Alliance

The Supervisory Alliance: A Half Century
of Theory, Practice, and Research in

Critical Perspective
C. EDWARD WATKINS, Jr., Ph.D.

Over the course of psychotherapy supervision history, the supervisor-super-
visee alliance has increasingly emerged as a variable of preeminent impor-
tance in the conceptualization and conduct of the supervision experience: It
has come to be embraced as the very heart and soul of supervision. But after
a half century, what evidence do we actually have to justify that highly
favorable outlook afforded to the alliance? What do we really know about
the supervisory alliance? What do we need to know about it?
As we mark the first 50 years of supervisory alliance and look toward its
future, I thought it might be useful to examine those questions and provide
a current status report about the construct itself. In what follows, I (a)
describe the two supervisory alliance visions that have been (and remain)
dominant in the supervision literature and (b) provide a review of 20 plus
years of supervision alliance research. While the supervisory alliance has
accumulated solid clinical support, its empirical support appears to be more
tentative and less robust. I consider why that is so, identify some missing
elements in the alliance research conducted thus far and propose possible
remedies to move inquiry in this area forward.
KEYWORDS: supervisory alliance; supervision alliance; learning alliance;

working alliance; psychotherapy supervision; supervision bond
INTRODUCTION
The relationship between psychotherapy supervisor and supervisee has
long been a matter of concern in the supervision literature (Bernard &
Goodyear, 2014; Falender & Shafranske, 2012). Even in some of the
earliest writings about supervision, the importance of the supervisory
connection, if not explicitly emphasized, appears to have been implicitly
conveyed (e.g., Eitingon, 1923, 1926; Watkins, 2013a). In contemporary
Department of Psychology, University of North Texas. Mailing address: 1155 Union Circle
#311280, Denton, TX 76203-5017. e-mail: [email protected]
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY, Vol. 68, No. 1, 2014
19
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
practice, the supervisor-supervisee relationship continues to be assigned a

place of nuclear significance; as now conceptualized, it encompasses a host
of substantive variables, including supervisory style, real relationship,
transference-countertransference configuration, supervisee anxiety, and
issues of difference and diversity (Beinart, 2012; Crook Lyon & Potkar,
2010; Rodenhauser, 1997; Toldson & Utsey, 2008; Watkins, 2011b). But of
the various elements that compose the supervision relationship, none
seems to exert more power and influence on supervisor and supervisee
than their jointly-forged supervisory alliance.
Over the course of the last half century, the supervisory alliance—
which tends to be thought of as the supervision equivalent of the psycho-
therapeutic alliance— has emerged as supremely significant in the concep-
tualization and conduct of the supervision experience (Bordin, 1983;
Falender & Shafranske, 2004; Fleming & Benedek, 1964; Teitelbaum,
1995, 2001). The alliance has been increasingly embraced as the very heart
and soul of supervision, and its potential impact on the supervisee change
process and supervision outcome has generally come to be regarded as
affecting and far reaching (Inman & Ladany, 2008; Ladany & Inman,
2012). Across psychology competency frameworks, the formation and
management of the supervisory alliance has been made a core competency
internationally (Falender, Cornish, Goodyear, Hatcher, Kaslow, Lev-
enthal, & Grus, 2004; Fleming, 2012; Gonsalvez & Milne, 2010; Psychol-
ogy Board of Australia, 2011; Roth & Pilling, 2008; Turpin & Wheeler,
2011). Regardless of the supervision model employed (e.g., psychotherapy-
focused, social role models), form of treatment being supervised (e.g.,
individual, family), or type of population served, the alliance tends now to
be recognized as pivotal in making the work of supervision possible
(Falender & Shafranske, 2008; Hess, Hess, & Hess, 2008; Stoltenberg &
McNeil, 2010; Watkins, 2012). Some supervision approaches may weigh
the role of alliance more heavily than others (cf. Beck, Sarnat, & Baran-
stein, 2008), but its place in supervision appears to be uniformly acknowl-
edged and accepted across varied models of conceptual understanding.
In this paper, I would like to shine a critical light on the supervisory
alliance and to consider its current status and future directions. With the
supervisory alliance having reached the half century mark, and being
regarded as such a pivotal, transtheoretical construct in guiding supervi-
sion practice, I thought it might be a good time to “take stock” and
examine two basic questions:
● What have we learned about the supervisory alliance thus far?
20
Supervisory Alliance
● What do we need to know about it for our alliance knowledge and

understanding to most fruitfully advance?
I will address those questions by (a) defining and describing the two
alliance perspectives that dominate supervision theory, practice, and re-
search; (b) reviewing the supervision research that has emerged over the
past generation; and (c) developing an integrative picture of the present
status and future needs of the supervisory alliance.
TWO GENERATIVE VISIONS OF THE ALLIANCE IN

SUPERVISION
To best understand the supervisory alliance in a contemporary perspective,
it is important to first look back, examine how the construct began to take
form in psychological thought, and reflect on how it came to inform our
views about “good” supervision. As with so much in psychotherapy’s
origin and evolution, the alliance is typically viewed as having begun with
Freud; that beginning also appears to have laid the groundwork for the
eventual emergence of alliance considerations in supervision.
FREUD’S CONTRIBUTIONS AND BEYOND
Although Freud did not specifically use the term “alliance” until his
1937 paper on analysis terminable or interminable, there is little question
that his ongoing clinical work consistently revolved around matters of
alliance. As Hatcher (2010) has nicely summarized: “Freud encountered
alliance issues as soon as he began to use psychological methods with his
patients. . . .we can identify as alliance issues his struggles to engage and
keep his patients in treatment” (p. 8). In his writings, Freud (1913/1958,
1937/1964) made mention of the supreme importance of “a well-devel-
oped rapport”, pact, or compact between analyst and analysand for
treatment advance. As his thinking evolved, the element of collaboration
came to figure far more prominently into his vision of psychoanalysis
(Hatcher, 2010). Building on those seminal concepts, other notable ana-
lysts such as Sterba (1934), Zetzel (1956), and Greenson (1965, 1967)
introduced the terms of alliance, therapeutic alliance, or working alliance
into the psychoanalytic lexicon, and the treatment relationship became
increasingly conceptualized as a type of joint relational effort or therapeu-
tic partnership. As the idea of a treatment alliance gained traction and
acceptance in psychoanalytic thought, a related question soon emerged:
How might the construct of alliance also apply to the psychoanalytic
supervision relationship?
21
THE FLEMING AND BENEDEK PERSPECTIVE ON THE LEARNING ALLIANCE

In the mid-1960s, Fleming and Benedek (1964, 1966) first proposed the
concept of a learning alliance for psychoanalytic supervision, though they
readily acknowledged Freud’s contributions in stimulating their own
supervision alliance formulations.
The structure of both the analytic and supervisory situations is determined
primarily by the goal which each participant expects to accomplish in their
work together. These ultimate expectations, whether therapeutic or edu-
cational, orient the behavior of each member and guide their interactions
through many vicissitudes. Expectations of giving and receiving help
initiate a bond of trust and confidence between analyst and patient without
which analytic work cannot proceed. . . . In supervision there exists the
same necessity for acceptance of a mutually shared educational goal and
the same need for confidence that the expectations of teacher and learner
can be satisfied. The term learning alliance describes the essential charac-
teristic of this relationship (pp. 52-53).
For Fleming and Benedek, the learning alliance—a supervision partner-
ship, pact, or compact—was sine qua non for supervisor and supervisee to
work profitably together.
Their vision of the learning alliance brought into focus the necessity of
key features such as supervisor empathic perceptiveness and responsive-
ness, creation of a state of rapport in supervision, determination of a
supervision goal or goals in common, and placement of learning tasks that
stimulate goal accomplishment. The primary goals that provided guidance
for supervision were: (a) insuring patient care; (b) enhancing the analyst’s
knowledge; and (c) developing and enhancing the use of self as analytic
instrument during the treatment process. Some of the learning tasks
involved were: (a) the analyst/student’s working up case material for
presentation in supervision; (b) the supervisor’s educational diagnosis of
student’s learning needs for remediation; and (c) the supervisor’s sharing
of instructive and corrective feedback. The Fleming/Benedek conceptual-
ization accentuated, as never before, the ideas that supervision was itself a
type of collaboration and the nature of that collaboration could be
expected to substantially affect the entirety of the supervisory process and
its eventual outcome (Watkins, 2011b). The concept of learning alliance
has since heartily endured, proven quite durable down through the
decades, and continues to be widely regarded as being of pivotal, nuclear
significance for psychoanalytic supervision practice today (see Dewald,
1987, 1997; Frawley-O’Dea & Sarnat, 2001; Gill, 2001; Hyman, 2008;
22
Kernberg, 2010; Oberman, 1990; Rock, 1997; Sarnat, 2012; Teitelbaum,

1990b, 2001; Watkins, 2013b).
THE BORDIN PERSPECTIVE ON THE SUPERVISION WORKING ALLIANCE
As prelude to and model for his supervision working alliance concep-
tualization, Bordin (1979)— building on the work of Greenson (1967),
Menninger (1958), Sterba (1934), and Zetzel (1956)—first proposed a
highly heuristic, pan-theoretical vision of the treatment working alliance
that hinged on three crucial components: The therapist-patient bond, the
collaboratively established goals that guide the treatment process, and the
collaboratively agreed-upon tasks that facilitate pursuit of goal attainment.
In his presidential address to the Society for Psychotherapy Research,
Bordin (1980) incorporated the importance of rupture and repair events
into his alliance formulations (a substantive elaboration upon his earlier
proposal). While the working alliance has long been a variable of preem-
inent concern in contemporary psychotherapy research, Bordin’s tripartite
reconceptualization is credited with opening up untold possibilities for
taking the alliance agenda into new and unexplored directions (Horvath,
2001); psychotherapy research across the last few decades has clearly
borne strong testament to that reality (Lambert, 2013; Orlinsky, Ron-
nestad, & Willutzki, 2004).
Drawing on his treatment working alliance model, Bordin (1983)
proposed a similar pan-theoretical vision of the supervision working
alliance, which accordingly was composed of three core elements: The
supervisor-supervisee bond, the collaboratively established goals that
guide the supervision process, and the collaboratively agreed-upon tasks
that facilitate pursuit of supervision goal attainment. As with the thera-
peutic working alliance, Bordin also envisioned rupture and repair events
as playing a significant role in the development and maintenance of the
supervision working alliance. The supervisor and supervisee bond was
considered to involve their shared “feelings of liking, caring, and trusting”
(Bordin, 1983, p. 36) and to “typically fall somewhere between. . . teacher
to class members and therapist to patient” (p. 38). Bordin (1983) identified
eight possible goals that could be used to guide supervision process:
(1) mastery of specific skills;
(2) enlarging one’s understanding of clients;
(3) enlarging one’s awareness of process issues;
(4) increasing awareness of self and impact on process;
(5) overcoming personal and intellectual obstacles toward learning
and mastery;
23
(6) deepening one’s understanding of concepts and theory;

