Defining Competencies in Psychology Supervision:

A Consensus Statement
䊲

Carol A. Falender
Private Practice, Santa Monica, California, and
University of California, Los Angeles
䊲

Jennifer A. Erickson Cornish

University of Denver
䊲

Rodney Goodyear
University of Southern California
䊲

Robert Hatcher
University of Michigan
䊲

Nadine J. Kaslow
Emory University School of Medicine
䊲

Gerald Leventhal
University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark
䊲

Edward Shafranske
Pepperdine University
䊲

Sandra T. Sigmon
University of Maine

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Carol A. Falender, Ph.D., 1158 26th Street,
#189, Santa Monica, CA 90403; e-mail: cfalende@ucla.edu.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 60(7), 771–785 (2004) © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jclp.20013
772 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2004

Cal Stoltenberg
University of Oklahoma
䊲

Catherine Grus
University of Miami School of Medicine

Supervision is a domain of professional practice conducted by many psy-

chologists but for which formal training and standards have been largely
neglected. In this article, supervision is proposed as a core competency
area in psychology for which a number of elements reflecting specific
knowledge, skills, and values must be addressed to ensure adequate train-
ing and professional development of the trainee. Supra-ordinate factors of
supervision viewed as permeating all aspects of professional development
are proposed. These include the perspective that professional develop-
ment is a lifelong, cumulative process requiring attention to diversity in all
its forms, as well as legal and ethical issues, personal and professional
factors, and self- and peer-assessment. A competencies framework is pre-
sented with particular elements representing knowledge (e.g., about
psychotherapy, research, etc.), skills (including supervising modalities, rela-
tionship skills, etc.), values (e.g., responsibility for the clients and supervi-
see rests with supervisor, etc.), and meta-knowledge. Social contextual
factors and issues of education and training, assessment, and future direc-
tions also are addressed, with specific elements listed. Suggestions for
future work in this area are addressed, including the need to refine further
and operationalize competences, develop clear expectations for accredi-
tation and licensure regarding supervision competencies, and expand the
description of developmental levels of supervisors from minimal to optimal
competence. This is one of a series of articles published together in this
issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychology. Several other articles that resulted
from the Competencies Conference: Future Directions in Education and
Credentialing in Professional Psychology will appear in Professional Psy-
chology: Research and Practice and The Counseling Psychologist. © 2004
Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 60: 771–785, 2004.

Keywords: supervision; competencies; training; standards

The emphasis on “competence,” a conceptualization more dominant in business, educa-

tion, dentistry, medicine, and nursing, only recently has been placed at the forefront of
psychology training, pedagogy, and assessment (Dienst & Armstrong, 1998; Sumerall,
Lopez, & Oehlert, 2000). Using competence as a standard serves to move psychology
from normative to criterion-based conceptualization and assessment. In other words, train-
ees are prepared and evaluated against a common standard rather than merely ranked
in comparison to one another. This conceptual shift has been emerging since the Boulder,
 Defining Competencies 773

Greyston, and Vail Conferences and is reflected in the American Psychological Association
(APA) Committee on Accreditation’s standard that programs specify “the education and
training objectives in terms of the competencies expected of its graduates” (American
Psychological Association, 2002a). This shift in training focus is reflected further in APA
Ethical Principles that allow psychologists to practice only within “the boundaries of
their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, consultation,
study, or professional experience” (American Psychological Association, 2002c). A task
for the profession is to begin to articulate parameters of competence that define knowl-
edge, skills, and values through the psychologist’s professional development. This spans
beginning psychology doctoral training through becoming a senior psychologist, having
consolidated and refined knowledge, skills, and values.
Education and clinical training both have as their primary objective the development
of professional competence, which involves “the habitual and judicious use of commu-
nication, knowledge, technical skills, clinical reasoning, emotions, values, and reflection
in daily practice for the benefit of the individual and community served” (Epstein &
Hundert, 2002). Competency—more broadly defined as knowledge, skills, and values—
requires the attainment of knowledge as the first step, with attention to performance and
outcomes as subsequent steps (Sumerall et al., 2000).
Formal graduate education is suited uniquely for the transmission and acquisition of
knowledge. One of its important components is professional training, which is the pri-
mary vehicle by which trainees develop applied competencies. Training permits the inte-
gration of knowledge (from theory and empirical research) with technical skills and
professional values. Applied education involves a unique praxis and emphasizes the prac-
tice of clinical skills under supervision. In addition to skills development, such training
encourages the socialization of professional values through exposure to standards of prac-
tice and through modeling, supervised practice, and feedback. Furthermore, meta-
knowledge or “the knowledge of what one knows” is a significant component of the
self-assessment process that spans professional development from entry level through
seasoned professional. This competency involves the ability to assess accurately the avail-
ability and use of applied knowledge, as well as the ability to learn and develop additional
personal competencies (cf. Kaslow, 2002).
Against this backdrop, in November 2002, the Association of Psychology Postdoc-
toral and Internship Centers (APPIC) co-sponsored Competencies Conference: Future
Directions in Education and Credentialing in Professional Psychology 1 in Scottsdale,
Arizona, and convened representatives from diverse education, training, practice, public-
interest, research, credentialing, and regulatory constituency groups to promote dialogue,
and possibly some consensus on areas of competency.2 The tasks included:

