Identifying and Responding to Problematic

School Psychology Supervisees:

The Evaluation Process
and Issues of Impairment
Douglas H. Lamb
Mark E. Swerdlik

ABSTRACT. Identifying and responding to problematic supervisee be-

havior in a practice setting is a difficult challenge for clinical supervisors.
This article identifies trainee transitions associated with shifting from an
academic to a practice setting, as well as suggestions on how training per-
sonnel can address transition stresses. Then, several conceptual, proce-
dural, and format considerations associated with the evaluation of school
psychology trainees and postgraduate supervisees are described. Profes-
sional impairment is then defined and distinguished from problematic
behavior. Setting expectations, trainee rights, and other due process consid-
erations are then reviewed. Finally, issues associated with responding to im-
pairment are described, including proactive measures designed to minimize
difficulties with the evaluation process. [Article copies available for a fee
from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail
address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.
com> © 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Trainee impairment, trainee evaluation, supervision of

school psychologists

Douglas H. Lamb, PhD, and Mark E. Swerdlik, PhD, are affiliated with Illinois
State University.
Address correspondence to: Douglas Lamb, Illinois State University, Department of
Psychology, Campus Box 4620, Normal, IL 61790-4620 (E-mail: dhlamb@ilstu.edu).
The Clinical Supervisor, Vol. 22(1) 2003
http://www.haworthpress.com/web/CS
 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J001v22n01_07 87
88 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

School psychology training sites (practica placements, internships)

have the responsibility to assess the progress of their trainees. Such as-
sessment also occurs during the first year of independent practice and is
designed to insure that entry-level qualifications are translated into on-
going competency in the provision of school psychological services
(NASP, 2000, p. 47). The primary purpose of these assessments, re-
gardless of when they occur relative to graduate education, is to facili-
tate professional growth in a continuous and timely fashion, as well as
to insure that the programs (or practice sites) achieve their educational
objectives and produce competent professionals.
As such, it is important to have meaningful evaluation procedures in
place as well as to train competent supervisors. Yet evaluation and super-
vision guidelines for school psychology trainees are limited (Hunley,
Curtis, & Batsche, 2002). Most university graduate faculty, training site
supervisors, and supervising school psychologists have received little or
no formal academic training in supervision (Crespi & Fischetti, 1997;
Harvey & Struzziero, 2000; Knoff, 1986; Ward, 1999; Ward & Ward,
2000; Zins, Murphy, & Wess, 1989).
Yet despite the limited availability of information on school psychol-
ogy evaluation procedures and supervision models, school psycholo-
gists are routinely placed in supervisory roles. Their supervisees are
exposed, in various training sites, to clinical experiences that are gradu-
ated in difficulty and complexity. These students, now pre-professional
trainees, are involved in applying the skills learned in the classroom to
challenging school, agency, and psychoeducational/clinical situations.
Supervision is often intense, concentrated, and frequent. The explicit
evaluative nature of supervision is likely to increase the trainee’s sense
of personal and professional vulnerability. Further, the supervision ex-
perience may reveal problematic or even impaired trainee behavior, and
training personnel must respond to this situation.
While training sites provide critical opportunities for trainees to learn
and refine skills and to develop a greater sense of professional confi-
dence, such experiences heighten the stress, scrutiny, and evaluation is-
sues for the supervisees. This article addresses the transition issues
associated with students moving from an academic to a practice setting;
it further presents a model of evaluation, which is designed to be re-
sponsive to problematic and impaired trainees in the context of appro-
priate due process procedures. Specifically, five dimensions associated with
the evaluation of school psychology trainees are highlighted: (1) identifying
transitions associated with shifting from an academic to a practice set-
ting, (2) discussing conceptual, procedural, and format considerations
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 89

associated with the evaluation of school psychology supervisees, (3) defin-

ing problematic and impaired functioning, and developing due process
procedures for responding to supervisees who show characteristics of im-
paired professional functioning, (4) providing suggestions for respond-
ing to a supervisee once an impairment has been identified, including
remediation measures, and (5) presenting some ways to proactively pre-
vent or minimize supervisee difficulties associated with the evaluation
process. The issues addressed in this article are most applicable to grad-
uate training experiences (e.g., practica and internship sites), but are
also seen as applicable to evaluation issues associated with the supervi-
sion of entry-level school psychologists.

THE TRANSITION FROM CLASSROOM LEARNING

TO SUPERVISED SCHOOL-BASED/CLINICAL PRACTICE

School-Based/Clinical Practice

The transition from graduate classroom learning to supervised pro-

fessional practice has been identified as a critical passage, marking the
first clear opportunity to apply classroom learning to actual clinical
practice (e.g., Kaslow & Rice, 1985; Lamb, Baker, Jennings, & Yarris,
1982; Solway, 1985). In their review of developmental stresses impact-
ing the transition, Kaslow and Rice (1985) identified such stressors as
adjusting to a new program, developing a sense of trust in the train-
ing/supervisory staff, questioning one’s competence and dealing with
evaluation issues, taking risks to learn new skills, accurately assessing
one’s own strengths and weaknesses, and planning one’s professional
life after internship. Baron, Sekel, and Stott (1983) identified additional
stresses associated with this period of “excitement and stress” such as
modulating and clarifying role expectations, developing networks of
support, and dealing with overcommittment.
A final conceptualization of these stressors has been proposed by Sol-
way (1985), who identified three broad categories of stressors: (1) clini-
cal/supervision stressors (e.g., role shift from student to professional,
proving oneself again, developing new skills, dealing with different su-
pervisors), (2) institutional/organizational stresses (e.g., learning proce-
dures and policies, identify and dealing with institutional/organizational
norms, interacting with interdisciplinary staff, and (3) personal stresses
(e.g., losses associated with leaving graduate school, new residence, so-
cial network issues, change in financial status).
90 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

