Supervisee experiences of poor and harmful clinical supervision

The overall purpose of this research was to build on existing discipline understanding of clinical supervision perceived by probationary psychologists as less than positive. Bernard and Goodyear’s (2004) definition of clinical supervision was used as a framework to analyse contemporary theory and research and facilitate conceptualisation of levels of clinical supervision effectiveness from the supervisee’s perspective. Constructs of bad (poor) and harmful supervision proposed by Ellis and his colleagues (e.g., Ellis, Swagler & Beck, 2000) were used to investigate the nature, incidence, causes, and impacts of less than positive supervision. Extant theory and research were combined to build a preliminary model of variables hypothesised to predict poor and harmful clinical supervision. Two complementary studies were used to investigate supervisee experiences of less than positive supervision. In Study 1, 91 Victorian probationary psychologists completed an Internet questionnaire on their least positive past supervision experience. Quantitative data was collected on the incidence of poor and harmful supervision and supervisee selected explanations for its occurrence. Using Mann-Whitney U tests, rank scores on measures of the supervisory relationship, role conflict and ambiguity, evaluation within supervision, and supervisor self-disclosure, were compared to investigate whether poor and harmful supervision might be distinct constructs. Approximately 28 % of participants described their least positive supervision experience as poor and 11% as harmful. Relative to poor supervision, supervisees reporting harmful supervision were more likely to select multiple explanations for the experience. Scores on measures of the emotional bond between supervisor and supervisee, and evaluative feedback within supervision, were found to differentiate participants reporting poor and harmful supervision. In Study 2, 10 volunteer probationary psychologists from Study 1 participated in telephone interviews pertaining to a past poor or harmful supervision experience. Stages of the human phenomenological scientific method (Giorgi, 1997) were used to describe poor and harmful supervision experiences. Common themes in supervisee descriptions of poor and harmful supervision were educed using N Vivo 2.0. Concerns pertaining to unethical supervisor behaviour and evaluative feedback were evident in most accounts of poor and harmful supervision. Deleterious impacts arising from dual supervisor roles and supervisee role conflict were more evident in descriptions of harmful supervision. A mixed methods research design was applied to assess the preliminary model of variables predicted to underlie poor and harmful supervision experiences. Findings from Study 1 and 2 were combined to critique the exploratory model predictions and make suggestions for future model development.