Download pdf - Professional Issues Supervisory Working Alliance: A …julietthomasethics.weebly.com/.../1/30217379/supervisory_alliance.pdf · Professional Issues Supervisory Working Alliance: A

Professional Issues

Supervisory Working Alliance: A Model ProvidingDirection for College Counseling Supervision

Chris Wood

This article presents an overview of the Supervisory Working Alliance Model (E. S. Bordin, 1983) andrelated research. The author proposes an extension of the model by applying it to evaluation andmulticultural competency. The following major advantages of the model for supervision in collegecounseling centers are discussed: (a) model's transtheoretical nature, (b) model's compatibility withalternate models, (c) model's conduciveness toward multiculturally competent supervision, and (d)model's utility in evaluation.

College counselors are often called on to conduct counseling supervi-sion. Counseling centers at colleges and universities are popular practicumand internship placements for counselor education programs (Dorn,

1979; Gloria, Castillo, Choi-Pearson, & Rangel, 1997). There may be moreopportunities for the practice of supervision during internships at college counselingcenters compared with agency internships (Scott, Ingram, Vitanza, & Smith,2000). Moreover, counselors in college counseling centers (Borders & Usher,1992) and in community college centers (Coll, 1995) indicate a desire forcounseling supervision.

Unfortunately, many master's-level counselor education programs lack courseson counseling supervision (Borders & Leddick, 1988), and states often fail torequire a background in supervision for counselor licensure (Borders & Cashwell,1992). The professional literature has identified the lack of training in supervi-sion as a serious "gap" in the profession (Hoffman, 1994; Russel & Petrie,1994). Some counselors in college counseling centers, then, may be called onto supervise counseling interns and other counselors despite having had littleor no specific training in counseling supervision.

Counselors in college counseling centers are faced with several challenges in regardto supervision. Novice counselors bring different levels of training and/or experi-ence as well as differing theoretical orientations. Counseling supervision should alsorecognize the needs of diverse populations, be culturally responsive, and fostermulticulturally competent practice. Moreover, college counselors need a supervisionmodel that assists with the arduous task of evaluation. As a supervision model thataddresses these special considerations, the Supervisory Working Alliance Model (Bordin,1983) has utility for college counselors and directors of counseling centers.

In this article, I propose the Supervisory Working Alliance Model (Bordin,1983) as a means for college counseling supervisors to understand and struc-

Chris Wood, Counselor Education Program, The Ohio State University. Correspondence concerning this article

should be addressed to Chris Wood, 356 Arps Hall, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 (e-ntail:

waod.53 / @osu.edu).

Journal of College Counseling • Fall 2005 • Volume 8 127

ture counseling supervision. I describe the components of the working alliancewithin the context of supervision; the adaptability of the model for the needs ofcollege counseling supervisors; the relevant research; and, finally, the potentiallimitations of the model in the college counseling setting.

Supervisory Working Alliance Model

There are several different supervision models available for counselor supervi-sors. Social role models, such as the discrimination model (Bernard, 1979),emphasize specific functions and roles of the counseling supervisor. Develop-mental models (Stoltenberg, 1981; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987) focus onhow supervisees change throughout training and supervised experience.Holloway's (1995) systems approach to supervision (SAS) model is perhapsthe most comprehensive of all supervision models. The SAS model takes intoaccount seven empirically derived dimensions that interact as part of a complexprocess affecting the core factor of the supervision relationship and supervi-sion tasks and functions. As a more straightforward heuristic, the supervisoryworking alliance (Bordin, 1983) can be conceptualized as a model for supervi-sion (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998) and used as a framework providing direc-tion for what occurs during counseling supervision. I propose the extension ofthe Supervisory Working Alliance Model by incorporating evaluation andmulticultural competency considerations into its use.

