Influence of supervisory relationship and supervision contextual factors on supervision outcomes among trainee counsellors

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of the supervisory relationship and contextual supervision factors on supervision outcomes among trainee counsellors. There were 120 trainee counsellor respondents and 18 supervisors from four universities UM, UUM, UMT and UMS. The respondents were selected using the stratified random sampling technique. This study utilized the correlational research design. Nine scales were used in this study. The Supervisory Working Alliance Trainee Inventory (SWAI-T) measured the supervisory working alliance among trainee counsellors and Role Conflict Role Ambiguity Inventory (RCRAI) measured role conflict among trainee counsellors. The Supervision Interaction Questionnaire –Supervisee and Supervisor Inventory (SIQ-S) measured the interaction between trainee counsellors and supervisor and the Counsellor Rating Form – Short (CRF-S) measured the characteristics of the supervisors in supervision. The Selective Theory Sorter (STS) inventory was used to measure the counselling orientations among the trainee counsellors and supervisors, and the Multicultural Counselling Knowledge and Awareness Scale (MCKAS) measured the knowledge and awareness of cultural counselling among trainee counsellors. The Supervision Outcomes Survey (SOS) and Counsellor Performance Inventory (CPI) were used to measure the satisfaction and performance among trainee counsellors. The results of the study were analysed using Pearson Product Moment Coefficient and Multiple Regression. Based on the findings, there was a significant correlation between the supervisory relationship (supervisees’ working alliance, supervisees’ role conflict, supervision interaction, supervisors’ attributes) and supervision outcomes, r (118) = .53; p < .05. Other factors that contributed to the significant correlations of supervision outcomes were supervisees’ working alliance, supervisees’ role conflict and supervisors’ attributes r (120) =.55; p < .05; r (120) = .21; p < .05; and r (116) =.50; p < .05 respectively. This research revealed there was no significant correlations between supervision contextual factors (supervisees’ and supervisors’ counselling orientation and supervisees’ cultural knowledge and awareness) and supervision outcomes. Multiple Regression analyses reported the supervisory relationship influenced the supervision outcomes, R2 = .28, F (1,105) = 40.2, p < .05. The supervision contextual factors had no influence on the supervision outcomes. In conclusion, the implications of the research were divided into two categories, the theoretical and practical implications. In terms of theoretical implication, the model underlying the research signified that the supervision process could bring out changes in the supervisees. Practically, the supervisees’ working alliance was a significant factor that influenced the supervisees’ development and the academic supervisor should consider the supervisees’ role conflict, supervision interaction and supervisors’attributes during supervision. There were several recommendations outlined by the study which included, (i) the supervision contextual factors (cultural knowledge and awareness) should be examined from the supervisors’ perspective, (ii) future researchers should personally give explanations to the respondents when conducting the question and answer sessions and (iii) future researchers could also expand this investigation by examining the differences between supervision interaction of the supervisors and the supervisees.

Preview Text FPP 2015 47IR.pdf Download (1MB) | Preview

Actions (login required)

View Item