(7) providing a stimulus to research; and
(8) maintaining standards of service (pp. 37-38).
He also identified three tasks by which those goals could be pursued in
supervision: (a) report (oral or written) prepared by the therapist of the
hour or hours to be reviewed; (b) treatment session observation through
audio-recordings, video-recordings, or live viewing; and (c) presentation of
problems or issues in supervision selected by the supervisee (p. 38).
Like Fleming and Benedek’s conception of the learning alliance, Bor-
din’s conception of the supervision working alliance has proven highly
durable, is embraced as being of pivotal, nuclear significance in much
psychotherapy supervision practice, and is increasingly heuristic in stimu-
lating supervision research (Inman & Ladany, 2008; Ladany, 2004; Ladany
& Inman, 2012).
THE TWO ALLIANCE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS IN PERSPECTIVE
Fleming and Benedek focused their alliance attention on psychoana-
lytic supervision exclusively, whereas Bordin (while psychodynamically
influenced) proposed a pan-theoretical alliance perspective. But as is clear
from a reading of these two supervision alliance descriptions, both visions
are highly similar in content—invoking a shared bond or rapport as
requisite, shared goals as critical, and learning tasks as mandatory. While
Bordin may have identified more goals overall, the goals across both
visions are alike, as are the tasks involved in their pursuit. The essence of
the Fleming/Benedek and Bordin supervision alliance proposals is much
the same if not identical. In my reading, I have found that Fleming/
Benedek’s learning alliance understandably appears far more apt to be
familiar to and used by mental health professionals—particularly psycho-
analysts and psychiatrists—who readily identify themselves as psychoana-
lytic, whereas Bordin’s supervision working alliance appears far more apt
to be familiar to and used by mental health professionals—particularly
psychologists, social workers, and counselors—who reflect a host of varied
theoretical leanings. Exceptions can certainly be found, but if examined
across disciplines, those differences appear to hold up quite well.
What then are the operational specifics that seem to cut across these
two alliance perspectives in supervision? And how might those specifics be
captured in a succinct but meaningful way? Based on my reading of the
Fleming/Benedek and Bordin visions, some core features (after Rogers,
1957) that appear requisite for early alliance formation in supervision
might best be formulated as follows:
24
1. Supervisor and supervisee are in psychoeducational contact (i.e.,

they are bound together by a matter of educational and psycho-
logical importance).
2. The supervisee, being in a state of educational incongruence,
experiences both (a) vulnerability and anxiety about the process of
learning psychotherapy and (b) openness and readiness to engage
in that process with the supervisor. Educational incongruence can
be defined as the perceived and actual dissimilarity between what
learners know (real) and what they want or need to know (ideal).
3. The supervisor, being in a state of educational congruence, expe-
riences openness and readiness to enter into the supervisory rela-
tionship with the supervisee. Educational congruence can be de-
fined as the perceived and actual similarity between what
supervisors know (real) and what they need to know (ideal).
4. The supervisor experiences the necessary psychological conditions
(e.g., liking supervision, empathic attunement) and performs the
necessary behaviors (e.g., verbal support, being fully present and
available) that make alliance formation increasingly possible and
communicates those conditions/behaviors to the supervisee.
5. The supervisee is receptive to and perceives the psychological
conditions/behaviors offered by the supervisor.
6. The supervisee experiences the necessary psychological conditions
(e.g., respect, desire to be supervised) and performs the necessary
behaviors (e.g., verbal engagement) that make alliance formation
increasingly possible and accordingly communicates those condi-
tions/behaviors to the supervisor.
7. The supervisor is receptive to and perceives the psychological
conditions/behaviors offered by the supervisee.
8. Supervisor and supervisee collaboratively discuss and identify pos-
sible goals for guiding the supervisory experience.
9. Supervisor and supervisee collaboratively agree upon and establish
supervision goals to be achieved.
10. Supervisor and supervisee collaboratively discuss and identify pos-
sible tasks by which supervisory goals can be pursued.
11. Supervisor and supervisee collaboratively agree upon and establish
tasks by which goals will be pursued.
12. Supervisor and supervisee remain open to discussing their relation-
ship and renegotiating the supervisory contract as needed.
While not exhaustive, those 12 postulates—which are explicitly stated
within or suggested by the Fleming/Benedek (1964, 1966) and Bordin
25
(1983) visions—paint a portrait of some essentials needed for supervision

alliance formation to occur. Where compromise occurs at any point (e.g.,
a lack of openness or receptivity), alliance formation will be negatively
affected and, in turn, can be slowed in its development and rendered less
likely to occur. Approaches to considering supervision goals and tasks can
conceivably be quite varied in scope, ranging from the more formalized
and contractual to the relatively informal (see Alonso, 2000; Bordin, 1983;
Gordan, 1996; Jacobs, David, & Meyer, 1995; Teitlebaum, 1990a). What
appears most important is having a mutually clarifying discussion and
reaching a mutually clarifying agreement.
The Fleming/Benedek and Bordin visions provide us with two highly
similar ways by which to understand the supervision alliance and its
development. Although having psychoanalytic provenance, the supervisory
alliance has since been embraced as a construct of transtheoretical import
(cf. Carroll, 2009, 2010; Farber, 2012; Hawkins & Shohet, 2012; Ladany,
Friedlander, & Nelson, 2005; Levenson & Ladany, 2012; Reiser & Milne,
2012; Sarnat, 2012; Scaturo, 2012; Stoltenberg & McNeil, 2010; Watkins,
2012; Watkins & Milne, 2014). As now conceptualized in psychotherapy
supervision, the supervision alliance has come to be viewed as the very
heart and soul of the supervision endeavor itself. Extrapolating Bordin’s
(1979, p. 253) propostions about the therapeutic working alliance to
supervision, the following statements appear to capture current thinking
about the transtheoretical applicability of the supervisory alliance:
1. All approaches to psychotherapy supervision involve embedded
working alliances;
2. Each supervision approach (e.g., psychoanalytic-focused versus
cognitive-focused) involves its own type of alliance—possessing
some unique features and characteristics that serve to differentiate
and define it;
3. Supervision effectiveness appears to largely be a function of the
strength of the working alliance between supervisor and super-
visee; and
4. The strength of the supervisory working alliance is a function of
closeness of fit between two intersecting sets of variables: (a) the
inherent demands and requirements of the type of working alliance
being implemented; and (b) the personal characteristics that su-
pervisor and supervisee bring to and make manifest in the super-
vision situation.
26
WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM SUPERVISION ALLIANCE

RESEARCH?
CONTEXT AND METHOD
In complementing the theoretical/practical material considered thus
far, I would like to next examine the research that has been done on the
supervisory alliance. The primary questions that I will address are: Across
the last 20 plus years, what have we learned empirically about the
supervisory alliance? What do we not know? What do we need to know?
My specific focus will be on the supervisory alliance as studied in psycho-
logical treatment supervision (i.e., the supervision of psychotherapy or
counseling)—as opposed to other forms of clinical supervision, such as
occupational therapy or speech pathology, where psychological treatment
is not the primary subject of concern. Psychological treatment supervision
will be defined as: A “distinct professional activity” (Falender & Shafran-
ske, 2004, p. 3) or “intervention” (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014) in which a
senior professional (supervisor) serves as mentor or guide to a junior
professional (supervisee) who is in the process of learning and practicing
psychological treatment; its primary objective is enhancement of the
supervisee’s professional functioning, it involves evaluation of that profes-
sional functioning by the supervisor, and it is a hierarchical monitoring
process (supervisor to supervisee) that serves a protective function for both
patients and profession (Milne, 2007; Thomas, 2010).
In a broad-based review of psychoanalytic constructs in psychotherapy
supervision, I (Watkins, 2010) examined the features of 17 supervisory
alliance studies (along with parallel process and countertransference re-
search) appearing up through the early part of 2010. The focus, with one
study excepted, was on the individual therapy supervision relationship (as
opposed to group and marital/family therapy supervision). As part of this
half-century retrospective, and in order to provide a more complete
picture of where alliance research stands now, I would like to build on and
render the alliance portion of the earlier review current. Although the
primary alliance conclusions were recently made (and will be referenced in
my discussion), the alliance portion of the review could benefit from
updating for two reasons: (a) several important alliance studies that merit
scrutiny were not included; and (b) in the last several years supervision
alliance studies have shown a considerable comparative increase. In the
earlier review, studies were not included for three reasons: (a) investiga-
tions were published at or shortly before the review’s close date; (b)
investigations did not focus on the supervisory alliance as the primary
27
variable of interest; and (c) investigations were missed due to oversight. I

have attempted here to cast my net as widely as possible and include all
studies where the supervisory alliance was a variable of interest in any way.
As with the earlier review, my focus will be on individual supervision; it
remains the most prevalently-used form of supervision learning—what
Bernard and Goodyear (2014) have referred to as “the cornerstone of
professional development.” Thus, to get the most contemporary, in-
formed, and comprehensive picture of supervision alliance research, I
subsequently consider the entirety of such studies done so far; to make that
possible, I have taken material from Watkins (2010; with permission),
identified missed and new research studies, and accordingly combined the
two sources of research information for review purposes.
To identify those new and missed articles, four steps were taken: (a)
PsycInfo, MedLine, Education Research Complete, and Google Scholar
database searches were conducted using “supervisory alliance” or “super-
vision alliance” as the key search words; (b) reference sections of identified
studies were examined to further identify other appropriate articles for
inclusion that might have been missed (“ancestry approach”; Cooper,
1989); (c) supervision journals or journals that publish some supervision
material were examined for any recent articles that might have appeared;
and (d) recent supervision texts (e.g., Ladany & Bradley, 2010) were also
examined to further find any other possible missed work. Based on those
steps, a total of 24 new or missed studies was identified for inclusion,
which were then combined with 16 of the earlier-identified studies (Wat-
kins, 2010; the one study from that review on marital/family supervision
[Inman, 2006] was not included here). The review time period spanned
from 1/1990 through the early part of 2013. Each article was reviewed to
determine: Setting/sample characteristics, measures used, procedure, anal-
yses, findings/conclusions, and limitations/strengths. Table 1 provides a
summary of those seven features for each study. Table 2 provides a more
focused snapshot of study similarities across several selected variables of
empirical import.
REVIEW RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In examining the study information, the results will be considered
according to the seven features identified in Table 1.
SETTING/SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
The vast majority of investigations (34 out of 40) took place in
university settings or settings where graduate students were being trained;
28
Table 1. STUDIES OF THE SUPERVISORY ALLIANCE, 1990-2013
Study Sample Characteristics Measures/Assessment Used Procedure Analyses Used Findings Limitations
Bennett, 72 MSW students in their field Working Alliance Inventory; Survey packet containing Multiple Supervision-specific Ex post facto design;
BrintzenhofeSzoc, placements (26female, 5male; 80% Supervisory Styles questionnaires provided to regression attachments found to focus on
Mohr, & Saks White; mean age⫽32.5 years; Inventory; trainees for completion analyses strongly predict supervision supervisees’
(2008) demographics provided for only 30 Relationship Scales alliance perceptions; perspective only;
individuals, not entire sample) Questionnaire; alliance rated least self-report survey
Relationship Structures favorably by highly data;48% return

Questionnaire (RSQ) avoidant supervisees rate
Bhat & Davis 119 supervisors (80 female, 39 male; White Racial Identity Survey packet containing ANOVA Racial identity status of Ex post facto design;
(2007) 108 White, 10 African-American, 1 Attitude Scale or People questionnaires provided to supervisor and supervisee self-report survey
Latino; x age ⫽ 50.5 years; 90 of Color Racial Identity all supervisors for related to strength of data; supervisors
master’s degree, 21 doctoral degree, 8 Attitude Scale; completion supervision alliance (where provided all
other) Perceptions of Supervisee identity status high for ratings; no
Racial Identity for White both, alliance rated more supervisee ratings
or Perceptions of favorably; converse where included
Supervisee Racial Identity identity status low for
for POC; Working both)
Alliance Inventory-
Supervisor Version;
demographic
questionnaire
Bilodeau & 31 supervisees (26 female, 5 male, x Supervisory Working At study’s outset, supervisees Repeated Supervisees rated alliance Only four individuals
Lecomte (2010) age⫽31.9 years), 13 supervisors (9 Alliance Inventory-T completed measures more favorably across all in high shame
female, 4 male, x age⫽37.5); each (SWAI-T; supervisee ISS and demographic ANOVAs sessions compared to group; some
student received five supervision version); Supervisory questionnaire; supervisees supervisors; supervisee supervisees shared
sessions Working Alliance again completed ISS after shame-proneness had no same supervisor;
Inventory-S (SWAI-S; final supervision session; effect on alliance ratings of one university
supervisor version); after each supervision either supervisee or sample; self-report
Internalized Shame Scale session, supervisees and supervisor survey data
(ISS) supervisors, respectively,
completed SWAI-T and
SWAI-S
Bilodeau & 43 supervisees (36 female, 7 male, x Supervisory Working At study’s outset, supervisees Independent Shame proneness affected One university
Lecomte (2012) age⫽30.1 years); each student Alliance Inventory-T completed samples t supervisees’ alliance ratings sample; self-report
received five supervision sessions (SWAI-T; supervisee ISS and demographic tests; across five sessions; highly survey data
version); Internalized questionnaire; supervisees repeated shame prone supervisees
Shame Scale (ISS); again completed ISS after measures rated alliance more
Session Evaluation final supervision session; analysis of favorably after first session
Questionnaire (SEQ) after each supervision covariance but not after fifth
session, supervisees
completed SWAI-T and
SEQ
29
30
Table 1. (CONTINUED)
Bucky, Marques, 87 clinical psychology doctoral Supervisee Evaluation of Students who had completed Frequencies “The results of the study Ex post facto design;
Daly, Alley, & students(74 female, 13 male; 72 Supervisor Questionnaire practicum or internship determined support the... importance frequencies only;
Karp (2010) White, 1 African-American, 5 Latino, the previous year filled out of the supervisory self-report survey
5 Asian-American; 64 students 20 to online questionnaire relationship or working data from
30 years in age, remainder over 30; alliance...”(Bucky et al., supervisees only
26, 36, 16, and 9 students, 2010, p. 159).
respectively, identified as being in
their second, third, fourth, and fifth
year (or beyond) of training
Burke, Goodyear, & 10 supervisor-supervisee dyads (5 Working Alliance Inventory- Supervisor and supervisee ANOVA, t Supervisor ratings of alliance Still the only study
Guzzardo (1998) female, 5 male supervisors; 7 female, Modified (WAI-M; completed their respective tests, considered more stable and to examine alliance
3 male supervisees) from mental parallel versions for versions of WAI-M after audiotape consistent than supervisee rupture/repair
health center or counseling center supervisor and first and last of ten coding ratings; supervisee events in process;
settings; supervisees all pre-doctoral supervisee); Working audiotaped sessions; for experience level appeared multiple case study
psychology interns Alliance Inventory- sessions 2-9, supervisor to affect alliance weakening design
Modified Short Form and supervisee completed and repair events
(WAI-MSF; parallel their respective versions of
versions for supervisor WAI-MSF and SEQ-M
and supervisee); Session
Evaluation Questionnaire
(SEQ); outcome rating
scale
Chen & Bernstein 1 high-alliance and 1 low-alliance dyad Supervisory Styles Inventory; Questionnaires completed by Chi-square Higher degree of Relatively small
(2000)1 selected from 10 supervision dyads Critical Incidents supervisor/ supervisee tests and complementary interaction sample pool
overall (9 White female and 1 White Questionnaire; dyads prior to first correlational found in “high-rated Limited evidence to
male supervisees in first counseling Supervisory Working supervision meetingand data alliance” dyad as opposed support validity of
practicum; x age⫽36; 6 White female Alliance Inventory during the three to “low-rated alliance” dyad Complementarity
and 1 white male doctoral student (Trainee and Supervisor supervision meetings held Indices in
supervisors [in supervision course], x Versions); supervision
age ⫽ 33) Complementarity Indices research
Age and experience
differences in high-
alliance versus low-
alliance dyads
Cooper & Ng 64 supervisees (61 female, 3 male; 64% Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaires packets Hierarchical Higher levels of emotional Ex post facto design;
(2009) White, 28% African-Americans, 3% Questionnaire-Short provided to supervisor/ multiple intelligence related to more self-report survey
Latino, 2% Asian-Americans, 2% Form; Working Alliance supervisee dyads for regression favorable perceptions of data; 36% and
American Indian, 1% other; x age Inventory-Modified completion analysis supervisory alliance for 26% response rate,
⫽33.8 years;) completing internship in (supervisee and supervisor both supervisee and respectively, for
community/agency-based sites; 64 versions) supervisor, but no supervisees and
supervisors (55 female, 9 male; 86% interaction effects found supervisors;
White, 9% African-Americans, 3% predominantly
Latino, 2% Asian-Americans,; x age female convenience
⫽46.7 years;) providing supervision to sample
supervisee sample
Culbreth & Borders 370 supervised substance abuse Supervisory Styles Inventory; Survey packet containing Series of Counselor or supervisor Ex post facto design;
(1999) counselors (202 female, 122 male, 36 Supervisor Rating Form- questionnaires provided to MANOVAs recovery status had no self-report survey
no response; 282 White, 65 African- SV; Working Alliance all substance abuse effect on supervision data; supervisee
American, 13others; x age ⫽ 41 Inventory (where counselors for completion relationship variables; perspective only;
years; recovery status⫽235 non- “supervision” substituted supervision alliance bond one state survey
recovering, 123 recovering, 2 no for “counseling” in all rated highly by counselors
response; 40% held graduate degree) items); Barrett-Lennard

