Sheperis (2009) Analysis of when supervisees self-reported secure levels; Limitations: adapted wording on RQ to reflect 0.229***(time 1) ηp2= variance; rather than insecure supervision-specific power differential in supervisory relationship may have 0.116** (time 2) insecure attachment (across time and artificially inflated fearful attachment. experience levels) Shaffer (2015) Regression Working alliance ratings were higher Strengths: first extensive use of the Relational Behavior Large. R2= 0.38***; r = analysis; when supervisors were perceived to use Scale; Limitations: artificial inflation of association due 0.62*** correlation relational behaviours (supervisee same supervisors reported on analysis attachment style non-significant). Structural Supervisory alliance ratings were lower Strengths: investigated whether attachment style and Medium. - 0.15* Smothers (2010) β= equation when supervisees self-reported higher alliance ratings varies between ethnic groups; modelling insecure anxious general attachment Limitations: unclear if non-significant finding is due to scores. Avoidant attachment avoidance of negative feelings Path analysis; of the Strengths: model with good fit; Limitations: Large. r= 0.92*** Spelliscy (2007) Supervisees’ perception correlation style as attractive, warm social desirability bias leading to low level of Cr = 30.95*** (path supervisor’s analysis and interpersonally sensitive predicted insecure attachment and non-correlations with coefficient; supervisory the supervisory alliance (supervisee alliance style and alliance) attachment style non-significant). Tsong (2004) Multiple The best predictor of the supervisory Strengths: explored role of supervisor; Limitations: no Large. R2= 0.581* regression alliance (bond) was supervisor data/perspective; unknown response rates supervisees’ analysis perception of the ability to supervisors’ affect their personal growth. Supervisor attachment Armoutliev (2015) Hierarchical Supervisor self-reported general Strengths: considered supervisor attachment and their Medium. R2= 0.14***; β= multiple attachment style was unrelated to perspective of the supervisory alliance; Limitations: - 0.34*** regression supervisor care giving style or small sample size; variance in care giving style analysis supervisory style (both conducive to a explained by supervisory style was fairly small positive supervisory relationship); Supervisory style was found to explain significant variance in care giving style and thus the relationship
Sheperis (2009) Analysis of variance; when supervisees self-reported secure rather than insecure supervision-specific insecure attachment (across time and experience levels) levels; Limitations: adapted wording on RQ to reflect power differential in supervisory relationship may have artificially inflated fearful attachment. 0.229***(time 1) ηp2= 0.116** (time 2) Shaffer (2015) Regression analysis; correlation analysis Working alliance ratings were higher when supervisors were perceived to use relational behaviours (supervisee attachment style non-significant). Strengths: first extensive use of the Relational Behavior Scale; Limitations: artificial inflation of association due same supervisors reported on Large. R2= 0.38***; r = 0.62*** Smothers (2010) Structural equation modelling Supervisory alliance ratings were lower when supervisees self-reported higher insecure anxious general attachment scores. Avoidant attachment Strengths: investigated whether attachment style and alliance ratings varies between ethnic groups; Limitations: unclear if non-significant finding is due to avoidance of negative feelings Medium. β= - 0.15* Spelliscy (2007) Path analysis; correlation analysis Supervisees’ perception of the supervisor’s style as attractive, warm and interpersonally sensitive predicted the supervisory alliance (supervisee attachment style non-significant). Strengths: model with good fit; Limitations: social desirability bias leading to low level of insecure attachment and non-correlations with alliance Large. r= 0.92*** Cr = 30.95*** (path coefficient; supervisory style and alliance) Tsong (2004) Multiple regression analysis The best predictor of the supervisory alliance (bond) was supervisees’ perception of the supervisors’ ability to affect their personal growth. Strengths: explored role of supervisor; Limitations: no supervisor data/perspective; unknown response rates Large. R2= 0.581* Supervisor attachment Armoutliev (2015) Hierarchical multiple regression analysis Supervisor self-reported general attachment style was unrelated to supervisor care giving style or supervisory style (both conducive to a positive supervisory relationship); Supervisory style was found to explain significant variance in care giving style and thus the relationship Strengths: considered supervisor attachment and their perspective of the supervisory alliance; Limitations: small sample size; variance in care giving style explained by supervisory style was fairly small Medium. R2= 0.14***; β= - 0.34***
Ethesis%201.docx