Pelling and Renard (1999)

If one takes the term literally, to supervise someone means to oversee them, manage them, and control them. If this is the only purpose of supervision then the use of videotape within supervision seems entirely appropriate, as one can scarcely imagine a more effective means of “overseeing” a supervisee than recording their every move and utterance. However, one can also view supervision in a more expansive manner in which supervisors have many functions. For instance, Bernard & Goodyear (1992) define supervision as

In regards to the developmental function of supervision, the Integrated Developmental Model developed by Stoltenberg & Delworth (1987) has become one of the most well known and used models of counselor development. This Integrated Developmental Model (IDM) describes counselor development as progressing through various stages to increasing levels of complexity and sophistication. There are four levels, starting with the beginning Level I therapist and ending with the most complex and integrated Level III-I therapist. Stoltenberg & Delworth (1987) conceptualize counselor development, and thus increases in competence and complexity, in terms of eight specific domains of professional functioning and three overriding structures that characterize therapist development. The eight domains of professional functioning addressed by the model are: intervention skills, assessment techniques, interpersonal assessment, client conceptualization, individual differences, theoretical orientation, treatment goals and plans, and professional ethics. The three overriding structures are motivation, self-other awareness, and dependency/autonomy (Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987). Two strengths of the Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987) IDM model are that it supports a strategic needs-based approach to supervision and indicates specific areas for immediate focus within supervision. Thus, the model prescribes a supervision that gives supervisees what they need to further their development by indicating to supervisors a framework from which they can plan their specific supervisory interventions.

How appropriate is the use of videotape in supervision if one takes a more expansive view of supervision? Can videotape be used for more than mere monitoring? More specifically, can videotape actually help develop junior counselors? The present paper argues that videotape can be used to monitor, evaluate, and develop the competence of new counselors if used in a purposeful manner based on theoretical assumptions.

This paper explores the use of videotape in supervision in a threefold manner. First, the past use of audio and videotape in supervision is reviewed. Second, the pros and cons of using videotape in supervision are outlined. Third, how videotape can be used in service of supervision goals is presented. Finally, a model indicating how videotape can be specifically used to aid in counselor development, utilizing the Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987) model, will be presented.

Since the advent of reasonably accessible recording technology, the potential for its use in therapy supervision and training has been explored. One of the first to highlight some of the advantages of recording and replaying therapy sessions for supervision purposes was Carl Rogers (1942). Since the early use of video and audio in supervision many have continued to use technology to aid their supervisory efforts. Indeed, video is now said to be the most widely used supervision modality (Romans, Boswell, Carlozzi, & Ferguson, 1995). However, the use of video playback as a stand-alone intervention is not recommended (Dowrick, 1991), and various authors have also developed guidelines for the use of technology within supervision. A number of authors have proposed guidelines for the use of video/audio in supervision (Aponte & Lyons, 1980; Aveline, 1997; Berger, 1978; Bernard, 1997; Bernard and Goodyear, 1992; Feltham and Dryden, 1994; Goldberg, 1983; Goodyear and Nelson, 1997; Horton & Bayne, 1996; Liddle, Becker, & Diamond, 1997; Liese and Beck, 1997; Mahrer and Boulet, 1997; Mead, 1990; Rice, 1980). Most of these guideline sets are technique-based and not integrated into a larger theory base for the use of the video and audiotaping. Often the technology of video and audiotape are viewed as worthwhile activities in and of themselves and not as tools serving greater supervisory aims.

In contrast to the above-mentioned collection of tips for the use of audio and videotape, Kagan has developed a structured process and theoretical framework for the use of audio/video in supervision, Interpersonal Process Recall (Kagan, 1978, 1980; Kagan & Kagan, 1997). The Interpersonal Process Recall method has been viewed as “one of the clearly delineated methods of supervision taught in supervision courses” (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992, p. 61) and thus is very popular. This model has been partly responsible for the wide use of videotaping in supervision as “The Interpersonal Process Recall method (Kagan, 1976) is the most widely taught set of guidelines for using videotape” (Goodyear & Nelson, 1997, p. 335). The model has also been researched extensively and applied in a variety of settings (Kagan & Kagan, 1997).

The Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) model itself proposes that examining the underlying thoughts and feelings that occur during a verbal interaction can develop deeper conceptual functioning in a trainee. As many are aware, in the Interpersonal Process Recall model a videotaped interaction is reviewed, with the trainee controlling the playback and the supervisor assuming a prescribed role as inquirer. The supervisor thus helps the trainee to investigate his/her own thoughts, feelings, dynamics, and conceptualizations regarding the taped viewed interaction (Kagan & Kagan, 1997). Clarke (1997) describes Interpersonal Process Recall as an egalitarian strategy which focuses on the trainee’s inner experience during therapy.

Due to the dearth of comprehensive models for the use of audio/video tapes in supervision, supervisors who wish to use audio/video tape review in their supervision have had to choose to invent their own wheel for the use of audio/video in supervision, draw from one of the various lists of guidelines published to aid one in their use of audio/video in supervision, or adopt the Interpersonal Process Recall model. While the Interpersonal Process Recall model has its advantages, it has two significant drawbacks. First, it focuses almost exclusively on the trainee’s perceptions of the interpersonal relationship. Second, the role of the supervisor is tightly constrained, thus not allowing for much personalization of the supervision based on the developmental needs of the trainee. Consequently, the trainees’ needs related to the full range of counselor competence might not be addressed, and the supervisor may not utilize flexible roles and intervention strategies during video-supervision. Still, many supervisors routinely use audio and videotape in their supervision activities.

The advantages of audio/video use in supervision can be grouped into four main categories. The main advantages include a high level of accuracy of observations, a high level of detail regarding therapist and client interactions, its potential for enhancement of supervisory processes, and the easy accessibility of audio/video materials.

The most frequently cited advantage of using audio/video playback in supervision is the level of objectivity that recorded sessions provide (Aveline, 1997; Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Binder & Strupp, 1997; Feltham & Dryden, 1994; Goldberg, 1983; Liddle, Becker, & Diamond, 1997; Liese & Beck, 1997; Wetchler, Trepper, McCollum, & Nelson, 1993). This increased objectivity relative to therapist verbal report based on recollections is likely to have a greater level of fidelity; it provides direct evidence of what has actually occurred in session (Feltham & Dryden, 1994). As a result, the accuracy and reliability of the supervisor’s awareness of the progress of therapy and the therapist is increased. This increased fidelity may increase the supervisor’s ability to evaluate the technical skills of therapists (Aveline, 1997). Moreover, the supervisor can assist the therapist to identify their cognitive filters (Aveline, 1997; Liese & Beck, 1997). Thus, biases that may be operating and are negatively affecting the therapist’s work can be identified and addressed by the supervisor. Consequently, the quality of therapy to the client can be enhanced. Videotaped or live observation of therapy sessions is thus often recommended/required to increase accuracy within supervision (Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987).

The use of videotape review allows access to a large amount of data. The level of detail available to the supervisor provides many and varied opportunities for work in supervision. For instance, both verbal and nonverbal behaviors can be discussed (Goodyear & Nelson, 1997). Identifying incongruities between verbal and nonverbal behaviors becomes possible (Kramer & Reitz, 1980). Micro analysis of key moments of the session is also possible as one can rewind and review specific aspects of each taped session (Aveline, 1997; Mead, 1990). As a result, specific feedback can be provided to therapists and may help to focus the supervisory session on needed remedial work. In other words, videotape allows for a greater level of detail to be attended to regarding content. In addition, a focus on process dynamics may be enhanced as the supervisor may be able to see such dynamics actually enacted on film (Aveline, 1997; Everett, 1980; Rice, 1980).