Relationship Inventory;
supervision satisfaction
items
Davidson (2011) 184 social work students enrolled in Working Alliance Inventory- Online questionnaires Correlations; More frequent supervisor self- Ex post facto design;
field placement (164 female, 20 male; Trainee Version; completed by all multiple disclosures related to self-report survey
142 White/Caucasian; x age⫽29 Supervisor Self-Disclosure participating students regression stronger supervisory data; supervisee
years; respndents evenly split between Index alliance; certain types of perspective only;
foundation and advanced year) supervisor disclosures (e.g., 23% response rate
normalizing) most strongly
associated with positive
alliance ratings
Deal, Bennett, 100 field instructors (FIs)/ supervisors: Time 1 supervisor Supervisors receiving training Hierarchical Training led to more Intervention study;
Mohr, & Hwang (93 female, 7 male; 70% White, 21% assessments: demographic completed assessments linear favorable perceptions of randomized
(2011) African-Americans, 6% questionnaire, Working time 1 at beginning of first modeling supervisory alliance on the controlled trial;
Latino/Hispanic, 1% Pacific Islander, Alliance Inventory- training session, time 2 at part of supervisors but not increased
2% biracial or other; x age ⫽41.2 Supervisor Version (WAI- end of last training supervisees; “approach likelihood of Type
years;) 48 received training in SVOR), Competency- session, and time 3 at end appeared to help FIs I errors; lack of
Developmental-Relational Approach Based Evaluation (CBE); of academic year; control improve the supervisory statistical power
to Field Supervision, 52 did not time 2 and 3 supervisor group supervisors received alliance from their possible with some
(control group); assessments WAI-SVOR mailed questionnaires at perspective” (Deal et al., student sample
64 supervisees (59 female, 5 male; 80% and CBE; same times; supervisees 2011, p. 722); supervisee results; self-report
White, 9.4% African-Americans, 3% Time 1 supervisee also received their attachment style had no data
Latino/Hispanic, 3% Asian- assessments: demographic questionnaires at same moderating effect
Americans, 5% biracial or other; x questionnaire, times
age ⫽31.1 years) enrolled in year-long Relationship Scales
practicum with with supervisors Questionnaire (RSQ),
Positive and Negative
Affect Scale (PANAS),
Working Alliance
Inventory-Supervisee
Version WAI-SVEE),
Supervisee Levels
Questionnaire-Revised
(SLQ-R); time 2 and 3
supervisee assessments
WAI-SVEE, PANAS, and
SLQ-R
31
32
Dickson, Moberly, 259 clinical psychology trainees (229 Working Alliance Inventory; Online data collected from MANOVAs; Trainees’ ratings of Ex post facto design;
Marshall, & Reilly female, 25 male, 5 unspecified; mean Measure of Parental Style; trainees across 28 clinical structural supervisory working focus on
(2011) age⫽28.6 years; 71% White British; Reciprocal Attachment doctoral programs in equation alliance related to their supervisee
104 1st year trainees, 81 2nd year, 70 Questionnaire; Britain modeling perceptions of supervisor perceptions only;
3rd year, 1 4th year, and 3 unspecified Relationship Questionnaire attachment style; self-report survey
replication of Riggs & data; return rate
Bretz (2006) not reported
Efstation, Patton, & 185 supervisors (69 female, 114 male, 2 Supervisory Working Questionnaire packets mailed Principal Positive relationship found Advanced practicum
Kardash (1990)1 unspecified; x age⫽ 42 years; 122 Alliance Inventory; out components between supervisee self- and intern-level
clinical and 45 counseling Supervisory Style factor efficacy expectations and students only
psychologists, 12 other; outpatient Inventory; Self-Efficacy analysis; perceptions of supervisory
clinics 33%, university/college Inventory hierarchical working alliance
counseling centers 31%; VAs 13%, regression
psychiatric hospitals 21%); 178
supervisees (103 female, 73 male; 2
not specified; x age ⫽ 30 years)
Gatmon, Jackson, 289 predoctoral psychology interns (203 Working Alliance Inventory; Questionnaire packets Frequency Positive relationship found Ex post facto design;
Koshkarian, female, 86 male; 73.4% European- Supervision distributed and between discussions of self-report data;
Martos-Perry, American, 6.6% African-American, Questionnaire—Revised; correlational cultural variables in focused exclusively
Molina, Patel, & 5.9% Asian-American, 5.2% Cultural variables questions analyses, supervision and on perceptions of
Rodolfa (2001)1 Chicano/Latino, 8% other) ANOVAs supervisees’ reported supervisees

and satisfaction with
MANOVAs supervision and supervisory
working alliance
Gnilka, Chang, & 232 supervisees (200 female, 30 male, 2 Demographic sheet; Questionnaires answered via Stepwise Supervisee stress (where rated Ex post facto design;
Dew (2012) transgender; 78% White, 11% Working Alliance web link by supervisees multiple more highly) found to self-report survey
African-American, 3% Latino, 3% Inventory-Short Form regression negatively impact data; focused
Asian/Pacific Islander, 5% biracial; x (WAI-S); Supervisory analyses perceptions of the exclusively on
age⫽32.8 years) participating in Working Alliance supervisory alliance; coping perceptions of
practicum/internship across varied Inventory-Trainee Version resources (where rated supervisees
settings (SWAI-TV); Perceived more highly) found to
Stress Scale (PSS); Coping positively impact
Resources Inventory for supervisory alliance
Stress-Short Form (CRIS- perceptions
SF)
Gunn & Pistole 480 supervisees (393 female, 80 male, Demographis questionnaire; Questionnaires distributed to Structural Higher supervisory alliance Ex post facto design;
(2012) 83% Caucasian, 3,5% African- Experiences in graduate students via the equation ratings and higher self-report survey
American, 2% Asian-American; x Supervision Scale; Web modeling disclosure in supervision data; focused
age⫽ 30 years; from master’s and Supervisory Working related to higher supervisee exclusively on
doctoral counseling and clinical Alliance Inventory- attachment security to perceptions of
programs Trainee Version; supervisor supervisees
Disclosure in Supervision
Scale
Ladany, Brittan- 105 supervisees (81 female, 23 male; 1 Cultural Identity Attitude Questionnaire packets Factorial Expected relations found Ex post facto design;
Powell, & Pannu unspecified; 71% White, 11% Scale; White Racial distributed to graduate MANOVA between supervisees’ self-report survey
(1997)1 African-American, 5% Asian- Identity Attitude Scale; training programs perceptions of racial data; focused
American, 11% Latino, 3% other; x Perceptions of Supervisor identity interaction and exclusively on
age ⫽ 29.9 years; clinical psychology Racial Identity; Working supervisory working perceptions of
17%; counseling psychology/ Alliance Inventory- alliance supervisees
counselor education 71%;doctoral Trainee Version; Cross-
43%, master’s 50%; Cultural Counseling
university/college counseling center Inventory—Revised
38%, mental health center 22%,

