Supervisee cognitive complexity
Supervision literature has indicated the importance of the supervisory working alliance in the development of effective supervision (Landy, Ellis, & Friedlander, 1999). While there has been a wealth of research on the role of the supervisory working alliance within supervision, there is a dearth...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Others |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Iowa
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1791 https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5843&context=etd |
| Summary: | Supervision literature has indicated the importance of the supervisory working alliance in the development of effective supervision (Landy, Ellis, & Friedlander, 1999). While there has been a wealth of research on the role of the supervisory working alliance within supervision, there is a dearth of information on how this alliance is formed (Cooper & Ng, 2009). The purpose of this study is to examine if supervision cognitive complexity is a unique aspect of cognitive complexity within counseling and better understand its role in the formation of the supervisory working alliance.
Forty-two participants were selected from CACREP accredited masters and doctoral programs located in the North Central region of the Association of Counselor Educators and Supervisors (NCACES). Cognitive complexity was measured via two different measures: the Counselor Cognitions Questionnaire (CCQ) and Supervision Cognitive Complexity Questionnaire (SCCQ). The supervisory working alliance was measured by the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory-Trainee (SWAI-T) which measures the supervisory working alliance from the perspective of the trainee.
Results indicated a strong correlation between counseling cognitive complexity and supervision cognitive complexity. Further, the supervision working alliance was not significantly correlated with either measure of cognitive complexity. Supervision cognitive complexity did provide a significant contribution to the variance accounted for in the subscale of client focus in the SWAI-T. Implications for counselor educators and supervisors are discussed. |
|---|