Center for Supervision (CS)

Transcription

1 Stockholm Oktober 2011 Center for Supervision (CS) Birgit Bork Mathiesen Jan Nielsen Claus Haugaard Jacobsen Associate Associate Professor Professor Professor

2 Centre for Supervision Jan Nielsen Associate professor University of Copenhagen & Claus Haugaard Jacobsen Professor University of Aalborg

3 Clinical supervision reflected in a Danish DPCCQ-sample Foci and preliminary results

4 Abstract point of departure Supervision is vital to the development of psychotherapists (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009) and by novice therapists rated as the most important factor in their professional development (Orlinsky & Rønnestad, 2005). Paradoxically, the standard version of the Development of Psychotherapists Common Core Questionnaire (DPCCQ) has only few questions on supervision. Consequently, the Danish version of the DPCCQ has been supplemented by two new sections on supervision, one focusing on supervisees and another on supervisors. This paper presents results from the supplementary questions on doing supervision (supervisors perspective) and being supervised (supervisees perspective).

5 Structure 1. Background 2. The international study 3. Methods: instruments, sampling, research strategies, 4. Results: a. Basics b. Supervisees c. Developmental factors (focus #1) d. Supervisors (focus #2) 5. Discussion: a. limitations; b. methods; c. validity; 6. Perspectives for supervision research a. Novice therapists and the developmental triad (focus # 1) b. Supervisors development (focus # 2) 7. Conclusion a. Factors for development of professional identity (focus # 1) b. Training and experience: Development of competencies? (focus #2)

6 2. The international study

7 International Study of the Development of Psychotherapists Society for Psychotherapy Research (SPR) s Collaborative Research Network (CRN) Orlinsky, D. E., Rønnestad, M. H.(eds) (2005). How psychotherapists develop: A study of therapeutic work and professional growth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

8 3. Methods: instruments, sampling, research strategies,

9 DPCCQ-standard SPR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH NETWORK DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOTHERAPISTS COMMON CORE QUESTIONNAIRE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE was designed by a group of clinician-researchers from different countries as the basis of an international study of professional psychotherapists. (For simplicity, we use the term therapist to refer generally to clinicians of all professional backgrounds and theoretical orientations, and the term patient to refer generally to clients, analysands, etc.) MOST OF THE QUESTIONS can be answered quickly by checking or circling the response alternatives that most closely reflect your own experience. Please answer all the questions you can. If you find a question difficult to answer, give your best estimate and continue. The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will be used only for research purposes. Thanks! 1-1. Today s date: month year 1-2. Date of Birth: month year 1-3. Sex: Female Male 1-4. Country where you live:

10 Sections Items Themes examples 1. Personal data 5 Date of birth, sex, 2. Profession 23 Professional identification, qualifications, past and present supervision 3. Therapeutic experience 21 Duration and type of clinical experience 4. Career development 51 Retrospective estimate of the therapist s overall career development 5. Personal therapy 23 Type, intensity, duration 6. Theoretical orientation 52 Current theoretical orientation 7. Current development 36 The therapist s sense of his/her current professional development 8. Current praxis 43 Type and number of work settings, number and type of clients 9. Difficulties 96 Various types of difficulties experienced by the therapist Personal characteristics 42 Marital status, minority and immigration status 11. Open questions 4 Main factors leading you to become the therapist you are at present Total 392 DPCCQ standard

11 The Danish DPCCQ-2009 version DPCCP-standard + Supplement I: On receiving (supervisee-section) 15 new items + Supplement II: On giving supervision (supervisor-section) 25 new items

12 Supplement I: Supervisee-section On receiving supervision examples 3-1. In your career to date, how much formal case supervision have you received for your therapeutic work? [Include regular individual or group supervision during and after training.] years months 3-2. About how many hours of supervision have you received for all your cases in the last 12 months? Are you currently receiving regular supervision for any of your therapy cases? _ 1. Yes. b. If yes, for how many cases? 2. No. c. [If no, describe why (then skip to 4-1):

13 Supplement II: Supervisor-section On giving supervision examples Have you received formal training in supervision before you started as a supervisor? yes no To date, how many other therapists have you supervised in their psychotherapeutic work? [If 0, skip to ] How many hours of supervision do you give in a typical month? hours How many therapists do you currently supervise? therapists

14 Supplement II: Supervisor-section Supervisor training examples Regarding your supervisory training How long is it since you first received formal training in supervision? years months Overall, how many hours of teaching in supervision theory have you received? hours Overall, how many hours of supervision on supervision have you received? hours Overall 0=Not at all, 1= Slightly, 2= Somewhat, 3=Moderately, 4=Much, 5=Very much How satisfactory was your supervisory training?