The Supervisory Working Alliance Model (Bordin, 1983) has several advan-tages for counselors working in college counseling centers. This model affordsboth versatility and parsimonious use. As a supervision model, it is simple tounderstand and easy to use in supervision, enabling it to be used by counselingsupervisors with little or no formal training in supervision. In addition, thesupervisory working alliance can be used in a transtheoretical fashion—allow-ing for the incorporation of different counseling and supervision theory. Ascounseling supervisors gain more training and experience, the more complexsupervision models can be used in conjunction with the Supervisory WorkingAlliance Model. For these reasons, the Supervisory Working Alliance Modellends itself to use by supervisors in college counseling settings.

Components of the SupervisoryWorking Alliance

The working alliance as a psychological construct stems from the psychoanalyticapproach to therapy. Working alliance theory as a theory of counseling andpsychotherapy was initially developed by Edward Bordin (Bordin, 1979; Dykeman,1995; Horvath & Greenberg, 1994). Bordin's working alliance theory is theconceptual foundation of the Supervisory Working Alliance Model (Bernard &Goodyear, 1998; Bordin, 1979,1983; Bradley & Ladany, 2001). The Supervi-sory Working Alliance Model was originally proposed by Bordin (1983) as anapplication of working alliance theory to the supervision process.

128 Journal of College Counseling • Fall 2005 • Volume 8

Working alliance theory explores the nature of the therapeutic alliance in thecounseling relationship. There are three major components of the workingalliance:^o«&, tasks, and bond. Building a strong working alliance involves mu-tual agreement and understanding regarding the goals sought in the changeprocess and the tasks of each partner. In addition, it involves the developmentof a strong emotional bond between the counselor and the client. The Supervi-sory Working Alliance Model (Bordin, 1983) applies working alliance theoryand the goal, task, and bond constructs to the supervisory relationship.

Figure 1 gives a visual representation of the Supervisory Working Alliance Model.As the figure illustrates, the supervisor and supervisee must have a common ar-ticulation of the goals of supervision. These goals must be established throughnegotiation during initial supervision sessions. The tasks of supervision must be inline with those goals, and, again, there must be a common defmition and consis-tent agreement on said tasks. The emotional bond between the supervisor andsupervisee provides the support necessary to sustain the work done in supervision.

Goals

The goals in the supervisory working alliance are defmed as objectives forchange or outcomes, mutually endorsed and valued by supervisor and trainee.Goals refer to the extent to which the supervisor and supervisee agree aboutand invest in the desired counselor improvement and outcomes of the supervi-

Bond

1Supervisee Goal

1Supervisor Goal

1 Negotiation and Agreement |

Bond

Mutually Agreed-Upon

Goal

SuperviseeConceptualization of Task

Negotiation a

Bond

SupervisorConceptualization of Task

id Agreement

Mutually Agreed-Upon

Task

Bond

FIGURE 1

Supervisory Working Alliance Model


sion. As Figure 1 illustrates, formulating these goals is a collaborative processbetween the supervisor and supervisee in which change goals are negotiateduntil reaching mutual agreement. Thus, there is a collaborative process toestablish which goals take precedence. This is done in consideration of thesupervisee's individual needs, interests, and developmental level.

Bordin (1983) outlined eight goals that he maintained are the core goals ofthe supervisory relationship. Regarding the first proposed goal, "mastery ofskills" (p. 37), those skills that become outcome goals of supervision can bedetermined by the supervisor/supervisee conjointly. Together the supervisorand supervisee can prioritize the mastery of specific skills and subsequent out-come goals. For example, a supervisor and supervisee might prioritize "reflec-tion of feeling" as a specific counseling skill for a trainee to master.

Tasks

In a similar fashion, the supervisor seeks mutual agreement with the superviseeregarding those tasks that they will engage in to reach their established supervi-sion outcome goals. When specific skills are designated as goals, the supervisorshould give feedback on the supervisee's movement toward mastering thoseskills. The mode of delivery of this feedback can also be mutually establishedbetween the supervisor and supervisee. For example, many supervisors use feedbackforms that provide supervisees with specific information regarding their progress.