The supervisory process may also be enhanced via the use of videotape in supervision. The supervisor may have a greater understanding of the client’s emotion and demeanor by being able to repeatedly view the session. This practice, in turn, may increase the supervisor’s involvement in the supervision experience (Aveline, 1997). The time-removed nature of videotape also may allow therapists to become more objective and thus able to reflect on their recent therapy experience. This increased objectivity may encourage a greater level of participation in the supervisory experience and an ability to benefit from the feedback received.

Video equipment is easily accessible to many people due to its increasing affordability. Moreover, such equipment has become easier to use and smaller in size. In addition, as the general public has increased access to such equipment one could posit that they are likely to be becoming more comfortable with such equipment and thus present less resistance to videotaping. An additional advantage is convenience, because the session can be viewed at the supervisor’s leisure (Mead, 1990). Thus, scheduling difficulties that can occur when one tries to get a busy client, therapist, and supervisor together at the same time can be circumvented.

Although many writers indicate that using videotape in supervision can have benefits, there are some difficulties with the use of videotape in supervision. These difficulties can be grouped into four main categories which are as follows: resistance to taping, distortion of the supervision process, a disruption of the counseling relationship, and technical difficulties.

Resistance to taping has occurred at the client, therapist, and supervisory level (Goldberg, 1983; Goodyear & Nelson, 1997). Some fear that client privacy might suffer (Aveline, 1997; Goldberg, 1983). However, many indicate that client resistance can be lowered if taping occurs on a regular basis and from early on in therapy with the client’s consent and understanding that it is for the therapist’s betterment (Aveline, 1997). Supervisor resistance may be more related to technophobia and the time involved with the use of videotaping. Moreover, the lack of a coherent framework or purpose for using video may contribute to supervisor resistance for those who do not wish to rely on videotaping to such a degree as required by the Interpersonal Process Recall model. The largest amount of resistance to taping appears to stem from the therapists-in-training themselves. This resistance is most likely related to anxiety, vulnerability, a risk to one’s self image, and the evaluation function of supervision (Aveline, 1997; Dowrick, 1991; Goldberg, 1983; Goodyear & Nelson, 1997; Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987).

The videotaping and reviewing of therapy sessions may distort the process of supervision and interfere with the supervisory relationship. The use of videotape requires time outside of the therapy and supervision meetings to review tapes. Moreover, time within the supervisory meeting might be used more effectively by discussing specific matters directly with trainees. This drawback is especially true whenever videotapes are viewed passively, without a specific supervisory purpose in mind (Goldberg, 1985, as cited in West, Bubenzer, Pinsoneault, & Holeman, 1993). Specifically, video review may encourage an overemphasis on microscopic therapy occurrences to the exclusion of case conceptualization, process discussions, or the generalization of skills (Aveline, 1997; Feltham & Dryden, 1994; Goldberg, 1983). In addition, the need to focus supervisory tape review is supported by learning-theory-based research that finds that overly attending to well-established skills leads to deterioration in performance (Dowrick, 1991) and thus should be avoided. Moreover, there is a danger that supervision may be reduced to mere case consultation if supervision consists mostly of videotape review (Goldberg, 1983). In addition, the ability of the supervisory relationship to be a modeling and experiential experience demonstrating interactive skills will be lowered if supervisor/supervisee interactions are limited to mere videotape review. Finally, the sheer quantity of data can create data overload and thus make it difficult to focus supervisory sessions. Indeed, a chief risk of using video in supervision is that the technology may dominate rather than serve the supervisory process.

Recording therapy sessions always impacts therapy (Aveline, 1997). This impact may be particularly negative if the client exhibits paranoid traits or exhibitionistic tendencies. The way the client acts within session may also be affected by the existence of an imaginary audience which may become the “object of projections” and an excuse for resistance (Aveline, 1997, p. 87). Although some have written about videotaping as an intrusion into the sanctity of the counseling relationship, this concern is often offset by actively involving the client in taping decisions (Aveline, 1997; Goldberg, 1983; Shipton, 1997).