1
The conference was co-sponsored by 34 associations (including primary sponsor Association of Psychology
Postdoctoral and Internship Centers—APPIC), and 127 mostly psychologist delegates were chosen to represent
diversity in perspectives from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, based upon their expertise in education,
training, and credentials. This was a working conference dedicated to identifying areas of consensus and dif-
ference related to the following competency domains: (1) scientific foundations of psychology and research; (2)
ethical, legal, public policy/advocacy, and professional issues; (3) supervision; (4) psychological assessment;
(5) individual and cultural diversity; (6) intervention; (7) consultation and interdisciplinary relationships; and
(8) professional development competencies. Two additional work groups considered the issues of (a) specialties
and proficiencies and (b) assessment of competence.
2
The 14 members of the work group were academicians, practitioners, and a postdoctoral fellow and repre-
sented diversity in terms of age, gender, ethnicity/race, theoretical orientation, and geography (including Can-
ada and many parts of the United States). Psychologists engaged in the administration, teaching, training, and
provision of supervision. Members were Amy Bjorkman, Jennifer A.E. Cornish, Carol Falender, Rodney Good-
year, Catherine Grus, Robert Hatcher, Nadine Kaslow, Gerald Leventhal, Lisa Porche-Burke, David Ramirez,
Edward Shafranske, Sandra Sigmon, Cal Stoltenberg (group leader), and Richard Steffy.
774 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2004

1. the identification of core components of competence in Supervision;

2. the identification of the most critical educational and training experiences that
facilitate development of competence in Supervision for an individual and how
these can be conceptualized from a developmental framework;
3. the identification of various strategies for assessing competence in Supervision
across different stages of the education and training process and whether there are
different ways to accomplish this or if all professional psychology programs should
approach them similarly; and
4. the identifying action items from the workgroup that would help advance our
approach to the identification, training, and assessment of competence in Super-
vision (Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers, 2002).

Clinical supervision is one of the professional activities often performed by psychol-

ogists. Yet, the majority of clinicians have not received formal training and supervision in
this area of competence (Scott, Ingram, Vitanza, & Smith, 2000), most likely because
their trainers did not view supervision as a core competence on a par with other core
competencies such as assessment and intervention. The Task Force on Supervision Guide-
lines charged by the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (Association
of State and Provincial Psychology Boards, 1998) expressed surprise that, given the
critical role supervision plays in the training of psychologists, no standards for training in
supervision had been established. The National Conference on Scientist-Practitioner Edu-
cation and Training (Belar & Perry, 1992) and the National Council of Schools and
Programs in Professional Psychology (Peterson, Peterson, Abrams, & Stricker, 1997)
listed formal knowledge of supervision among the minimum components of professional-
practice education and the American Psychological Association’s Committee on Accred-
itation (American Psychological Association, 2002a) included supervision as one of the
central domains of training. Supervision also was identified as a significant competency
in the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers (APPIC) pre-
conference survey (Kaslow, personal communication). However, full implementation of
this standard and recommended training guidelines have not been achieved. Different
areas of applied-psychology practice appear to differ in the extent to which supervision is
viewed as a core competence. For example, the bulk of theory, investigation, and training
on supervision has been conducted by counseling psychologists and their students rather
than by clinical psychologists and their students (Goodyear & Guzzardo, 2000; Scott
et al., 2000).
Despite the historical reality of gaps in training, we agree with others (e.g., Belar &
Perry, 1992; Peterson et al., 1997) that there is a compelling rationale for recognizing
supervision as one of psychology’s core competencies. Moreover, the ethical principles
of psychologists (American Psychological Association, 2002c) require that psychologists
who serve as supervisors have an ethical responsibility to acquire competence in super-
vision (e.g. Harrar, VandeCreek, & Knapp, 1990; Sherry, 1991; Vasquez, 1992). Although
competence as a psychologist is a complex construct, knowledge of supervision and the
many aspects of supervision represent another key aspect of such competence.
This article, written by the members of the Conference’s supervision workgroup,
provides a report of the outcomes of three days of discussion and consensus building
regarding supervision competencies, their training, and their assessment. This article is a
record of our work, which was grounded in the extant literature. We hope it will be the
basis for continuing discussion about the nature, acquisition, and assessment of super-
vision competencies.
 Defining Competencies 775