schools 27%)
Ladany, Ellis, & 107 supervisees (72 female, 35 male; Working Alliance Inventory- Questionnaire packets Multivariate Emotional bond component Ex post facto design;
Friedlander 86% White, 7% African-Americans, Trainee Version; distributed multiple of alliance significantly self-report survey
(1999)1 3% Latino, 2% Asian-Americans, Self-Efficacy Inventory; regression related to supervisee data; focused
3% unspecified; x age ⫽29.9 years; Trainee Personal Reaction analysis satisfaction with exclusively on
clinical psychology 36%, counseling Scale—Revised supervision perceptions of
psychology/counselor education 59%; supervisees
doctoral 71%, master’s 29%;
university/college counseling center
40%, mental health center 25%, VA
22%)
Ladany & 123 supervisees (81 female, 42 male; Working Alliance Inventory- Questionnaire packets Multivariate Expected relations found Ex post facto design;
Friedlander 85% White, 8% African-American, Trainee Version; distributed multiple between supervisory self-report survey
(1995)1 2.4% Latino, 1.6 Asian-American, Role Conflict and Role regression working alliance and data; focused
2.4% unspecified; x age ⫽ 30 years; Ambiguity Inventory analysis supervisees’ perceptions of exclusively on
54% counseling psychology, 37% role conflict and role perceptions of
clinical psychology; 68% doctoral ambiguity supervisees;
27% masters; university/college advanced sample
counseling center 41%, mental health of supervisees
center 23%, VA 20%)
Ladany & Lehrman- 105 supervisees (82 female, 23 male; 84 Supervisor Self-Disclosure Questionnaire packets Univariate and Positive relationship found Ex post facto design;
Waterman White, 12 African-American, 5 Questionnaire; distributed multivariate between supervisor self- self-report survey
(1999)1 Hispanic, 1 unspecified; x age ⫽ 30.4 Supervisor Self-Disclosure regression disclosure frequency and data; focused
years; clinical psychology 30%, Index; analyses supervisory working exclusively on
counseling psychology/ counselor Supervisory Styles Inventory; alliance components (goals, perceptions of
education 67%) Working Alliance Inventory- tasks, and bond) supervisee; used
Trainee Version supervisee recall
Ladany, Lehrman- 151 supervisees (114 females, 36 males, Supervisor Ethical Practice Questionnaire packets Multivariate Expected relations found Ex post facto design;
Waterman, 1 unspecified; 121 White, 12 African- Questionnaire; distributed to graduate multiple between supervisee self-report survey
Molinaro, & American, 4 Latino, 1 Native Supervisor Ethical Behavior training programs and regression perceptions of supervisors’ data; focused
Wolgast (1999)1 American, 4 unspecified; x age ⫽ Scale; training sites analysis ethical behaviors and exclusively on
31.5 years; clinical psychology 26%; Working Alliance Inventory- working alliance perceptions of
counseling psychology 68%; 58% Trainee Version; components supervisees
doctoral, 36% master’s; university/ Supervisee Satisfaction
college counseling center 41%, Questionnaire
mental health center 18%; schools
9%; prisons 4%; private practice
2%)
33
34
Ladany, Mori, & 128 supervisees (100 females, 27 males, Supervisee evaluation of Participants responded to Series of Behaviors of best and worst Primarily ex post
Mehr (2013) 1 unspecified; 109 White, 5 African- supervisor form; Working questionnaires via web multivariate supervisors identified; facto design; self-
American, 8 Latino/Hispanic, 3 Alliance Inventory/ link; asked to reflect upon analyses results supported report survey data;
Asian-American/Pacific Islander, 2 Supervision-Short Form; a “best supervisor” and a supervision relationship as focused exclusively
other, 1 unspecified; x age ⫽ 35.4 Supervisory Styles “worst supervisor” in “foundational competency”, on perceptions of
years; doctoral programs represented Inventory; Supervisor responding “important influence on supervisees
58% clinical psychology, 29% Self-Disclosure Index; supervisee learning”;
counseling psychology, 5% school Trainee Disclosure Scale; concluded that effective
psychology, 9% other) Evaluation Process supervisors foremost work
Within Supervision toward developing a strong
Inventory supervisory alliance
Ladany, Walker, & 137 supervisors (80 female, 55 male, 1 Supervisory Styles Inventory; Questionnaire packets mailed Multivariate Positive relationship found Ex post facto design;
Melincoff (2001)1 other; 119 White, 6 African- Working Alliance multiple between supervisory style self-report survey
American, 3 Latino, 1 other; x age ⫽ Inventory-Supervisor regression and working alliance data; focused
45 years; clinical psychology 18%; Version; analysis components exclusively on
counseling psychology/counselor Supervisor Self-Disclosure perceptions of
education 68%; 110 doctoral, 27 Inventory supervisors; could
master’s; university/ college not determine
counseling center 33%, mental health return rate
center 15%; academic 15%)
Livni, Crowe, & 37 supervisees (22 female, 7 male, 8 no Demographic questionnaire; Supervisors received either Repeated Stronger supervisory alliance Infrequency of
Gonsalvez (2012) response; modal age⫽45; 16 nurses, 5 Supervisory Working individual, group, or measures correlated with greater supervision
psychologists, 1 social worker, 3 case Alliance Inventory individual/group within perceived supervision sessions; self-
workers, 2 addictions counselors, 10 (parallel forms for supervision training; groups effectiveness; stronger report survey data;
other/unidentified); 10 supervisors (5 supervisor and supervisees randomly design alliance negatively related focused exclusively
female, 5 male; 5 psychologists, 2 supervisee); Supervision assigned to individual or to burnout and positively on perceptions of
managers, 1 nurse, 2 unspecified); all Evaluation Questionnaire; group supervision related to job satisfaction supervisees;
participants from Area Health Service Maslach Burnout conditions; supervisees and well-being in individual absence of
in New South Wales, Australia Inventory; Intrinsic Job completed measures at supervision condition independent
satisfaction Scale; Scales baseline, again right before control group
of Psychological Well- the start of their
Being; California supervision (with the
Psychotherapy Alliance trained supervisors), and
Scale-Group-Modified six months later
Mena & Bailey 51 supervisors (47 female, 4 male; 49 Supervisory Working Questionnaire packets Hierarchical Positive relations between Ex post facto design;
(2007)1 White, 1 African-American, 1 other); Alliance Inventory distributed linear alliance rapport and self-report survey
80 workers (all female; 69 White, 7 (Supervisor and Worker modeling workers’ job satisfaction; data; one point in
African-American, 3 Hispanic, 1 Versions); negative relations found time sampled
other) Minnesota Satisfaction between alliance rapport
Questionnaire; and workers’ emotional
Maslach Burnout Inventory exhaustion and
depersonalization
Mehr, Ladany, & 204 supervisees (172 females, 28 males, Demographic questionnaire; Participants responded to Chi-square “…strong supervisory Ex post facto design;
Caskie (2010) 4 unspecified; 181 White, 2 African- Supervisee Nondisclosure questionnaires via web analyses; working alliance was self-report survey
American, 5 Latino/Hispanic, 2 Survey; Trainee link multivariate related to a lower amount data; focused
Native American/Alaskan Native, 7 Disclosure Scale; Working multiple of trainee nondisclosure exclusively on
Asian-American/Pacific Islander, 7 Alliance Inventory/ regression and a higher overall perceptions of
other/unspecified; x age⫽29.4 years; Supervision-Short analysis willingness to disclose in a supervisees
graduate programs represented 67% (Trainee Version); Trainee single supervision session”
clinical psychology, 23% counseling Anxiety Scale (p. 110).

psychology; practicum settings
represented 28% university/college
counseling center, 21% mental health
center, 21% hospitals)
Newgent, Davis, & 15 doctoral students enrolled in Working Alliance Inventory Measures completed on each ANOVAs No significant alliance Ex post facto design;
Farley (2004) supervision course (8 female, 7 male; (WAI; for measuring type of supervision differences found between self-report survey
11 White, 4 non-White); each student supervision of supervision received (individual, triadic and individual data; focused
received a certain number of alliance); Supervisory group, triadic) models or triadic and exclusively on
individual, group, and triadic Styles Inventory (SSI); group models perceptions of
supervision of supervision sessions Supervisory Working supervisees; small
Alliance Inventory- sample size;
Supervisee Form (SWAI); supervisee
Supervision of exposure to
Supervision Evaluation individual and
(SSE) triadic supervision
highly variable
Patton & Kivlighan 75 graduate-level pre-practicum Working Alliance Inventory; “Clients” seen by beginning Hierarchical Positive relationship found Focused on self-
(1997)1 supervisees (53 female, 22 male; 64 Supervisor Working Alliance graduate-level students for linear between supervisees’ report perceptions
European-American, 11 Inventory (Supervisee 4 50-minute sessions; modeling perceptions of supervisory of supervisees and
African-American; x age⫽27.7 years); Form); “supervisees” then seen working alliance and clients; “clients”
77 clients (59 female, 16 male; 69 Vanderbilt Therapeutic for supervision session clients’ perceptions of were compensated
European-American, 8 Strategies Scale after each client meeting; therapeutic working undergraduate
African-American; x age⫽20 years; time-limited dynamic alliance volunteers who
compensated undergraduate psychotherapy the had not actually
volunteers) treatment focus sought treatment;
videotape session
data also rated
Quarto (2002)1 72 supervisees (78% female, 22% male; Supervision Interaction Questionnaire packets Exploratory Negative relationship found Ex post facto design;
86% White, 6% African-American, Questionnaire; distributed factor between supervision self-report survey
4% Hispanic, 4% Other; x age⫽33.5 Supervisory Working analysis conflict and supervision data; perceptions
years; university counseling centers Alliance Inventory One-factor working alliance sampled at only
28%, agencies 21%, psychology (Trainee and Supervisor ANOVA one point in time
clinics 3%, other 15%); 74 versions)
supervisors (61% female, 39% male;
x age⫽44.4 years; 73% professionals
in counselor education, counseling
psychology, or clinical psychology,
23% other)
35
36
Ramos-Sanchez, 126 practicum students and interns Relationship Questionnaire; Questionnaire packets Correlational, Expected relations found Ex post facto design;
Esnil, Goodwin, (73% female, 27% male; 79% Working Alliance distributed MANOVA, between supervisee self-report survey
Riggs, Touster, European-American, 21% Other; x Inventory; and developmental level, data; focused
Wright, age⫽30.7 years) Supervisee Levels qualitative negative supervisory events, exclusively on
Ratanasiripuns, & Questionnaire-Revised analyses and perceptions of perceptions of
Radolfa (2002)1 supervisory working supervisee
alliance
Renfro-Michel & 117 graduate students (102f); even Supervisory Working Survey questionnaires ANOVAs Supervisee attachment related Ex post facto design;
Sheperis (2009) distribution of entry, prac and Alliance Inventory; completed to alliance, with secure self-report survey
internship levels; variety of programs Relationship reporting better alliance data; of email sign-
(school, counseling, rehabilitation, Questionnaire; than insecure at both mid ups 67.3% return
community, mental health) measured at mid-semester and end of semester; rate in first
and end of semsester supervisee development semester, 54%
and working alliance return rate in
unrelated second semester of
data collection
Riggs & Bretz 87 psychology interns (66female, Working Alliance Inventory; Online data collection MANOVAs; Perceived supervisor Ex post facto design;
(2006) 20male; 78% Caucasian; mean Measure of Parental Style; latent attachment style had most self-report survey
age⫽32.6 years; 78% clinical Reciprocal Attachment variable direct impact on data; focus on
psychology interns, 17% counseling Questionnaire; path supervision alliance; supervisee
psychology interns, 2% school Relationship analysis supervisees who viewed perceptions only;
psychology interns) Questionnaire supervisor as being securely 50% return rate

attached viewed supervisory
bond and task more
positively
Schultz, Ososkie, 111 employed rehabilitation counselors Demographic questionnaire; Questionnaire packets mailed ANCOVA More time spent in Ex post facto design;
Fried, Nelson, & in supervision (68 female, 43 male; Supervisory Working to counselor/super-visees and supervision related to self-report survey
Bardos (2002) 101 White, 5 Hispanic, 3 Native Alliance Inventory- in two western states MANCOVAs stronger supervisory data; focused
American, 2 Asian/Pacific Islander) Trainee Form; Rahim alliance; higher supervisor exclusively on
Leader Power Inventory scores on Expert and perceptions of
Referent power bases supervisees
related to stronger alliance
ratings
Sterner (2009)1 71 mental health counselors either now Supervisory Working Survey questionnaire Correlational Positively perceived Ex post facto design;
being supervised or having been Alliance Inventory-Trainee completed on Internet analyses and supervisory working alliance self-report survey
supervised post degree (48 female, 22 Version; website by American canonical related to greater work data; focused
male, 1 no response; 90% White, 4% Minnesota Satisfaction Mental Health Counseling correlational satisfaction and less work- exclusively on
Latino-American, 1% Native Questionnaire-Short Association members analysis related stress perceptions of
American; x age⫽51; 83% held Form; (AMHCA) AMHCA
master’s degree, 17% doctoral; 39% Occupational Stress supervisees;
private practice, 27% mental health Inventory-Revised unclear how many
agency, 16% private, nonprofit “supervisees” were
agency, 4% hospital, 14% other) not actually in
supervision and
how long they had
not been
Sumerel & Borders 40 graduate-level counseling students Supervisory Working Trainees watched either a Correlations; Negative relationship between Analogue study; ex
(1996) (26 female, 14 male; 20 beginning Alliance Inventory- videotape of supervisor ANOVA; Rapport (SWAI-T) and post facto design;
and 20 advanced trainees; 37 White) Trainee Version (SWAI- addressing interfering MANOVA Dominance (IMI) self-report survey
T); Impact Message supervisee personal issues data; focused
Inventory IMI); Session or of supervisor addressing exclusively on
Evaluation Questionnaire supervisee skill deficits in perceptions of
supervision; participants supervisees