While the above stressors have been identified for supervisees in any
clinical setting, there are also additional challenges for school psychology
supervisees. For example, school psychology trainees within a single site
are typically small in number, thus providing limited opportunities for peer
support. In addition, trainees and entry-level professionals are often super-
vised by psychologists of diverse orientations as well as other professionals
outside their discipline (e.g., principals, directors of special education) who
may have differing expectations. Thus, an additional challenge is to adapt
to these unique supervisory perspectives. Finally, and in contrast to other
sites which have a number of available supervisors, school systems may be
limited to one or only a small number of supervisors, thus limiting the di-
versity of exposure important for professional growth.
In one of the few studies surveying the direct experience of supervisees
making the transition from student to trainee, Lamb, Anderson, Beebe,
Johnson, and Luppe (1990) sampled 270 psychology interns from 171
APA-accredited internships programs as to those factors which contrib-
uted to and reduced stress during their internship year. These factors, cat-
egorized by the authors based on the individual responses, are presented
in Table 1. Interns reported moderate levels of stress during the internship
year (3.22 on a five-point scale), and indicated an average of 2.46 stress
reducing factors, which were moderately effective (3.46) in reducing
their various stresses (see Table 1).
The results of this study suggest that interns view the transition from
graduate school to internship as moderately stressful. They identified
both personal (e.g., separation from support systems, dealing with cul-
tural/geographic changes, family problems, illnesses) and professional
(clinical work demands, setting policies/procedures, role change from
student to professional, uncertainty about future post-internship)
sources of stress. The primary stress reducing factor was the support
provided by the internship personnel, one’s own family, and previously
established friends. Other sources of stress reduction included involve-
ment in specific activities and developing new support systems.
The above findings suggest that school psychology training pro-
grams may more effectively address supervisee stress by (a) insuring
that supervisees have significant contact with a number of different
training personnel, and (b) providing early clarification of the structure,
expectations, policies, norms, and evaluation guidelines. Building in
structured opportunities for supervisees to have contacts with support
networks, as well as linking supervisees with potential activities which
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 91

TABLE 1. Stress Contributing and Stress Reducing Factors Associated with

the Internship Experience*

Contributing Factor (C) Times Mentioned Reducing Factor (R)

C No. (%) R No. (%)
I. General Adjustment 321 (44%) 191 (25%) I. Professional Support
and Change with Internship
(non-internship specific) • staff (50)
• separation from support • supervisor (37)
system (145) • structure (23)
• the move itself (66) • “good Match” (19)
• change in role of significant
other (12)
• difficulty finding living
arrangements (10)
II. Specific Adjustment 142 (20%) 185 (25%) II. Contact with Previous
and Change Support Group
(internship specific) • family (96)
• clinical work demand (36) • friends (64)
• policies, procedures, and
politics (34)
• type of setting (250)
• difficulty adjusting to
internship personnel (2)
III. Status Change 98 (14%) 136 (17%) III. Specific Activities Which
• financial change (83) Reduce Stress
• role change (student • cognitive strategies (30)
to professional) (13) • exercise (23)
• personal therapy (28) • social events (11)
IV. Unknown Future 66 (11%) 111 (15%) IV. Involvement with New
After Internship Support Systems
• interns (94)
• neighbors (14)
V. Highly Personal Life 55 (7%) 37 (.05%) V. Changes in Financial
• marital/family problems Status
(11)
• illness (7) • receiving aid from
• marriage (4) family (15)
• natural disasters (5) • increased combined
• pregnancy (4) salary (11)
VI. Academic Responsibilities 31 (4%) 11 (.01%) VI. Resolving Acting on
Dissertation/Research

* Table 1 presents factors in order of frequency/there is no implication that each contributing factor was
reduced by the corresponding reducing factor presented in parallel fashion.

Source: Lamb, D., Anderson, K., Beebe, B., Johnson, B., & Luppe, S. (1990). Factors which contribute
to and reduce stress during the pre-doctoral internship. Unpublished manuscript. Illinois State University,
Normal, IL.
92 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

may help them cope (e.g., psychotherapy, exercise programs, religious

activities), may also reduce overall stress.