An Overview of Supervision Competencies

Among the many definitions of supervision (Bernard & Goodyear; 2004; Falender &
Shafranske, 2004; Holloway, 1995; Watkins, 1997), Bernard and Goodyear’s (2004) state-
ment was found to contain all the key pertinent elements. Supervision is defined as:

An intervention provided by a more senior member of a profession to more junior member or

members of that same profession. This relationship is evaluative, extends over time, and has
the simultaneous purposes of enhancing the professional functioning of the more junior per-
son(s), monitoring the quality of professional services offered to the client, she, he or they see,
and serving as a gatekeeper of those who are to enter the particular profession. (p. 8)

It was the consensus of the supervision workgroup that supervision is a distinctive

professional competency and as such should be developed through systematic graduate
education and clinical training. Models of formative and continuing education, super-
vision, and evaluation should be developed further and implemented to ensure compe-
tence throughout the career of the supervisor. Approaches and procedures should be
established on the basis of sound theory and empirical investigation. Future demon-
stration of effectiveness should take into consideration the impact, both immediate and
long term, on the supervisee, clients (e.g., individual, family, group, system), the thera-
peutic and supervisory relationships and processes, and the outcomes, as well as on the
reciprocal systems of education, training, and health-care provision. A range of research
procedures should be employed, including, for example, self-report, experimental, single-
subject repeated measures, qualitative, etc., to assess the multiple dimensions of the super-
vision process. Furthermore, such research should be conducted both within university
and clinical-training settings so that the focus is on supervision as it occurs in everyday,
real-world settings, and so keeps in mind the practical contingencies involved in the
actual practice of supervision.
The group identified five supra-ordinate factors that are not only essential, but per-
meate all aspects of professional development, beginning with the education and training
students receive. Each contributes a key component to the practice of supervision and
requires consideration within education and training and as a subject for systematic empir-
ical investigation. Each also requires specific knowledge, skills, and values. These five
factors were:

1. Recognition that acquiring supervision competencies is a life-long, cumulative,

developmental process with levels of proficiency beyond competence (see for
example, Fraser & Greenhalgh, 2001);

2. Recognition that attention to diversity in all of its forms (e.g., age, disability,
ethnicity, gender, gender identity, race, religion, sexual orientation, religion, socio-
economic status, etc.) relates to every aspect of the supervision process and requires
specific competence (American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force
on the Assessment of Age-Consistent Memory Decline and Dementia, 1998;
Arredondo & Arciniega, 2001; Bruss, Brack, Brack, Glickauf-Hughes, & O’Leary,
1997; Fouad & Brown, 2000; Hansen, Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell, & Greene,
2000; Olkin, 2002; Sodowsky, Kuo-Jackson, Richardson, & Corey, 1998; Sue,
2001; Vasquez, 1992);

3. Recognition that attention to legal and ethical issues is essential (Bernard &
Goodyear, 2004; Bradley, Kottler, & Lehrman-Waterman, 2001; Falender &
776 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2004

Shafranske, 2004; Harrar et al., 1990; Kitchener, 2000; Knapp & VandeCreek,
1997; Lamb & Catanzaro, 1998);
4. Recognition that training is influenced by both professional and personal factors;
these include values, beliefs, interpersonal biases, and conflicts that are consid-
ered to be sources of countertransference (cf. Falender & Shafranske, 2004).
5. Recognition of the necessity that both self- and peer assessment occur regularly
across all levels of supervisory development.

The workgroup’s orienting assumption was that supervision processes are guided by
developmental considerations. Both the supervisor and supervisee can be understood
each to be functioning at their respective levels of professional development, which in
turn affects their expectations, learning, and behaviors. This assumption is consistent
with considerable work that has been done in theoretical and empirical domains of clin-
ical supervision. Early conceptualizations of supervision and trainee growth as a devel-
opmental process can be traced to Fleming (1953) and Hogan (1964). Worthington (1987)
and Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987) identified a number of emerging models of super-
vision that relied, to varying degrees, on a developmental framework for explaining growth
in trainees and guidelines for the supervision process. Holloway (1987) referred to this
framework as the “zeitgeist” of supervision models, although she (Holloway, 1987) and
Ellis and Ladany (1997) have criticized the most-often-used developmental frameworks
on conceptual grounds.
Most developmental models of supervision use development as a metaphor for the
process of supervisee growth. Within this framework, change is viewed as a rather con-
tinuous growth process within stages (an orderly quantitative accumulation of knowledge
and skills) with qualitative differences in the level of complexity in knowledge and skill
utilization between stages (Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998). The supervision
process is assumed to affect supervisee growth consistent with Lerner’s developmental–
contextual perspective (1986). In other words, the learning environment provided, in
large part, by the supervisor, the training setting, and therapy interacts with the level of
therapist development in facilitating change (Stoltenberg et al., 1998). Therapists develop
within and across specific domains of professional practice at different rates (i.e., profi-
ciency at individual cognitive–behavioral therapy may be much more sophisticated than
psychological assessment). Supervisors must be cognizant of this and adjust supervision
according to the domain addressed within a given supervision session (Stoltenberg et al.,
1998).
Diversity, the broader view of cultural competence, is the other lens through which
supervision is framed. Increasingly articulated guidelines are being proposed for practice
of psychology that may be extrapolated to supervision informed by diversity competence.
The American Psychological Association (2002b) and Arredondo et al. (1996) have pro-
posed guidelines and operationalized cultural competencies. Much of the research and
writing in this area has been specific to cultural competence, and only recently has atten-
tion been directed to the expanded diversity competency that includes age, culture, eth-
nicity, gender, gender identity, handicapping conditions or ableness, language, national
origin, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status (American Psycho-
logical Association, 2002c). Supervisors also have been limited by unitary group con-
ceptualization (“African American,” “White”) rather than multiple diversity variables
relevant in describing an individual, reflecting “collective identities” (Fukuyama & Fer-
guson, 2000). Supervisors need to turn to these expanded conceptions of diversity to
insure competency. Supervisor consideration of other factors, including worldview con-
gruence or lack of such for client, therapist/supervisee, and supervisor, including such
 Defining Competencies 777