then completed three
measures
Walker, Ladany, & 111 female graduate student supervisees Gender-Related Events Questionnaire packets Multivariate Supportive gender-related Ex post facto design;
Pate-Carolan (91 White, 9 African-American, 4 Survey; distributed multiple events found to be self-report survey
(2007)1 Asian, 3 biracial, 3 Latina, 1 other; x Working Alliance Inventory- regression positively related to data; focused
age⫽31 years; 18% clinical Trainee Version; analyses supervisory working exclusively on
psychology, 70% counseling Trainee Disclosure Scale alliance; converse found for perceptions of
psychology; university/ college non-supportive gender- supervisees; could
counseling centers 58%, mental related events not determine
health centers 18%, schools 6%; VAs response rate
5%; state hospitals 5%)
Webb & Wheeler 96 counselors in supervision (75 Sensitivity to disclosing in Questionnaire packets mailed Correlations Positive correlation found Ex post facto design;
(1998) females, 20 males, 1 unspecified; 44 supervision assessment to counselors for and factor between supervisees’ self-report survey
in diploma or master’s training; all tool; Supervisory Working completion analysis ratings of alliance rapport data; focused
registered in British Association for Alliance Inventory and willingness to disclose exclusively on
Counselling) (supervisee version) in supervision perceptions of
counselor/
supervisees; 44%
return rate
Wester, Vogel, & 103 male psychology interns (93 White, Gender Role Conflict Scale; Questionnaire packets t tests Male supervisees working Ex post facto design;
Archer (2004)1 9 Hispanic, 1 African-American; x Supervisory Working distributed ANOVAs with male as opposed to self-report survey
age⫽33.3; 64 doctoral students 35 Alliance Inventory- female supervisors data; focused
master’s) Trainee Version; perceived supervisory exclusively on
Counseling Self-Estimate working alliance less perceptions of
Inventory favorably, lending initial supervisees
support to possible male
socialization explanation
White & Queener 67 supervision dyads: Supervisory Working Supervisees and supervisors Simultaneous Supervisors’ ability to form Ex post facto design;
(2003) Supervisees–56female, 11male; Alliance Inventory; completed survey packet regression close, healthy relationships self-report survey
59 master’s students, 8 doctoral Adult Attachments Scale; containing questionnaires analyses predictive of supervisees’ data; 50% return
students; 80% first year of training Social Provisions Scale and supervisors’ rate
through internship; perceptions supervisory
Supervisors–47female, 20male; 55 working alliance; weaker
licensed professionals, 12 doctoral relational ability and
students unfavorable alliance
perceptions related and
vice versa
37
38
Williams, Helm, & 131 mental health therapists employed Childhood Trauma Questionnaires administered Path analysis Anticipated partial mediating Ex post facto design;
Clemens (2012) full time in community mental health Questionnaire; Five (in random order) to effect of supervisory self-report survey
agencies (83 female, 48 male; 106 Factor Wellness participants’ at their work alliance on vicarious data; limited range
White, 19 Hispanic, 1 Native Inventory-Form A; sites traumatization not of scores on
American, 2 multiethnic, 3 other; 50 Supervisory Working significant alliance measure
social workers, 11 marriage and Alliance Inventory- may have
family therapists, 40 professional Supervisee Form; Job negatively affected
counselors; 7 psychologists, 17 Satisfaction Survey; results; very

unlicensed professionals); received at Quantitative Workload limited amount of
least one hour of supervision per Inventory; Trauma and supervision upon
month Attachment Belief Scale which to base
alliance ratings
Note: ANOVA ⫽ analysis of variance; MANOVA ⫽ multivariate analysis of variance; ANCOVA ⫽ analysis of covariance; MANCOVA ⫽ multivariate
analysis of covariance.
1
Reprinted and adapted with permission of the Association for the Advancement of Psychotherapy. Watkins (2010), Psychoanalytic constructs in
psychotherapy supervision. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 64, 393-416.
Table 2. SELECTED FEATURES OF SUPERVISORY ALLIANCE STUDIES,

1990-2013
Ex Post Facto, Self-Report Supervisee Supervisor

Author(s) Cross-Sectional Survey Data Perspective Perspective Other Study Features/Comments
Bennett et al. (2008) X X X –

Bhat & Davis (2007) X X – X
Bilodeau & Lecomte (2010) X X X Five supervision sessions involved;
self-report data gathered prior
to first session and across all
five sessions
Bilodeau & Lecomte (2012) X X – Five supervision sessions involved;
self-report data gathered prior
to first session and across all
five sessions
Bucky et al. (2010) X X X –
Burke et al. (1998) X X X Ten supervision sessions involved;
self-report data gathered across
all ten sessions; interaction
data also coded
Chen & Bernstein (2000) X X X Three supervision sessions
involved; self-report data
gathered at four separate
points; interaction data also
coded
Cooper & Ng (2009) X X X X
Culbreth & Borders (1999) X X X – Workplace study
Davidson (2011) X X X –
Deal et al. (2011) X X X Randomized controlled trial; data
gathered at three separate
points; strong study
Dickson et al. (2011) X X X –
Efstation et al. (1990) X X X X Validation study for Supervisory
Working Alliance Inventory
Gatmon et al. (2001) X X X –
Gnilka et al. (2012) X X X –
Gunn & Pistole (2012) X X X –
Ladany et al. (1997) X X X –
Ladany et al. (1999) X X X –
Ladany & Friedlander X X X –
(1995)
Ladany & Lehrman- X X X –
Waterman (1999)
Ladany, Lehrman- X X X –
Waterman et al. (1999)
Ladany et al. (2013) X X X – Two-item qualitative questionnaire
also included
Ladany et al. (2001) X X – X
Livni et al. (2012) X X X Up to eight supervision sessions
involved; data gathered at
three separate points; well
done workplace study
Mena & Bailey (2007) X X X X Workplace study
Mehr et al. (2010) X X X –
Newgent et al. (2004) X X X –
Patton & Kivlighan (1997) X X – Four therapy and four supervision
sessions involved; only study in
which client perspective
assessed
Quarto (2002) X X X X
Ramos-Sanchez et al. (2002) X X X –
Renfro-Michel & Sheperis X X – Assessments done at two separate
(2009) points
Riggs & Bretz (2006) X X X –
Schultz et al. (2002) X X X – Workplace study
Sterner (2009) X X X – Workplace study
39
Ex Post Facto, Self-Report Supervisee Supervisor

Author(s) Cross-Sectional Survey Data Perspective Perspective Other Study Features/Comments
Sumerel & Borders (1996) X X X –

Walker et al. (2007) X X X –
Webb & Wheeler (1998) X X X –
Wester et al. (2004) X X X –
White & Queener (2003) X X X –
Williams et al. (2012) X X X – Workplace study
Note. Ex Post Facto and Cross-Sectional ⫽ non-experimental, “after the fact” study where data
collected at one point in time; Self-Report Survey Data ⫽ self-report questionnaires or assessment
measures used; Supervisee Perspective ⫽ viewpoint of supervisee assessed; Supervisor Perspective ⫽
viewpoint of supervisor assessed; X ⫽ present or a feature of study; - ⫽ absent or not a feature of study.
master’s or doctoral students from psychology, counseling, or social work

programs were the subjects. Only six studies focused on supervision in the
work place. While the supervisee’s perspective only was assessed in most
studies (28), both supervisor and supervisee perspectives were assessed in
ten of the investigations. The supervisor’s perspective of the alliance was
the exclusive subject of interest in two studies. Across the 40 studies, 4,563
supervisees and 837 supervisors, respectively, participated. Where com-
plete gender and race/ethnicity demographics were provided, the super-
visees were 75% female and 80% White/Caucasian; the supervisors were
65% female and 85% White/Caucasian. The mean age ranged, respec-
tively, from 28 to 51 years for supervisees (with most falling between 28 to
35 years) and 37 to 51 years for supervisors.
MEASURES USED
In measuring the alliance in supervision, the Supervisory Working
Alliance Inventory (SWAI; Efstation, Patton, & Kardash, 1990) and
supervision version of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI)— both
self-report inventories—were routinely used. The SWAI has parallel su-
pervisee and supervisor versions. The SWAI supervisee version consists of
two subscales, Rapport and Client Focus; the SWAI supervisor version
consists of three subscales, Rapport, Client Focus, and Identification. The
supervisee and supervisor versions of the WAI (Bahrick, 1990; Baker,
1991) each consist of three subscales: Bond, Goals, and Tasks. While not
psychometrically flawless, the WAI and SWAI appear to both be generally
accepted as providing adequate measure of the supervisory alliance. Of the
40 studies, 19 used some version of the WAI, 17 used the SWAI, 3 used
both measures, and one used a self-designed questionnaire (Bucky,
Marques, Daly, Alley, & Karp, 2010).
40
PROCEDURES
In 31 of the 40 studies, a one-shot set of self-report survey question-
naires was distributed to participants either online or by mail. Four of the
investigations (Deal, Bennett, Mohr, & Hwang, 2011; Livni, Crowe, &
Gonsalvez, 2012; Newgent, Davis, & Farley, 2004; Renfro-Michel, &
Sheperis, 2009) involved the completion of the same set of self-report
survey questionnaires at three points in time, usually over the course of one
or two semesters. Only five of the investigations were supervision process
studies (Bilodeau & Lecomte, 2010, 2012; Burke, Goodyear, & Guzzardo,
1998; Chen & Bernstein, 2000; Patton & Kivlighan, 1997), where ques-
tionnaire data were collected on a session by session basis; in 3 of those 5
studies, some form of session interaction/behavior rating or coding was
also employed. The number of tracked supervision sessions across inves-
tigations was 3 (Chen & Bernstein, 2000), 4 (Patton & Kivlighan, 1997), 5
(Bilodeau & Lecomte, 2010, 2012), and 10 (Burke et al., 1998).
ANALYSES
The analyses used ran the gamut of possibilities, ranging from the
simple (e.g., determination of frequencies) to complex (e.g., path analysis,
hierarchical linear modeling).
FINDINGS/CONCLUSIONS
The findings/conclusions were largely as hypothesized and highly
consistent with supervisory alliance theory. A strong or favorably rated
supervisory alliance was found to be linked to such variables as: higher
supervisee self-efficacy and well-being, greater willingness to self-disclose
during supervision, more satisfaction with supervision, more job satisfac-
tion, greater perceived effectiveness of supervision, more availability of
coping resources, secure attachment style, more supportively-perceived
gender events during supervision, an attractive, interpersonally sensitive
supervisor style, higher interactional complementarity between supervisee
and supervisor, higher supervisee and supervisor racial identity statuses,
more discussions of culture in supervision, more favorable perceptions of
supervisor ethical behaviors, greater supervisor relational ability, and more
frequent yet appropriate supervisor self-disclosures. A weak or unfavor-
ably rated supervisory alliance was found to be related to such variables as:
Supervisee avoidant attachment style, higher degree of perceived stress,
more exhaustion and burnout, greater amount of role conflict and role
ambiguity, and more frequently perceived occurrences of negative super-
vision events. While some support for all measured dimensions of the
supervisory alliance was found (i.e., the Bond, Goal, and Task of Working
41
Alliance Inventory; Rapport and Client Focus of Supervisory Working

Alliance Inventory), the Bond and Rapport elements emerged most
strongly and consistently across studies.
STUDY LIMITATIONS
As Table 2 brings into focus, the vast majority of supervisory alliance
studies have been ex post facto and cross-sectional in nature. The super-
visee’s perspective has largely been the subject of interest, with the
supervisor’s perspective being tapped in less than a third of the investiga-
tions. Only one study (Deal et al., 2011) was an intervention-based
randomized controlled trial. Any attention to supervision process has been
virtually absent. The one study, in which alliance measurements were taken
across ten supervision sessions, was published more than 15 years ago
(Burke, Goodyear, & Guzzardo, 1998), with the actual data having been
collected around 1990 or 1991 (Burke, 1991).
DISCUSSION
The supervisory alliance has come to be increasingly regarded as the
crucial and pivotal component in the successful prosecution of the super-
vision relationship, considered to substantively affect and contribute to its
ongoing process and eventual outcome. If we define clinical validity as the
convergence of informed professional opinion over time about the signif-
icance of a particular variable for practice efficacy, then it seems the
supervisory alliance now enjoys a unanimous endorsement of its clinical
importance for supervisory conceptualization and conduct, and the en-
dorsement transcends discipline lines, theoretical boundaries, and type of
work setting (Brown, 2012; Dewald, 1997; DiGiuseppe, 2011; Farber,
2012; Gilbert & Evans, 2000; Goldman, 2012; Karon, 2008; Levenson,
2012; Morgan, Soetaert, & Heinrichs, 2008; Newman, 2012; Wood, 2005).
The clinical usefulness and validity of the supervisory alliance for super-
vision do not seem to be disputed.
The vision of the supervisory alliance as tripartite in nature—involving
a solid or “good enough” bond or rapport, shared goal or goals, and
shared tasks between supervisor and supervisee—also appears to have
gained wide acceptance. During the past 25-year period, those three
elements have been increasingly presented as sine qua non dimensions of
the supervisory relationship, and supervisors have been accordingly urged
to attend to them when beginning supervision and to monitor them over
the course of the relationship (Alonso, 2000; Bernard & Goodyear, 1992,
2014; Ellis, 2012; Ellis, Siembor, Swords, Morere, & Blanco, 2008; Falen-
42
der & Shafranske, 2004; Gilbert & Evans, 2000; Gordan, 1996; Hughes,
2012; Jacobs, David, & Meyer, 1995; Mead, 1990; Teitlebaum, 1990a;
Watkins, 2013b; Williams, 1995). In addition to providing guidance,
supervision goals and tasks largely derive their significance from the
mutuality of the supervisor-supervisee discussion and agreement process
that leads to their very establishment. In that sense, the mutuality of
goal/task establishment also contributes to the building of supervisory
bond or rapport.
Research across the last two decades increasingly regards the supervi-
sory alliance as a highly robust (if not the most robust) empirical variable
of substantial import within supervision scholarship (Inman & Ladany,
2008; Ladany & Inman, 2008, 2012). Yet considering the description and
summary of studies provided in Table 1 and 2, it seems reasonable to ask:
How truly robust is it? More than 15 years ago, in what remains one of the
most rigorous, comprehensive reviews of the supervision literature ever
done, Ellis and Ladany (1997) critiqued the emerging empirical studies on
the supervisory alliance; they concluded that the studies suffered from a
lack of randomization, failed to address numerous threats to internal
validity, and failed to control for many potentially competing, confounding
extraneous variables. Some 12 years later, Bernard and Goodyear (2009)
offered their own critique on what had then grown to 19 supervisory
alliance investigations; they accentuated that, while the results were gen-
erally supportive, the studies were correlational in nature and that any
causal inferences could not be drawn. The conclusions presented by Ellis
and Ladany (1997) and Bernard and Goodyear (2009) find an echo in what
is said here. While the data were generally supportive of the supervisory
alliance, these studies were virtually all correlational, lacked randomiza-
tion, and were subject to possible influences from a number of uncon-
trolled variables.
Almost all the investigations were “one-shot efforts” in which partici-
pants completed a set of questionnaires either by mail or online. In the vast
majority of the research, only the supervisee’s perspective was assessed;
client/patient perspective was assessed in but one study; supervision in the
workplace was studied minimally, and the supervisory alliance in process
(or over time) also was studied minimally. These findings are consistent
with those identified in the earlier review (Watkins, 2010), further accen-
tuate the limited range that defines the investigations, and bring into focus
the lack of attention given to alliance areas of eminent concern (e.g.,
alliance rupture and repair). The supervisory alliance may be reasonably
43
regarded as a robust supervision variable; however, any such view must be

