Supervisees’ of differing genders and races perceptions of power in supervision

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.

KEYWORDS:

• Clincial supervision
• power dynamics
• differential item functioning
• person fit
• rating scale

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. In the initial analysis of the PDSS, Cook et al. (2018) observed some small differences in the overall level of perceptions of power dynamics between the Master’s level and Doctoral level participants that indicated potential developmental differences between the two groups. However, dimensionality analyses revealed that the instrument functioned comparably between these groups. Please see Authors et al. (2018a) for more details.

2. This method is equivalent to the method that DIF method that Raju (1988) described based on the difference between item response functions (IRFs); specifically, the absolute value of the difference in item calibration is equivalent to the space between IRFs for one-parameter logistic models and Rasch models, such as the RS model (Gamerman, Goncalves, & Soares, 2018).

3. In other studies, researchers have used a variety of names for these analyses, including person reliability, appropriateness measurement, person fit, among others (Walker et al., 2018).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Stefanie A. Wind

Stefanie A. Wind, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Educational Measurement at the University of Alabama. Her primary research interests include the exploration of methodological issues in the field of educational measurement, with emphases on methods related to rater-mediated assessments, rating scales, Rasch models and item response theory models, and nonparametric item response theory, as well as applications of these methods to substantive areas related to education.

Ryan M. Cook

Ryan M. Cook, PhD, LPC, ACS, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Studies in Psychology, Research Methodology, and Counseling at the University of Alabama. His research interests include supervisee nondisclosure, clinical supervision, and professional issues in the field of counseling.

W. Bradley McKibben

W. Bradley McKibben, PhD, IMH (FL), NCC is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling at Nova Southeastern University. His research interests include professional counselor development and relational/cultural issues in clinical supervision.