Date of Award

Summer 2024

Language

English

Embargo Period

8-31-2024

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

College/School/Department

Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology

Program

Counseling Psychology

First Advisor

Myrna Friedlander

Committee Members

Kimberly Colvin, Michael Ellis

Keywords

supervisor responsiveness, supervisory working alliance, clinical supervision, trainee, supervisee

Subject Categories

Clinical Psychology | Counseling Psychology | School Psychology

Abstract

Theoretically, responsiveness to the emergent needs of supervisees and clients is the primary means by which clinical supervisors help trainees become effective psychotherapists (Friedlander, 2012). To advance understanding and research on this aspect of supervision, the Supervisory Responsiveness Scale (SRS) was developed and assessed psychometrically.

First, 35 items reflecting trainees’ perceptions of their supervisor’s responsiveness, as defined by Friedlander (2012), were developed and rated for clarity, face and content validity by a panel of 12 experienced supervisors. After the item pool was refined based on these ratings, 216 supervisees representing all training levels rated each item on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (totally) scale. A series of confirmatory factor analyses indicated the best fit to be a one-factor solution with 23 positively and negatively-worded items.

After reverse scoring the negatively-worded items and summing the raw scores, high SRS scores indicate greater supervisory responsiveness as perceived by supervisees. Based on the development sample, the measure’s internal consistency reliability was 0.98. Construct validity was supported by (a) significant positive correlations with measures of attractive, interpersonally sensitive, and task-oriented supervisory styles (Friedlander & Ward, 1984), rs = 0.77, 0.88 and 0.66, respectively, the supervisory working alliance (Bahrick, 1989; r = 0.92), and satisfaction with supervision (Ladany et al., 1996; r = 0.91); (b) significant negative correlations with measures of role conflict (r = -0.75) and ambiguity (r = -0.80) in the supervisory relationship (Olk & Friedlander, 1992); and (c) a non-significant correlation with a measure of socially desirable reporting (r = 0.12).

The exceptionally high correlations between the SRS and measures of the alliance and supervisee satisfaction suggested a large overlap with these other constructs, which also reflect trainees’ perceptions of “good supervision.” In contrast to these other measures, however, the SRS assesses the “if/then,” contextual aspect of the supervisory process, that is, if a particular event or concern is described by the supervisee, then the supervisor responds to it adequately. Also in contrast to these other measures of supervision, the SRS reflects supervisors’ responses to the needs of their supervisee’s client(s) as well as those of the supervisee.

License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Download

Share

COinS