Skip to main content

Table 2 Study characteristics (main studies (bold type) and concomitant publications reported together)

From: Empirical research in clinical supervision: a systematic review and suggestions for future studies

Publication Design Intervention group (n patient) Control group (n patient) Ass Q Main outcomes Negative effects
Anderson (2012) [31] Cohort Cohort year 2: Time-limited PD-SV
Cohort year 3: Some early SV
Cohort year 1: No SV (84 all groups) R 12 Sign. better adherence, therapeutic relationship and advanced PD techniques in PD-SV
Small effects that do not seem sustainable
Anderson (2017) [46] Cohort Directive SV Non-directive SV (40 both groups) R 11 Sign. greater adherence of SVees if SVor used directive style
Alternative explanations: SVor personality, didactic methods, individual differences of SVees
Bambling (2006) [32] RCT Alliance process-focused SV (34)
Alliance skill-focused SV (31)
No SV (38) Q, R 9 Sign. increased therapeutic alliance and decreased depression in all groups, group differences after session 1
Pat. in SV groups sign. More satisfied and less dropout than in control group
Davidson (2017) [33] Cluster
FB to SVee and SVor on Pat outcome, alerts as to worsening (16) FB to SVee on Pat outcome, no alert (25) Q 13 Pat. in control group sign. Less distressed (post, FU), also in therapists’ ratings, but with more sessions
Large pat. and therapist drop-out
risk for self-harm evaluated
Grossl (2014) [34] RCT FB to SVee and SVor on Pat outcome SAU (138 both groups) Q 12 N.s. differences between groups
SVees in intervention group sign. More satisfied with SV
Hiltunen (2013) [35] CS CBT-SAU (35) Q 13 Perceived satisfaction with SV
Locke (2001) [36] CS Live-SV (108) Q 13 Pat. felt comfortable with Live-SV
Perceived helpfulness and low intrusiveness of Live-SV predicted therapy satisfaction
Lu (2012) [37] CS CBT-SV with fidelity FB (26) Q, R 14 SV and E-mail FB perceived as helpful, pat. Symptoms sign. Decreased
91% of SVees achieved certification with first training case
Martino (2016) [38] RCT SV on MI (227) SAU (223) R, I, T 10 Sign. greater increase in SVee competency in intervention group (post, FU)
N.s. differences in pat. Retention and substance abuse, MI-SV more cost-intensive
27 adverse events, unrelated
Milne (2011) [39] N = 1 (ABA) B: Evidence-based clinical SV (3) A: CBT-SV Q, R, I, O 14 Intervention perceived as better, experiential learning and high acceptance in both groups Anxious, rushed, taxing
Milne (2013) [47] S/A S/A S/A R 15 Apparent SVor fidelity and perceived experiential learning in SVees
Ng (2007) [40] Pre- post SV to CBT for psychosis (10) R, CF 15 More acceptable case formulations and sign. Better therapeutic competences after SV
Rizvi (2016) [41] N = 1 (ABA) B: BITE-SV (1) A: SAU Q, R 11 Pat/SVee perceived BITE as acceptable, SVee perceived increase in DBT confidence, adequate adherence
Smith (2012) [42] RCT Live phone-SV on MI with standardized Pat Audiotape-based phone-SV on MI with standard. Pat; No SV R 10 Intervention with sign. Greater global MI integrity and skill than Audiotape-based SV than No SV
Audiotape-based SV sign. Better in increasing complex reflections
Weck (2016) [43] RCT BITE-SV (19) Delayed video-based SAU (23) Q, R 11 Sign. better therapeutic alliance and competence in intervention group
N.s. differences when controlling for baseline scores and for pat. Outcomes
Jakob (2013) [48] CS BITE subgroup (10) Q 13 High acceptance, perceived helpfulness and usefulness by Pat, SVee, SVors Split attention
Jakob (2015) [49] CS BITE subgroup (8) I 10 Positive perception of an added value by BITE e.g., on therapeutic competence
For SVees, organizational efforts and anxiety at the beginning
Willutzki (2005) [44] Cohort Additionally requested CBT-SAU Regular CBT-SAU (104 in total cohort) Q 14 Perceived problematic therapeutic alliance before additionally requested SV (Pat, SVee)
Small effects on improved therapeutic alliance after SV, high satisfaction with SV
Zarbock (2009) [45] CS SAU: Multimodal BT (90) Q 13 Supervisory relationship as best predictor of overall SV satisfaction
Low correlation between SVor and SVee ratings of SV
  1. Ass assessment methods, SV supervision, SVsor supervisor, SVee supervisee, SAU supervision as usual, Pat patient, − not applicable or no information, S/A see above, N/S indicated but not specified, PD psychodynamic, C/BT cognitive / behavior therapy, DBT dialectical behavior therapy, MI motivational interviewing, RCT randomized-controlled trial, CS cross-sectional study, N = 1 N of 1 trial, ABA withdrawal); Rat rating, Ques questionnaire, Int interview, Obs observation, T test, CF case formulation, FB feedback, MI motivational interviewing, BITE bug-in-the-eye, FU follow-up, N.s./sign. non/significant, Q methodological quality, 5 (lowest) to 15 (highest possible threat