Reading Time: 5 minutes

3 Responses

  1. Eeuwe says:

    I find this part so difficult to do:

    “Third, all of the above can only take place when there is an emotional bond and a sense of emotional safety working with you. Take the time to check in on their perspective on this. (Also see Matthew Bambling and colleagues excellent supervision study1).”

    I don’t feel like I have the language around such checking in, and I can rarely get specific relationship feedback with SRS which tends to be limited to “I’ve only just met you, so I need to spend more time with you to have more of a relationship with you” to which I ask “how do you think I’m getting on trying to build one with given we have only met once?”… Crickets.

    … Any pointers?

  2. Martin Rock says:

    Your research is woefully incomplete: you conclude that supervision is not helpful when there is insufficient empirical data to draw that conclusion. Bambling et and others have provided data to support the possibility that supervision is quite helpful, although much more research needs to be done. Supervisees clearly endorse the value to their learning and patient progress to interpersonally sensitive and attuned supervision. There is of course bad supervision, just as there is good supervision.
    “Pad on the back” is incorrect. The expression is “Pat on the back.”

    • Hi Matt, sorry I missed your comment. Thanks for pointing out the blunder on the expression of pat on the back!
      Perhaps I haven’t been clear.
      On average, traditional supervision as we know it does not letter to better outcomes (as mentioned, see Rousmaniere et al, 2014 study, and Edward Watkin’s 2011 review of 18 studies relating to supervision).

      Matt Bambling and colleagues 2006 article is an exception to the body of evidence. I love their work. In our papers and edited chapters, we cited them as exemplaries for us to learn from. They were about to demonstrate within 8 supervision sessions, supervision vs no supervision group (randomised), the supervised group were superior in 1. alliance ratings; 2. lower BDI scores at post-test; 3. client satisfaction; 4. higher retention. To my knowledge, I haven’t seen something like this being replicated.

      What I worry about is the following: The conflation between therapist feeling benefit with actual improvement of client outcome

      My main points are stated in the above blogpost:
      1. Stay Close to Client Engagement
      2. Review of therapy recordings (see also 2 part posts on blackbox thinking for psychotherapists, https://darylchow.com/frontiers/2018/03/26/blackbox-thinking-for-psychotherapists-part-i-of-ii/)
      3. Use Routine Outcome Measurement + Revisit The Case (ie closing the feedback loop)

      Love to hear your thoughts.
      Best,
      Daryl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.