dimensions as concepts of time, and beliefs such as independence versus interdepen-

dence, are also critical components of the supervisory process (Brown & Landrum-
Brown, 1995).

Supervision Competencies

To this point, supervision competence has been discussed as if it were a unitary concept,
but it is not. Overall competence in supervision is the product of many component com-
petencies that together and in combination determine a psychologist’s competence as a
supervisor. Just as global competence in assessment or intervention reflect the operation
of myriad specific, more narrowly defined assessment and intervention capabilities, so it
is with supervision. Table 1 summarizes the framework our workgroup developed, includ-
ing the component competencies for each of its categories. In the sections that follow, we
will discuss each aspect of that framework in greater detail. It is important to note that the
group’s assumption was that minimal competence to supervise independently is defined
by licensure for professional practice. Some basic supervision competencies are, and
perhaps should be, attained by the end of graduate training. Nevertheless, the indepen-
dent practice of supervision requires licensure, although requirements vary markedly
across jurisdictions (Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards, 2002): whether
intern supervision can begin at time of licensure, after several years of post-licensure
experience, or after requisite supervision training or coursework.
Although presented as distinct, all elements of the competencies framework we present
in Table 1 influence and interact with the other elements. Skills require knowledge, which
always includes a values perspective, and so on. This delineation represents a preliminary
effort to define supervision competencies for the entry-level psychologist.

Knowledge

The group delineated six types of knowledge necessary to enable a psychologist to achieve
minimal levels of supervisory competence, and a seventh on which consensus was not
reached. Knowledge is the base upon which competency is built (Sumerall et al., 2000).
This included areas that were being supervised and supervision models, theories, modal-
ities, and research (process and outcome) including developmental models of supervision
(Stoltenberg et al., 1998). A working knowledge of ethics and legal issues specific to
supervision would include dimensions of informed consent and multiple relationships,
among others. The supervisor should know evaluation procedures and outcome measure-
ment. Awareness and knowledge of diversity within supervision–supervisee pairings and
with clients was viewed as essential. There was discussion regarding how science-
informed practice, as well as ethics of the profession, require professional practices to be
based on science-derived knowledge; hence, knowledge of current research would be
required.

Skills

The discussion around skills necessary for a minimally competent supervisor generated a
list of skills that reflected the range of abilities considered necessary. Supervisory skills
are multifaceted and subsume a range of functions. Skills are necessary in various super-
vision modalities (e.g., individual vs. group supervision) and to have requisite relation-
ship skills to build and sustain a strong supervisory relationship/alliance. The supervisor
778 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2004

Table 1
Supervision Competencies Framework

Knowledge
1. Knowledge of area being supervised (psychotherapy, research, assessment, etc.)
2. Knowledge of models, theories, modalities, and research on supervision
3. Knowledge of professional/supervisee development (how therapists develop, etc.)
4. Knowledge of ethics and legal issues specific to supervision
5. Knowledge of evaluation, process outcome
6. Awareness and knowledge of diversity in all of its forms

Skills
1. Supervision modalities
2. Relationship skills—ability to build supervisory relationship/alliance
3. Sensitivity to multiple roles with supervisee and ability to perform and balance multiple roles
4. Ability to provide effective formative and summative feedback
5. Ability to promote growth and self-assessment in the trainee
6. Ability to conduct own self-assessment process
7. Ability to assess the learning needs and developmental level of the supervisee
8. Ability to encourage and use evaluative feedback from the trainee
9. Teaching and didactic skills
10. Ability to set appropriate boundaries and seek consultation when supervisory issues are outside domain
of supervisory competence
11. Flexibility
12. Scientific thinking and the translation of scientific findings to practice throughout professional development