15 Sampling The Danish Psychological Association 8000 members clinicians DPSfP respondents % 37% 50%

16 4. Results a. Basics b. Supervisees c. Developmental factors (focus #1) d. Supervisors (focus #2)

17 4. Results a. Basics

18 Age of therapists

19 Sex of therapist

20 Experience in years n=347

21 Accreditations %

22 Dominant current orientation 4 or 5 on Likert-scala 0-5

23 4. Results b. Supervisees

24 Currently in supervision / exp. % Years of experience as therapist

25 Supervision last 12 mth. / exp. Experience 0-5 yrs 5-10 yrs yrs yrs yrs yrs 30+ yrs

26 Supervision last 12 mth. / exp. Exp./age => less supervision (neg. corr.)

27 Supervision last 12 mth. / exp. Suphours 12 mth

28 4. Results c. Developmental factors (focus #1)

29 Developmental factors How much influence (positive and/or negative) do you feel each of the following has had on your overall development as a therapist? 5-1. Experience in therapy with patients Working with co-therapists Taking courses or seminars Getting formal supervision or consultation Having informal case discussion with colleagues The institutional conditions in which you practice Reading books or journals relevant to your practice Observing therapists in workshops, films or on tape Getting personal therapy, analysis or counseling Giving formal supervision or consultation to others Teaching courses or seminars Doing research...

30 International sample* Perceived Sources of Influence on Career Development ( ) items rank n M Courses or seminars Giving formal supervision Research *Orlinsky og Rønnestad, 2005, p. 137 / tab. 9.1.

31 International sample: 3 groups* Perceived Sources of Influence on Career Development ( ) items Novice <1,5 yrs Experinced 7 yrs mean Senior > 25 yrs Working with patients Personal therapy Courses or seminars *Orlinsky og Rønnestad, 2005, p. 155 / tab. 10.4

32 DPCCQ-DK 2009 Influence on delevopment as therapist Positive influence 0-3 Most influental factors 4-15: Experience with clients (all) Novice (0-5 yrs) Novice (<1!yrs) Intro. post ( føl = praksiskandidat) 4-18: Getting formal supervision (all) Novice (0-5 yrs) Novice (<1!yrs) Intro. post ( føl = praksiskandidat) 4-23: Getting personal therapy (all) Novice (0-5 yrs) Novice (<1!yrs) Intro. post ( føl = praksiskandidat) Rank All Internal N Mean Sd 2,7 2,7 3, ,4 2, ,2 1,

33 The triade: Formation and development of professional identity clients supervision personal therapy

34 International sample* Perceived Sources of Influence on Career Development ( ) rank items n M DK-rank 1.! Working with patients ! Getting formal supervision Personal therapy ! Courses or seminars ! Research *Orlinsky og Rønnestad, 2005, p. 137 / tab. 9.1.

35 4. Results d. Supervisors (focus #2)

36 Hypothesis testing Supervisors own perception of the value of their training for their current competencies as supervisors? Variable: training => supervisor competencies? Sr Sd / T Cl

37 DPCCQ-DK Supervisor training Overall How satisfactory was your supervisory training? 0=Not at all, 1= Slightly, 2= Somewhat, 3=Moderately, 4=Much, 5=Very much

38 DPCCQ-DK Operationalization: competencies a. How effective are you at engaging supervisees in a working alliance? Likert: b. How natural (authentically personal) do you feel while working with supervisees? c. How empathic are you in relating to supervisees with whom you had relatively little in common? d. How well do you understand what happens moment-by-moment during supervision sessions? e. How effective are you in communicating problems in the professional function of your supervisees to them? f. How effective are you in communicating your understanding and concern to your supervisees? g. How much mastery do you have of the techniques and strategies involved in practicing supervision? h. How well are you able to detect and deal with your supervisees emotional reactions to you? j. How much precision, subtlety and finesse have you attained in your supervision work? k. How much discomfort do you experience when your supervisees expose flaws in professional function?

39 Compentencies / skills a. = alliance; b. = natural / authentic; c. = empathic; d. = moment by moment; e. = effective communicate problems; f. = effective communicating understanding and concern ; g. = mastery in technique and strategy; h. = detect and deal with supervisees emotional reactions ; i. = detect own emotional reactions; j. = precision, subtlety and finesse; k = discomfort.

40 Competencies / training value

41 Relation between training and competencies Little 0-1 Some 2-3 Much 4-5 One-way ANOVA (bt. groups) Items # F Sig a 3,75 3,93 4,13 4, * b 4,03 3,88 4,17 2, c 3,15 3,36 3,47 1, d 2,94 3,24 3,57 7, ** e 2,77 3,05 3,39 6, ** f 3,61 3,71 4,09 7, ** g 2,42 3,24 3,83 37, * h 2,84 3,20 3,47 5, ** i 3,09 3,22 3,47 3, j 2,36 2,96 3,49 20, ** k 2,88 2,39 2,35 2,

42 Hypothesis testing: Is experience enough? Bernard & Goodyear 2009: Supervisors do not get more competent as they gain experience. (p. 100). Worthington 1987: Unwilling as we might be to accept it, most supervisors simply might not improve with experience. (p. 206).