As noted above, the time required to set-up recording and review videotapes can be a barrier to videotape use in supervision. The initial purchase of equipment and maintenance of same can be costly, depending on the quality of machinery purchased. Logistical problems may arise from the ethical necessities of providing secure storage for tapes and ensuring client confidentiality (Aveline, 1997; Goldberg, 1983; Goodyear & Nelson, 1997). It is also important that trainees be trained to use the equipment, explain the purposes to clients, resolve ethical concerns around session recording, and learn to decrease their self-consciousness and anxiety around its use (Feltham & Dryden, 1994).

As outlined at the beginning of the present paper, supervision has three main functions: monitoring, evaluation, and counselor development. Thus, the use of videotape in supervision should support these functions. As indicated in the immediately preceding section, the use of videotape itself also has many advantages and disadvantages. Specifically, videotape can be said to have some supporting and distracting qualities in regards to the monitoring, evaluation, and developmental functions of supervision.

The main advantage of videotape in supervision is the reality, fidelity, and accuracy of the medium. Next to live supervision, videotape is the most direct manner of ensuring clients are receiving the best therapy possible. By viewing a videotaped session the supervisor is in a position to monitor the techniques, judgement, and self-report accuracy of the clinician (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992; Everett, 1980; Feltham & Dryden, 1994; Lair, 1980; Liese & Beck, 1997; Mead, 1990; Norcross & Halgin, 1997; Rice, 1980). In addition, counselor biases and conceptualization difficulties may be easily exposed via direct or videotaped observation (Bernard, 1997). As stated by Norcross and Halgin (1997, p. 215), “Despite their initial anxiety, supervisees appreciate our reliance on more than their edited verbal reports about what transpired during their psychotherapy contacts. We find that recordings and direct observation offer excellent opportunities for the supervisor to be in touch with the proceedings of the therapy.” This belief is also echoed by Leddick and Dye (1987) as well as Bernard (1997) who indicates that,

As noted previously, videotaping always has an effect on the therapy relationship and on the individual counselor being taped. The potential negative effects, however, may best be offset via early and consistent use of recording in a context which emphasizes confidentiality and therapist growth (Aveline, 1997). Positive effects may also be realized as some clients may view recording as representing therapist concern and interest as well as an opportunity for the client to reciprocate helpfulness (Aveline, 1997).

Finally, while the use of videotape may be convenient for some the viewing and preparing of tapes can cause difficulties as well. For instance, one must ensure confidentiality and take the time needed to prepare tapes. In addition, one could also conceivably view each and every therapy session for those therapists having difficulty or especially fragile clients.

The evaluation function of supervision can be enhanced via the use of videotaping in a manner similar to that of monitoring. By having a more realistic basis for evaluation than self reporting the supervisor may be better able to evaluate the skills and abilities of the therapist. Moreover, the greater level of specificity and access to a full range of therapist performance variables provides a basis for a detailed and rich supervision experience. However, as so much detail is available on videotape it is possible that supervisors and their supervisees may become lost in the minutiae of the counseling session and thus ignore larger conceptual issues and process dynamics (Aveline, 1997; Feltham & Dryden, 1994; West, 1993; Goldberg, 1983).

There are two main ways that videotape can uniquely support therapist development. First, as previously indicated, the fact that the supervisor can view the clients’ expressions and hear their words may make the client’s experience more real to the supervisor and thus increase the involvement of the supervisor in the supervision. Second, the unique ability to stop, rewind, and replay items on videotape provides training opportunities and teachable moments. Related to the specific advantages and disadvantages of video use as outlined above, other issues involved in the supervision function of counselor development include the therapist’s anxiety and resistance, execution of specific techniques, overall conceptualization and process of therapy, and consistency across sessions and across clients.

We propose that the developmental function of supervision can be even further supported via the use of videotape if videotape use is integrated into a developmental model of supervision and thus is used as a technique supporting specific developmental objectives. This approach is in contrast to the use of videotape in a haphazard manner without theoretical rationale or the Interpersonal Process Recall model which focuses on the inner experience of the therapist. The need to integrate videotape into supervision is clearly evident given that approximately two-thirds of supervisors utilize, in some shape or form, video recordings of supervisees in their supervision and videotape use is stated to be the most widely used and valued modality of supervision (Goodyear & Nelson, 1997; Romans, Boswell, Carlozzi, & Ferguson, 1995).