The supervisor and supervisee can share responsibility in adhering to thesetasks. Because of the imbalance in power, the supervisor needs to make effortsto share power with the supervisee; this includes checking in with the supervi-see about his or her feelings regarding the current tasks and determining ifpredetermined tasks are the most salient for the present supervision meeting.In sharing responsibility regarding tasks of supervision, it is important to becognizant of the emotional bond between the supervisor and supervisee be-cause this influences the mutual establishment of goals and subsequent tasks.

BondThe extent to which the supervisor and supervisee trust each other, respectone another, and care for each other is known as the bond. These feelings ofliking, caring, and trusting will be strengthened by sharing the experience ofsupervision and mutually agreeing on the goals and tasks therein (Bradley &Ladany, 2001). Ultimately, these essential elements affect whether positive changeoccurs throughout the process of supervision; "the amount of change is basedon the building and repair of strong alliances" (Bordin, 1983, p. 36).

Adaptability of the Supervisory WorkingAlliance Model

The Supervisory Working Alliance Model (Bordin, 1983) is adaptable to theneeds of supervisors in college counseling centers because it holds the follow-


ing four advantages over other approaches: (a) model's transtheoretical nature,(b) model's compatibility with alternate models, (c) model's conduciveness to-ward multiculturally competent supervision, and (d) model's utility in evaluation.

Model's Transtheoretical Nature

The working alliance model has been discussed as transtheoretical (Bordin,1983; Horvath & Greenberg, 1994). The model is transtheoretical in the sensethat it can be used with different theoretical approaches. The supervisory workingalliance can be used with psychotherapy-based models of supervision. In acognitive model of supervision, techniques such as mental practice, covertmodeling, and cognitive modeling can be used within the supervisory workingalliance frame (Bradley 8c Ladany, 2001). Similarly, a psychodynamic model ofsupervision might place an emphasis on parallel process and interpersonal dy-namics, again within the supervisory working alliance framework. Both goalsand tasks can then be adjusted to incorporate different theoretical approaches.

Model's Compatibility With Alternate Models

Just as the Supervisory Working Alliance Model (Bordin, 1983) can be adaptedto different theoretical models, it can also be used with alternate models ofsupervision. The use of models in conjunction with the supervisory workingalliance can help guide a supervisor in selecting appropriate supervisor roles.For example, the discrimination model (Bernard, 1979) can be used to helpthe supervisor and supervisee identify the focus of supervision. Bernard orga-nized her model into three areas of focus: intervention, conceptualization, andpersonalization (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998, p. 29). Each area of focus alsohas three potential supervisor roles: teacher, counselor, and consultant. De-pending on a supervisee's needs, there are different areas of focus and subse-quently different roles for the supervisor. This model, then, could be used withthe supervisory working alliance to help match relevant tasks to appropriategoals, as well as helping a supervisor choose appropriate roles for use withthose tasks.

Model's Conduciveness Toward MulticulturallyCompetent Supervision

Also essential in any model of supervision is the standard of multicultural com-petence (American Psychological Association [APA], 2003; Ladany, Brittan-Powell, & Pannu, 1997; Ladany, Inman, Constantine, & Hofheinz, 1997;Neufeldt, 1999). Certainly, the Supervisory Working Alliance Model (Bordin,1983) affords the opportunity to incorporate multicultural counseling compe-tencies (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992) into the goals for supervision andto address the influence of cultural differences as a task in supervision.

Due to its collaborative nature, the Supervisory Working Alliance Model (Bordin,1983) is better able to address cross-cultural issues than are other models.Necessary in the process of establishing goals and tasks as well as developing a


supervisor-supervisee bond is the understanding of each other's cultural back-ground and worldview (Sue 8c Sue, 1999). Ashby and Cheatham (1996) advo-cated using a "worldview" (p. 50) sensitivity with supervisees, in which super-visors should work to be aware of shared understandings of cultural worldviewsbetween supervisor and supervisee just as they should be aware of culturallybased conflicting worldviews. Because the very process of establishing goalsand tasks in supervision necessitates the consideration of the respective culturalbackgrounds of counselor and supervisor, the Supervisory Working AllianceModel, in essence, models multicultural counseling competencies.

