A Quantitative Method for Studying the Testing Supervision Process

Szimmary.-A quantitative method by Holloway for studying the supervision process in counseling training was adapted for use in psychological testing supervision. Ratings of 80 sessions indicated that most of the 25 potential interactions benveen the supervisor and trainee occurred in most of che sessions. The rate of occurrence was the lowest for the Emotional Awareness task (21%-24%). The author offers a speculation about how this result may be understood as involving the structured nature of tesdng. Results suggested that this model could be used as a tool for both pracucal and theoretical empirical evaluation of the supervision process during training in psychological testing. There is extensive literature on supervision but Few works directly evarnine supervision during training For psychological resting. The Systems Approach to Supen,~s~on model (Holloway, 1995, p. 38; DeCato, 2001) was adapted for use in supervising psychological testing with students enrolled in a Doctor of Psychology (Psy.D.) program (N=42; 13 men and 29 women). Eighty supervision sessions were studied. The tesdng batteries routinely included the Wechsler intelligence scales (child or adult), the Rorschach Inkblots, and a wide variety of other tests required by the referral situation. The Holloway model (1995) conceptualizes the interaction benveen supervisor and srudent along two dimensions with five levels each: (1) Supervisors' Functions (Monitoring/Evaluacing, AdvisingAnstructing; Modeling, Consulting, and Supporring and Sharing) and (2) Trainees' Tasks (Tescing Skills, Case Conceptualization, Professional Role, Emotional Awareness, and Self-awareness) which form a 5 x 5 contingency table. Each cell in this table represents an occurrence of an interaction between a given level of Supervisor Functions and Trainee Tasks yielding 25 potential interacuons chat can occur in any supervision session. A rater can observe a session and record when a given interaction occurs by placing a check mark in che appropriate cell. Table 1 presents the HoUoway (1995) contingency table for Supervisors' Functions by Trainees' Tasks. The numbers in each cell provide a means for identifying the specific supervisor functions interacting with a specific trainee task, e.g., Cell 11 indicates that an interaction occurred benveen rhe supervisor's Function of ~Monitoring/Evaluating and the trainee's task of Tesring Skills, and so on. This same 5 x5 contingency table with empty cells was used to record observations during a testing supervision session. For example, a check mark would be placed in Cell 11 if che observer judged the supemisor had performed a Monitoring/Evaluating function for the trainee task involving Tesring SUs. A check mark in 3 cell indicated that the given interaction between the supervisor and trainee had taken place during the given supervisory session. A ratio could then be devised with the numerator reflecting the number of sessions in which a given interaction occurred and the denominator representing the total number of sessions observed. In the present study, the supervisor (author) marked a blank chart for each of 80 testing 'Please address correspondence to CliEFord M. DeCato, Ph.D., ABPP. Widener University, One Universiry Place, Chester, PA 19013.