Teaching Methods.

1.) Do you formulate a working hypothesis, or revise an old one in each session?

2.) Do you feel that modelling or identification in relation to yourself is important in the learning process?

3. ) Do you explain concepts and techniques in a didactic way?

4. ) Do you point out mistakes made by the supervisee? 5.) Do you use role playing in supervision?

be inadequately represented, the so-called 'parallel process' in which processes in the patient are addressed by analyzing the interpersonal processes between the supervisory pair. This was rectified by creating a question in the form of a box that could be ticked specifying this focus

The final form of the Supervision Questionnaire, consisting of 60 questions that encompass supervision behaviours practised by the different therapy groups, can be seen in Appendix 6.1.

DISCUSSION

Models for supervision containing categories of supervisory behaviours have been formulated by a number of writers, emerging from theory and practical experience. Examples include Kadushin (1976), who has described three main functions of supervision which he terms educative, supportive and managerial. Holloway (1989) has created a detailed matrix within which are organized five objectives (counselling skills, case concept, professional role, emotional awareness and evaluation) and five strategies (instructing, modelling, monitoring, counselling and consulting). In a summary of the sub-roles most often noted by writers on supervision, Hawkins & Shohet (1989) list six categories: teacher, monitor evaluator, counsellor, colleague, boss and expert technician. These categories of supervisor activities are presented here for comparison with the eight categories that emerged a posteriori from the

interviews with the supervisor sample in this study: teaching methods, structure of sessions, the supervisory relationship, therapy process, personal issues, professional/ethical issues, evaluation and administration. Seven categories of this study subsume or are subsumable under the above-mentioned categories noted by previous writers, without categorical omissions. One new category, structure of the supervision sessions, appeared in the present study.

Questions were included in the present study that exemplified all of the above roles, functions, objectives and strategies mentioned by other workers and included new ones. This can be seen by the way in which Holloway's (1989) matrix of objectives and strategies are exemplified in scaled questionnaire items in the present study; Case concept: Do you offer explanations to help the supervisee to understand the patient's behaviour, symptoms, life situation? Emotional awareness: Do you discuss or make explicit the feelings of the patient toward the therapist in the supervision session? Counselling skills: Do you give specific directions in regard to the treatment? Evaluation: Do you report back to a training organization on the progress of the trainee or on his suitability for qualification? Instructing: Do you explain concepts and techniques in a didactic way? Modelling: Do you feel that modelling or identification in relation to yourself is important in the learning process? Monitoring: If you see major difficulties in the student's progress, would you discuss these directly with the student? Do you ask the

supervisees for their rationale for doing or saying something? Consulting: Do you give specific direction in regard to the management of the case (as distinct from the treatment)? Counselling: Would you help the supervisee with emotional problems of his/her own that might arise in work with patients?

Further, links can be seen with the list of sub-roles summarized by Hawkins & Shohet (1989), gleaned from the literature. Each of their six categories are represented by a number of items on the Supervision Questionnaire: teacher, monitor evaluator, counsellor, colleague, boss, expert technician. Similarly, the interactional models identified by Hess (1980) are represented: teacher, case review consultant, collegial peer (Do you establish a warm, collegial relationship with your supervisees?), monitor and therapist. As pointed out in Chapter Two, these conceptual perspectives are helpful in organizing research issues, but there has been little research aimed toward assessing their differential relationship to supervisor and therapist variables, which this study will attempt to address.

It is highly relevant that the questionnaire includes items from all the main areas found by previous research studies to be highly facilitatory or detrimental to the learning process in supervision (reported in detail in Chapter Two). These include didactic elements (Payne, Winter & Bell, 1972; Coin & Kline, 1974, and others), support (Kennard, Stewart & Gluck, 1982, and others), experiential space for

learning for oneself and authoritarianism (Cherniss & Egnatios, 1977), positive feedback (Worthington, 1984), flexibility and warmth (Nelson, 1978), independent thinking (Worthington & Stern, 1985), personal/emotional issues (Goin & Kline, 1974), questions and praise (Holloway & Wolleat, 1981).

By virtue of the result that the categories of questions emerging from the interviews with supervisors in this study matched and held examples of categories of supervisory behaviours found essential by writers on supervision, and that all the elements of supervision found highly facilitatory or detrimental according to previous studies were represented by items on the questionnaire, the Supervision Questionnaire appears to have face validity. This is the extent to which the content of a measure "looks like it measures what it is supposed to measure" (Nunnally, 1978).

The following chapter will report the administration of the Supervision Questionnaire, together with five further research instruments, to current supervisors from London psychotherapy training organizations.

CHAPTER SEVEN