TPC Journal-Vol 9- Issue 4-FULL ISSUE

The Professional Counselor | Volume 9, Issue 4 291 Table 2 Intercorrelations for Scores on the Study Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 1. ProQOL-CF - 2. SWAIT-T .04 - 3. IRI-EC -.06 .04 - 4. BRS -.47** -.09 -.11 - 5. FS -.45** .12 .25* .35** - Note . N = 86; ProQOL = Professional Quality of Life (Compassion Fatigue [CF] subscale score is presented); IRI = Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Empathic Concern [EC] subscale score is presented); SWAI-T = Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory: Trainee Form; BRS = Brief Resilience Scale; FS = Flourishing Scale. *p < .05. **p < .01. Results Compassion fatigue scores of CITs represent the sum of scores of all items on the STS and Burnout subscales. According to the ProQOL administration manual (Stamm, 2010), individuals scoring below 22 may indicate little or no issues with Burnout and STS, while scores between 23 and 41 indicate moderate levels of Burnout and STS, and scores above 42 indicate higher levels of Burnout and STS. For this sample, participants’ Burnout scores ranged from 12 to 32 with a mean of 21.34 ( SD = 4.38), and STS scores ranged from 10 to 38 with a mean of 20.14 ( SD = 4.96). These results indicated a low risk of both Burnout and STS among CITs. To address the second research question, we performed a three-step hierarchical linear regression analysis. With this analysis, we aimed to assess the association between resilience, wellness, supervisory working alliance, empathy, and compassion fatigue. We chose to implement a hierarchical multiple regression analysis because scholars previously have highlighted the essential relationship between empathy, supervision, and compassion fatigue (Figley, 2002; MacRitchie & Leibowitz, 2010). In the first step, empathy scores entered the model as a predictor variable, as Figley (1995) stated that empathy is one of the main factors contributing to compassion fatigue. However, among this sample, we found that empathy was not a significant predictor of compassion fatigue: F (1, 84) = .2, p = .66 , R 2 = .002 (adjusted R 2 = -.01). Then, we added supervisory working alliance scores to the model in the second step, as both Knight (2010) and Miller and Sprang (2017) emphasized the importance of supervisory support for mental health practitioners. Results revealed that the supervisory working alliance variable also was not a significant predictor of compassion fatigue: F (2, 83) = .16, p = .85, R 2 = .004 (adjusted R 2 = -.02). In the third step, resilience and wellness scores were entered into the model to determine whether these variables significantly improved the amount of explained variance in compassion fatigue. Results showed that this combination of variables significantly predicted 26% of the variance in compassion fatigue: F (4, 81) = 8.57, p < .001, R 2 = .30 . Therefore, it was concluded that CITs with greater wellness and resilience reported developing less compassion fatigue (see Table 3).