Evaluation Procedures:
Conceptual Issues, General Guidelines,
and Specific Format Considerations

The discussion above has highlighted several developmental issues

that are inherent for school psychology supervisees as they make the
transition from graduate school to field placement and into their first
year of practice. Training programs can anticipate and respond to such
transition issues by providing various activities and opportunities for
supervisees to address such stresses.
There are aspects of the transition that also place the supervisee in a
more vulnerable position. They are exposed, often for the first time, to a
full (or nearly full) practice performing the various roles of the school
psychologist. In addition, they are expected to gradually assume more di-
verse, complex, and challenging roles and functions (e.g., carry fuller and
more challenging caseloads, respond to pupil/teacher/parent/family cri-
ses and school/agency requirements). Although such activities are pro-
fessionally exciting and rewarding, they can also elicit significant
personal and professional stress. Such stress is heightened by the fre-
quent, often intense, supervisee evaluation process coupled with the
supervisee’s awareness of the responsibility of the training pro-
gram/school district to assess professional functioning and provide feed-
back to academic programs. The next section of this article describes
several general components of the evaluation process followed by a pro-
posed general model for evaluation including specific evaluative criteria.

Definitional and Supervisory Considerations Associated

with Evaluation

One universal component of best practices in school psychology is

the application of a meaningful evaluation system to all aspects of a pro-
gram’s goals and objectives. The APA accreditation criteria (2001) and
the NASP Standards for Training and Field Placement Programs in
School Psychology (NASP, 2000) have now focused more specifically
on a “measurable outcomes” orientation. Such outcome-based assess-
ments include the identification of general domains essential to the suc-
cess of any training program (APA, 2001); the assessment of the
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 93

knowledge and capabilities of school psychology candidates; and an

evaluation of the impact that trainees have on services to children,
youth, families, and other consumers (NASP, 2000). Building on the
work of Scriven (1967), Robiner, Fuhrman, and Ristvedt (1993) have
identified two purposes of evaluation: formative and summative. For-
mative evaluations are designed to provide direct feedback about skill
levels in order to facilitate skill acquisition and reinforce professional
growth. The components of mentoring, building supervisee self-confi-
dence, and assisting the supervisee in the professional socialization pro-
cess can be major foci in the context of formative evaluation, and thus
both supervisees and supervisors are likely to view formative assess-
ment in positive terms (Robiner et al., 1993, p. 3).
The summative purpose of evaluation is to provide objective assess-
ment of a school psychology supervisee’s competence and progress.
Supervisors serve as reviewers, judging supervisee performance, and
such performance reviews form the basis for administrative decisions
regarding whether supervisees continue and/or successfully complete
training requirements. Robiner et al. (1993) have identified a number of
issues associated with summative evaluations (definition and measure-
ment, legal/administrative, interpersonal, supervisor) and how these is-
sues may compromise the objective assessment of supervisees. For
example, concern that negative evaluations may result in administrative
inquiry, audit, or litigation can influence how supervisors may evaluate
supervisee performance. Likewise, supervisors may have limited expe-
rience with impaired or problematic supervisees, and thus may under
(or over) evaluate their performance. While both purposes of evaluation
are important, and specific evaluation guidelines and criteria should be
responsive to both purposes, it is the summative purpose of evaluation
that is the major focus of this article.
A critical component of summative evaluation is the supervisory pro-
cess. While an in-depth discussion of supervision theory and practice is
beyond the scope of this article, various elements of supervision will be
highlighted in the context of the evaluation process. As it relates to evalu-
ation, effective supervision serves two purposes: (1) it is likely to reduce,
minimize, or otherwise buffer the general anxiety and evaluative appre-
hension experienced by supervisees, thus allowing for professional
growth (a formative function), and (2) it serves as a critical vehicle by
which a school psychology supervisee’s competency, skill development,
and readiness to function independently can be assessed, including the
identification of problematic or impaired behavior (a summative func-
tion).
94 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

There are several aspects of the supervisory process, which, if imple-

mented appropriately, are likely to enhance the supervisor-supervisee rela-
tionship, reduce evaluation anxiety, and hopefully minimize problematic
supervisee behavior. First, there is considerable support (e.g., Holloway,
1987; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Stoltenberg, 1981; Stoltenberg
& Delworth, 1987) for applying a developmental model to supervision,
matching supervisee stage of development to level of supervisor interven-
tion. Second, an awareness of and implementation of supervisor ethical re-
sponsibilities are viewed as important aspects of developing the supervisory
working alliance and satisfaction. Ladany, Lehrman-Waterman, Molinaro,
and Wolgast (1999) have identified fifteen such responsibilities, including
confidentiality issues in supervision, multicultural sensitivity, and differenti-
ating supervision from psychotherapy. Harvey and Struzziero (2000) have
discussed many of these supervisory responsibilities in the context of the su-
pervision of school-based practice of school psychology supervisees. Super-
visors also have the responsibility to educate supervisees and increase
supervisee awareness of the importance of the supervisory relationship for
both their professional development, and to meet their ethical responsibilities
as supervisees (see Berger & Buchholtz, 1990; Worthington & Gugliotti,
1997).
Two other components of supervision include (1) defining and facili-
tating the phases of the supervisory relationship (see Holloway, 1995,
for a description of supervisory stages), and (2) articulating the struc-
ture of supervision. The development of the supervisory relationship
begins by both parties identifying goals, roles, and expectations for the
supervisory process (see, e.g., Sutter, McPherson, & Geeseman, 2002,
for a sample supervision contract). This may begin by the school psy-
chology supervisees providing some background information, includ-
ing their previous experience with supervisors. Likewise, once the
specific supervisees to be placed in the school or agency setting have
been identified, the school/agency may request preliminary information
from the home academic program regarding their perception of the
supervisees’ strengths and limitations.
It is typical that supervisees are asked to identify general (e.g., de-
velop confidence) as well as specific goals (e.g., learn to consult with
teachers more effectively, develop instructional and/or psychosocial in-
terventions based on individual student strengths and weaknesses).
Progress toward achieving these goals can be reviewed at appropriate
junctures during the course of supervision and, in conjunction with su-
pervisor expectations, serve as part of the total evaluation process.
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 95

