., quality control) “restorative (e.g., encourage emotional processing), and “formative” (e.g., maintaining and facilitating supervisees’ competence, capability, and general effectiveness).... (Milne, 2007, p.439).
Supervision is educationally purposed, relationally hierarchical, and evaluative by definition (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Page & Wosket, 2015). It may still be the case that “about one half of a professional psychologist’s formal training involves learning through supervision” (Bent, Schindler, & Dobbins, 1991, p. 124).
Significance. Supervision’s primary objectives are: (a) development and enhancement of supervisee conceptual/treatment skills and competencies; (b) development of a defined and defining psychotherapist identity; (c) development of conviction about the very meaningfulness of psychotherapy; and (d) monitoring treatment efforts and safeguarding patient care (American Psychological Association [APA], 2015; Hess, Hess, & Hess, 2008; Watkins, 1997). Supervision appears to be a powerful contributor to training effectiveness, perhaps our most powerful contributor (e.g., Gonsalvez & Milne, 2010). It has been rightly designated as the mental health professions’ signature pedagogy (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Goodyear, 2007), its reach international, its scope interdisciplinary (Watkins & Milne, 2014).
Theory. Supervision perspectives are traditionally clustered into three groups: Psychotherapy-focused, developmental, and social role/process (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Watkins & Milne, 2014). Psychotherapy-focused supervision perspectives center around the learning of a particular form of psychotherapy (e.g., Jungian, existential), with the supervision then being informed by and organized around the specific psychotherapy being learned (e.g., Dewald, 1997; Farber, 2014).Developmental supervision perspectives give primary emphasis to the stages of supervisee development, the issues that accompany those stages, and the importance of supervisors responding in a matching, developmentally-informed way (e.g., Ronnestad & Skovholt, 2013; Stoltenberg, Bailey, Cruzan, Hart,&Ukuku,2014).Social role/process perspectives give primary emphasis to supervisees’ learning needs, how those needs evolve during supervision, and the roles that supervisors can accordingly enact that best match those evolving needs (e.g., Bernard, 1997; Holloway, 2014). Created specifically with supervision in mind, the developmental and social role/process visions are foremost meta-visions and can be readily incorporated into any psychotherapy-focused supervision perspective. Complementing these first generation models, a second-generation of psychotherapy-focused, developmental, and social role/process perspectives (e.g., common factors models) has emerged over the last fifteen-year period. Supervision continues to evolve, advance, and diversify (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Watkins & Milne,2014).
Evidence. Psychotherapy supervision has generally lagged far behind psychotherapy in its research (Hill & Knox, 2013; Milne et al., 2012).Being triadic in nature (i.e., patient-supervisee-supervisor) and often involving graduate student supervisees as participants (where a supervision versus no supervision comparison group would be unethical to form), supervision research has long been recognized as quite difficult to conduct (Hill & Knox, 2013; Russell, Crimmings, & Lent, 1984; Wampold & Holloway, 1997), its annual output paling in comparison to that of psychotherapy research (Inman & Ladany, 2008; Ladany & Inman, 2012). The current state of supervision research has even been likened to psychotherapy research in the 1950s and ’60s, where issues of measurement and effectiveness remain of most pressing concern (Milne et al., 2012). As Milne et al. (2012) have stated, “. . . we are currently about ‘half-way there’, working on the ‘search for scientific rigour’...”(p.144).