My experience with a supervisee several years ago illustrates how multiculturalcompetencies can be achieved using the Supervisory Working Alliance Model(Bordin, 1983). After discussing how gender, culture, and race/ethnicitymight affect the work in supervision, the supervisee and I (as her supervisor)negotiated the goal of being able to articulate the influence of the supervisee'scultural worldview on her case conceptualization of clients (also a multiculturalcounseling competency as identified by Sue et al., 1992, and APA, 2003).Toward this goal, the supervisee and I negotiated tasks to be done bothwithin and outside of supervision sessions. Each supervision session devotedtime to discussing the supervisee's worldview as a counselor and its potentialinfluence on the case conceptualization of the videotaped client under review.Similarly, the supervisee and I, together, noted cross-cultural communica-tion issues occurring in the session. Outside the session, the supervisee com-pleted additional readings on racial/ethnic identity development (Helms &Cook, 1999) dimensions of worldview (Sue &Sue, 1999) and "journaled"about her personal cultural identity. I completed readings on the sociopoliticalhistory of Nicaragua (the supervisee's country of origin) and readings byseveral Latina authors recommended by the supervisee as resonating with herpersonal experience. Thus, the Supervisory Working Alliance Model can beused not only to improve the multicultural competence of supervisees but toimprove the cultural responsiveness of supervisors.

Model's Utility in Evaluation

A final important consideration regarding the supervisory working alliance isthe concept of evaluation. Interventions regarding the establishment of mutu-ally agreed-upon goals can help make the necessary task of evaluation a pro-cess that strengthens the supervisory working alliance.

A key feature of the working alliance is the explicitness of goals. A supervisorcan spend time with a supervisee exploring the trainee's view of a competentcounselor. The supervisor and supervisee can then make connections betweenthose competencies and expected outcomes for the supervisee's practicum orinternship. In this way, agreement on goals is fostered.

The supervisor and supervisee can then examine the process of evaluationand determine how the task of evaluation relates to the achievement of thosegoals. Through this process, the supervisee "buys-in" to both the evaluationcriteria and the process of evaluation.


In sound evaluation, the supervisee performance objectives are clear, theperformance indicators are clear to both the supervisor and supervisee, andthe performance indicators have a clear relationship to the mutually agreed-upon goals. If the relationship between the performance evaluation and thearticulated goals is unclear, this will become evident when the supervisor andsupervisee engage in the evaluation process. If the supervisor is unable toarticulate the connection between the evaluation and expected counselor/traineeoutcomes (or if there are identifiable gaps between the two), the supervisor hasan opportunity to improve the process and refme the outcome expectationswith the supervisee.

An additional supervisory working alliance intervention (task) regarding evalu-ation involves conducting the evaluation together. Using set criteria, the supervi-sor and supervisee can sit down together and go through the evaluation processwith dual input. It is especially helpful to discuss any discrepancies between su-pervisor and supervisee evaluation items. In this fashion, it is possible not onlyto identify areas in need of improvement but also to resolve differences inperception regarding the counselor's skills.

Instruments. Some standardized instruments also afford an evaluation of theworking alliance. Development of the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI; Horvath& Greenberg, 1989) has allowed standardized investigation of the transtheoreticalconceptualization of the working alliance (Dykeman, 1995). The WAI has beenshown to be a reliable and valid measure (Hanson, Curry, & Bandalos, 2002;Tracey & Kokotovic, 1989). Moreover, ratings using the WAI and a 12-itemshort form (Bussed & Tyler, 2003) of the WAI with college counseling centerclients and therapists were highly correlated. The WAI or similar instrumentscan be used in supervision by changing the references to therapist znA client tosupervisor and supervisee.

