variance; when supervisors were perceived to supervisee perspective of supervisor general correlation have lower insecure general attachment attachment; no supervisor perspective analysis; scores; supervisee attachment did not predict the alliance Epps (2000) Analysis of Supervisory alliance ratings were higher Strengths: looked at both supervisor and supervisee aNR Variance when supervisees self-reported secure attachment styles and their perspectives of the alliance; general attachment styles, regardless of Limitations: no report of supervisor experience level the attachment style; which may confound relationship between attachment supervisor’s supervisor alliance ratings were not and alliance associated with either self-reported attachment style or supervisee attachment style Multivariate Supervisory alliance ratings were Strengths: explored the dyadic nature of supervisor and Medium. = 0.08 Hartig (2004) ηp2 analysis of higher when supervisees self-reported supervisee attachment styles; Limitations: supervisor variance secure general attachment styles, supervision experience may have confounded regardless of the relationship between attachment and alliance supervisor’s attachment style; supervisor alliance ratings were not associated with either self-reported attachment style or supervisee attachment style Riggs & Bretz Multivariate Supervisory alliance ratings were higher Strengths: considered attachment style of supervisor and Large. = 0.17** ηp2 (2006) analysis of from the perspectives of supervisees supervisee; more heterogeneous sample; Limitations: variance when supervisors were perceived to only perception; 50% return rate; only supervisee’s have a secure general attachment styles. included supervisees at an advanced level of training Supervisee attachment did not predict which may confound results the alliance Smith Hierarchical Supervisory alliance ratings were higher Strengths: measured supervising experience level and Medium. r= -0.33**/-0.32; (2009) multiple when supervisors and supervisees supervision length; first study to use large sample of Small. r= 0.23*/0.57**; regression secure general attachment UK Clinical Psychology Doctorate trainees and their Large. R2=42*** (overall analysis; styles (low anxiety and low avoidance supervisors; Limitations: Supervisor perception of model) correlation respectively) and supervisors supervisee style only; no measure of analysis an attractive supervisory style attachment; non peer-reviewed
variance; correlation analysis; when supervisors were perceived to have lower insecure general attachment scores; supervisee attachment did not predict the alliance supervisee perspective of supervisor general attachment; no supervisor perspective Epps (2000) Analysis of Variance Supervisory alliance ratings were higher when supervisees self-reported secure general attachment styles, regardless of the supervisor’s attachment style; supervisor alliance ratings were not associated with either self-reported attachment style or supervisee attachment style Strengths: looked at both supervisor and supervisee attachment styles and their perspectives of the alliance; Limitations: no report of supervisor experience level which may confound relationship between attachment and alliance aNR Hartig (2004) Multivariate analysis of variance Supervisory alliance ratings were higher when supervisees self-reported secure general attachment styles, regardless of the supervisor’s attachment style; supervisor alliance ratings were not associated with either self-reported attachment style or supervisee attachment style Strengths: explored the dyadic nature of supervisor and supervisee attachment styles; Limitations: supervisor supervision experience may have confounded relationship between attachment and alliance Medium. ηp2 = 0.08 Riggs & Bretz (2006) Multivariate analysis of variance Supervisory alliance ratings were higher from the perspectives of supervisees when supervisors were perceived to have a secure general attachment styles. Supervisee attachment did not predict the alliance Strengths: considered attachment style of supervisor and supervisee; more heterogeneous sample; Limitations: only supervisee’s perception; 50% return rate; only included supervisees at an advanced level of training which may confound results Large. ηp2 = 0.17** Smith (2009) Hierarchical multiple regression analysis; correlation analysis Supervisory alliance ratings were higher when supervisors and supervisees secure general attachment styles (low anxiety and low avoidance respectively) and supervisors an attractive supervisory style Strengths: measured supervising experience level and supervision length; first study to use large sample of UK Clinical Psychology Doctorate trainees and their supervisors; Limitations: Supervisor perception of supervisee style only; no measure of attachment; non peer-reviewed Medium. r= -0.33**/-0.32; Small. r= 0.23*/0.57**; Large. R2=42*** (overall model)