Psychological Reports, 1990, 67, 471-480.
O Psychological Reports 1990
T H E SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP IN PSYCHOTHERAPY OVER TIME ' SHERRI KAUDERER AND WILLIAM G. HERRON St. John's University Summary.-This study investigated changes in the supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of the supervisory relationship and the extent to which theit perceptions were congruent. Salient dimensions of supervision were identified which predict the quality of the relationship. Twelve supervisory dyads involved in predominantly ongoing supervisory relationships completed an adapted Vanderbilt Psychotherapy Process Scale after each supervisory session for 10 consecutive weeks. The participants' perceptions of the supervisory relationships were relatively stable and positive. However, supervisees felt less dependent over time. With that exception, agreement among participants did not change significantly. Supervisors viewed supervisees' participation and increased assertiveness as significant positive elements in assessing the quality of the relationship. Supervisees' greater exploration and dependency was associated with negative ratings by supervisors. Since supervisors selected the supervisees for the study, the results primarily validate theit judgments of the components of a positive continuing supervisory relationship.
Supervision is considered essential for those learning how to practice psychotherapy and is generally recognized as one of the most important experiences in professional training as a therapist. The effectiveness of supervision largely depends upon the quality of the relationship between supervisor and supervisee (Cohen & DeBetz, 1977). Although there is a preponderance of theoretical writings on supervision, there is a scarcity of empirical research into the supervisory relationship and the supervisory process. In a recent review of the literature, Worthington (1987) noted that what is missing in the research on supervision is an exploration of what the supervisory relationship is like. Most studies have focused on supervisors' behaviors or styles but not on the characteristics of the relationship. In their review of the literature, Loganbill, Hardy, and Delworth (1982) also concluded that there is an "absence of attention to the more complex, relationship-oriented aspect of supervision" (p. 12). In the last few years there has been a focus on exploring the developmental aspects of the supervisory process. The research has increasingly led to an interest in the supervisory process and how that process changes over time. Research on supervision has evolved from initially exploring either supervisors' or supervisees' experiences to an exploration of the interaction
'Requests for reprints should be sent to Sherri Kauderer, 225 E. 26th Street, Apt. 2H, New York. New York 10010.
472
S. KAUDERER & W. G. HERRON
between supervisor and supervisee during supervision. There is some evidence that there may be a match in the interaction between supervisor and supervisee such that their perceptions regarding the relationship are congruent. I t is of interest to ascertain which factors contribute to effective experiences of supervision. As Martin, Goodyear, and Newton (1987) suggested, Hill's (1782) recommendations regarding process research in the therapeutic relationship can be extrapolated to the supervisory process. H e proposed that process research should describe what occurs, show changes in the participants' perceptions of the relationship, and finally link process to outcome. The purpose of the present study was to describe the process of supervision as perceived by its participants and the changes that occur over time. Additional questions of interest were the extent of congruence in the participants' perceptions as well as those factors that influence perceived quality of the supervisory relationship. Our intention had been to explore a supervisory year in a psychotherapy practicum course including all supervisors and their supervisees. This would have provided a variety of orientations, personalities, and relationships. Circumstances made this impossible so we examined what was available to us with the hope that the information obtained would still be of value in this relatively unexplored area. The study is presented as an exploratory one which suggests directions for further work regarding the supervisory process.
Subjects Twelve supervisory dyads participated in the study on a voluntary basis for a period of 10 consecutive weeks. The study began at the start of the second semester of supervision so that it was primarily about ongoing supervisory relationships, although two of the 12 dyads were beginning their relationships. Although all subjects began the study at exactly the same point in time, this time represented different points in their respective supervisory relationships. The average number of sessions prior to the study was 19, with a range of 1 to 64. The average number of remaining sessions after the study ended was 6, with a range of 1 to 30. Supervisors from various hospitals and clinics in the New York metropolitan vicinity who identified themselves with a psychodynamic orientation were asked to participate in the study. The supervisors (8 men, 4 women) ranged in age from 29 to 6 8 yr., with a mean age of 50 yr. They averaged 18.8 yr. of experience doing therapy and 13.4 yr. of experience in supervision; all 12 held degrees in psychology (11 Ph.D., 1 masters). Five of the 12 supervisors had analytic institute training, and three were clinical diplomates.