Despite this state of affairs, supervision research advances have clearly been made, and recent reviews nicely capture that reality (Hill &Knox, 2013;I nman, Hutman, Pendse, Devdas, Luu, & Ellis, 2014; Tangen & Borders, 2016; Watkins, 2014a, 2014b). While concerned with a host of potential variables, supervision research is understandably much concerned with supervisee and patient outcome. Does supervision effect changes in supervisees? Are patients in turn positively impacted? Although supervision’s true acid test may lie in effected patient changes (Ellis & Ladany, 1997; Lichtenberg, 2007), actually showing supervision patient change empirically has proven to be a most problematic proposition (cf. Wampold & Holloway, 1997). Research thus far has been limited, mixed in findings, and any definitive conclusions about supervision-patient outcome effectiveness remain elusive (Hill & Knox, 2013; Wheeler & Richards, 2007; Watkins, 2011a). But in the last approximate ten-year period, rigorous research about this issue has finally begun to emerge (e.g., Bambling, King, Raue, Schweitzer, & Lambert, 2006; Rieck, Callahan, & Watkins, 2015; Rousmaniere, Swift, Babins-Wagner, Whipple, & Berzins, 2016; Wrape, Callahan, Ruggero, & Watkins, 2015) and holds much promise for future study. Conversely, showing supervision supervisee change has proven far easier to accomplish. Supervision indeed appears to have a number of highly favorable outcomes for supervisees, including strengthening of the supervisee-patient relationship, enhanced self-awareness, enhanced sense of self-efficacy, enhanced treatment knowledge, and enhanced skill acquisition and utilization (Goodyear & Guzzardo, 2000; Hill & Knox, 2013; Holloway & Neufeldt, 1995; Inman et al., 2014; Inman & Ladany, 2008; Lambert & Ogles, 1997; Wheeler & Richards, 2007; Wilson, Davies, & Weatherhead, 2016): “…the evidence of supervisor [and supervision] impact has been well established” (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014, p.301).
Conviction. We as supervisors believe in the power of supervision. We tend to hold fast to the conviction that, by means of supervision, meaningful transfer occurs: The supervisee’s treatment skills/competencies and conceptual understandings, developed and enhanced via supervision, will then be carried forth into the treatment situation and beneficially applied (Goodyear & Guzzardo, 2000; Lichtenberg, 2007). My subsequent focus will be on the supervision relationship as an agent of change and ideally an agent of transfer.
Productive and Unproductive Supervision
Relationships: A Unifying, Contextual Model
The matter of (what has been termed) good, effective, productive, or beneficial supervision has long been and continues to be of much concern in psychotherapy supervision (e.g., Carifio & Hess, 1987; Wilson et al., 2016); that has similarly been the case for unproductive, unbeneficial, ineffective, even harmful supervision (Ellis, 2001; Ladany, Mori, & Mehr, 2013). For my purposes here, I define productive or beneficial as ‘that which contributes to or stimulates the development of the supervisee and/or patient”, with unproductive or unbeneficial being defined conversely.
Beneficial or productive supervision often appears to involve a host of constructive relational/educational characteristics, features, and qualities, some of the most significant identified as including: empathic, flexible, respectful, supportive, sensitive, accepting, collaborative, appropriately self-disclosive, and appropriately challenging (Kilminster, Cottrell, Grant, & Jolly, 2007; Rodenhauser, Rudisill, & Painter, 1989; Wilson et al., 2016). Unbeneficial or unproductive supervision often appears to involve the very opposite of those very same features, including being unempathic, disrespectful, inflexible, non-collaborative, and non-supportive (Ellis, Berger, Hanus, Swords, & Siembor, 2014; Ellis, Cre- aner, Hutman, & Timulak, 2015; Magnuson, Wilcoxon, & Norem, 2000). Over three decades ago, Worthington (1987) opined that “A good theory of lousy supervisor behaviors is missing” (p. 203). Although slow progress is being made (Ellis, Berger et al., 2014), that missing theory still largely remains the case: “Part of the solution may come from continuing to identify those variables that predict the occurrence of harmful and inadequate supervision”(Ellis,Bergeretal.,2014,p.462).
Psychotherapy supervision can clearly be for better or worse. But what are the critical variables that make “for better” or “for worse” increasingly likely? Might there be a unifying model that; (a) identifies those seemingly helpful and unhelpful supervision variables and; (b) explains the resulting beneficial and unbeneficial nature of the supervision experience? I propose the Contextual Supervision Relationship Model (CSRM) as one such model (Watkins, 2016b; Watkins, Budgeetal., 2015; Watkins, Wampold et al.,2015).
Channeling Wampold. The CSRM is a supervisory extrapolation of and largely parallels Wampold’s contextual psychotherapy relationship model (Budge & Wampold, 2015; Imel & Wampold, 2008; Wampold, 2001, 2007, 2010; Wampold & Budge, 2012; Wampold & Imel, 2015). Wampold’s psychotherapy model accentuates the synergistic nature of both common and specific factors, each set of factors being necessary and dependent on the other. His critical model components are: (a) the importance of therapist–patient relationship (bond)formation; and (b) three relationship pathways that stimulate patient change. Those three change pathways are: (a) the therapist–patient real relationship; (b) creating expectations through explanation and providing some form of expectation-consistent treatment; and (c) the patient’s active involvement in healthy actions. Where treatments are composed of the bond and three pathways, they are increasingly apt to be effective—with the outcomes being symptom reduction and better quality of life (Wampold & Imel, 2015). The model provides a unifying perspective on what trans-theoretically renders treatment effective and ineffective. For more detailed description of Wampold’s contextual model, see Wampold and Imel (2015).