Whereas there are a number of resources which outline tips for the use of videotape in supervision there are few models for the use of videotape that are integrated into a conceptual framework. We agree with Liddle, Becker, and Diamond (1997) that videotape should be used differently at different stages of counselor development and that the use of audio and videotape should be purposeful not random (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992). What follows is how we have chosen to theoretically integrate the use of videotape into the Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987) developmental model of counseling supervision. It is our hope that this conceptualization will aid counselor development in a more systematic and thus efficient manner than a hodgepodge of tips and techniques for the use of videotape in supervision.

Videotape review in supervision should be conducted in a manner that fosters the development of the trainee. Thus, the specific developmental needs of the trainee serve as the basis for the supervisor’s selection of when and how to use video supervision. We are suggesting that supervisors organize their thinking about the existing hodge-podge of guidelines and tips according to the specific utility of the video method for developmental intervention. The following discussion will indicate some of the relevant factors for strategic use of video in supervision according to the IDM model of counselor development proposed by Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987).

Level I Supervisees. According to Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987), beginning counselors are highly dependent upon supervisors for information and direction; they also tend to be highly motivated and quite anxious, which corresponds with a strong focus on themselves. Consequently supervisors can help reduce anxiety and provide direction both in the supervision session and in the upcoming therapy session by taking responsibility for directing the video review. The specific focus and discussion around videotapes should address the supervisor’s conception of what “next steps” the trainees needs to take—what techniques are to be used, how well they are executed, and how comfortable the trainee is with the client. Thus, one recommendation is that videotape be used by supervisors at the onset of the supervisory relationship so that the supervisor can assess the trainees’ developmental level and specific competencies based on actual performance (Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987).

Given that Level I trainees are relatively unskilled across the various domains (i.e., intervention, assessment techniques, interpersonal assessment, client conceptualization, individual differences, theoretical orientation, treatment planning and goals, and professional ethics), the likelihood of being overwhelmed by details and unable to identify focus areas is present. Consequently, the supervisor should take the initiative to prioritize and focus the supervisory sessions and the feedback/discussion that occurs based on the videotapes. Dowrick (1991) recommends the Positive Self-Review approach for trainees at a low skill level. In this technique one prioritizes goals among desirable skills that occur infrequently; specific focus and practice prior to the next taping helps to ensure improved performance. Although allowing the trainee to select video sections for supervision may lower anxiety somewhat, it may be of more benefit for the supervisor to take greater control of the focus when viewing and discussing videotapes in supervisory sessions at this point in development. Supervisors may wish to view tapes before meeting with trainees, in order to gather data and assess the therapist’s performance in ways that provide the basis for selected supervisory interventions (with or without actually viewing tapes in the supervision session).

Regarding anxiety and self-consciousness, supervisors can address these issues through encouraging early and consistent use of videotaping, discussion of well executed and improving skills as well as those in need of improvement, and by providing videotapes of their own performance to model realistic performance (Goldberg, 1983; Goodyear & Nelson, 1997). It is important to focus on positive performance and improvements as well as remedial aspects in order to build confidence and maintain gains (Dowrick, 1991).

Level II Supervisees. Level II trainees are characterized by improved skills across the range of counselor competencies, along with an increased focus on the client, ambivalence about dependency and autonomy in relation to the supervisor, and fluctuating levels of motivation. Stoltenberg and McNeill (1997) state that the use of video monitoring is especially important for Level II trainees, due to their tendency to focus on aspects of performance that show them in the best possible light. The combination of increased autonomy and decreased self-awareness at this stage renders video or live observation an essential activity if accurate monitoring and evaluation are to occur. Best practices at this stage may entail a combination of trainee-selected videotape passages, due to their ambivalence about dependence, but the supervisor should also randomly select a passage for review. The supervisor may want to attend carefully to fluctuations in the trainee’s self-confidence, and thus provide a balance of positive and critical feedback. As Level II counselors are likely to experience inconsistent skill performance and thus self doubts, Positive Self-Review as presented by Dowrick (1991) may be helpful when there has been a decrease in the level of skills, confidence, or motivation compared with prior levels of performance to help bolster confidence and performance.