PSYCHOTHERAPY: SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP
473
The selection criterion of supervisees was that they be relative beginners at doing therapy and in their first or second year of supervision. All supervisees were from doctoral programs in clinical psychology ( 3 in the fourth year, 4 in the third year, 4 in the second year, 1 in the first year). The supervisees (9 women, 3 men) ranged in age from 23 to 38 yr., with a mean age of 29 yr. They averaged 1.6 yr. of experience doing therapy and 1.5 yr. in individual supervision. Six students held masters degrees and 6 held bachelors degrees. Eight identified themselves as analytically oriented, 3 as eclectic, and 1 as undecided.
Instruments The Vanderbilt Psychotherapy Process Scale Revised (O'Malley, Suh, & Strupp, 1983) was used to estimate the participants' perceptions of the relationship and the supervisory sessions. This was renamed the Vanderbilt Supervision Process Scale and was adapted to be appropriate for the supervisory relationship. Since there are no adequate process measures of supervision, the Vanderbilt scale was deemed the most appropriate measure to study the areas of interest noted above. Most research on supervision utilizes instruments from research on therapy under the assumption that the interpersonal processes that characterize therapy and supervision are similar. The Vanderbilt scale is a general purpose instrument developed to assess salient aspects of two-person interactions in psychotherapy from the perspective of a nonparticipant observer. It measures the participants' behavior/ attitudes that relate to progress in therapy. It is applicable to a wide range of interactions and is intended to be neutral in terms of theories of psychotherapy. The Vanderbilt scale consists of 80 Likert-type items which are rated on an ordinal scale from 1 ("not at all") to 5 ("a great deal"). The first three items on the scale are used to obtain global impressions pertaining to the quality of the relationship, the productivity of the session and the patient's current level of functioning. The remaining items are divided into two sections with two parts for patient and therapist (40 and 37 items, respectively). These questions pertain to characteristics of the participants' behavior and adjectives which describe the participants' demeanor. Eight factors were derived on the basis of a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. Eight corresponding subscales were constructed by summing the rating given each of the constituent items in the subscale and include the following: Patient Participation, Patient Hostility, Patient Psychic Distress, Patient Exploration, Patient Dependency, Therapist Exploration, Therapist Warmth and Friendliness, and Negative Therapist Attitude. The individual subscales were further grouped into three broader dimensions which are thought to be determinants of therapeutic outcome: Patient Involvement (Patient Participation, Patient Hostility), Exploratory Processes
474
S. KAUDERER & W. G. HERRON
(Therapist Exploration, Patient Exploration, and Patient Psychic Distress), and Therapist-offered Relationship (Therapist Warmth and Friendliness, Negative Therapist Attitude). This is an experimental use of the Vanderbilt scale since the instrument was intended to be used with nonparticipant observers and for psychotherapy. In the present study, the participants rated themselves as well as the other person to obtain a measure of congruence. The items on the instrument were adapted so that the words "therapist" and "patient" were replaced by the words "supervisor" and "supervisee," respectively. Items were grouped together to form corresponding subscales as specified in the O'Mdey, et al. (1983) study. The revised scale is available (Kauderer, 1990). All subjects completed a demographic questionnaire as well as a postexperimental questionnaire which ascertained whether the study had affected the supervised sessions and how compatible the participants felt they were with one another, the point at which significant change occurred and a global measure of outcome with regard to the supervisory relationship as well as patient outcome.
Procedure Supervisors who volunteered to participate were asked to enlist the cooperation of one of the students they were supervising who were in the first or second year of individual psychotherapy supervision. The study was explained to the supervisors as part of an attempt to gain an understanding into the ways in which the supervisory relationship changes over the course of a semester. The supervisors were asked to explain the study to the supervisees. In addition to the verbal descriptions of the study, both supervisors and supervisees received a brief covering letter stating the purpose of the investigation and were informed that their participation would require that they fill out self-report inventories immediately following each session over the course of 10 supervision sessions. The questionnaire was coded to ensure confidentiality. Once the dyads agreed to participate, they were asked to sign statements of informed consent and were then given 10 blank questionnaires. Attached to the first Vanderbilt questionnaire was the demographic data questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete one form a week and to place the completed forms in sealed envelopes whch were provided by and addressed to the experimenter. The sealed envelopes were laced in a designated box in the various locations and were picked up weekly. There were no missing data. At the conclusion of the study, supervisors and supervisees completed a postexperimental questionnaire and were informed of the specific nature of the study.