In addition, several supervisory versions of the WAI have been created.Efstation, Patton, and Kardash (1990) created the Supervisory WorkingAlliance Inventory (SWAI), which is composed of a 23-item supervisorscale and a 19-item supervisee scale that have demonstrated good validityacross the working alliance constructs (Patton, Brossart, Gehlert, Gold,& Jackson, 1992). The SWAI is available in the Bernard and Goodyear(1998) text on clinical supervision. Smith, Younes, and Lichtenberg (2002)developed the Working Alliance Inventory-Supervisory Relationship (WAI-SR) to investigate how the supervisory relationship develops in regard togoal, task, and bond. Although there is no evidence to suggest the over-whelming efficacy of any of these instruments over the others, these in-struments offer a means to evaluate the status of the supervisory workingalliance during or after clinical supervision. Exploring the current statusof the supervisory working alliance can be a form of formative evaluationduring the supervisory process.

Research. There has been a variety of research done on both the working allianceand the supervisory working alliance. Horvath and Symonds (1991) conducted ameta-analysis of 24 studies investigating the relationship of the working alliance to


therapy outcome. This meta-analysis discerned a reliable association between agood working alliance and positive outcomes from therapy. Horvath and Greenberg(1994) expanded the previous meta-analysis and produced similar findings. It isinteresting that empirical evidence suggests that a counseling trainee's perceptionof the supervisory working alliance is positively related to a client's perception ofthe counseling working alliance (Patton & Kivlighan, 1997).

Current evidence suggests that supervisees would respond well to an emphasison the working alliance in supervisory relationships. Usher and Borders (1993)determined that supervisees have a preference for a supervisor who is collegialand relationship oriented. Ladany and Fdedlander (1995) discovered that a strongersupervisory working alliance was predictive of less counselor trainee role conflictand less ambiguity in supervision. White and Queener (2003) determined thatsupervisors' ability to make healthy adult attachments was predictive of the strengthof the supervisory working alliance. Furthermore, Ladany, Ellis, and Friedlander(1999) discovered that improvements in the emotional bond between superviseesand supervisors were associated with greater trainee satisfaction. Similar resultsindicate that trainees and supervisors do not differ in their ratings of goals, bonds,or session impact, despite unresolved weakening of the supervisory workingalliance (Burke, Goodyear, & Guzzard, 1998).

Some research indicates the influence of various factors on the supervisory work-ing alliance. Ladany and Lehrman-Waterman (1999) determined in their studythat the more supervisors made self-disclosures, the more supervisees perceivedagreement on the goals and tasks of supervision and the stronger the emotionalbond. Similarly, supervisors' self-perceptions of supervisory style are related totheir perceptions of agreement on goals and tasks in supervision (Ladany, Walker,& Melincoff, 2001). Ramos-Sanchez et al. (2002) found that supervisee develop-mental level was positively related to supervisory working alliance and satisfaction.Moreover, supervisees who reported negative events in supervision (such as differ-ences in interpersonal relationships, supervision tasks, theoretical orientation, ethi-cal violation, or multicultural incompetence) had weaker supervisory alliances andless satisfaction with supervision and reported that supervision adversely influ-enced their current training experience. Other studies have determined that whena supervisor and supervisee discuss cultural variables such as race/ethnicity, gen-der, and sexual orientation, supervisees report significantly higher satisfaction withsupervision and an enhanced working alliance (Gatmon et al., 2001). Unfortu-nately, Gatmon et al. also found that supervisory discussions about culture do notoccur frequently. Future research is needed to explore the working alliance's im-pact on cross-cultural supervision and the use of the Supervisory Working AllianceModel (Bordin, 1983) in conjunction with other models of supervision, as well asdetermining which elements of the supervisory working alliance seem to take pre-cedence for novice trainees versus more experienced counselors.