Values
1. Responsibility for client and supervisee rests with the supervisor
2. Respectful
3. Responsible for sensitivity to diversity in all its forms
4. Balance between support and challenging
5. Empowering
6. Commitment to lifelong learning and professional growth
7. Balance between clinical and training needs
8. Value ethical principles
9. Commitment to knowing and utilizing available psychological science related to supervision
10. Commitment to knowing one’s own limitations

Social Context Overarching issues:

1. Diversity
2. Ethical and legal issues
3. Developmental process
4. Knowledge of the immediate system and expectations within which the supervision is conducted
5. Awareness of the sociopolitical context within which the supervision is conducted
6. Creation of climate in which honest feedback is the norm (both supportive and challenging)

Training of Supervision Competencies

1. Coursework in supervision including knowledge and skill areas listed
2. Has received supervision of supervision including some form of observation (videotape or audiotape)
with critical feedback

Assessment of Supervision Competencies

1. Successful completion of course on supervision
2. Verification of previous supervision of supervision documenting readiness to supervise independently
3. Evidence of direct observation (e.g., audiotape or videotape)
4. Documentation of supervisory experience reflecting diversity
5. Documented supervisee feedback
6. Self-assessment and awareness of need for consultation when necessary
7. Assessment of supervision outcomes—both individual and group
 Defining Competencies 779

should be able to perform and balance multiple roles within the context of supervision,
including, for example, teaching and supporting while also providing an evaluative func-
tion. Evaluation and assessment, including self-assessment, were viewed as skills intrin-
sic to supervision. Through summative and formative evaluation feedback, formats often
neglected in supervision (Scott et al., 1998), the supervisor must have skills to provide a
framework fostering the supervisee’s growth and development and beginning the forma-
tion of a framework for lifelong self-assessment. Self-assessment should be modeled
actively by the supervisor as well. The supervisor should possess the skills of implement-
ing the developmental model, assessing learning needs and the developmental level of
the supervisee as guiding factors in the process, and calibrating supervision process and
interventions to correspond. Supervision is construed as a two-way evaluative process,
with each party providing feedback to the other. Observing boundaries of competence
and seeking consultation when supervisory issues move outside the domain of compe-
tence is an essential skill. The supervisor should have teaching and didactic skills and be
able to demonstrate flexibility in the supervisory process and in service provision to
clients. The ability to use scientific thinking and to translate scientific findings to practice
is another valued skill.

Values

The work group established core values necessary for supervisors to be considered min-
imally competent. The assumption is that the responsibility for the client, as well as for
the supervisee, should rest with the supervisor. The supervisor must be respectful of the
supervisee and all aspects of development and sensitive to diversity in all its forms.
Valuing achievement of a balance between support and challenge in supervision is sig-
nificant, as is valuing the empowerment of the supervisee. There is the assumption of a
commitment to life-long learning and professional growth, not only for the trainee(s), but
also for the supervisor. The supervisor also has a commitment to striking an appropriate
balance between clinical and training needs, valuing client and supervisee, but recogniz-
ing the precedence that the client’s well being takes over supervisee wishes should a
discrepancy between these arise. Valuing ethical principles and the commitment to seek-
ing out and using available psychological science as it informs supervision are critical.
The supervisor must be committed to knowing his/her own limitations.

Social Context

In addition, social context and the developmental perspective should be considered in the
conduct of supervision and in its evaluation. Supervision dyads do not exist in isolation.
They are embedded in complex social networks that constitute an array of proximal
contexts (e.g., local to the host training setting), distal contexts (e.g., accrediting agen-
cies, health industry, government policies), and contextual factors that affect supervision.
A systemic perspective highlights the multitude of forces (e.g., legal, sociopolitical, pro-
fessional guild, economic, etc.) that shape the supervisory process. This influence of
context particularly is relevant in multidisciplinary settings in which psychologists’ pro-
fessional allegiance may be confronted with cross-discipline differences in status and
authority, and by models of training that differ from those prevalent in psychology. The
presence of a host organization that values training and supervision through provision of
adequate resources (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004), value placed on the accreditation pro-
cess and all of its component parts, compliance with legal and ethical requirements at all
780 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2004

levels, and sound business and management practices are all necessary for the successful
supervision setting. Contextual parameters include: 1) diversity; 2) ethical and legal issues;
3) developmental process; 4) knowledge of the immediate system and expectations within
which the supervision is conducted; 5) awareness of the sociopolitical context within
which the supervision is conducted; and 6) creation of a climate in which honest (sup-
portive and challenging) feedback is the norm.