PSYCHOTHERAPY: SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP
Statistical Procedures The research outlined above used a repeated-measures design in which changes in perceptions of each of the 12 supervisory dyads were assessed over time. Subscale scores were obtained for each subject for each session by summing the scores on the constituent items in the scale. Means and standard deviations were computed on each subscale for supervisors and supervisees at each session. Then t tests were performed comparing Sessions 1 and 10. To assess agreement or disagreement between supervisors and supervisees, a congruence score was calculated for each subscale for each dyad at each session by subtracting the supervisee's score from the supervisor's score. Means and standard deviations of subscale congruence scores were obtained across all dyads at each session. Then t tests were performed on scores between Sessions 1 and 10. To ascertain where congruence occurred on the various subscales, t tests were also performed between sessions with the greatest difference in value. The second area of inquiry concerned identifying those factors that influence the participants' perceptions of the quality of the supervisory relationship. An outcome measure was selected which asked the supervisor and supervisee to rate the over-all quality of the supervisory relationship. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between the subscale scores and the outcome measure. The demographic and postexperimental variables were also correlated with the outcome measure. Because the study was exploratory and the sample size small, two-tailed p values are reported for all statistical tests.
The first area of inquiry was to examine potential changes in the supervisory relationship over time. The supervisors' ratings of themselves and the supervisees did not change significantly over time. None of the t tests comparing Sessions 1 and 10 were significant. These two sessions were selected in that they represent the beginning and end of the study and the points farthest apart when change might be most likely to occur. Also, the two dyads for whom the supervision was evaluated from the beginning were no different in their lack of change than the other 10 ongoing dyads. The supervisees' ratings of themselves and the supervisors were also relatively stable with the exception of the Supervisee Dependency score which tended to decrease over time. None of the other subscales appeared to change in a consistent manner. The t test for the Supervisee Dependency scale was significant (t,, = 5.0, p < .05), that is, supervisees rated themselves as significantly less dependent at Session 10 (M= 11.6) than at Session 1 (M = 15.0). None of the other t tests were significant. t tests were also performed comparing Sessions 1 and 10 on the first
476
S. KAUDERER
& W. G.
HERRON
three items of the scale. These were selected because they were intended to be global items measuring the quality of the supervisory relationship, the productivity of the session, and the over-all functioning of the supervisee. Both supervisors and supervisees rated these items. The one significant t test was supervisees' ratings of the productivity of the sessions (t,, = -2.6, p < .05). Supervisees rated the productivity of the sessions significantly higher at Session 10 (M = 4.4) than at Session 1 (M = 3.9). There was a nonsignificant trend for the supervisors to rate Session 10 (M = 4.2) as more productive than Session 1 (M = 3.9; t,, = -1.9, p < .lo). The next research question concerned the comparison of the supervisors' and supervisees' ratings of self and other to assess the congruence in their perceptions. A set of congruence subscale scores were calculated by subtracting the supervisee's subscale score from the supervisor's subscale score at each session. Then means and standard deviations were obtained for each subscale across all dyads at each session. The subscale scores did not change in a consistent fashion with the exception of the Supervisee Dependency subscale. The t test for this subscale was significant (t,, = -3.4, p < .05). At Session 1, supervisees rated themselves 2.3 scale points more dependent than they were rated by supervisors. This stands in contrast to Session 10 where supervisors rated supervisees 0.4 scale points more dependent. None of the other t tests comparing Sessions 1 and 10 were significant. Since congruence can occur at any time and may vary depending upon the given subscale, t tests were also performed to assess whether there were differences other than those between Sessions 1 and 10. Only four t tests were significant. For Supervisee Exploration, the congruence score at Session 2 (M= 1.0) was significantly different from that at Session 7 (M = -2.2; t,, = 2.2, p < .05). At Session 2, supervisors rated supervisees higher on exploration than supervisees rated themselves. This trend was reversed at Session 7. The t test comparing Sessions 1 and 7 on Supervisor Exploration was significant (t,, = 2.3, p
O Psychological Reports 1990
T H E SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP IN PSYCHOTHERAPY OVER TIME ' SHERRI KAUDERER AND WILLIAM G. HERRON St. John's University Summary.-This study investigated changes in the supervisors' and supervisees' perceptions of the supervisory relationship and the extent to which theit perceptions were congruent. Salient dimensions of supervision were identified which predict the quality of the relationship. Twelve supervisory dyads involved in predominantly ongoing supervisory relationships completed an adapted Vanderbilt Psychotherapy Process Scale after each supervisory session for 10 consecutive weeks. The participants' perceptions of the supervisory relationships were relatively stable and positive. However, supervisees felt less dependent over time. With that exception, agreement among participants did not change significantly. Supervisors viewed supervisees' participation and increased assertiveness as significant positive elements in assessing the quality of the relationship. Supervisees' greater exploration and dependency was associated with negative ratings by supervisors. Since supervisors selected the supervisees for the study, the results primarily validate theit judgments of the components of a positive continuing supervisory relationship.