tempered by the features of available data and what those features indicate
about the current state of knowledge. In many respects, supervisory
alliance study is still in its formative stage. Our knowledge base largely
remains descriptive and correlational.
The current state of supervision research has been likened to psycho-
therapy research in the 1950s and 1960s, where focus was on developing
valid measures and demonstrating effectiveness (Milne, Leck, James,
Wilson, Procter, Ramm,. . . & Weetman, 2012). As Milne et al. (2012) have
indicated, “we are currently about ‘half-way there’, working on the ‘search
for scientific rigour’. . . ” (p. 144). That 1950s/1960s comparison seems to
capture where supervisory alliance research is in its development. Two
other factors that may contribute to this developmental delay are: (a) the
general lack of programmatic research in supervision; and (b) the slow
output of such supervision research. Unfortunately, with few exceptions
(Milne, 2009, 2014; Milne & Reiser, 2012, 2014), programmatic research in
supervision is more rarity than reality; that has long been the case and very
much remains so (Ellis, 2010; Ellis & Ladany, 1997). Ladany has been the
only programmatic force in the supervision alliance research thus far (see
Table 1); but most of his work over the past decade, Ladany, Mori, &
Mehr, 2013, excepted has been in more mentoring capacity than other-
wise, and having now moved into a university deanship position, it is
unclear how that change might affect his continued pursuit of alliance
research. As for the matter of supervision study output, it is quite limited
overall, with only around ten investigations per year (Ladany & Inman,
2008). With that being the case, it is easier to understand why alliance
research is at such an early phase in its development.
But if supervisory alliance research is to begin moving beyond the
descriptive, correlational, single-shot study, what must be done? Some of
the directions are indicated by what is lacking from these 40 studies: (a)
investigation of the supervisory alliance in process, including attention to
the alliance rupture and repair experience; (b) tapping multiple perspec-
tives when measuring alliance; and (c) taking a methodologically diverse
and diversified approach to alliance research.
INVESTIGATION OF THE SUPERVISORY ALLIANCE IN PROCESS
The supervisory alliance does not instantaneously occur; rather, it is a
supervisor-supervisee construction that develops over time and is built
through sustained interaction. Furthermore, ruptures to the supervisory
alliance can be expected to occur over the course of supervision and
44
repairs will be needed to realign the supervisor-supervisee relationship. If

we are to understand the supervisory alliance as a process construction
punctuated by rupture/repair events, then effort must be made to study
the very process nature of the alliance itself. Such efforts have been
minimal to this point, with any study of supervison for more than but the
most meager number of sessions being non-existent. It is equally surprising
that, with the supervision rupture/repair phenomenon being so integral to
alliance theory, virtually no study of that has yet been done. The impressive
body of work conducted on alliance rupture and repair in psychotherapy
research (Safran, Muran, & Proskurov, 2009) could be used to stimulate
thinking about research possibilities on supervision alliance rupture/repair
(cf. Safran, Muran, Stevens, & Rothman, 2008). Milne et al. (2012) have
also provided direction on how utilization of the fidelity framework,
adapted from health behavior change research, could make supervision
research more sound and move it beyond the 1950s/1960s empirical
mentality. Other useful advice on conducting sound supervision research
can be found in both older and more recent publications (e.g., Ellis &
Ladany, 1997; Ladany & Malouf, 2010). While information on how to
improve supervision research has been with us for a long time, it does not
appear to have been closely heeded across many alliance studies.
TAPPING MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES WHEN MEASURING ALLIANCE
With the supervisory alliance being coconstructed, it would seem best
to tap into the perspectives of the two primary parties. That has not been
the norm. Based on the body of research, it appears that supervisor and
supervisee alliance perspectives can indeed diverge (e.g., Deal et al., 2011).
But what might such divergences mean? What differences might they
make in the whole of the relationship? Those are unanswered questions
that merit empirical scrutiny. If the alliance is to be understood, attention
must be given to the two alliance perspectives that are represented, the
ways in which they converge and diverge, and why.
In addition, to gain perspective on the potential impact of the super-
visory alliance, the gathering of client/patient data could also be of
tremendous benefit. How might the alliance affect clients in supervised
treatment? Again, this has been ignored and it merits attention (cf. Hill &
Knox, 2013). Although assessing impact of supervision on client outcome
is a particularly thorny issue (Bennett & Deal, 2012; Lambert & Ogles,
1997), it remains a vital if not preeminent concern. As Lichtenberg (2007)
has asked: How can we continue to justify psychotherapy supervision
45
training if we cannot empirically show supervision’s effectiveness on client