Supervisees may ask about the supervisor’s orientation, which provides

the opportunity for mutual dialogue regarding this topic. Other process
issues that may need to be addressed in supervision include sensitivity
to the power differential, parallel processes reflected in trainee-client
and supervisor-supervisee relationships, and addressing resistances or
impasses in supervision (see Holloway, 1995; Stoltenberg & Delworth,
1987, for an overview and these and other supervisory relationship is-
sues).
A second component, the structure of supervision, includes such fac-
tors as defining the focus of supervision (e.g., conceptualization, techni-
cal skills, clinician-client interaction patterns), the allocation of time
within the supervisory hour, the activities which will take place during
supervision (e.g., reviewing tapes, discussion of assessment findings,
insuring that certain release/confidentiality forms are completed, estab-
lishing a format for meeting summaries/case notes/report writing), and
the procedures for the evaluation of the supervisee as well as how the
supervisor will receive feedback on the supervisory climate.
In summary, the above discussion has distinguished formative from
summative evaluations and focused on supervision as a critical element
of both the formative and summative evaluation processes. An over-
view of various aspects of the supervisory process has been provided. It
is suggested that paying attention to these (and other) aspects of the su-
pervision process can enhance school psychology supervisee learning
and skill development, reduce evaluative anxiety, and provide the sup-
portive arena to address problematic supervisee behaviors.

Specific Evaluation Issues

Once general considerations regarding the evaluation process have

been clarified, more detailed evaluation procedures can be developed.
First, it is suggested that two specific components be incorporated in
any evaluation process: (1) identifying program expectations and re-
sponsibilities, and (2) articulating the procedures for evaluation. Each
of these components is described in greater detail below.
A complete and comprehensive evaluation system begins with the
specification of the program’s expectations of supervisees and is fol-
lowed by the corresponding program responsibilities, insuring that
supervisees have the opportunity to participate in those activities asso-
ciated with program expectations.
96 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

What are those expectations? In their review of evaluation processes,

Forrest, Elman, Gizara, and Vacha-Haase (1999) concluded that there is
“little empirical information available about the criteria programs used
to evaluate students’ progress in training” (p. 640). Drawing on two
studies (Biaggio, Gasparikova-Krasnec, & Bauer, 1983; Olkin &
Gaughen 1991), Forrest et al. (1999) identified nine “categories of com-
petence” used in evaluation procedures (academic skills, assessment
skills, clinical judgment, clinical skills, ethics, interpersonal skills,
intrapersonal skills, response to supervision, and theoretical skills).
Synthesizing these categories, we suggest that such expectations be
associated with three types or categories of professional functioning:
(1) acquisition and integration of relevant professional standards, (2) devel-
opment of appropriate professional skills, and (3) monitoring of personal
functioning. While terminology and inclusion of specific behaviors under
each category may vary, we propose that these three categories constitute
the content of the evaluation process. Lamb et al. (1987) developed such a
framework, and it is presented in Table 2. Broad program expectations
are translated to specific expectations or “categories of competence” as
well as program responsibilities associated with each of these competen-
cies.
After expectations and responsibilities have been developed, articu-
lated in written form, and discussed with the supervisee, the program
then provides a specific set of evaluation procedures. Such procedures
(a) define when, how, and by whom such evaluations will be conducted,
(b) include guidelines that are specific enough to be interpreted but gen-
eral enough to be applied to the unique circumstances of the individual
case, (c) are timely, occurring at meaningful intervals in order that
remediation efforts can be accomplished, (d) include specific, behaviorally
defined criteria, and (e) have articulated procedures and actions in place
when responding to problematic or impaired performance. Finally, and
consistent with NASP program approval standards, the training experi-
ence and guidelines represent collaboration between the training pro-
gram and the field site to insure the completion of activities consistent
with the goals of the academic program. Training programs may, when
appropriate, provide input or modify their evaluation procedures so that
their evaluations are useful and consistent with the evaluation proce-
dures and educational objectives of the academic program.
Once training program expectations and responsibilities are linked
with broad evaluation criteria, specific evaluation forms can be devel-
oped which translate these three broad criteria or categories to specific
behaviors. The nature of such evaluation forms vary as a function of the
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 97

TABLE 2. Training Program Expectations for Trainee Performance and Corre-

sponding Programs Responsibilities

Program Sample Program

Expectations Expectations Responsibilities
APA Ethical Principles and Stan- Acquisition and integration of To provide relevant
dards for Providers of Psycholog- professional standards information, documents, and fo-
ical Services rums to discuss standards; to
Sophisticated knowledge and ap- provide opportunities to apply
Laws and statutes that regulate plication of relevant principles in standards in clinical work
professional practice clinical work

Guidelines and standards of the Knowledge and application of

setting in which the trainee is state mental health codes, confi-
working dentiality laws