Supervision is considered essential for those learning how to practice psychotherapy and is generally recognized as one of the most important experiences in professional training as a therapist. The effectiveness of supervision largely depends upon the quality of the relationship between supervisor and supervisee (Cohen & DeBetz, 1977). Although there is a preponderance of theoretical writings on supervision, there is a scarcity of empirical research into the supervisory relationship and the supervisory process. In a recent review of the literature, Worthington (1987) noted that what is missing in the research on supervision is an exploration of what the supervisory relationship is like. Most studies have focused on supervisors' behaviors or styles but not on the characteristics of the relationship. In their review of the literature, Loganbill, Hardy, and Delworth (1982) also concluded that there is an "absence of attention to the more complex, relationship-oriented aspect of supervision" (p. 12). In the last few years there has been a focus on exploring the developmental aspects of the supervisory process. The research has increasingly led to an interest in the supervisory process and how that process changes over time. Research on supervision has evolved from initially exploring either supervisors' or supervisees' experiences to an exploration of the interaction
'Requests for reprints should be sent to Sherri Kauderer, 225 E. 26th Street, Apt. 2H, New York. New York 10010.
472
S. KAUDERER & W. G. HERRON
between supervisor and supervisee during supervision. There is some evidence that there may be a match in the interaction between supervisor and supervisee such that their perceptions regarding the relationship are congruent. I t is of interest to ascertain which factors contribute to effective experiences of supervision. As Martin, Goodyear, and Newton (1987) suggested, Hill's (1782) recommendations regarding process research in the therapeutic relationship can be extrapolated to the supervisory process. H e proposed that process research should describe what occurs, show changes in the participants' perceptions of the relationship, and finally link process to outcome. The purpose of the present study was to describe the process of supervision as perceived by its participants and the changes that occur over time. Additional questions of interest were the extent of congruence in the participants' perceptions as well as those factors that influence perceived quality of the supervisory relationship. Our intention had been to explore a supervisory year in a psychotherapy practicum course including all supervisors and their supervisees. This would have provided a variety of orientations, personalities, and relationships. Circumstances made this impossible so we examined what was available to us with the hope that the information obtained would still be of value in this relatively unexplored area. The study is presented as an exploratory one which suggests directions for further work regarding the supervisory process.
Subjects Twelve supervisory dyads participated in the study on a voluntary basis for a period of 10 consecutive weeks. The study began at the start of the second semester of supervision so that it was primarily about ongoing supervisory relationships, although two of the 12 dyads were beginning their relationships. Although all subjects began the study at exactly the same point in time, this time represented different points in their respective supervisory relationships. The average number of sessions prior to the study was 19, with a range of 1 to 64. The average number of remaining sessions after the study ended was 6, with a range of 1 to 30. Supervisors from various hospitals and clinics in the New York metropolitan vicinity who identified themselves with a psychodynamic orientation were asked to participate in the study. The supervisors (8 men, 4 women) ranged in age from 29 to 6 8 yr., with a mean age of 50 yr. They averaged 18.8 yr. of experience doing therapy and 13.4 yr. of experience in supervision; all 12 held degrees in psychology (11 Ph.D., 1 masters). Five of the 12 supervisors had analytic institute training, and three were clinical diplomates.