Education and Training in Supervision

How and when to train for supervision competence generated some discussion among the
work group’s members. Whether supervision training should begin during graduate train-
ing, internship, or at the postdoctoral level was an issue. Experiential models were viewed
as powerful in propagating supervision skills from generation to generation, but gener-
ally a curricular approach to supervision training was advocated. Coursework in super-
vision (including the knowledge and skill areas listed above) was viewed as essential, as
was “supervision of supervision” including some form of observation (e.g., videotape,
audiotape, two-way mirror), with critical feedback. Other didactic suggestions included
infusing supervision training across the graduate curriculum, a developmental sequence
of training with a survey course followed by in-depth study during internship and post-
doctoral training, introduction to supervision research and theoretical literature, super-
vision groups on supervision beginning at the postdoctoral level with peer groups, training
in group supervision models, observation of senior supervisors providing supervision,
and substantial monitoring and feedback loops on the supervisory process throughout
graduate training. Especially in light of the complexity of variables in supervision (devel-
opmental level of the trainee, cultural competence of supervisee and supervisor, learning
styles), the importance of didactic models for supervisors to enhance skills and perfor-
mance was suggested. Instilling the concept of accountability in supervision was dis-
cussed. A climate of openness with a balance of support and challenge was suggested.
Learning contracts were viewed as a significant tool in the supervisory process.

Assessment

Work group members agreed that the successful completion of a course on supervision
would be one way to begin to assess whether or not an individual was competent to
provide supervision. Verification of previous “supervision of supervision” documenting
readiness to supervise independently was another way to assure minimal competence in
supervision. Evidence of direct observation of supervision (e.g., videotape, audiotape,
etc.) was deemed another excellent way to assess supervision competence. Documen-
tation of supervisory experience reflecting diversity was considered important, as was
documentation of supervisee feedback. The group discussed the importance of a super-
visor conducting self-assessments, leading to requesting consultation when necessary.
Self-assessment was viewed as integral to consideration of competency and an area
in which further definition is needed. A model proposed by Belar et al. (2001) might
serve as a template for further development in this area. They described a prototype of
assessment of self-awareness of readiness for delivery of services to patients with medical–
surgical problems. This would assist practitioners in defining dimensions of practice
competency beyond entry level. The sample questions developed give a perspective on the
depth of knowledge, skills, and awareness necessary to approach continued professional
development in an ethical and responsible manner. Finally, assessment of supervision
 Defining Competencies 781

outcomes (both individual and group) was described as vital. This would include more
reliable and validated measures of supervisee and client outcome to be used across train-
ing and clinical settings. Lambert and Hawkins (2001) and Clement (1999) have sug-
gested possible models for outcome assessment of client progress. Lambert and Hawkins
suggested the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) as a feedback tool from client to therapist/
supervisee via the supervisor. Clement advocated development of scales reflective of the
diagnosis and symptoms of the client that also have applications for feedback to the
supervisee.
The task that lies ahead includes the integration of the supervision competency con-
siderations into graduate and post-graduate curricula. Because there has been only min-
imal effort devoted to assessment of outcomes or of supervision process or results, the
task is monumental to translate competencies into measurable criteria. Included within
such a task would be additional identification and clarification of the constructs compris-
ing supervision competencies. Furthermore, clinical training should include opportuni-
ties to conduct supervision under supervision in order to enhance the integration of
knowledge, skills, and values into a meaningful praxis leading to the development of a
threshold of competence in supervision at the point of formal entry into the profession at
licensure.

Validity of Our Approach

We believe this work has external validation as it corresponds with that of others who
have tackled the material independently. For example, Russell and Petrie (1994) sug-
gested that the three primary areas in which supervisors should be trained are (a) theo-
retical models of supervision; (b) the empirical literature on supervision processes and
outcomes; and (c) ethical and legal issues. Borders and colleagues (1991) suggested a
more extensive and detailed model with seven core areas of supervision training (models
of supervision; counselor development; supervisory relationship; supervision methods
and techniques; evaluation; executive skills; and ethical, legal, and professional regula-
tory issues). They suggested that each of these seven areas include three important ele-
ments: self-awareness, theoretical and conceptual knowledge, and skills and techniques.

Future Directions
This article summarizes the result of one group’s consensus regarding supervision com-
petency. Strengths of this contribution are that the workgroup members represented a
range of types and levels of expertise in supervision and were the first group to define
specifically competencies in psychology supervision.
Nevertheless, we recognize that our work was but a first step in what we hope will be
a continuing effort to address supervision competencies. Accordingly, the work group
outlined several future directions in the area of supervision competency.
First, the group members agreed that supervision should be considered a core com-
petence in the practice of psychology. No one group can declare this to be so. However,
possible next steps might include getting both American Psychological Association’s
Committee on Accreditation and state psychology boards to develop clearer expectations
about supervision competencies, with specific attention to criteria for such competencies.
We also recommend collaborative sponsorship by clinical, counseling, school, and other
constituent groups in professional psychology to organize theory building and training
conferences, as well as the development of multisite research programs.
782 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2004