This has been an excerpt from A Unifying Vision of Psychotherapy Supervision: Productive and Unproductive Supervision Relations. To download the full article, and more excellent material for the psychotherapist, please subscribe to our monthly magazine.
American Psychological Association (2015). Guidelines for clinical supervision in health service psychology. American Psychologist, 70, 33-46. dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038112
Anchin, J.C. (2008). Pursuing a unifying paradigm for psychotherapy: Tasks, dialectical considerations, and bio-psycho-social systems metatheory. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 18, 310-349. doi.org/10.1037/a0013557
Anchin, J. C. (2012). Prologue to unified psychotherapy and clinical science. Journal of Unified Psychotherapy and Clinical Science, 1, 1-20.
Bambling, M.,King, R., Raue, P., Schweitzer, R., & Lambert, W. (2006). Clinical supervision: Its influence on client-rated working alliance and client symptom reduction in the brief treatment of major depression. Psychotherapy Research, 16, 317–331. doi.org/10.1080/10503300500268524
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 psychotherapy supervision (pp. 310– 327). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Borders, L. D. (2014). Best Practices in Clinical Supervision: Another step in delineating effective supervision practice. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 68, 151–162.
Borders, L. D., & Brown, L. L. (2005). The new handbook of counseling supervision. Mahwah, NJ: Lahaska Press.
Borders, L. D., Glosoff, H. L., Welfare, L. E., Hays, D. G., DeKruyf, L., Fernando, D. M, &Page,B.(2014).Best Practices in Clinical Supervision: Evolution of a counseling specialty. The Clinical Supervisor, 33, 26-44. doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2014.905225
Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 35-42. doi.org/10.1177/0011000083111007
Budge, S. L., & Wampold, B. E. (2015). The relationship: How it works. In O. C. G. Gelo, A. Pritz, & B. Rieken (Eds.), Psychotherapy research: Foundations, process, and outcomes (pp. 213-228). Dordrecht: Springer.
Cabaniss, D. L., Arbuckle, M. R., & Moga, D. E. (2014). Using learning objectives for psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 68, 163-176.
Carifio, M. S., & Hess, A. K. (1987). Who is the ideal supervisor? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 244–250. doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.3.244
Constantino, M. J., Boswell, J. F., Bernecker, S. L., & Castonguay, L. G. (2013). Context-responsive psychotherapy integration as a framework for a unified clinical science: Conceptual and empirical considerations. Journal of Unified Psychotherapy and Clinical Science, 2, 1-20.
Dewald,P.A.(1997).The process of supervision in psychoanalysis. In C. E. Watkins, Jr.(Ed.),Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 31-43).NewYork, NY: Wiley.
Ecklar-Hart, A. H. (1987). True and false self in the development of the psychotherapist. Psychotherapy, 24, 683–692. doi.org/10.1037/h0085768
Ellis, M. V. (2001). Harmful supervision, a cause for alarm: Commentary on Nelson & Friedlander (2001) and Gray et al. (2001). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 401-406. doi.org/10.1037/0022-018.104.22.1681
Ellis, M. V., Berger, L., Hanus, A. E., Swords,B. A., & Siembor, M. (2014). Inadequate and harmful clinical supervision: Testing a revised framework and assessing occurrence. The Counseling Psychologist, 42, 434-472. doi.org/10.1177/0011000013508656
Ellis,M. V.,Creaner, M.,Hutman, H.,& Timulak, L. (2015). A comparative study of clinical supervision in the Republic of Ireland and the United States. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 621-635. .doi.org/10.1037/cou0000110
Ellis, M.V., Hutman, H., & Chapin, J. (2015). Reducing supervisee anxiety: Effects of a role induction intervention for clinical supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 608-620. doi.org/10.1037/cou0000099
Ellis,M.V.,&Ladany,N.(1997).Inferences concerning supervisees and clients in clinical supervision: An integrative review. In C. E. Watkins Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 447– 507).NewYork, NY: Wiley.