outcome? While we have but the most minimal data to suggest any such
favorable outcome (Bambling, King, Raue, Schweitzer, & Lambert , 2006;
Callahan, Almstrom, Swift, Borja, & Heath, 2009), it is clear that this type
of challenging research can be done and be done well (Watkins, 2011a).
But if we are to know what clients think and feel about treatment and
consider the possible treatment impact of the supervisory alliance, then
client data will need to be routinely gathered as a part of regular research
procedure. It may be that any such supervision-outcome connections will
have to be made by means of mediated or path models (Goodyear &
Guzzardo, 2000; Wampold & Holloway, 1997), but for that to happen,
client data will have to first become a standard component of the super-
vision research process.
TAKING A METHODOLOGICALLY DIVERSE AND DIVERSIFIED APPROACH TO ALLIANCE
RESEARCH
In reviewing these 40 studies, minimal methodological diversity was in
evidence. While there are many empirical paths by which the supervisory
alliance could be examined, the typical approach has been to administer a
set of questionnaires to participants once. Only two studies here incorpo-
rated a case study design (Burke et al, 1998; Chen & Bernstein, 2000), one
used a mixed-methods approach (Ladany et al., 2013), and one was a
randomized controlled trial (Deal et al., 2011). We lack a diverse attack—
quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods— on the supervisory alliance,
and if research in this area is to advance productively, the pursuit of a
plurality of investigative avenues serves us best (cf. Ladany & Malouf,
2010; Milne et al., 2012). In conjunction with methodological diversity,
alliance research has also lacked multi-method, multi-trait, multi-rater
assessment. Research would benefit from observational data gathering and
analysis. Behavioral data were coded in only three studies. Now our corpus
of supervisory alliance data is based almost exclusively on self-report
survey responses. While that form of information can be quite valuable,
more diverse forms of data are needed if we are to build a more complete
empirical picture of the supervisory alliance.
OTHER FACTORS
How might the supervisory alliance be affected by workplace consid-
erations (e.g., particular work setting demands, type of clientele served)?
For example, the “on–the-go” supervision that often occurs in medical
settings can be quite different from supervision in a university psychology
clinic or counseling center (cf. Morgan et al., 2008). The evaluation of
46
supervision and alliance impact in work sites outside the university setting
is quite limited, with only six workplace studies being included in this
dataset. Workplace investigations are sorely needed for our understanding
of alliance to advance (see Livni, Crowe, & Gonsalvez, 2012; Williams,
Helm, & Clemens, 2012). As Livni et al. (2012) have recommended:
. . . comparing the impact of supervision and the alliance on outcomes
among different groups of professionals (e.g., counselors, nurses, social
workers), as well as between professionals and training students could
highlight differences in important components of supervision across the
field (p. 184).
Those possible differences await study and seem important to address.
Admittedly, supervision is one of “the most complex of all activities
associated with the practice of psychology” (Holloway & Wolleat, 1994,
p. 30). For that reason, it can be a difficult proposition to investigate:
Compared to psychotherapy research, problematic effects are multiplied in
supervision research by the addition to the process of a third participant
(the supervisor), a second level of intervention (supervisory techniques),
and the resulting, complex interactions (Russell, Crimmings, & Lent, 1984,
p. 668).
As Russell et al. (1984) have indicated, creative solutions—that will no
doubt typically be labor-intensive affairs—will be required for proper
supervision study to be conducted (e.g., gathering data at multiple sites,
extending study duration over time so that sample size can be increased).
But for that to happen, coordinated, professional (or interprofessional)
collaboration is a necessity. Supervision is an important, required activity
across clinical, clinical health, counseling, and school psychology training,
as well as social work, psychiatry, counselor education, and nursing (e.g.,
Buss & Gonge, 2009; MacDonald & Ellis, 2012); but as Allen Hess
(2008)— clinical psychologist and seminal contributor to the supervision
literature—indicated in one of the last publications before his death, “the
bulk of research in supervision is the fruit of counseling psychologists and
appears in counseling journals” (p. 20). Such was the case with these 40
studies and, ideally, that would not be so: Supervision is the property of us
all and would benefit immensely from being researched as such. If
supervision alliance research is to overcome some of the challenges iden-
tified here, if “problematic effects” are to be avoided and “creative
solutions” found, then working together to investigate empirically this
“most complex”, yet supremely significant training staple would seem
optimal if not requisite.
47
CONCLUSION
Competencies have now become the “zeitgeist of supervision discourse”
(Holloway, 2012), and perhaps the most crucial competency of all lies in being
able to establish and maintain an effective supervisory working alliance with
supervisees. On the one hand, the supervisory alliance has come to be widely
and broadly embraced as a practice variable of untold import, its clinical
validity seemingly indisputable; on the other hand, however, the empirical
validity of the alliance construct—while not without some foundation—tends
to be somewhat limited overall and might be considered more tentative
than otherwise at this time. In this review, I have described the two
dominant supervisory alliance visions that continue to hold sway and
critiqued the alliance research across the last 20 plus years. Compared to
psychotherapy alliance research, which a decade ago was then identified as
involving well over 1000 empirical findings (Orlinsky, Ronnestad, &
Willutzki, 2004), the number of supervision alliance research findings
pales pitifully by comparison. Let us hope that that will change.
Sue Wheeler (2007)—in an introductory editorial of a special issue on
supervision—stated that the “future for research on supervision is wide
open” (p. 1). I believe that her statement readily applies to where we are
now with regard to the supervisory alliance. While supervision is a difficult
subject to tackle, the potential impact of the supervisory alliance on the
teaching and learning of psychotherapy is inestimable. It would be valu-
able for psychotherapy educators to know the various ways in which that
potential impact occurs, the mechanisms by which the supervision alliance
works, and how we as supervisors can more meaningfully and effectively
contribute to making supervision a safe place and space within which
supervisees can blossom and grow.
Psychotherapy supervision may well be the most substantial vehicle by
which we teach, transmit, and perpetuate the traditions, practice, and
culture of psychotherapy. The supervisory alliance is the medium by which
that teaching, transmission, and perpetuation process occurs. Increasing
and improving our empirical efforts is requisite if we are to: (a) have a
more complete, anchored understanding of the supervisory alliance; and
(b) accordingly enhance its practical application and implementation
throughout the supervision process.
REFERENCES
Alonso, A. (2000). On being skilled and deskilled as a psychotherapy supervisor. Journal of Psycho-
therapy Practice and Research, 9, 55-61.
48
Bahrick, A., S. (1990). Role induction for counselor trainees: Effects on the supervisory working alliance.
Dissertations Abstracts International, 51, 1484B. (University Microfilms No. 90-14, 392).
Baker, D. E. (1991). The relationship of the supervisory working alliance to supervisor and supervisee
narcissism, gender, and theoretical orientation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles.
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.
Beck. J., Sarnat, J. E., & Barenstein, V. (2008). Psychotherapy-based approaches to supervision. In C.
Falender & E. Shafranske (Eds.), Casebook for clinical supervision: A competency-based approach
(pp. 57-96). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Beinart, H. (2012). Models of supervision and the supervisory relationship. In I. Fleming & L. Steen
(Eds.), Supervision and clinical psychology: Theory, practice and perspectives (2nd ed; pp. 47-61).
London: Routledge.
Bennett, S., BrintzenhofeSzoc, K., Mohr, J., & Saks, L. V. (2008). General and supervision-specific
attachment styles: Relations to student perceptions of field supervisors. Journal of Social Work
Education, 44,75-94.
Bennett, S., & Deal, K. H. (2012). Supervision training: What we know and what we need to know.
Smith College Studies in Social Work, 82, 195-215.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1992). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Merrill.
Bhat, C. S., & Davis, T. E. (2007). Counseling supervisors’ assessment of race, racial identity, and
working alliance in supervisory dyads. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 35,
80-91.
Bilodeau, C., & Lecomte, C. (2010). Examining supervisor and supervisee agreement on alliance: Is
shame a factor? Canadian Journal of Counselling, 44, 272-282.
Bilodeau, C., & Lecomte, C. (2012). Trainee shame proneness and the supervisory process. Journal of
Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 4, 37-49.
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.
Psychotherapy, 16, 252-260.
Bordin, E. S. (1980). Of human bonds that bind and free. Presidential address delivered at the annual
meeting of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, Asilamar, CA.
Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 35-42.
Brown, L. S. (2011). Feminist models of supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Chair), Teaching and
supervising psychotherapies in the 21st century: Pressing needs, impressing possibilities. Sympo-
sium presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Wash-
ington, DC.
Bucky, S. F., Marques, S., Daly, J., Alley, J. & Karp, A. (2010). Supervision characteristics related to
the supervisory working alliance as rated by doctoral-level supervisees. The Clinical Supervisor,
29, 149-163.
Burke, W. R. (1991). Weakenings and repairs of the working alliance in counselor supervision.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University, University Microfilms No: 91- 36316.
Burke, W. R., Goodyear, R. K., & Guzzardo, C. R. (1998). Weakenings and repairs in supervisory
alliances. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 52, 450-462.
Buus, N., & Gonge, H. (2009). Empirical studies of clinical supervision in psychiatric nursing: A
systematic literature review and methodological critique. International Journal of Mental Health
Nursing, 18, 250-264.
Callahan, J. L., Almstrom, C. M., Swift, J. K., Borja, S. E., and Heath, C. J. (2009). Exploring the
contribution of supervisors to intervention outcomes. Training & Education in Professional
Psychology, 3, 72-77.
Carroll, M. (2009). Supervision: Critical reflection for transformational learning (Part 1). The Clinical
Supervisor, 28, 210-220.
Carroll, M. (2010). Supervision: Critical reflection for transformational learning (Part 2). The Clinical
Supervisor, 29, 1-19.
49
Chen, E. C., & Bernstein, B. L. (2000). Relations of complementarity and supervisory issues to
supervisory working alliance: A comparative analysis of two cases. Journal of Counseling
Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Cooper, J. B., & Ng, K. (2009). Trait emotional intelligence and perceived supervisory working alliance
of counseling trainees and their supervisors in agency settings. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counselling, 31, 145-157.
Crook-Lyon, R. E., Presnell, J., Silva, L., Suyama, M., & Stickney, J. (2011). Emergent supervisors:
Comparing counseling center and non-counseling center interns’ supervisory training experi-
ences. Journal of College Counseling, 14, 34-49.
Culbreth, J. R., & Borders, L. D. (1999). Perceptions of the supervisory relationship: Recovering and
nonrecovering substance abuse counselors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 330-
338.
Davidson, C. (2011). The relation between supervisor self-disclosure and the working alliance among
social work students in field placement. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 31, 265-277.
Deal, K. H., Bennett, S., Mohr, J., & Hwang, J. (2011). Effects of field instructor training on student
competencies and the supervisory alliance. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 712-726.
Dewald, P. A. (1987). Learning process in psychoanalytic supervision: Complexities and challenges.
Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
Dewald, P. A. (1997). The process of supervision in psychoanalysis. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.),
Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 31-43). New York: Wiley.
Dickson, J. M., Moberly, N. J., Marshall, Y. & Reilly, J. (2011). Attachment style and its relationship
to working alliance in the supervision of British clinical psychology trainees. Clinical Psychology
and Psychotherapy, 18, 322–330.
DiGiuseppe, R. (2011). Supervision in REBT and CBT. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Chair), Teaching and
supervising psychotherapies in the 21st century: Pressing needs, impressing possibilities. Sympo-
sium presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Wash-
ington, DC.
Doehrman, M. J. (1976). Parallel process in supervision and psychotherapy. Bulletin of the Menninger
Clinic, 40, 1-104.
Efstation, J. F., Patton, M. J., & Kardash, C. M. (1990). Measuring the working alliance in counselor
supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 322-329.
Eitingon, M. (1923). Report on the Berlin Psycho-Analytical Policlinik. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 4, 254-269.
Eitington, M. (1926). An address to the International Training Commission. International Journal of
Psychoanalysis, 7, 130-134.
Ekstein, R., & Wallerstein, R. (1958). The teaching and learning of psychotherapy. New York: Basic
Books.
Ellis, M. V. (2010). Bridging the science and practice of clinical supervision: Some discoveries, some
misconceptions. The Clinical Supervisor, 29, 95-116.
Ellis, M. V. (2012). Inadequate clinical supervision: Am I among the 97% providing it? Roundtable
paper presented at the 8th annual International Interdisciplinary Clinical Supervision Confer-
ence, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY.
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). New York: Wiley.
Ellis, M.V., Siembor, M. J., Swords, B. A., Morere, L., & Blanco, S. (2008, June). Prevalence and
characteristics of harmful and inadequate clinical supervision. Paper presented at the 4th annual
International Interdisciplinary Clinical Supervision Conference, Buffalo, NY.
Falender, C.A., Cornish, J.A.E., Goodyear, R.K., Hatcher, R., Kaslow, N.J., Leventhal, G., . . . & Grus,
C. (2004). Defining competencies in psychology supervision: A consensus statement. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 60, 771-785.
Falender, C.A., & Shafranske, E. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach. Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
Falender, C.A., & Shafranske, E. (Eds.). (2008). Casebook for clinical supervision: A competency-based
approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
50
Falender, C.A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2012). Getting the most out of clinical training and supervision: A
guide for practicum students and interns. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Farber, E. W. (2012). Supervising humanistic-existential psychotherapy in the 21st century: Pressing
needs, impressing possibilities. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42, 173-182.
Fleming, I. (2012). Developments in supervisor training. In I. Fleming & L. Steen (Eds.), Supervision
and clinical psychology: Theory, practice and perspectives (2nd ed.; pp. 77-95). London: Rout-
ledge.
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.
Frawley-O’Dea, M.G., & Sarnat, J.E. (2001). The supervisory relationship: A contemporary psychody-
namic approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Freud, S. (1913/1959). Further recommendations in the technique of psycho-analysis. Collected papers
(Vol. 2, pp. 342-365). London: Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1937/1964). Analysis terminable and interminable. In J. Strachey (Ed.), Standard edition of
the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 23, pp. 209-254). London: Hogarth
Press.
Gatmon, D., Jackson, D., Koshkarian, L., Martos-Perry, N., Molina, A., Patel, N., & Rodolfa, E.
(2001). Exploring ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation variables in supervision: Do they
matter? Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 102-113.
Gediman, H.K. & Wolkenfeld, F. (1980). The parallelism phenomenon in psychoanalysis and
supervision: Its reconsideration as a triadic system. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 49, 234-255.
Gilbert, M. C., & Evans, K. (2000). Psychotherapy supervision: An integrative relational approach.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gill, S. (Ed.). (2001). The supervisory alliance: Facilitating the psychotherapist’s learning experience.
Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Gnilka, P. B., Chang, C. V., & Dew, B. J. (2012). The relationship between supervisee stress, coping
resources, the working alliance, and supervisory working alliance. Journal of Counseling and
Development, Vol. 90, pp. 63-70.
Goldman, R. (2012). The supervision process in emotion-focused therapy. In C. E. Watkins, Jr.
(Chair), Seasoned psychotherapy supervisors’ visions of supervision: On guiding, abiding practice
convictions. Symposium presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological
Association, Orlando, FL.
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.
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). New York: Wiley.
Greenson, R.R. (1965). The working alliance and the transference neurosis. Psychoanalytic Quarterly,
34, 155-181.
Greenson, R. R. (1967). The technique and practice of psychoanalysis (Vol. 1). New York: International
Universities Press.
Gunn, J. E., & Pistole, M. C. (2012). Trainee supervisor attachment: Explaining the alliance and
disclosure in supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 6, 229-237.
Hatcher, R. (2010). Alliance theory and measurement. In J. C. Muran & J. P. Barber (Eds.), The
therapeutic alliance: An evidence-based guide to practice (pp. 7-28). New York: Guilford.
Hawkins, P. & Shohet., R. (2012). Supervision in the helping professions: An individual, group and
organizational approach (4th ed.). Berkshire: Open University Press.
Hess, A.K. (2008). Psychotherapy supervision: A conceptual review. In A.K. Hess, K.D. Hess, & T.H.
Hess (Eds.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., 3-22). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
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. (2012). Professional competence in supervision. In J. N. Fuertes, A. Spokane, & E. L.
51
Holloway (Eds.), The professional competencies in counseling psychology (pp. 165-181). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Holloway, E. L., & Wolleat, P. L. (1994). Supervision: The pragmatics of empowerment. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 5, 23-43.
Horvath, A.O. (2001). The alliance. Psychotherapy, 38, 365-372.
Hughes, J. (2012). Practical aspects of supervision: All you ever wanted to know but were too afraid
to ask. In I. Fleming & L. Steen (Eds.), Supervision and clinical psychology: Theory, practice and
perspectives (2nd ed.; pp. 184-206). London: Routledge.
Hyman, M. (2008). Psychoanalytic supervision. In A.K. Hess, K.D. Hess, & T.H. Hess (Eds.),
Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 97-113). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Inman, A. G. (2006). Supervisor multicultural competence and its relation to supervisory process and
outcome. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32, 73-85.
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.
Jacobs, D., David, P., & Meyer, D. J. (1995). The supervisory encounter: A guide for teachers of
psychodynamic psychotherapy and analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Karon, B. P. (2008). Supervising therapists treating the severely mentally ill. In A.K. Hess, K.D. Hess,
& T.H. Hess (Eds.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed., pp.
359-379). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kernberg, O. (2010). Psychoanalytic supervision: The supervisor’s tasks. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly,
79, 603-627.
Ladany, N. (2004). Psychotherapy supervision: What lies beneath. Psychotherapy Research, 14, 1-19.
Ladany, N., & Bradley, L. J. (Eds.). (2010). Counselor supervision: Principles, process, and Practice (4th
ed.). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.
Ladany, N., Brittan-Powell, C.S., & Pannu, R.K. (1997). The influence of supervisory racial identity
interaction and racial matching on the supervisory working alliance and supervisee multicul-
tural competence. Counselor Education and Supervision, 36, 284-304.
Ladany, N., Ellis, M.V., & Friedlander, M.L. (1999). The supervisory working alliance, trainee
self-efficacy, and satisfaction. Journal of Counseling and Development, 77, 447-455.
Ladany, N., & Friedlander, M.L. (1995). The relationship between the supervisory working alliance
and trainees’ experience of role conflict and role ambiguity. Counselor Education and Supervi-
sion, 34, 220-231.
Ladany, N., Friedlander, M. L., & Nelson, M L. (2005). Critical events in psychotherapy supervision: An
interpersonal approach. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ladany, N., & Inman, A. G. (2008). Developments in counseling skills training and supervision. In
S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4th ed; pp. 338-354).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
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: Oxford University Press.
Ladany, N., & Lehrman-Waterman, D. (1999). The content and frequency of supervisor self-
disclosures and their relationship to supervisor style and the supervisory working alliance.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 143-160.
Ladany, N. & Lehrman-Waterman, D., Molinaro, M., & Wolgast, B. (1999). Psychotherapy supervisor
ethical practices: Adherence to guidelines, the supervisory working alliance, and supervisee
satisfaction. The Counseling Psychologist, 27, 443-475.
Ladany, N., & Malouf, M. A. (2010). Understanding and conducting supervision research. In N.
Ladany, N. & L. J. Bradley (Eds.), Counselor supervision: Principles, process, and Practice (4th
ed; pp. 353-388). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.
Ladany, N., Mori, Y., & Mehr, K. E. (2013). Effective and ineffective supervision. The Counseling
Psychologist, 41, 28-47.
Ladany, N., Walker, J.A., & Melincoff, D.S. (2001). Supervisory style: Its relation to the supervisory
working-alliance and supervisor self-disclosure. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40,
263-275.
Lambert, M. J. (Ed.). (2013). Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (6th
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
52
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: Wiley.
Levenson, H. (2012). Passions, beliefs, and lessons learned in doing supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr.
Levenson, H., & Ladany, N. (Chairs). (2012). Psychotherapy supervision revealed: Expert supervisors
show their videos of supervision. Symposium presented at the annual convention of the
American Psychological Association, Orlando, FL.
Lichtenberg, J. W. (2007). What makes for effective supervision? In search of clinical outcomes.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 275.
Livni, D., Crowe, T. P., & Gonsalvez, C. J. (2012). Effects of supervision modality and intensity on
alliance and outcomes for the supervisee. Rehabilitation Psychology, 57, 178-186.
MacDonald, J., & Ellis, P. M. (2012). Supervision in psychiatry: terra incognita? Current Opinion in
Psychiatry, 25, 322-326.
Mead, D. E. (1990). Effective supervision: A task-oriented model for the mental health professions. New
York: Brunner/Mazel.
Mehr, K. E., Ladany, N., & Caskie, G. I. L. (2010). Trainee nondisclosure in supervision: What are
they not telling you? Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10, 103-113.
Mena, K.C., & Bailey, J.D. (2007). The effects of the supervisory working alliance on worker outcomes.
Journal of Social Service Research, 34, 55-65.
Menninger, K. A. (1958). Theory of psychoanalytic technique. New York: Basic Books.
Milne, D. (2007). An empirical definition of clinical supervision. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,
46, 437-447.
Milne, D. (2009). Evidence-based clinical supervision: Principles and practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Milne, D. (2014). Towards an evidence-based approach to clinical supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr.,
& D. L. Milne (Eds.), Wiley-Blackwell international handbook of clinical supervision (pp. 38-60).
Chichester: Wiley.
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: Routledge.
Milne, D., & Reiser, R. P. (2012). A rationale for evidence-based clinical supervision. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42, 139-149.
Milne, D., & Reiser, R. P. (2014). SAGE: A scale for rating competence in CBT. In C. E. Watkins, Jr.,
& D. L. Milne (Eds.), Wiley-Blackwell international handbook of clinical supervision (pp. 402-
415). Chichester: Wiley.
Morgan, C. D., Soetaert, D. K., & Heinrichs, R. J. (2008). Supervision in medical settings. In A.K.
Hess, K.D. Hess, & T.H. Hess (Eds.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice
(2nd ed., pp. 450-470). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Newgent, R. A., Davis, H., Jr., & Farley, R. C. (2004). Perceptions of individual, triadic, and group
models of supervision: A pilot study. The Clinical Supervisor, 23, 65-79.
Newman, C. (2012). The abiding convictions of a long time CBT supervisor. In C. E. Watkins, Jr.
Oberman, N. C. (1990). Supervision and the achievement of an analytic identity. In R. C. Lane (Ed.),
Psychoanalytic approaches to supervision (pp. 194-206). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Orlinsky, D. E., Ronnestad, M. H., & Willutzki, U. (2004). Fifty years of process-outcome research:
Continuity and change. In M.J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s handbook of psychotherapy
and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 307-379). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Patton, M.J. & Kivlighan, Jr. D.M. (1997). Relevance of the supervisory alliance to the counseling
alliance and to treatment adherence in counselor training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44,
108-115.
Psychology Board of Australia (2013). Guidelines for supervisors and supervisor training providers.
Retrieved 8/16/2013 from http://www.psychologyboard.gov.au/Registration/Supervision.aspx.
Quarto, C.J. (2002). Supervisors’ and supervisees’ perceptions of control and conflict in counseling
supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 21 (2), 21-37.
53
Ramos-Sanchez, L., Esnil, E., Goodwin, A., Riggs, S., Touster, L.O., Wright, L.K., Ratanasiripong, P.,
& Rodolfa, E. (2002). Negative supervisory events: Effects on supervision satisfaction and
supervisory alliance. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 197-202.
Reiser, R., & Milne, D. (2012). Supervising cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy in the 21st century:
Pressing needs, impressing possibilities. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42, 161-171.
Renfro-Michel, E., & Sheperis, C. J. (2009). The relationship between counseling supervisee attach-
ment orientation and personal bond with supervisor. The Clinical Supervisor, 28, 141-154.
Riggs, S., & Bretz, K. (2006). Attachment processes in the supervisory relationship: An exploratory
investigation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 558-566.
Rock, M. H. (Ed.). (1997). Psychodynamic supervision. Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Rodenhauser, P. (1997). Psychotherapy supervision: Prerequisites and problems in the process. In
C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision pp. 527-548). New York:
Wiley.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95-103.
Roth, A., & Pilling, S. (2008). A competence framework for the supervision of psychological therapies.
Retrieved 9/18/2011: http://www..ucl.ac.uk/clinical-psychology/CORE/supervision_frame-
work.htm.
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: John Wiley & Sons.
Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C., Stevens, C., & Rothman, M. (2008). A relational approach to supervision:
Addressing ruptures in the alliance. In C. A. Falender, & E. P. Shafranske, (Eds.), Casebook for
clinical supervision: A competency-based approach (pp. 208-246). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C., & Proskurov, B. (2009). Alliance, negotiation, and rupture resolution. In
R. A. Levy & J. S. Ablon (Eds.), Handbook of evidence-based psychodynamic psychotherapy
(pp. 201-225). New York: Humana Press.
Sarnat, J. (2012). Supervising psychoanalytic psychotherapy in the 21st century: Pressing needs,
impressing possibilities. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42, 151-160.
Scaturo, D. J. (2012). Supervising integrative psychotherapy in the 21st Century: Pressing needs,
impressing possibilities. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42, 183-192.
Schultz, J. C., Ososkie, J. N., Fried, J. H., Nelson, R. E., & Bardos, A. N. (2002). Clinical supervision
in public rehabilitation counseling settings. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 213-222.
Searles, H. F. (1955). The informational value of supervisor’s emotional experience. Psychiatry, 18,
135-146.
Sterba, R. (1934). The fate of the ego in analytic therapy. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 15,
117-126.
Sterner, W. R. (2009). Influence of the supervisory working alliance on supervisee work satisfaction
and work-related stress. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 31, 249-263.
Stoltenberg, C. D., & McNeill, B.W. (2010). IDM supervision: An integrated developmental model for
supervising counselors and therapists (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Teitelbaum, S.H. (1990a). Aspects of the contract in psychotherapy supervision. Psychoanalysis and
Teitelbaum, S.H. (1990b). Supertransference: The role of the supervisor’s blind spots. Psychoanalytic
Teitelbaum, S.H. (1995). The changing scene in psychoanalytic supervision. Psychoanalysis and
Teitelbaum, S.H. (2001). The changing scene in supervision. In S. Gill (Ed.), The supervisory alliance
(pp. 3-18). Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
Thomas, J. (2010). Ethical and legal issues in supervision and consultation. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Toldson, I.A., & Utsey, S. (2008). Racial and cultural aspects of psychotherapy and supervision. In
A.K. Hess, K.D. Hess, & T.H. Hess (Eds.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and
practice (2nd ed., 537-559). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Turpin, G., & Wheeler, S. (2011). IAPT supervision guidance. Retrieved 9/18/2012: http://www.iapt-
.nhs.uk/silo/files/iapt-supervision-guidance-revised-march-2011.pdf
54
Walker, J. A., Ladany, N., & Pate-Carolan, L. M. (2007). Gender-related events in psychotherapy
supervision: Female trainee perspectives. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 7, 12-18.
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. (2010). Psychoanalytic constructs in psychotherapy supervision. American Journal
of Psychotherapy, 64, 393-416.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2011a). Does psychotherapy supervision contribute to patient outcomes? Consid-
ering 30 years of research. The Clinical Supervisor, 30, 235-256.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2011b). Toward a tripartite vision of supervision for psychoanalysis and
psychoanalytic psychotherapies: Alliance, transference-countertransference configuration, and
real relationship. The Psychoanalytic Review, 98, 557-590.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2012). Psychotherapy supervision in the new millennium: Competency-based,
evidence-based, particularized, and energized. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 42,
193-203.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2013a). The beginnings of psychoanalytic supervision: The crucial role of Max
Eitingon. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 73, 254-270.
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2013b). The contemporary practice of effective psychoanalytic supervision.
Psychoanalytic Psychology, 30, 300-328.
Watkins, C. E., Jr., & Milne, D. L. (Eds.). (2014). Wiley-Blackwell international handbook of clinical
supervision. Chichester: Wiley.
Webb, A., & Wheeler, S. (1998). How honest do counsellors dare to be in the supervisory
relationship? An exploratory study. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 26, 509-524.
Wester, S.R., Vogel, D.L., & Archer, J. (2004). Male restricted emotionality and counseling supervi-
sion. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, 91-98.
Wheeler, S. (2007). Editorial. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 7, 1-2.
White, V., & Queener, J. (2003). Supervisor and supervisee attachments and social provisions related
to the supervisory working alliance. Counselor Education & Supervision, 42, 203-218.
Williams, A. (1995). Visual and active supervision: Roles, focus, technique. New York: W.W. Norton.
Williams, A. M., Helm, H. M., & Clemens, E. V. (2012). The effect of childhood trauma, personal
wellness, supervisory working alliance, and organizational factors on vicarious traumatization.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 34, 133-153.
Wood, C. (2005). Supervisory working alliance: A model providing direction for college counseling
supervision. Journal of College Counseling, 8, 127-137.
Zaslavsky, J., Nunes, M. L. T., & Eizirik, C. L. (2003). Supervisao psicanalitica: Revisao e uma proposta
de sistematizacao [Psychoanalytical supervision: A review and a proposal for systematisation].
Review of Psychiatry RGS, 25, 297-309.
Zaslavsky, J., Nunes, M. L. T., & Eizirik, C. L. (2005). Approaching countertransference in psycho-
analytical supervision: A qualitative investigation. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 86,
1099-1131.
Zetzel, E. R. (1956). Current concepts of transference. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 37,
369-376.
55

