Comparing Presence and Absence of Initial In-Person Contact and Written Feedback in RE&CBT E-Supervision

This pilot study aims to analyze the effects of the presence and absence of initial in-person contact and written feedback in RE&CBT e-supervision, comparing it on the Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory, the Supervisor Satisfaction Questionnaire, and the Trainee Disclosure Scale. During a period of six months, five supervisees performed ten e-supervision divided into two groups, a control group that did only the initial meetings in-person and an experimental group in which two supervisees completed whole process online. Additionally, in the first five e-supervision, the supervisor reviewed an entire session with written feedback with an additional meeting for each group. In the last five e-supervision, the supervisor only partially reviewed client sessions during supervision. After ten e-supervision, an individual post-interview was conducted with each participant. This study's primary statistical method for calculating and combining effect sizes was Tarlow Baseline Corrected Tau and Open Meta Analyst software. Both groups scored above average on the first two scales, but the disclosure scale had highly irregular and inconsistent patterns. The combined qualitative and quantitative results suggest that novice therapists generally prefer to have their entire sessions reviewed with written feedback and that a single in-person contact is unlikely to influence e-supervision satisfaction and working alliance. Given that there are no adequately validated e-supervision models, this pilot study used a pilot model named Supported Model of Electronic Supervision (SMeS). This model showed potential, but it needs further testing on a larger sample with more clearly operationalized steps. This study experimentally supports the effectiveness of RE&CBT supervision for the first time.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10942-023-00505-2.