It may also be beneficial to at least occasionally view larger sections of tape to assist in further development of skills in case conceptualization, treatment plan follow-through, session flow and emerging patterns, and integration of technique with theory. Also, at this stage, the IPR model may be particularly useful, as its emphasis on the trainee’s inner experience may counterbalance the trainee’s tendency to overly focus on client’s experience.

Level III Supervisees (and Beyond). Increased skill levels across domains, along with flexibility and balance in motivation, autonomy, and awareness characterize the Level III counselor/trainee. Occasional use of video review may still be warranted, for the monitoring purposes. As counselors extend their range of practice, they may also benefit from focused viewing and opportunities for specific feedback on their efforts to implement new techniques. Trainee selection of focus and specific tape segments is appropriate for developmental aims, but random spot checking by the supervisor can serve the monitoring or evaluative functions of supervision. Even the most experienced therapists may benefit from occasional viewing by self or others, to provide an objective assessment and provide for more in-depth consideration of issues of interest (Bernard, 1997).

We believe that supervision should be guided by theory; specifically, we support the Integrated Developmental Model for supervision (Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987; see also Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998 which expands the IDM model yet remains consistent with the premises set forth in this paper). Consequently, we believe that the use of videotape should support the developmental aims of supervision and not usurp the basic purposes of supervision and thus become the sole focus of the supervisory sessions. We believe that videotape should be used purposefully and sparingly. As Berger (1978) wrote more than twenty years ago, “Like certain pharmaceuticals which work well in small doses but not in larger ones, videotape playbacks used judiciously in . . . training . . . can be of great value if not used for too long a period continuously” (p. 41). The use of video in supervision rather than its use as supervision may be seen as somewhat parallel to the movement toward integrative therapy. As discussed by Norcross and Halgin (1997),

Now that our position has been clearly stated, we suggest that the use of videotape in supervision be researched more thoroughly as many questions remain unanswered. For instance, we do not know how counselor trainees and supervisors might react to the use of videotape in developmentally based supervision, how supervisors actually utilize technology in their supervision activities, and how counselor trainees view the use of such technology by their supervisors. How the use of such technology actually affects supervisory processes and counseling outcomes is also largely unknown. In our technologically driven society we often take the benefits of such technology for granted when in reality research is needed to clarify the effects of our use of technology in many areas.

In summary, we would like to reiterate that technology can be a wonderful thing, but in and of itself it is not supervision. This is an idea endorsed by Aveline (1997) and as stated by Taylor (1985) “No matter how wonderful the technology, the benefit of videotaping as a training tool is still dependent upon the criteria that a reviewer or supervisor will use when critiquing the videotape that has been produced.” (p. 121).

Aponte, J. F. & Lyons, M. J. (1980). Supervision in community settings: Concepts methods and issues. In A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 381-406). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Aveline, M. (1997). The use of audiotapes in supervision of psychotherapy. In G. Shipton (Ed.), Supervision of psychotherapy and counselling: Making a place to think (pp. 80-92). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Baranchok, J. S., & Kunkel, M. A. (1990). Clinical supervision in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 18, 685-687.

Berger, M. M. (Ed.). (1978). Videotape techniques in psychiatric training and treatment (Rev. ed.). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Bernard, J. M. (1997). The discrimination model. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 310-327). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R.K. (1992). Fundamentals of clinical supervision. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Binder, J. L., & Strupp, H. H. (1997). Supervision of psychodynamic psychotherapies. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 44-62). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Clarke, P. (1997). Interpersonal process recall in supervision. In G. Shipton (Ed.), Supervision of psychotherapy and counselling: Making a place to think (pp. 93-104). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Dowrick, P. W.(Ed.).(1991).Practical guide to using video in the behavioral sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Everett, C. A. (1980). Supervision of marriage and family therapy. In A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 367-380). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Feltham, C., & Dryden, W. (1994). Developing counsellor supervision. London: Sage.