PSYCHOTHERAPY: SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP
473
The selection criterion of supervisees was that they be relative beginners at doing therapy and in their first or second year of supervision. All supervisees were from doctoral programs in clinical psychology ( 3 in the fourth year, 4 in the third year, 4 in the second year, 1 in the first year). The supervisees (9 women, 3 men) ranged in age from 23 to 38 yr., with a mean age of 29 yr. They averaged 1.6 yr. of experience doing therapy and 1.5 yr. in individual supervision. Six students held masters degrees and 6 held bachelors degrees. Eight identified themselves as analytically oriented, 3 as eclectic, and 1 as undecided.
Instruments The Vanderbilt Psychotherapy Process Scale Revised (O'Malley, Suh, & Strupp, 1983) was used to estimate the participants' perceptions of the relationship and the supervisory sessions. This was renamed the Vanderbilt Supervision Process Scale and was adapted to be appropriate for the supervisory relationship. Since there are no adequate process measures of supervision, the Vanderbilt scale was deemed the most appropriate measure to study the areas of interest noted above. Most research on supervision utilizes instruments from research on therapy under the assumption that the interpersonal processes that characterize therapy and supervision are similar. The Vanderbilt scale is a general purpose instrument developed to assess salient aspects of two-person interactions in psychotherapy from the perspective of a nonparticipant observer. It measures the participants' behavior/ attitudes that relate to progress in therapy. It is applicable to a wide range of interactions and is intended to be neutral in terms of theories of psychotherapy. The Vanderbilt scale consists of 80 Likert-type items which are rated on an ordinal scale from 1 ("not at all") to 5 ("a great deal"). The first three items on the scale are used to obtain global impressions pertaining to the quality of the relationship, the productivity of the session and the patient's current level of functioning. The remaining items are divided into two sections with two parts for patient and therapist (40 and 37 items, respectively). These questions pertain to characteristics of the participants' behavior and adjectives which describe the participants' demeanor. Eight factors were derived on the basis of a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. Eight corresponding subscales were constructed by summing the rating given each of the constituent items in the subscale and include the following: Patient Participation, Patient Hostility, Patient Psychic Distress, Patient Exploration, Patient Dependency, Therapist Exploration, Therapist Warmth and Friendliness, and Negative Therapist Attitude. The individual subscales were further grouped into three broader dimensions which are thought to be determinants of therapeutic outcome: Patient Involvement (Patient Participation, Patient Hostility), Exploratory Processes
474
S. KAUDERER & W. G. HERRON
(Therapist Exploration, Patient Exploration, and Patient Psychic Distress), and Therapist-offered Relationship (Therapist Warmth and Friendliness, Negative Therapist Attitude). This is an experimental use of the Vanderbilt scale since the instrument was intended to be used with nonparticipant observers and for psychotherapy. In the present study, the participants rated themselves as well as the other person to obtain a measure of congruence. The items on the instrument were adapted so that the words "therapist" and "patient" were replaced by the words "supervisor" and "supervisee," respectively. Items were grouped together to form corresponding subscales as specified in the O'Mdey, et al. (1983) study. The revised scale is available (Kauderer, 1990). All subjects completed a demographic questionnaire as well as a postexperimental questionnaire which ascertained whether the study had affected the supervised sessions and how compatible the participants felt they were with one another, the point at which significant change occurred and a global measure of outcome with regard to the supervisory relationship as well as patient outcome.
Procedure Supervisors who volunteered to participate were asked to enlist the cooperation of one of the students they were supervising who were in the first or second year of individual psychotherapy supervision. The study was explained to the supervisors as part of an attempt to gain an understanding into the ways in which the supervisory relationship changes over the course of a semester. The supervisors were asked to explain the study to the supervisees. In addition to the verbal descriptions of the study, both supervisors and supervisees received a brief covering letter stating the purpose of the investigation and were informed that their participation would require that they fill out self-report inventories immediately following each session over the course of 10 supervision sessions. The questionnaire was coded to ensure confidentiality. Once the dyads agreed to participate, they were asked to sign statements of informed consent and were then given 10 blank questionnaires. Attached to the first Vanderbilt questionnaire was the demographic data questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete one form a week and to place the completed forms in sealed envelopes whch were provided by and addressed to the experimenter. The sealed envelopes were laced in a designated box in the various locations and were picked up weekly. There were no missing data. At the conclusion of the study, supervisors and supervisees completed a postexperimental questionnaire and were informed of the specific nature of the study.