Alliance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alliance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alliance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Supervisory Alliance: A Half Century

of Theory, Practice, and Research in

C. EDWARD WATKINS, Jr., Ph.D.

KEYWORDS: supervisory alliance; supervision alliance; learning alliance;

practice, the supervisor-supervisee relationship continues to be assigned a

● What do we need to know about it for our alliance knowledge and

TWO GENERATIVE VISIONS OF THE ALLIANCE IN

THE FLEMING AND BENEDEK PERSPECTIVE ON THE LEARNING ALLIANCE

Kernberg, 2010; Oberman, 1990; Rock, 1997; Sarnat, 2012; Teitelbaum,

(6) deepening one’s understanding of concepts and theory;

1. Supervisor and supervisee are in psychoeducational contact (i.e.,

(1983) visions—paint a portrait of some essentials needed for supervision

WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED FROM SUPERVISION ALLIANCE

variable of interest; and (c) investigations were missed due to oversight. I

Relationship Structures favorably by highly data;48% return

response; 40% held graduate degree) items); Barrett-Lennard

Rodolfa (2001)1 Chicano/Latino, 8% other) ANOVAs supervisees’ reported supervisees

38%, mental health center 22%,

clinical psychology, 23% counseling Anxiety Scale (p. 110).

psychology interns) Questionnaire supervisor as being securely 50% return rate

supervision; participants supervisees

counselors; 7 psychologists, 17 Satisfaction Survey; results; very

Table 2. SELECTED FEATURES OF SUPERVISORY ALLIANCE STUDIES,

Ex Post Facto, Self-Report Supervisee Supervisor

Bennett et al. (2008) X X X –

Ex Post Facto, Self-Report Supervisee Supervisor

Sumerel & Borders (1996) X X X –

master’s or doctoral students from psychology, counseling, or social work

Alliance Inventory; Rapport and Client Focus of Supervisory Working

regarded as a robust supervision variable; however, any such view must be

repairs will be needed to realign the supervisor-supervisee relationship. If

training if we cannot empirically show supervision’s effectiveness on client

Lambert, M. J., & Ogles, B. M. (1997). The effectiveness of psychotherapy supervision. In C. E.

You might also like