Goldberg, D. A.(1983). Resistance to the use of video in individual psychotherapy training. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 1172-1176.

Goldberg, D. A. (1985). Process notes, audio, and videotape: Modes of presentation in psychotherapy training. The Clinical Supervisor, 3, 3-13.

Goodyear, R. K., & Nelson, M. L. (1997). The major formats of psychotherapy supervision. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 328-343). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Horton, I., & Bayne, R. (1996). Audio-tape recordings in counsellor education and training. In S. Palmer, S. Dainow, & P. Milner (Eds.), Counselling: The BAC CounsellingReader (pp. 470-473). London: Sage.

Kagan, N. (1978). Interpersonal Process Recall: Media in clinical and human interaction supervision. In M.M. Berger (Ed.), Videotape techniques in psychiatric training and treatment (Rev. ed.) (pp. 70-84). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Kagan, N. (1980). Influencing human interaction—eighteen years with IPR. In A. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 262-283). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kagan, N., & Kagan, H. (1991). Interpersonal process recall. In P. Dowrick (Ed.), Practical guide to using video in the behavioral sciences (pp. 221-230). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kagan, H., & Kagan, N. (1997). Interpersonal Process Recall: Influencing human interaction. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 296-309). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kramer, J. R., & Reitz, M. (1980). Using video playback to train family therapists. Family Process, 19, 145-150.

Lair, C. V. (1980). Geropsychotherapy: Training and supervision. In A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 323-334). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Leddick, G. R., & Dye, H. A. (1987). Effective supervision as portrayed by trainee expectations and preferences. Counselor Education and Supervision, 27,139-154.

Liddle, H. A., Becker, D., & Diamond, G. M. (1997). Family therapy supervision. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 400-420). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Liese, B.S., & Beck, J. S. (1997). Cognitive therapy supervision. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 114-133). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mahrer, A. R., & Boulet, D. B. (1997). The experiential model of on-the-job teaching. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 164-183).New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mead, D. E. (1990). Effective supervision: A task-oriented model for the mental health professions. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Norcross, J. C., & Halgin, R. P. (1997). Integrative approaches to psychotherapy supervision. In C.E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 203-222). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rice, L. N. (1980). A client-centered approach to the supervision of psychotherapy. In A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 136-147). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rogers, C. R. (1942). The use of electrically recorded interviews in improving psychotherapeutic techniques. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 12, 429-434.

Romans, J. S. C., Boswell, D. L., Carlozzi, A. F., & Ferguson, D. B. (1995). Training and supervision practices in clinical, counseling, and school psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 407-412.

Shipton, G. (1997). Introduction. In G. Shipton (Ed.), Supervision of psychotherapy and counselling: Making a place to think (pp. 1-7). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Shipton, G.(Ed.). (1997). Supervision of psychotherapy and counselling: Making a place to think. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Stoltenberg, C. D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists: A developmental approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stoltenberg, C. D., & McNeill, B. W. (1997). Clinical supervision from a developmental perspective: Research and practice. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 184-202). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM supervision: An integrated developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, A. (1985). Technology and mediator training: Using videotaping for experiential learning.Journal of Divorce, 8 (3-4), 119-130.

Watkins, C. E., Jr. (Ed.). (1997). Handbook of psychotherapy supervision. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

West, J. S., Bubenzer, D. L., Pinsoneault, T., & Holeman, V. (1993). Three supervision modalities for training marital and family counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 33, 127-138.

Wetchler, J. L., Trepper, T. S., McCollum, E. E., & Nelson, T. S.(1993). Videotape supervision via long-distance telephone. American Journal of Family Therapy, 21, 242-247.