Farber, E. W. (2014) Supervising humanistic and existential psychotherapies. In C. E. Watkins, Jr., & D. Milne (Eds.), Wiley international handbook of clinical supervision (pp. 530-551). Oxford, UK: Wiley. doi.org/10.1002/9781118846360.ch26
Fleming, J., & Benedek, T. F. (1964). Supervision: A method of teaching psychoanalysis. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 33, 71-96.
Fleming, J., & Benedek, T. F. (1966). Psychoanalytic supervision. New York: Grune & Stratton. Ford, E. S. (1963). Being and becoming a psychotherapist: The search for identity. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 17, 472–482.
Frank, J. D., & J. B. (1991). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study of psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Friedlander, M. L. (2015). Use of relational strategies to repair alliance ruptures: How responsive supervisors train responsive psychotherapists. Psychotherapy, 52,174–179. doi.org/10.1037/a0037044
Goodyear, R. K. (2007). Toward an effective signature pedagogy for psychology: Comments supporting the case for competent supervisors. Professional Psychol- ogy: Research and Practice, 38, 273-274. doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.3.268
Goodyear, R. K.(2014). Supervision as pedagogy: Attending to its essential instructional and learning processes. The Clinical Supervisor, 33, 82-99. doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2014.918914
Goodyear, R. K., & Guzzardo, C. R. (2000). Psychotherapy supervision and training. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed.,pp. 83-108). NewYork, NY: Wiley.
Gonsalvez, C. J.,& Milne, D. L.(2010).Clinical supervisor training in Australia: A review of current problems and possible solutions. Australian Psychologist, 45, 233–242. doi.org/10.1080/00050067.2010.512612
Henriques, G., & Stout, J. C. (2012). A unified approach to conceptualizing people in psychotherapy. Journal of Unified Psychotherapy and Clinical Science, 1, 37-60.
Hess, A. K., Hess, K. D., & Hess, T. H. (Eds.). (2008). Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hill, C. E., & Knox, S. (2013). Training and supervision in psychotherapy. In M. J. Lambert(Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6th ed., pp. 775- 812). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Holloway, E. L. (2014). Social process models of supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr., & D. Milne (Eds.), Wiley international handbook of clinical supervision (pp. 598–621).Oxford, UK: Wiley. doi.org/10.1002/9781118846360.ch29
Holloway, E. L., & Neufeldt, S. A (1995). Supervision: Its contributions to treatment efficacy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 207–213. doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.63.2.207
Imel, Z. E., & Wampold, B. E. (2008). The importance of treatment and the science of common factors in psychotherapy. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Hand- book of counseling psychology (4th ed., pp. 249-266). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
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 su- pervision (pp. 61-102). Oxford, UK: Wiley. doi.org/10.1002/9781118846360.ch4
Inman, A. G., & Ladany, N. (2008). Research: The state of the field. In A. K. Hess, K. D. Hess, & T. H. Hess (Eds.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 500-517). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2014.886999
Kilminster, S., Cottrell, D.,Grant,J.,&Jolly, B. (2007). AMEE Guide No. 27: Effective educational and clinical supervision. Medical Teacher, 29, 2-19. doi.org/10.1080/01421590701210907
Ladany, N., & Inman, A. G. (2012). Training and supervision. In E. Altmaier & J. C. Hansen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 179 –207). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ladany, N., Mori, Y., & Mehr, K. E.(2013). Effective and ineffective supervision. The Counseling Psychologist , 41, 28-47. doi.org/10.1177/0011000012442648
Lambert, M. J., & Ogles, B. M. (1997). The effectiveness of psychotherapy supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr., (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 421–446). New York, NY: Wiley.
