ABSTRACT

In the current study, we examined the extent to which supervisees’ perceptions of power dynamics related to gender and race in a sample of 229 trainees. Overall, we did not find systematic differences in supervisees’ perceptions of power in clinical supervision based on their gender and race. However, utilizing differential item functioning (DIF) analyses, we found evidence that female and male supervisees perceived power differently for specific aspects of power in clinical supervision. Female supervisees perceived their supervisors as possessing more power in identifying goals of clinical supervision, conceptualizing client cases, and initiating discussions of the power dynamics in the supervisory relationship. Male supervisees perceived their supervisors as possessing more power in providing feedback about their clinical work and counseling skills. Regarding race, we found only slight-to-moderate DIF for one item, Item 10 (i.e. feedback on work with clients”). In light of small sample sizes for some groups, we also examined model-data fit for individual supervisees. These analyses allowed us to explore the degree to which individual supervisees interpreted power dynamics consistently with the larger sample. We identified individual supervisees for whom model estimates had different interpretations from the larger sample. Implications for supervisors and supervision scholars are discussed.

摘要

在当前的研究中，我们在229名受训者的样本中检查了监督者对与性别和种族有关的权力动态的感知的程度。总体而言，我们没有发现受监管者基于其性别和种族而在临床监管中对权力的看法存在系统性差异。但是，通过使用差异项功能（DIF）分析，我们发现有证据表明，女性和男性被监督者对于临床监督中特定权力方面的看法有所不同。女监督员认为他们的主管在确定临床监督目标，概念化客户案例以及发起关于监督关系中权力动态的讨论方面拥有更大的权力。男性监督者认为其主管在提供有关其临床工作和咨询技巧的反馈方面拥有更大的权力。关于种族，我们发现一项（第10条）（即与客户合作的反馈”仅显示了中等至中等的DIF）。鉴于某些小组的样本量较小，我们还检查了适合各个受监管者的模型数据。这些分析使我们能够探索与大样本一致的各个被监管者对权力动态的解释程度。我们确定了各个受监管者，他们的模型估计与较大样本的解释不同。讨论了对主管人员和督导学者的启示。我们还检查了适用于各个被监管者的模型数据。这些分析使我们能够探索与大样本一致的各个被监管者对权力动态的解释程度。我们确定了各个受监管者，他们的模型估计与较大样本的解释不同。讨论了对主管人员和督导学者的启示。我们还检查了适用于各个被监管者的模型数据。这些分析使我们能够探索与大样本一致的各个被监管者对权力动态的解释程度。我们确定了各个受监管者，他们的模型估计与较大样本的解释不同。讨论了对主管人员和督导学者的启示。