PSYCHOTHERAPY: SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIP
Statistical Procedures The research outlined above used a repeated-measures design in which changes in perceptions of each of the 12 supervisory dyads were assessed over time. Subscale scores were obtained for each subject for each session by summing the scores on the constituent items in the scale. Means and standard deviations were computed on each subscale for supervisors and supervisees at each session. Then t tests were performed comparing Sessions 1 and 10. To assess agreement or disagreement between supervisors and supervisees, a congruence score was calculated for each subscale for each dyad at each session by subtracting the supervisee's score from the supervisor's score. Means and standard deviations of subscale congruence scores were obtained across all dyads at each session. Then t tests were performed on scores between Sessions 1 and 10. To ascertain where congruence occurred on the various subscales, t tests were also performed between sessions with the greatest difference in value. The second area of inquiry concerned identifying those factors that influence the participants' perceptions of the quality of the supervisory relationship. An outcome measure was selected which asked the supervisor and supervisee to rate the over-all quality of the supervisory relationship. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated between the subscale scores and the outcome measure. The demographic and postexperimental variables were also correlated with the outcome measure. Because the study was exploratory and the sample size small, two-tailed p values are reported for all statistical tests.
The first area of inquiry was to examine potential changes in the supervisory relationship over time. The supervisors' ratings of themselves and the supervisees did not change significantly over time. None of the t tests comparing Sessions 1 and 10 were significant. These two sessions were selected in that they represent the beginning and end of the study and the points farthest apart when change might be most likely to occur. Also, the two dyads for whom the supervision was evaluated from the beginning were no different in their lack of change than the other 10 ongoing dyads. The supervisees' ratings of themselves and the supervisors were also relatively stable with the exception of the Supervisee Dependency score which tended to decrease over time. None of the other subscales appeared to change in a consistent manner. The t test for the Supervisee Dependency scale was significant (t,, = 5.0, p < .05), that is, supervisees rated themselves as significantly less dependent at Session 10 (M= 11.6) than at Session 1 (M = 15.0). None of the other t tests were significant. t tests were also performed comparing Sessions 1 and 10 on the first
476
S. KAUDERER
& W. G.
HERRON
three items of the scale. These were selected because they were intended to be global items measuring the quality of the supervisory relationship, the productivity of the session, and the over-all functioning of the supervisee. Both supervisors and supervisees rated these items. The one significant t test was supervisees' ratings of the productivity of the sessions (t,, = -2.6, p < .05). Supervisees rated the productivity of the sessions significantly higher at Session 10 (M = 4.4) than at Session 1 (M = 3.9). There was a nonsignificant trend for the supervisors to rate Session 10 (M = 4.2) as more productive than Session 1 (M = 3.9; t,, = -1.9, p < .lo). The next research question concerned the comparison of the supervisors' and supervisees' ratings of self and other to assess the congruence in their perceptions. A set of congruence subscale scores were calculated by subtracting the supervisee's subscale score from the supervisor's subscale score at each session. Then means and standard deviations were obtained for each subscale across all dyads at each session. The subscale scores did not change in a consistent fashion with the exception of the Supervisee Dependency subscale. The t test for this subscale was significant (t,, = -3.4, p < .05). At Session 1, supervisees rated themselves 2.3 scale points more dependent than they were rated by supervisors. This stands in contrast to Session 10 where supervisors rated supervisees 0.4 scale points more dependent. None of the other t tests comparing Sessions 1 and 10 were significant. Since congruence can occur at any time and may vary depending upon the given subscale, t tests were also performed to assess whether there were differences other than those between Sessions 1 and 10. Only four t tests were significant. For Supervisee Exploration, the congruence score at Session 2 (M= 1.0) was significantly different from that at Session 7 (M = -2.2; t,, = 2.2, p < .05). At Session 2, supervisors rated supervisees higher on exploration than supervisees rated themselves. This trend was reversed at Session 7. The t test comparing Sessions 1 and 7 on Supervisor Exploration was significant (t,, = 2.3, p
