Chapter 6: Evaluation of the Supervisee

Evaluation of the Supervisee

In spite of the awareness that a big part of supervision is the supervisor's evaluation of the supervisee, it's apparently something that is often far from the favorite task of a supervisor. Some of the reasons for this include (Lichtenberg et al., 2007):

• Defining competencies in precise and measurable terms
• Reaching agreement within the profession about the key elements of each competence domain
• Establishing an armamentarium of tools for assessing all components of competence, including the knowledgebase, skills, and attitudes (and their integration)
• Determining appropriate, agreed-upon minimal levels of competence for individuals at different levels of professional development and when "competence problems" exist for individuals assuring the fidelity of competency assessments
• Establishing mechanisms for providing effective evaluative feedback and remediation

But Lichtenberg et al. (2007) believed that "the single biggest obstacle would be convincing those who are skeptical of the value of … implementation of comprehensive competence assessments across the professional lifespan."

However, no matter what problems are related to it, supervisor evaluation of the supervisee is an established fact and must be faced. Interestingly, unless things have dramatically changed in the 21st century, supervisees frequently receive no evaluation until the last day of the required training, and then receive some negative feedback about which they had heard nary a word in the course of training. You can see why the lack of performance evaluation has been the most commone ethical violation reported by supervisees in supervision (Ladany and Lehrman-Waterman, 1999).

For contrast with the above list from Lichtenberg et al. (2007), the primary reasons given in 1993 of why supervisors often don't give negative feedback were (Robiner, Fuhrman, and Ristvedt, 1993):

• Definition and Measurement: Supervisors reported concern about the methodology, reliability, and validity of the scales or measures they use, or they're concerned that anecdotal feedback does not meet criteria for accurate assessment.
• Legal Liability: Supervisors were concerned with legal and administrative issues--legal liability if the supervisee would dispute the feedback (especially in light of the first concern, fearing the feedback may not be defensible).
• Interpersonal Issues: Many supervisors feared that the evaluation might cause the supervisor to come under unwelcome scrutiny; they also feared that it might risk jeopardizing the supervisory alliance or interpersonal relationship established with the supervisee.

It's ironic that supervisees report that supervisors who give abundant constructive feedback and evaluation are their best supervisors (Falender, 2010). The Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards (2003) suggested that summative evaluation be given to supervisees in written form four times during each training year.

Summative evaluations of supervisees would examine the outcome of their clinical work.It would include:

• Outcome evaluations that investigate whether the supervisee caused demonstrable effects on specifically defined target outcomes
• Impact evaluation is broader and assesses the overall or net effects--intended or unintended--of the supervisee as a whole
• Secondary analysis reexamining existing data to address new questions or methods not previously employed (Trochim, 2006)

A related type of evaluation is formative evaluation, which tries to improve or strengthen the person being evaluated. As it relates to supervisees, it examines their delivery of therapy or a social work program, the quality of this delivery, and assessment of the context. A formative evaluation includes:

• Praise or support
• Constructive feedback focused on suggestions or analysis
  • Thinking about what other options might have been helpful
  • Wondering about the rationale for particular interventions
  • Thinking more about process than content, effect rather than content, or generally refocusing the therapy process
  • Specific and directive for beginning level supervisees; more open-ended and thought provoking for more advanced supervisees

Current thinking is moving towards a 2-way feedback, where supervisees also evaluate supervisors. Supervisees might fear that summative feedback could influence their own evaluations negatively, and thus be cautious in giving summative feedback to supervisors. However if you, the supervisor, are truly open to feedback and accepting of it, it can be very helpful to both you and the supervisee. If, however, you respond with dismissive behaviors, resistance, or even anger, it will obviously not be a helpful process (Falender, 2010).

Options to aid effective competency-based evaluations:

• Track for outcomes in client progress; examples of a tool for this are Lambert's Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) and its child and adolescent equivalent (Y-OQ) and the other measurements that were discussed earlier in the course can be uses, such as depression scales.
• A self-assessment to assess and extend one's areas of practice, or just to see how current the supervisee's knowledge and skills are. Belar et al. (2001) offer a template that a supervisor can use to devise pertinent self-assessments for his specific use.
• Use a multi-source feedback (also known as "360-degree feedback"). The individual being rated (supervisor should do on himself first, then the supervisee would follow suit) first rates himself, and then is rated by peers, administrators, clerical staff, clients, supervisors (who were first rated by the supervisee), and others in the setting. The coordinating supervisor integrates the results to make a comprehensive feedback.
• The supervisor(s) should be certain that the evaluation documents include every important performance area in the supervisee's setting. If something is overlooked in the evaluation documents, it should necessarily also be overlooked in the final evaluations.
• Use other evaluation measures such as alliance measures, supervision outcomes, and diversity/multicultural competence assessments.

If the supervisee does not meet performance standards, she can be given an action plan for improvement, or in most drastic situations, a longer period of time of required supervision. Supervisees who don't meet standards after the action plan approach are rare (Falender, 2010).

Red flags for performance problems include:

• Delinquent paperwork
• Chronic lateness
• Client cancellations (by client or supervisee)
• Changes in interaction style or behavior
• Inconsistencies between notes and deblockedions of cases in supervision

[QN.No.#29. Red flags for performance problems to pay attention to when evaluating supervisees do NOT include:]

Not meeting performance standards are reflected in professional functions in one or more of the following (Lamb, Anderson, Rapp, Rathnow, qne Sesan, 1986):

• Inability or unwillingness to acquire and integrate professional standards into one’s repertoire of professional behavior
• Inability to acquire professional skills to reach acceptable level of competence
• Inability to control personal stress, psychological dysfunction, and/or excessive emotional reactions that may affect professional functioning
• Supervisees don't acknowledge, understand, or address the problem even when raised
• The problem is not just a reflection of a skill deficit rectifiable through academic or didactics
• The quality of intern service is consistently negatively impacted
• The problem is not restricted to one area of functioning
• Disproportionate amounts of attention by training personnel is required
• The intern’s behavior does not change as a function of feedback, remediation efforts, and/or time

After you've determined that the supervisee is not meeting performance criteria, and you've given feedback directly to him, work with the supervisee to develop a plan (based on data you can find in regard to successful completion of the behaviors in the past and factors that facilitated those) for change or completion. Construct a time-line with intermediate check-in points that are fairly close together, and document the meeting in which all of this took place (Falender, 2010).

The initial check-in should be within a few days of the meeting; be sure to follow up to see if appropriate progress is being made. Even with appropriate progress, continue monitoring even past indications that the behavior has changed. If the problem behaviors don't decrease, take appropriate steps that might include:

• Consultation with the school (a step that could even have occurred earlier)
• Consultation with Human Resources or Personnel Department
• Consultation with Administrative personnel on site
• Increased supervision or different supervision modalities
• Introducing a co-therapist
• Reducing workload or, if necessary, removing clients from caseload as needed
• Suggesting outside supports such as therapy or whatever is indicated
• Leave of absence

Continue with these steps until the problem is solved or until you determine that the supervisee's position must be terminated (Falender, 2010). All steps must be carefully documented.