Agency handbooks, forms, and

expectations
Individual and group counseling Development of professional To provide a diverse case load
and psychotherapy skills and other experiences in order
for trainees to develop and dem-
Crisis intervention Development of an acceptable onstrate an acceptable level of
Assessment level of skill in each of these ar- skill in each of these areas
eas; behaviors associated with
Research and consultation eval- each skill should be incorporated
uation skills in the evaluation process

Setting-specific skills

Ongoing professional develop-

ment
Recognizes and deals appropri- Personal functioning To monitor trainee behavior, pro-
ately with personal issues as vide timely evaluations; to pro-
they affect professional function- Develops ongoing ways of ad- vide mechanisms for remediation
ing dressing personal issues (e.g., coursework, psychother-
apy, additional supervision)
Appropriately manages personal Copes effectively with stresses
stress as they arise without interference Same as above
of professional functioning
Has appropriate level of self-initi-
ated professional development Seeks to expand knowledge and
skill
Uses supervision appropriately
Takes full advantage of learning
opportunities provided by super-
vision

Adapted from: Lamb, D. H., Presser, N. R., Pfost, K. S., Baum, M. C., Jackson, V. R., & Jarvis, P. A. (1987).
Confronting professional impairment during the internship: Identification, due process, and
remediation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(6), 597-603.

services available at the field site, the populations served, the emphasis
placed by supervisors on various components of the training experience
(e.g., assessment/diagnosis, intervention, collaboration/consultation),
and the ethics and other professional and accreditation standards which
guide the school/agency’s functioning (e.g., NASP Standards for Provi-
98 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

sion of Psychological Services, APA Guidelines for Providers of Psy-

chological Services, NASP, and APA Ethical Standards).
While specific evaluation forms will vary as a function of the above di-
mensions, they are, nevertheless, likely to reflect behaviors in the three
broad categories of evaluation (professional standards, professional skills,
and personal functioning). Table 3 provides a list of sample phrases typi-
cally associated with each of these three broad categories of evaluation.
While Table 3 has identified phrases, which hopefully better articu-
late and define the three evaluation categories, actual evaluation forms
vary considerably in their specificity. Some may be very open-ended
narratives with broad categories such as “strengths/limitations,” “ar-
eas needing improvement,” “progress to date,” “overall rating,”
and/or “training recommendations.” Others are anchored in highly be-
havioral terms (see, e.g., Professional Staff Evaluation form in
Allison, 2002).
In addition to the variable of specificity, there are three other dimen-
sions that characterize evaluation forms. The first is a description of the
method of evaluation (e.g., direct observation, co-therapy or collabora-
tion on an assessment, audio/visual, written reports, supervisee self-re-
port, and trainee-supervisor discussion).
A second dimension, which is typically a part of evaluation forms, is
the stipulation of the level of skill attained by the supervisee on each of
the specific evaluation criteria. Below are several examples of how such
levels are described:

• Listing of specific skills, e.g., “Listening well” (almost always to

almost never, Harvey & Struzziero, 2000, pp. 105-110)
• Level of overall expertise/competence, e.g., expert: independent
on all aspects of task completion, including initiation and evalua-
tion; novice: requires supervision for all aspects of task from initi-
ation to completion (Harvey & Struzziero, 2000, p. 100; Nebraska
Internship Consortium in Professional Psychology, in Conoley &
Sullivan, 2002, pp. 142-143)
• Level of supervision required, e.g., close, moderate, minimum, in-
dependent (University of Dayton VA Hospital)
• Performance level, e.g., major (minor) remediation required,
meets (exceeds) standards; poor, fair, good, very good, excellent
(Brockton/Roxbury, MA. Internship Program, VA Hospital,
Mountain Home, TN)
• Competency by Level, e.g., minimal or no progress toward com-
petency at intern (practicum) level . . . approaches competency at
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools
TABLE 3. Sample Phrases Associated with the Three Broad Categories
of Evaluation
EVALUATION CATEGORY
I. Acquisition and Integration observance of APA ethics…
of Relevant Professional
Standards
II. Professional
Skills/Competencies
99
SAMPLE PHRASES
awareness of liability and risk management issues…
awareness of and behaving consistent with federal, state, local, and
school district/agency laws, rules, and regulations that govern the pro-
fessional behavior of psychologists (APA and/or NASP) …knowledge
and appropriate application of empirically supported procedures…
practices within abilities/skills and has an understanding of his/her own
professional limitation…
appropriately consults with others about ethical issues…
appropriate involvement in professional development activities…
A. Conceptualization: integrates theory into practice effectively…
identifies strengths and weaknesses of own theoretical orientation, inte-
grates relevant data into meaningful/coherent conceptualizations, articu-
lates diagnostic impressions, hypotheses…
develops appropriate intervention strategies based on theory,
conceptualizations, and current assessment results…
B. Assessment: understanding of an appropriate clarification of referral
questions…
effectively uses interview, relevant history/review of existing reports, ob-
servational data and standardized test data to gather assessment infor-
mation…
demonstrates knowledge and skill in selection, administration, scoring,
and interpretation of appropriate psychological assessment proce-
dures…
appropriately applies DSM and other formal diagnostic schemas…
appropriately integrates formal assessment data with other knowledge of
client,…
appropriate written and verbal skills in reporting assessment findings...
provides appropriate and timely feedback to referral source, client, and
others…
C. Intervention and Treatment: establishes, maintains, and uses thera-
peutic relationship in appropriate ways…
develops appropriate short- and long-term goals…
appropriately addresses therapeutic content and process…
appropriately incorporates immediacy, confrontation, non-verbal behav-
ior, transference, and other relationship processes in treatment…
interventions are appropriate, timely, relevant, flexible, diverse, and
address treatment goals…
demonstrates effective crisis intervention skills…
uses self effectively in treatment…
appropriately addresses countertransference, enactments, and treat-
ment strains/ruptures…
addresses termination issues effectively…
effectively monitors effectiveness/impact of interventions…
D. Diversity/Multicultural Skills: appreciates and is responsive to diversity
issues as they affect client…
recognizes when own cultural biases and values interfere with treatment
and acts appropriately…
appreciates cultural context of clients relevant to ethnicity, sex-
ual/affectional orientation, gender role stereotypes, ageism, disability
status, and religious/spiritual background…
demonstrates ability to integrate relevant information regarding cultural
and individual differences of human diversity into meaningful/coherent
conceptualizations and interventions…
100 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