Limitations

The transtheoretical nature, the adaptability to alternate models / theory , theability to foster muldculturally competent supervision, the ability to make evaluation


salient for the supervisee, and the research on the Supervisory Working AllianceModel (Bordin, 1983) in college counseling centers point toward the advantagesof the model. There may, however, be several disadvantages for college counsel-ing supervisors. The Supervisory Working Alliance Model clearly hinges on theability of the supervisor and supervisee to negotiate and agree upon specificgoals for supervision. This is clearly a time-intensive endeavor and may be be-yond the immediate resources of a supervisor in a college counseling center.

There may be factors present in college counseling supervision that may im-pede essential elements of the Supervisory Working Alliance Model (Bordin,1983). Many colleges require a uniform evaluation procedure for employees.This required evaluation procedure might be challenging to adapt for use inconjunction with the Supervisory Working Alliance Model. Thus, the collegecounseling supervisor may have to work with the supervisee to incorporate thecollege requirements into the goal-setting process in ways that are salient andmeaningful for the supervisee. Similarly, graduate programs also require formalevaluation procedures for students, and again this may limit the ability of a su-pervisor to use the Supervisory Working Alliance Model in the evaluation pro-cess. Although every supervision model has limitations, models of supervisioncan be a useful heuristic for understanding and guiding the supervision process(Borders, 2001). As such, the Supervisory Working Alliance Model can assistcollege counselors engaged in the challenging task of counseling supervision.

References

American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, train-ing, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. American Psychologist,58, 377-402.

Ashby, J. S., & Cheatham, H. E. (1996). Multicultural counseling and supervision. In J.L. DeLucia-Waack (Ed.), Multicultural Counseling Competencies: Implications for trainingand practice (pp. 47-59). Alexandria, VA: Association for Counselor Education andSupervision.

Bernard, J. M. (1979). Supervisor training: A discrimination model. Counselor Educationand Supervision, 19, 60—68.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1998). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (2nd ed.).Boston; Allyn & Bacon.

Borders, L. D. (2001). Counseling supervision: A deliberate educational process. In D. C.Locke, J. E. Myers, & E. L. Herr (Eds.), The handbook of counseling (pp. 417^32). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Borders, L. D., & Cashwell, C. S. (1992). Supervision regulations in counselor licensurelegislation. Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 208-219.

Borders, L. D., & Leddick, G. R. (1988). A nationwide survey of supervision training. Coun-selor Education and Supervision, 27, 271-283.

Borders, L. D., & Usher, C. H. (1992). Post-degree supervision: Existing and preferred prac-tices. Journal of Counseling ir Development, 70, 594-599.

Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alli-ance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16, 252-260.

Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psy-chologist, 11, 35-42.

Bradley, L. J., & Ladany, N. (2001). Counselor supervision: Principles, process, and practice(3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.


Burke, W. R., Goodyear, R. K., & Guzzard, C. R. (1998). Weakenings and repairs in super-visory alliances. American Journal of Psychotherapy^ 52, 450-463.

Busseri, M. A., & Tyler, J. D. (2003). Interchangeability of the Working Alliance Inventoryand Working Alliance Inventory, Short Form. Psychological Assessment, 15, 193-197.

Coll, K. M. (1995). Clinical supervision of community college counselors: Current and pre-ferred practices. Counselor Education and Supervision, 35, 111-117.

Dorn, F. (1979). The counseling center internship in higher education. Counselor Educationand Supervision, 19, 112-119.

Dykeman, C. (1995). An introduction to workinji alliance theory for professional counselors.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED387755)

Efstation, J. F., Patton, M. J., & Kardash, C. M. (1990). Measuring the working alliance incounseling supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 322-329.

Gatmon, D., Jackson, D., Koshkarian, L., Martos-Perry, N., Molina, A., Patel, N., et al.(2001). Exploring ethnic, gender, and sexual orientation variables in supervision; Do theyreally matter? Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 29, 102-113.

Gloria, A. M., Castillo, L. G., Choi-Pearson, C. P., & Rangel, D. K. (1997). Competitiveinternship candidates; A national survey of internship training directors. The CounselingPsychologist, 25, 453-472.

