A Qualitative Investigation of Supervisees' Experiences of Triadic Supervision

It is well established that clinical supervision is among the most effective methods for helping counselors to build skills and develop professionally (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). The clinical supervisor is responsible for protecting the client's welfare, teaching clinical conceptualization and counseling skills, fostering supervisee self-awareness, and evaluating the supervisee. Thus, the supervision process, particularly in counselor training programs, is central to counselors' development. With its 2001 revisions, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) added triadic supervision to the list of approved clinical supervision modalities, along with individual and group supervision. Triadic supervision is described by CACREP as two supervisees working with one supervisor, in a process that involves all three members simultaneously (CACREP, 2001). There appear to be a number of benefits to using triadic supervision, but there are also potential challenges that should be considered. When introducing any new supervision modality, care must be taken to preserve the essential aspects of the supervision process. A review of the literature, however, reveals little research on this particular supervision structure. Our aim, therefore, was to address this gap by examining the experiences of supervisees who have participated in triadic supervision. Following a review of the literature, we describe the context for the study and the method used. We then discuss the findings and examine several implications of these findings for clinical supervision. Review of the Literature In our review of the literature relevant to triadic supervision, we examined the empirical studies that have been conducted to date. Recently, Stinchfield, Hill, and Kleist (2007) detailed the preliminary findings on their Reflective Model of Triadic Supervision. The authors noted some of the benefits of triadic supervision, as reported by supervisees: the multiple perspectives in feedback, vicarious learning opportunities, a more comfortable atmosphere as compared to group supervision, and some insight into providing feedback themselves. The authors also identified some of the challenges of triadic supervision, as far as supervisees' difficulty with providing critical feedback to the supervision peer and supervisees' discomfort when the peer assumed the observer role and gave feedback. Newgent, Davis, and Farley (2005) evaluated the perceptions of 15 student supervisors who participated in combinations of individual, triadic, and group supervision-of-supervision. The participants rated their supervisory experiences using the Working Alliance Inventory (Horvath, 1984), Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (Efstation, Patton, & Kardash, 1990), Supervision Styles Inventory (Friedlander & Ward, 1984), and the Supervision of Supervision and Evaluation (Newgent, 2002). The authors concluded that supervisors in training perceived triadic supervision as similar to individual supervision with regard to the working alliance, supervisory leadership style, relationship dynamics, and satisfaction with supervision. These findings suggest that individual and triadic supervision may be more alike than different in how they are experienced by student supervisors. Unpublished studies by Bakes (2005) and Nguyen (2004) have also examined several facets of triadic supervision. Nguyen found that counselor effectiveness did not vary according to the type of supervision, whether split-focus triadic supervision in which two supervisees each received half of the attention during any given session, or single-focus triadic supervision in which two supervisees received exclusive attention during alternate weeks. Supervisee developmental level varied across both types of supervision. Bakes examined the working alliance between supervisors and supervisees who received triadic supervision and found that triadic supervision assisted supervisees in understanding their clients and minimized the supervisee's identification with the supervisor. …