TABLE 3 (continued)
EVALUATION CATEGORY SAMPLE PHRASES
E. Consultation: understands and appropriately applies consultation/eval-
uation models and conceptualizations, appropriately conducts consulta-
tion and evaluation services…
appreciates relationship between consultant and consultee and the
parameters/limitations of such a relationship…
appropriately communicates consultation findings in written and/or verbal form…

F. Supervision: is familiar with and appropriately applies different models

of supervision…
understands and appropriately applies the tasks, purposes, and functions
of supervision…
is sensitive to and appropriately addresses interactional issues between
supervisor and supervisee…
develops supervision goals and is aware of the evaluative and profes-
sional growth aspects of supervision…
documents appropriate supervision events…
appropriately communicates evaluation information to academic or other
personnel . . .

G. Integration of Science and Practice: is aware of and appropriately ap-

plies empirically supported procedures…
is knowledgeable of scientific literature associated with school psychology
practice…
demonstrates self-initiated professional development…
III. Personal Functioning A. Self-Understanding: is aware of and understands one’s emotional re-
sponse to clients, parents, teachers and the impact one has on them…
recognizes and appropriately manages emotions which may be counter-
productive to effective work with clients (e.g., anger, dependency,
disinterest, sexual feelings)…
identifies transference and countertransference and seeks to resolve is-
sues through consultation…
willing to self-disclose and/or explore personal issues which affect effec-
tiveness as clinician…

B. Self-Management: effectively manages personal stress…

recognizes when own issues interfere with treatment and acts appropriately…
manages conflict appropriately, is effectively assertive…
C. Professional Role Functioning: appropriately interacts with peers, staff,
other school personnel (teachers, principals, social workers, guidance coun-
selors, etc.) and parents …
receptive to feedback…
utilizes the supervision process effectively, manifests appropriate profes-
sional identity (e.g., attire, behavior, etc.), is appropriately self-reliant…
assumes responsibility for increasing knowledge/skills in areas known to be
deficient…
timely and thorough completion of paperwork, records, and administrative tasks…

Sources: The sub-categories and phrases have been abstracted from the evaluation forms of the follow-
ing sources: Student Counseling Service, Illinois State University; School Psychology Program,
Illinois State University; University of Dayton Veterans Hospital; Brockton/West Roxbury, MA
Internship Program; Psychology Service, VA Medical Center, Mountain Home, TN; Psychology
Internship Program, Tampa VA Medical Center, Tampa, FL; Best Practices in School Psychol-
ogy, Baird, B. (2002). The internship, practicum, and field placement handbook. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

intern (practicum) level . . . demonstrates competency at intern

(practicum) level . . . competency at beginning independent func-
tioning school psychologist (School Psychology Program, Illinois
State University, Normal, IL)
It can be seen that these descriptors vary both on wording as well as
number of stems. It has been suggested that as the number of stem alter-
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 101

natives increase (e.g., three versus five), the less likely it becomes that
the raters will use the full range of stems in making their evaluations; a
smaller number of stems reduces that possibility and may increase
inter-rater reliability.
The third dimension often seen in evaluation forms is a place for sig-
natures of the supervisor and supervisee, acknowledging that the
supervisee has reviewed the evaluation with the supervisor. Some eval-
uation forms provide opportunities for supervisees to make written
comments regarding the evaluation.
In summary, it has been proposed that the evaluation process begin
by having the field site, practicum placement, internship program or job
setting identify its general expectations for supervisee performance and
the corresponding field site responsibilities so that the supervisee can
reasonably achieve those expectations. Next, some conceptual and su-
pervisory issues have been considered related to evaluation. Then, three
broad evaluation categories associated with the training site’s expecta-
tions were identified: professional standards, professional skills, and
personal functioning. Finally, sample descriptors associated with each
of these categories have been provided, as well as a discussion of sev-
eral other issues associated with evaluation. Formal evaluation proce-
dures provide the means by which potential or actual supervisee
impairment is identified. The next section describes when and how
problematic behaviors reflected in the evaluation reach the threshold of
professional impairments, and how such impairments can be addressed
by the training programs.

IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING IMPAIRMENT

Definitional Considerations

There are several resources that have traced the concept of impair-
ment from its early medical connotations (alcoholism, drug abuse, men-
tal illness; see, e.g., American Medical Association, Council on Mental
Health, 1973; Robertson, 1978) to more recent definitions such as “in-
terference in professional functioning due to chemical dependency,
mental illness, or personal conflict,” and/or behaviors that are grounds
for license revocation (Laliotis & Grayson, 1985, p. 84), and “any phys-
ical, emotional or educational deficiency that interferes with the quality
of the supervisee’s professional performance, education, or family life”
(Boxley, Drew, & Rangel, 1986, p. 50). In their major contribution on
102 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

supervisee impairment, Forrest et al. (1999) reviewed these and other

definitions of impairment, as well as summarizing other impairment de-
mographics (types, rates, gender ratios, empirical studies of impair-
ment). Finally, there has been discussion of the term “competency” as it
relates to impairment, the distinction and overlap of the terms “unethi-
cal” and “boundary violations” with “impaired,” and the relationship of
impairment to a mismatch between supervisee theoretical orientation
and training program philosophy. The following references provide a
more detailed discussion of these issues: Forrest et al., 1999; Kurtz,
1986; Lamb et al., 1990; Lamb et al., 1987; Orr, 1997; Peterson & Bry,
1980.
Regardless of what definition of impairment may be used, it is very
important that such a definition is consistent with the program’s evalua-
tion guidelines. In light of the earlier discussion on broad and specific
evaluation guidelines, impairment will be defined broadly as

an interference in professional functioning that is reflected in one or

more of the following ways: (a) an inability and/or unwillingness to
acquire and integrate professional standards into one’s repertoire of
professional behavior, (b) an inability to acquire professional skills
in order to reach an acceptable level of competency, and (c) an in-
ability to control personal stress, psychological dysfunction, and/or
excessive emotional reactions that interfere with professional func-
tioning. (Lamb et al., 1987, p. 598)

This definition refers to the three broad criteria used to evaluate

supervisees, and thus negative evaluations in one or more of those three
criteria, for example, may be defined as constituting impairment.
It is also important to distinguish impaired behavior from problematic
behavior. Problems would refer to a supervisee’s behaviors, attitudes, or
characteristics that, though of concern and requiring remediation, are per-
ceived to be not unexpected or excessive for professionals in training, e.g.,
evaluation anxiety ameliorating with time, supervisee learning how cul-
ture influences behavior as a function of seeing diverse clients, learning
how to relate effectively to the large number and diverse roles and func-
tions of school personnel. Problems typically become identified as im-
pairments when they include most of the following characteristics: (a) the
school psychology supervisee does not acknowledge, understand, or ad-
dress the problem when it is identified, (b) the problem is not merely a re-
flection of a skill deficit that can be rectified by academic or didactic
training, (c) the quality of services delivered by the supervisee is consis-
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 103

tently negatively affected, (d) the problem is not restricted to one area of
professional functioning, (e) a disproportionate amount of attention by
supervisor(s) is required, (f) the supervisee’s behavior does not change as
a function of feedback, remediation efforts, and/or time, and/or (g) the
supervisee’s behavior has legal, administrative, or ethical implications
(Lamb et al., 1987).
Once the evaluation system is codified, and a concept of impairment
has been defined which relates to the evaluation criteria, consideration
is then given to the development of due process procedures. Due pro-
cess, which ensures that decisions by programs are not arbitrary or per-
sonally based, requires that programs identify specific evaluative
procedures that are applied to all supervisees.
Courts have (re) affirmed that academic and professional perfor-
mance does include both technical and interpersonal skills, attitudes,
and professional behavior. Thus, dismissal for interpersonal (impair-
ment) reasons other than traditional “knowledge and skill” is appropri-
ate; such a dismissal decision is considered an “academic decision”
(Hollander, 1996). Academic dismissal procedures have generally re-
flected the courts’ reluctance to overturn professional decisions made
by qualified faculty in specialized areas. In order for interpersonal di-
mensions to be used as reasons for action, programs must define such
dimensions as part of their evaluation process. Courts have also ruled
that remedial measures are within the domain of any program’s action
as long as they are relevant to the identified deficiencies and are not ap-
plied in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Based on a review of a number of sources (e.g., APA Committee on
Accreditation, 2001; Bernard, 1975; Berndt & Rupert, 1980; Forrest et
al., 1999; Knoff & Prout, 1985; Lamb, 1999; Lamb et al., 1990, 1987;
Miller & Rickard, 1983), the following set of guidelines have been pro-
vided related to due process procedures:

1. It is important to understand the implications of the status of the

supervisee as it relates to the application of due process.
Supervisees often have multiple administrative titles (e.g.,
practicum trainee/student, intern, professional staff) and are under
the jurisdiction of different grievance procedures. Be aware of the
due process procedures associated with the various titles.
2. Present supervisees (in promotional materials, in writing at the
time of matriculation into the program, and in discussion formats)
104 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

the program’s goals, responsibilities, and expectations related to

professional functioning.
a. Stipulate the procedures for evaluation, including when,
how, and by whom the evaluations will be accomplished.
Evaluations should occur at meaningful intervals and
should be communicated in a standardized way (i.e., all
supervisees receive such feedback, not just those about
whom the program has concern). Evaluation procedures
should articulate under what conditions the program will
institute various levels of intervention.
b. When developing evaluative criteria and descriptors, be
sensitive to not having overinclusive categories and/or de-
finitive list of all behaviors within a criterion. Allow for
global clinical judgments, but define the process whereby
they are made.
c. Use, when possible, input from multiple professional
sources and multiple individuals when making decisions
or recommendations regarding the supervisees’ perfor-
mance. Rely on the aggregate opinion of a group of profes-
sionals.
d. When remedial plans are developed for identified deficien-
cies, identify how the remediation will be demonstrated
behaviorally, the time frame for expected remediation, and
the consequences of not rectifying the deficiencies.