43 DPCCQ-DK Development of supervisor competencies Training, numbers of supervisees, or years as supervisor?

44 Non-parametric test (Spearman) items Training (0-5) Number supervisees (0-100+) Supervised years (0-40) Sig. Cor. Rank Sig. Cor. Rank Sig. Cor. Rank * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** * 1 Sum

45 Train-value # Sd-total #Sd -current Superv. yrs. Suptranyrs ms Sig Corr Rank Sig Corr Rank Sig Corr Rank Sig Corr Rank Sig Corr Rank * * ** ** ** ** ** * ** * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** * * ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ? * 1? * m

46 Training (0-5) Number supervisees (0-100+) Supervis ed years (0-40) 24 = 2 17= 1 25 = 3 Train-value # Sd-total Superv. Yrs. Suptra nyrs #Sd current 19 = 1 29 = 2 31 = 3 35 = 4 49 = 5

47 Training (skills) vs. experience Items Training Supervised years Alliance 1 skills/technique Authentic 3 1 personal Moment by moment Effective communicate problems 1 skills/technique Mastery in technique and strategy 1 skills/technique Detect and deal with supervisees 1 skills/technique 3 emotional reactions Detect own emotional reactions 3 1 personal Precision, subtlety and finesse 1 skills/technique Discomfort 3 1 personal

48 5. Discussion a. limitations; b. methods; c. validity;

49 Limitations! Cross-sectional designs! Retrospective! Subjective / self-reporting = experiences! Many different measures! Validity DK: No data to compare with = generalization?

50 6. Perspectives for supervision research a. Novice therapists and the developmental triad (focus # 1) b. Supervisors development (focus # 2)

51 The triade and novices Formation and development of professional identity Clients 2 Personal therapy 3

52 On supervisor development no new models have been developed in the past decade. It is easy to speculate that this lack of activity is related to the lack of any new interest in counselor [supervisor] stage developmental models. (Bernard & Goodyear 2009, p. 297)

53 New directions Defining Competencies in Psychology Supervision: A Consensus Statement: Falender et al. (2004): Expand the description of developmental levels of supervisors (p. 772)

54 Carol Falender Skills for supervisors examples:!!!!!! Ability to build relationship and alliance Ability to provide effective and summative feedback Ability to promote growth and self-assessment in the trainee Ability to conduct own self-assessment process Ability to assess the learning needs and developmental level of the supervisee Ability to encourage and use evaluative feedback from the trainee Falender et al. (2004): Defining Competensies in Psychology Supervision: A Consensus Statement (p. 778) Journal of Clinical Psychology, vol. 60 (7):

55 7. Conclusion Novices: Factors for development of professional identity Focus 1 Supervisor training and experience: Development of competencies? Focus 2

56 Supervision Novices Focus 1! Central and critical for novice therapists.! Negative experiences in supervision => negative professional identity.! Negative experiences in supervision => double traumatization. (under pressure in both therapy and supervision; O&R, 2009)! The triad: supervision, clients and personal therapy.

57 Supervisors Focus 2! Experience is not enough.! Training is vital to develop as supervisor.! Training is especially central for supervisors to experience themselves as competent.

58 Thanks! Birgit Bork Mathiesen Jan Nielsen Claus Haugaard Jacobsen Associate Associate Professor Professor Professor

59 The troublesome question Does supervision work? Client Therapist / Supervisee Supervisor

60 And how to approach this? What supervisory intervention, by what supervisor, is most effective for a particular therapist, with a specific supervisory need, under which set of circumstances will offer the type of treatment, by the aforementioned therapist, that would be most effective for a specific client, with a specific problem, under which set of circumstances? (Paul 1967; IN Rønnestad & Ladany 2006, p. 263).

61 Kind of an answer - or more troublesome questions? Reframing this debate, a more rigorous and relevant question would be to determinate whether a therapist has acquired relevant and specific competencies in the course of his/her training or experiences, and whether this process of acquisition is linked to better therapeutic outcomes. An even more challenging question is whether training enhances therapists capacity to generalise their learning to apply their knowledge to novel clinical situations? (Roth & Fonagy, 2005, p. 456)

62 Wampold (2006) one realizes that having a good therapist is much more important than what type of therapy is delivered. (IN Rønnestad, 2008).

63 8 The supervisory alliance: dialogue and reflection

64 Factors develop competencies: a. Training; b. Supervised therapist; c. Supervised years? One-way ANOVA (bt. groups) a: Training (10-17.) b: No. supervisees (10-18.) c: Years as supervisor (10-9.) items 0-5 cat. / ncat(1-3) 0-5 cat. / ncat (1-3) 0-40yrs / ncat (1-3) / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /.067 Sig. 6 / 7 0 / 3 3 / 7

65 Factors develop competencies: a. Training; b. Supervised therapist; c. Supervised years? One-way ANOVA (bt. groups) Training No. supervisees Years as supervisor items 0-5 cat / ncat(1-3) 0-5 cat. / ncat (1-3) 0-40yrs / ncat (1-3) Working alliance.063 / / / Natural.054 / / / Empathic.312 / / / Step by step.006 / / / Problems.018 / / / Concern.001 / / / Techniques.000 / / / Emot. react..006 / / / Pers. react.146 / / / Precision.000 / / / Discomfort.179 / / /.067

66 Non-parametric test (Pearson) items Training (0-5) No. supervisees (0-8) supervised years Sig Corr Rank Sig Corr Rank Sig Corr Rank