Hanson, W. E., Curry, K. T., & Bandalos, D. L. (2002). Reliability generalization of WorkingAlliance Inventory scale scores. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 659-673.

Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Usin^ race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy:Theory and process. Needham Heights, MA; Allyn & Bacon.

Hoffman, L. W. (1994). The training of psychotherapy supervisors: A barren scape. Psycho-therapy in Private Practice, 13, 23-42.

Holloway, E. L. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the Working

Alliance Inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 223-233.Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1994). The workinjf alliance: Theory, research, and prac-

tice. New York: Wiley.Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. D. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome

in psychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 139-149.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 supervi-see multicultural competence. Counselor Education and Supervision, 36, 284-304.

Ladany, N., Ellis, M. V., & Friedlander, M. L. (1999). The supervisory working alliance, traineeself-efficacy, and satisfaction. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 447-456.

Ladany, N., & Friedlander, M. L. (1995). The relationship between the supervisory workingalliance and trainees' experience of role conflict and role ambiguity. Counselor Educationand Supervision, 34, 220—231.

Ladany, N., Inman, A. G., Constantine, M. G., & Hofheinz, E. W. (1997). Superviseemulticultural case conceptualization ability and self-reported multicultural competence asfunctions of supervisee racial identity and supervisor focus. Journal of Counseling Psychol-ogy, 44, 284-293.

Ladany, N., & Lehrman-Waterman, D. E. (1999). The content and frequency of supervisorself-disclosures and their relationship to supervisor style and the supervisory working alli-ance. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 143-160.

Ladany, N., Walker, J. A., & Melincoff, D. S. (2001). Supervisory style: Its relation to thesupervisory working alliance and supervisor self-disclosure. Counselor Education and Su-pervision, 40, 263-275.

Neufeldt, S. A. (1999). Supervision strategies for the first practicum (2nd ed.). Alexandria,VA; American Counseling Association.

Patton, M. J., Brossart, D. F., Gehlert, K. M., Gold, P. B., & Jackson, A. P. (1992). TheSupervisory Working Alliance Inventory: A validity study. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED360358)


Patton, M. J., & Kivlighan, D. M. (1997). Relevance of the supervisory alliance to the coun-seling alliance and to treatment adherence in counselor training. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 44, 108-115.

Ramos-Sanchez, L., Esnil, E., Riggs, S., Wright, L. K., Goodwin, A., Touster, L. O., et al.(2002). Negative supervisory events: Effects on supervision satisfaction and supervisoryalliance. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 197-202.

Russel, R. K., & Petrie, T. (1994). Issues in training effective supervisors. Applied & Preven-tive Psychology, 3, 27-42,

Scott, K. J., Ingram, K. M., Vitanza, S. A., & Smith, N, G. (2000). Training in supervision:A survey of current practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 403-422,

Smith, T. R., Younes, L, K., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (2002). Examining the working alliance insupervisory relationships: The development of the Working Alliance Inventory of SupervisoryRelationships. (ERJG Document Reproduction Service No. ED471440)

Stoltenberg, C. (1981), Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective: Thecounselor complexity model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 59-65,

Stoltenberg, C., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists: A developmen-tal approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

Sue, D, W,, Arredondo, P, & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural Counseling Competenciesand Standards: A call to the profession. Journal of Counseling &• Development, 70, 477-486.

Sue, D, W., & Sue, D, (1999), Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (3rded,). New York: Wiley.

Tracey, T, J,, & Kokotovic, A. M, (1989), Factor structure of the Working Alliance Inventory,Psychological Assessment, 1, 207-210,

Usher, C, H,, & Borders, L, D, (1993), Practicing counselors' preferences for supervisorystyle and supervisory emphasis. Counselor Education and Supervision, 33, 66-80,

White, V, E,, & Queener, J, (2003), Supervisor and supervisee attachments and social provi-sions related to the supervisory working alliance. Counselor Education and Supervision,42, 203-218,