Future work will be needed in articulating the developmental levels of supervision

competence, both leading up to and subsequent to the level of minimal competence within
a framework of lifelong learning. Such work should be structured and informed by con-
sideration for issues of diversity in all its forms. Integration of supervision issues should
be considered across psychology graduate and postgraduate education and training. Finally,
the continued development, refinement, and use of evidence-supported mechanisms to
assess competence in supervision were recommended.
Although minimal attention has been devoted to the contextual factors of supervision
(Ladany & Muse-Burke, 2001; Wampold & Holloway, 1997), awareness and knowledge
of the social context of supervision seems pivotal and is another area needing extensive
attention. Consideration of both proximal contexts (training program or clinical service
unit in which the supervision dyad or unit it embedded) and distal contexts (accreditation
bodies, social milieu, socioeconomic diversity, and professional factors) represents a fer-
tile area for future consideration.
Substantial controversy exists over the concept of core competencies, with support-
ers highlighting the better definition of performance criteria required (Sumerall et al.,
2000), greater articulation between instruction, goals, and assessment, ensuring breadth
of training in an era of specialization, and provision of a core identity for psychologists
(Benjamin, 2001; Kaslow, 2002). Opponents argue core competencies will place con-
straints on training, increasing narrowness of focus, prohibiting diversity, and reducing
the profession to a collection of specific skills (Benjamin, 2001; Kaslow, 2002). What
lies ahead is a process of further refining and operationalizing competencies so they can
be transported easily to graduate and post-graduate training venues.

References
American Psychological Association. (1996). Office of program consultation and accreditation
guidelines and principles for accreditation of programs in professional psychology. Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2002a). Book 1: Guidelines and principles for accreditation
of programs in professional psychology. Washington, DC: Office of Program Consultation
and Accreditation.
American Psychological Association. (2002b). Guidelines on multicultural education, training,
research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2002c). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of con-
duct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073.
American Psychological Association, Presidential Task Force on the Assessment of Age-Consistent
Memory Decline and Dementia. (1998). Guidelines for the evaluation of dementia and age-
related cognitive decline. Washington, DC: Author.
Arredondo, P., & Arciniega, G.M. (2001). Strategies and techniques for counselor training based on
the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Develop-
ment, 24, 42–78.
Arredondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S.B., Jones, J., Locke, D.C., Sanchez, J., & Stadler, H. (1996).
Operationalization of the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Coun-
seling and Development, 24, 42–78.
Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers. (2002). Charge to the Supervision
Workgroup. Competencies Conference: Future Directions in Education and Credentialing in
Professional Psychology, Scottsdale, AZ.
Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. (1998) Supervision guidelines: From the
final report of the ASPPB task force on supervision guidelines. Montgomery, AL: Author.
 Defining Competencies 783

Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards. (2002). 2002 Handbook of licensing and
certification requirements for psychologists in the United States and Canada. Montgomery,
AL: Author.
Belar, C.D., Brown, R.A., Hersch, L.E., Hornyak, L.M., Rozensky, R.H., Sheridan, E.P., Brown,
R.T., & Reed, G.W. (2001). Self-assessment in clinical health psychology: A model for ethical
expansion of practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32(2), 135–141.
Belar, C.D., & Perry, N.W. (1992). National conference on scientist-practitioner education and
training for the professional practice of psychology. American Psychologist, 41(1), 71–75.
Benjamin, L.T. (2001). American psychology’s struggles with its curriculum: Should a thousand
flowers bloom? American Psychologist, 56, 735–742.
Bernard, J.M., & Goodyear, R.K. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3rd ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Borders, L.D., Bernard, J.M., Dye, H.A., Fong, M.L., Henderson, P., & Nance, D.W. (1991). Cur-
riculum guide for training counseling supervisors: Rationale, development, and implemen-
tation. Counselor Education and Supervision, 31, 58–82.
Bradley, L.J., Kottler, J.A., & Lehrman-Waterman, D. (2001). Ethical issues in supervision. In L.J.
Bradley & N. Ladany (Eds.), Counselor supervision (3rd ed., pp. 342–360). Philadelphia:
Brunner-Routledge.
Brown, M.T., & Landrum-Brown, J. (1995). Counselor supervision: Cross-cultural perspectives. In
J.M. Casas & J.G. Ponterotto (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 263–286).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bruss, K.V., Brack, C.J., Brack, G., Glickauf-Hughes, C., & O’Leary, M. (1997). A developmental
model for supervising therapists treating gay, lesbian, and bisexual clients. The Clinical Super-
visor, 15(1), 61–73.
Clement, P.W. (1999). Outcomes and incomes: How to evaluate, improve, and market your psy-
chotherapy practice by measuring outcomes. New York: Guilford.
Dienst, E.R., & Armstrong, P.M. (1998). Evaluation of students’ clinical competence. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 339–341.
Ellis, M.V., & Ladany, N. (1997). Inferences concerning supervisees and clients in clinical super-
vision: An integrative review. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy super-
vision (pp. 447–507). New York: Wiley.
Epstein, R.M., & Hundert, E.M. (2002). Defining and assessing professional competence. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 287(2), 226–235.
Falender, C.A., & Shafranske, E.P. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fleming, J. (1953). The role of supervision in psychiatric training. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic,
17, 157–159.
Fouad, N., & Brown, M.T. (2000). Role of race and social class in development: Implications
for counseling psychology. In S.D. Brown & R.W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psy-
chology (3rd ed., pp. 379– 408). New York: Wiley.
Fraser, S.W., & Greenhalgh, T. (2001). Coping with complexity: Educating for capability. British
Medical Journal, 323, 799–803.
Fukuyama, M.A., & Ferguson, A.D. (2000). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people of color: Under-
standing cultural complexity and managing multiple oppressions. In R.M. Perez, K.A. Debord,
& K. Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and
bisexual clients (pp. 81–105). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Goodyear, R.K., & Guzzardo, C.R. (2000). Psychotherapy supervision and training. In S.D. Brown
& R.W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Hansen, N.D., Pepitone-Arreola-Rockwell, F., & Greene, A.F. (2000). Multicultural competence:
Criteria and case examples. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 652– 660.
784 Journal of Clinical Psychology, July 2004

