Supervisor Cultural Humility and Supervisee Nondisclosure: The Supervisory Working Alliance Matters.

Given that half or more of supervisees (therapist trainees) never have their clinical work monitored or observed, supervisees who withhold salient information in clinical supervision compromise supervisors' ability to monitor client welfare and promote supervisees' professional development. Attempting to further understand the factors explaining supervisee nondisclosure, we tested the supervisory working alliance as a mediator of the hypothesized inverse relations of cultural humility and collaborative supervision with supervisee nondisclosure (supervision-related and clinically-related nondisclosure) among a diverse sample of 214 supervisees in applied psychology and allied mental health programs. Results supported the hypotheses that (1) descriptively, supervision-related nondisclosure was more prominent than clinically-related nondisclosure, (2) cultural humility substantially inversely predicted supervisee nondisclosure, and (3) the supervisory working alliance fully mediated the inverse relations of cultural humility and collaborative supervision with supervisee nondisclosure.

Toward a nuanced understanding of nondisclosure in psychotherapy supervision.

Previous research indicates that trainees often withhold important information related to their clients' progress and their reactions to supervision. Moreover, factors associated with the occurrence of supervisee nondisclosure (SND) are not well established. As one of the few studies to compare clinically related with supervision-related nondisclosure, we tested the relation of these two dimensions of the construct, as measured by Siembor and Ellis's (2012) Supervisee Nondisclosure Scales, to three important process variables: perceptions of (a) the supervisory alliance, as measured by Bahrick's (1989) Working Alliance Inventory-Trainee; (b) collaborative supervision, as measured by Rousmaniere and Ellis's (2013) Collaborative Supervision Behavior Scale; and (c) explicitly relational supervisor behaviors, as measured by Shaffer and Friedlander's (2017) Relational Behavior Scale.

A comparative study of clinical supervision in the Republic of Ireland and the United States.

We replicated Son, Ellis, and Yoo (2013) and extended Ellis et al.'s (2014) taxonomy of harmful and inadequate supervision by providing and testing cross-national comparative descriptive data about clinical supervision practices in the Republic of Ireland versus the United States. Participants were 149 Republic of Ireland and 151 U.

Reducing supervisee anxiety: Effects of a role induction intervention for clinical supervision.

We investigated the effectiveness of a theoretically based role induction (RI) intervention that aimed to clarify supervisee and supervisor role expectations and reduce supervisee anxiety, compared to standard supervision (no-RI). Initially, a feasibility study investigated whether a RI for beginning supervisees would work in the context of a replicated single-subject experimental design; specifically, it assessed whether the RI condition (n = 2) would result in decreased anxiety compared to baseline and a no-RI condition (n = 2). Results suggested that the RI appeared viable and mitigated supervisee anxiety.

A cross-cultural comparison of clinical supervision in South Korea and the United States.

We investigated similarities and differences in clinical supervision in two cultures: South Korea and the United States The study had two parts: (1) a test of the cross-cultural equivalence of four supervision measures; and (2) a test of two competing models of cultural differences in the relations among supervisory style, role difficulties, supervisory working alliance, and satisfaction with supervision. Participants were 191 South Korean and 187 U.S.

Introducing a brief measure of cultural and religious identification in American Jewish identity.

The authors conducted 3 studies to develop and investigate the psychometric properties of the American Jewish Identity Scales (AJIS), a brief self-report measure that assesses cultural identification and religious identification. Study 1 assessed the content validity of the item pool using an expert panel. In Study 2, 1,884 Jewish adults completed the initial AJIS and various measures of ethnic identity, collective self-esteem, and religiosity.