Leszcz, M. (2011). Psychotherapy supervision and the development of the psychotherapist. In R. H. Klein, H. S. Bernard, & V. L. Schermer (Eds.), On becoming a psychotherapist: The personal and professional journey (pp. 114–143). New York, NY: Ox- ford University Press. doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199736393.003. 0006
Lichtenberg, J. W. (2007). What makes for effective supervision? In search of clinical outcomes. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 275. doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.38.3.268
Magnavita, J. J. (2006). In search of the unifying principles of psychotherapy: Conceptual, empirical, and clinical convergence. American Psychologist, 61, 882–892. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.61.8.882
Magnavita, J. J. (2008). Toward unification of clinical science: The next wave in the evolution of psychotherapy? Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 18, 264-291. doi.org/10.1037/a0013490
Magnavita, J. J. (2012a). Advancing clinical science using system theory as the frame-work for expanding family psychology with unified psychotherapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1, 3-13. doi.org/10.1037/a0027492
Magnavita, J. J.(2012b).Mapping the clinical landscape with Psychotherapedia™: The Unified Psychotherapy Project. Journal of Unified Psychotherapy and Clinical Science, 1, 21-36.
Magnavita J. J., & Anchin, J.C. (2014). Unifying psychotherapy: Principles, methods, and evidence from clinical science. New York: Springer.
Magnuson, S., Wilcoxon, S. A., & Norem, K. (2000). A profile of lousy supervision: Experienced counselors’ perspectives. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 189-202. doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2000.tb01231.x
Marquis, A., & Elliot, A. (2015). Integral psychotherapy in practice, Part 2: Revisions to the metatheory of Integral Psychotherapy based on therapeutic prac- tice. Journal of Unified Psychotherapy and Clinical Science, 3, 1-40.
Mayer, J. D., & Allen, J. L. (2013). A personality framework for the unification of psychology. Review of General Psychology, 17, 196-202. doi.org/10.1037/a0032934
Mcaleavey, A. A., Castonguay, L. G., & Xiao, H. (2014). Therapist orientation, supervisor match, and therapeutic interventions: Implications for session quality in a psychotherapy training PRN. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 14, 192-200. doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2014.929418
Melchert, T. P. (2016). Leaving behind our preparadigmatic past: Professional psychology as a unified clinical science. American Psychologist, 71, 486-496. doi.org/10.1037/a0040227
Millon, T., & Grossman, S. (2012). Personalized psychotherapy: The unification and customization of trait-oriented treatments. Journal of Unified Psychotherapy and Clinical Science, 1, 61-86.
Milne, D.L. (2007). An empirical definition of clinical supervision. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 437-447. doi.org/10.1348/014466507X197415
Milne, D. L., Aylott, H., Fitzpatrick, H., & Ellis, M. V. (2008). How does clinical supervision work? Using a “bestevidence synthesis” approach to construct a basic model of supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 27, 170–190. doi.org/10.1080/07325220802487915
Milne, D., Leck, C., James, I., Wilson, M., Procter, R., Ramm, L., . . . Weetman, J. (2012). High fidelity in clinical supervision research. In I. Fleming & L. Steen (Eds.), Supervision and clinical psychology: Theory, practice and perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 142–158). London, England: Routledge.
O’Farrell, G. (in process). A qualitative study of the real relationship in clinical supervision. Master’s research project, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Page, S.,& Wosket, V. (2015). Supervising the counsellor and psychotherapist: A cyclical model (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9781315761305
Rieck, T.,Callahan, J. L., & Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2015). Clinical supervision: An exploration of possible mechanisms of action. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9, 187-194. doi.org/10.1037/tep0000080
Rodenhauser, P., Rudisill, J. R., & Painter, A. F. (1989). Attributes conducive to learning in psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 3, 368–377.
Ronnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2013). The developing practitioner: Growth and stagnation of therapists and counselors. New York, NY: Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780203841402
Rousmaniere, T. G., Swift, J. K., Babins-Wagner, R., Whipple, J. L., & Berzins, S. (2016). Supervisor variance in psychotherapy outcome in routine practice. Psychotherapy Research, 26, 196-205. doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2014.963730
Russell, R. K., Crimmings, A. M., & Lent, R. W. (1984). Counselor training and supervision: Theory and research. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Ed.), Handbook of counseling psychology (pp. 625-681). New York, NY: Wiley.
Scaife,J.(2009). Supervision in clinical practice: A practitioner’s guide (2nd ed.).London, UK: Routledge.