Harrar, W.R., VandeCreek, L., & Knapp, S. (1990). Ethical and legal aspects of clinical super-
vision. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 21(1), 37– 41.
Hogan, R.A. (1964). Issues and approaches in supervision. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 1, 139–141.
Holloway, E.L. (1987). Developmental models of supervision: Is it development? Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 18, 209–216.
Holloway, E.L. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kaslow, N.J. (2002, November). Future directions in education and credentialing in professional
psychology. Paper presented at the Competencies Conference: Future Directions in Education
and Credentialing in Professional Psychology, Scottsdale, AZ.
Kitchener, K.S. (2000). Foundations of ethical practice, research, and teaching in psychology.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Knapp, S., & VandeCreek, L. (1997). Ethical and legal aspects of clinical supervision. In C.W.
Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 589–599). New York: Wiley.
Ladany, N., & Muse-Burke, J.L. (2001). Understanding and conducting supervision research. In
L.J. Bradley, & N. Ladany (Eds.), Counselor supervision (3rd ed., pp. 304–329). Philadelphia:
Brunner-Routledge.
Lamb, D.H., & Catanzaro, S.J. (1998). Sexual and nonsexual boundary violations involving psy-
chologists, clients, supervisees, and students: Implications for professional practice. Profes-
sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(5), 498–503.
Lambert, M.J., & Hawkins, E.J. (2001). Using information about patient progress in supervision:
Are outcomes enhanced? Australian Psychologist, 36, 131–138.
Lerner, R.M. (1986). Concepts and theories of human development (2nd ed.). New York: Random
House.
Olkin, R. (2002). Could you hold the door for me? Including disability in diversity. Cultural Diver-
sity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 130–137.
Peterson, R.L., Peterson, D.R., Abrams, J.C., & Stricker, G. (1997). The National Council of Schools
and Programs of Professional Psychology education model. Professional Psychology: Research
& Practice, 28(4), 373–386.
Russell, R.K., & Petrie, T. (1994). Issues in training effective supervisors. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 3, 27– 42.
Scott, K.J., Ingram, K.M., Vitanza, S.A., & Smith, N.G. (2000). Training in supervision: A survey
of current practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 28, 403– 422.
Sherry, P. (1991). Ethical issues in the conduct of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 19,
566–584.
Sodowsky, G.R., Kuo-Jackson, P.Y., Richardson, M.F., & Corey, A.T. (1998). Correlates of self-
reported multicultural competencies: Counselor multicultural social desirability, race, social
inadequacy, locus of control, racial ideology, and multicultural training. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45, 256–264.
Stoltenberg, C.D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Stoltenberg, C.D., McNeill, B., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM Supervision: An integrated develop-
mental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sue, D.W. (2001). Multidimensional facets of cultural competence. The Counseling Psychologist,
29, 790–821.
Sumerall, S.W., Lopez, S.J., & Oehlert, M.E. (2000). Competency-based education and training in
psychology. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Vazquez, M.J.T. (1992). Psychologists as clinical supervisor: Promoting ethical practice. Profes-
sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(3), 196–202.
 Defining Competencies 785

Wampold, B.E., & Holloway, E.L. (1997). Methodology, design, and evaluation in psychotherapy
supervision research. In C.W. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision
(pp. 11–27). New York: Wiley.
Watkins, C.E., Jr. (1997). Defining psychotherapy supervision and understanding supervisor func-
tioning. In C.W. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 3–10). New
York: Wiley.
Worthington, E.L., Jr. (1987). Effective supervision as perceived by beginning counselors-in-
training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 64–73.