1. Presenter: Susan L. Williams, Ph.D., LPC, ACS, NCC State University of New York – Plattsburgh Counselor Education Department AASCB Annual Conference Charleston, South Carolina January 4-6, 2012

2. Development of Study Professional Training ( public administration, political lobbying, counseling, doctorate-level supervision training) Personal Experience of Receiving Supervision (best v. worst) Gap in Research (little empirical research on how & what types of supervision training makes a difference?)

3. Counseling Profession’s Practice Masters Degree = Terminal Level Training for Counselors Supervision Training Not Included in Masters programs. States (100%) Require Supervision for Licensure State Supervisor Requirements are variable (non- uniform) Agencies & Schools – Managed care; Organizational Cultures Vary (Time, Budget & Commitment to Training)

4. Counseling Profession’s Response Expectations for Clinical Supervisors: (1990’s) Competencies/curriculums/pragmatics (1998) NBCC creation of voluntary Approved Clinical Supervisor (ACS) national credential (2005) ACA Code of Ethics (F.2.a. = required to be trained in supervision methods & techniques; CEU’s); NBCC; ACS (2001/2009) CACREP standards for Doctoral students (2007) AASCB Model Legislation for “Approved Supervisor” (Mid-90’s to present) State-by-State Regulations (vary)

5. State-by-State Analysis (ACA, 2010) Clinical Supervisor Requirements

6. Training: What Makes a Difference? [ Gap in Empirical Research] Is there a relationship between education & training and a supervisor’s competence? What types of education/training contributes to a counselor clinical supervisor’s competence (identified as development & self-efficacy)? Is a state’s level of regulation related to a supervisor’s competence? What education/training may be predictive of supervisor development & self-efficacy?

7. Dependent Variables Defined: Competence * = Supervisor Development and Supervisor Self-Efficacy Watkins, 1990 – Supervisor Complexity Model: Supervisors develop (expertise & role consolidation) Bandura, 1997 – Social Cognitive Theory: Self-Efficacy for supervision increases (with practice…I can do this!) *Higher-stage supervisors show higher levels of competency, identity, skill, autonomy, self-awareness & efficacy

8. Independent (Predictor) Variables: 5 Themes : Years of Clinical, Supervision Experience, and Age of Supervisor Supervision Training Experiences How Recent the Exposure to Training Helpfulness of Training Experiences (Current State) Supervisor Requirements, Awareness of State Requirements, and Credentialed/Not & other Demographic Information

9. The Research Questions Q. 1. Do relationships exist between supervisor development and self-efficacy, and the independent variables (i.e., different training)? Q. 2. Are there differences in supervisor development and self-efficacy based on different state regulations, supervisors’ credentials, supervisors’ degree? Q. 3. Which of the independent variables best predict supervisor development and self-efficacy?

10. Methods Design: Non-experimental, ex-post facto, on-line, web-based “Clinical Supervisor Survey” = 63 Items & National Distribution Sample: Clinical Supervisors (N = 298). American Counseling Association (ACA) random selection of e-mail addresses (3,994) Counselor Educators & Supervisors List-serve (CESNET) (1000) Instruments: Psychotherapy Supervisor Development Survey (PSDS) Counselor Supervisor Self-Efficacy Scale (CSSES-Revised)

11. Q: Do relationships exist between supervisor development and self-efficacy, and the independent variables? A: Supervisor Self-Efficacy – YES; 13 Independent Variables; (p <.01); Explained Variance = Moderate/Low Strength of Associations (10% to 2.5%) A: Supervisor Development – YES; 12 Independent Variables; (p <.01); Explained Variance = Moderate/to Low Strength of Associations (13% to 1%) Results Q. 1 (Correlation)

12. Correlations Development and self-efficacy positively correlated with : More years of supervisor & clinical experience Age of supervisor More supervisor training experiences (hours in workshops, graduate-level courses (w/w/out practicum), self-training, and earned Ph.D.) More helpful training experiences (courses; workshops/seminars; self-training, receiving supervision) More recent exposure to training experiences

13. Results Q. 2 (ANOVA & Independent t-tests) Q: Differences in supervisor development and self-efficacy based on state regulations; supervisors’ credentials, supervisor’s degree? A: Yes, higher mean scores on development and self-efficacy when: Supervisors are more aware of State regs. (p <.001), Supervisors have a state/national credential (p <.02) S.E. & (p <.005) Dev. Supervisors hold a doctoral degree (p <.001) However, there are no differences in development and self- efficacy mean scores in relationship to the category of a supervisors’ state supervision regulations (low, moderate, high).

14. Results Q. 3 (Regression) Q: Which of the independent variables best predicts supervisor development? A: Supervisor Development: (p <.001) The following variables explain 37% of the variance in supervisor development w/ large estimated effect size & Beta weight analysis (relative effect) indicated: More years of supervision practice More recent exposure to a graduate-level supervision course Higher perceived helpfulness of received supervision Higher perceived helpfulness of supervision workshop/seminar

15. Results Q. 3 (Regression) Q: Which of the independent variables best predicts supervisor self-efficacy? A: Supervisor Self-Efficacy: (p <.001) The following variables explain 32% of variance in supervisor self-efficacy w/ large estimated effect size & Beta weight analysis (relative effect) indicated: More years of supervision practice Higher perceived helpfulness of received supervision

16. Results of Regression Analysis 1. The greater the number of years of providing supervision, NOT counseling experience; 2. The more recent the training experience (graduate- level supervision course with/without a practicum); and 3. The more positive the supervision experience (as a counselor/supervisee) and the experience of the supervision-specific workshop/seminar; Is more predictive of the difference between a higher-stage/ lower-stage developed supervisor and a more efficacious supervisor.

17. What Do Results Mean? DEVELOPMENT “Experience does not assure development will occur” (Watkins, 1995, p.112) It is not enough to be an experienced clinician to provide clinical supervision.

18. What Do Results Mean? SELF-EFFICACY “ Those who are highly self-efficacious take advantage of opportunities to challenge and expand their behavioral capabilities” (Barnes, 2002, pp. 4-5).

19. Recommendations To: Counseling Profession & State Licensing Boards Continue the Vision… Advocate for Change in State Clinical Supervisor Standards and Requirements Promote On-Going Clinical Supervisor Education and Training legislation Promote professional counselor identity and clinical supervisor competence through licensure portability and national registry movement.

20. Specific Recommendations Increase: (esp. in non-academic settings) # and Frequency of required trainings Accessibility to graduate-level supervision workshops / weekend courses / Institutes # of Yrs. Of clinical practice (correlated to Dev. & SE) Advocate for: Uniform state supervisor credentials Approved Clinical Supervisor (ACS) as alternative to state credential &/or in lieu of supervision-specific CEU’s

21. Sample Demographics (N = 298) Degree Attained

22. Sample Demographics (N = 298) Ethnicity

23. Type of Degree Earned (n=288)

24. Professional Identity (n=312)

25. Work Settings (n = 375)

26. Supervisor Training Experiences

27. Experience Clinical (years) M=13.9 (SD = 9.2) Supervision (years) M = 7.1 (SD =6.9) Age : Range = 25 to 74 years old M=45.7 (SD = 11.8)