TPC Journal V7, Issue 3 - FULL ISSUE

274 The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 3 shares characteristics with other interventions—namely teaching, psychotherapy, and consultation— yet is distinct (Milne, 2006). The unique aspects of supervision include the propensity to be provided by and to individuals in the same profession, an evaluative and hierarchical nature, and an extension over time (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). The process of supervision is often referred to as isomorphic , meaning that the relationship between client and counselor is often similar in structure to the concurrent relationship between counselor and supervisor (Koltz, Odegard, Feit, Provost, & Smith, 2012). However, this triadic configuration does not take a fourth entity into account: the relationship between the supervisor and the supervisor’s supervisor. This lapse is partially because of the underrepresentation of supervisory training knowledge in the counseling literature (Richardson & Bradley, 1984). Another parallel between counseling and supervision is the utilization of theory to inform practice. Models of supervision may be classified in a number of ways. Bernard and Goodyear (2014) broadly delineated first-wave supervision models into one of three categories: models grounded in psychotherapy theory, developmental models, and process models. Psychotherapy-based models utilize psychotherapy's theoretical approaches as a framework for use in supervision. Choice of psychotherapy-based models is often informed by the supervisor’s theoretical approach when in the counselor role. Familiarity with one’s own theory may provide the supervisor a level of comfort and an added sense of competence. Developmental models focus on the developmental needs of the CIT based on the status, pace, or standard of professional development. Focus on individual development allows the supervisor to tailor interventions to the current needs of the supervisee. Also, under the developmental model umbrella, models of social roles take further consideration of CIT contextual needs, based on such factors as cultural or experiential background (Aten, Strain, & Gillespie, 2008). Process models focus on the process within each supervision session, spotlighting the relationship and interactions between supervisor and CIT. Bernard and Goodyear (2014) proposed that these broad categories are best utilized in conjunction with one another. From the broad first-wave supervision models, Bernard and Goodyear (2014) identified second- wave models of the next generation: combined models and target-issue models. Combined supervision models may blend multiple approaches within one of the above three categories (e.g., two psychotherapy theories) or between the above three categories (e.g., one developmental model and one process model). This approach may allow supervisors to provide what is needed to themselves and their supervisees within the supervisory process. Target-issue models hone in on specific elements or needs within supervision. These may be helpful to supervisors who need a more direct, concentrated approach to address a specific issue that arises in supervision. Third-wave models have emerged from continued research on specific supervision models, providing an index of evidence from which supervisors and researchers may benefit. A paucity of evidence for efficacy between supervision models has created a movement toward gleaning aspects found to be effective within supervision models (Sprenkle, 1999). Supervisory common factors refer to core components that remain consistent when cutting across models and perspectives (Watkins, Budge, & Callahan, 2015). Integrating different approaches to create common-factors models hinges on the assumption that supervision models are unique; by borrowing strengths from multiple models, new frameworks may be created to fill in weaknesses (Lampropoulos, 2003). For example, Lampropoulos (2003) used the notion of eclecticism by blending common supervisory pathways, stages, and processes to make a case for the incorporation of empirically validated practices both within and outside mental health care. Morgan and Sprenkle (2007) provided a similar process, utilizing broader supervision models and popular supervision conceptualizations to create a model