Stoltenberg, C. D., Bailey, K. C., Cruzan, C. B., Hart, J. T., & Ukuku, U. (2014). The integrated developmental model of supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr., & D. Milne (Eds.), Wiley international handbook of clinical supervision (pp. 576–597). Oxford, England: Wiley. doi.org/10.1002/9781118846360.ch28
Swift, J. K., & Greenberg, R. P. (2015). Premature termination in psychotherapy: Strategies for engaging clients and improving outcomes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi.org/10.1037/14469-002
Tangen, J. L., & Borders, D. (2016). The supervisory relationship: A conceptual and psychometric review of measures. Counselor Education and Supervision, 55, 159-181. doi.org/10.1002/ceas.12043
Tryon, W. W. (2016). Transtheoretic transdiagnostic psychotherapy. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 26, 273-287. doi.org/10.1037a0040041
Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi.org/10.4324/9780203893340
Wampold, B. E. (2007). Psychotherapy: The humanistic (and effective) treatment. American Psychologist, 62, 857-873. doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.857
Wampold, B. E. (2010). The basics of psychotherapy: An introduction to theory and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wampold, B. E. (2016, June). There can be no common factors without a specific treatment plan. In P. Wachtel (Chair), What is common in common factors: Implications for psychotherapy integration. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Exploration of Psychotherapy Integration, Dublin,Ireland.
Wampold, B. E., & Budge, S. L. (2012). The 2011 Leona Tyler Award address: The relationship—and its relationship to the common and specific factors of psychotherapy. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 601-623.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011000011432709
Wampold, B. E., & Imel, Z. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. doi.org/10.4324/9780203582015
Wampold, B. E. & Holloway, E. L. (1997). Methodology,design, and evaluation in psychotherapy supervision research. In C. E. Watkins, Jr., (Ed.). Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 11-27). New York: Wiley.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). Handbook of psychotherapy supervision. New York, NY: Wiley.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2011a). Does psychotherapy supervision contribute to patient outcomes? Considering 30 years of research. The Clinical Supervisor, 30, 235–256. doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2011.619417
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2011b). The real relationship in psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 65, 99–116.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2012). On demoralization, therapist identity development, and persuasion and healing in psychotherapy supervision. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 22, 187–205. doi.org/10.1037/a0028870
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2014a). Clinical supervision in the 21st century: Revisiting pressing needs and impressing possibilities. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 68, 251-272.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2014b). The supervisory alliance: A half century of theory, practice, and research in critical perspective. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 68, 19–55.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2014c). The supervisory alliance as quintessential integrative variable. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 44, 151–161. 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. doi.org/10.1037/a0038882
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2015b). The real relationship in psychotherapy supervision: A trans-theoretical common factor. International Journal of Psychotherapy, 19, 20–26.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2016a). Convergence in psychotherapy supervision: A common factors, common processes, common practices perspective. Journal of Psy- chotherapy Integration. doi.org/10.1037/int0000040
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2016b). How does psychotherapy supervision work? Contributions of connection, conception, allegiance, alignment, and action. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration. doi.org/10.1037/int0000058
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Budge, S. L., & Callahan, J. L. (2015). Common and specific factors converging in psychotherapy supervision: A supervisory extrapolation of the Wampold/Budge psychotherapy relationship model. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 25, 214–235. doi.org/10.1037/a0039561
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Davis, E., Love, P., & Callahan, J. L. (in press). Supervisor allegiance as a critical construct: A brief communication. American Journal of Psychotherapy.
Watkins, C. E., Jr., & Milne, D. (Eds.). (2014). Wiley international handbook of clinical supervision. Oxford, UK: Wiley. doi.org/10.1002/9781118846360
Watkins, C. E., Jr., & Scaturo, D. J. (2013). Toward an integrative, learning-based model of psychotherapy supervision: Supervisory alliance, educational interventions, and supervisee learning/relearning. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 75–95. doi.org/10.1037/a0031330
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Wampold, B. E., & Budge, S. L. (2015, August). Extrapolating the Wampold/Budge model of the psychotherapy relationship to psychotherapy supervision. Paper presented at the 123rd annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Wheeler, S., & Richards, K. (2007). The impact of clinical supervision on counselors and therapists, their practice and their clients: A systematic review of the literature. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 7, 54–65. doi.org/10.1080/14733140601185274
Wilson, H. M. N., Davies, J. S., & Weatherford, S. (2015). Trainee therapists’ experiences of supervision during training: A meta-synthesis. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 23, 340-351. doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1957
Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1987). Changes in supervision as counselors and supervisors gain experience: A review. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 189-208. doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.18.3.189
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 outcome. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9, 35-43. doi.org/10.1037/tep0000014