3. Communicate early and often with the school psychology training

program about the progress of students (or in the case of first year
school psychologists with the supervisee him or herself). Such
communication may include requesting a statement, once the
supervisee has been accepted, of the program’s assessment of the
supervisee’s needs and how they relate to the training program’s
goals and training opportunities. Provide timely interim reports of
progress, including any time during the field experience when the
training program has taken any formal action regarding the
supervisee’s performance.
4. Provide a written procedure to the supervisee, which describes
how the supervisee may appeal the program’s action. Such pro-
cedures would be included in the program’s handbook and made
available to the supervisee when he or she begins the program. It
is also important to articulate the procedures available to
supervisees when they wish to file a grievance (e.g., how
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 105

supervisees are to proceed when they experience an abuse of the

power within the school/agency). Ensure that supervisees have
sufficient time to respond to any action taken by the program and
document, in writing and to all relevant parties, the action (and
accompanying rationale) taken by the program.

Identifying and Responding to an Impaired Supervisee:

Action, Remediation, and Preventive Measures

Under ideal circumstances, the above documents (program goals, ex-

pectations and responsibilities, evaluation procedures and definition of
impairment, due process guidelines) are in place in anticipation of the
eventuality of an impaired supervisee. It is more likely, however, that
greater clarity of procedures and actions is more closely achieved only af-
ter a training program has identified and responded to an actual impaired
supervisee. Lamb and his colleagues (1990) have written about such an
experience and have described, in considerable detail, four processes as-
sociated with the identification of and response to intern impairment, yet
their processes appear applicable to supervisees at any level of graduate
training or during the first year of experience. These process are: (1) re-
connaissance and identification (gathering ongoing evaluative informa-
tion and observing the supervisee’s initial response to the setting, training
experiences, and feedback) (2) discussion and consultation (reviewing
the supervisee’s progress and response to feedback, identifying problem-
atic behaviors and possible intervention strategies), (3) implementation
and review (specifying various remediation procedures, monitoring be-
haviors, and evaluating the supervisee’s ability to change), and (4) antici-
pation and response to school/agency fallout related to addressing
supervisee impairment (anticipating the task/issues faced by supervisors,
dealing with organizational consequences).
While Lamb et al. (1990) discussed each of these processes in detail,
each having its own set of challenges, one particularly important step
will be discussed in more detail here, namely remediation measures.
Once a decision is made that some intervention is necessary (i.e., the
supervisee has met the criteria for impairment by having a particular
overall rating on any of the three major components of evaluation), spe-
cific remediation plans need to be developed. Several possible and per-
haps concurrent courses of action designed to remediate impairments
include, but are not limited to: (1) increasing supervision with the same
or other supervisors, (2) changing the goals, format, emphasis, and/or
focus of supervision, (3) recommending and/or requiring personal ther-
106 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

apy in a way that all parties involved have clarified the manner in which
therapy contacts will be used in the remediation plan (for more detail re-
garding this option, see the APA Ethics Committee Report, 1987), (4) re-
ducing the supervisee’s workload and/or requiring specific academic
coursework, and/or (5) recommending, when appropriate, a leave of ab-
sence and/or remedial training before returning to the field site.
When a combination of the above interventions do not, after a rea-
sonable time period, address the impairment (or when the supervisee
seems unable or unwilling to alter his or her behavior), the training pro-
gram may need to take more formal action, including (1) providing a
limited endorsement, both as a communication to the trainee and the
sponsoring academic department, but also within a letter of recommen-
dation, (2) working with the academic department to facilitate a career
shift for the supervisee, and/or (3) terminating the supervisee from the
training program/credentialed position. The limited endorsement sug-
gested above would specify the limits of the roles and functions in
which the supervisee could engage (e.g., trainee would not function
well in a counseling role but would be adequate in the other roles and
functions demanded of school psychologists). All the above steps need
to be appropriately documented and implemented in ways that are con-
sistent with the program’s due process procedures.
As discussed earlier, responding to an impaired supervisee will be
more systematic, planful, and effective when policies and procedures
for responding to such situations have previously been developed. In
addition, there are other preventive measures that can be considered.
Forrest et al. (1999) has recommended a number of such measures, in-
cluding continuing to review relevant impairment literature and accred-
itation guidelines, continuing education workshops, expanding content
on impaired psychologists in the curriculum and developing consulta-
tion networks. In his reaction article to the Forrest et al. (1999) article,
Lamb (1999) added several additional preventive considerations: orien-
tation efforts, discussion formats to address supervisee confusion and
evaluative anxiety, clear avenues to challenge inappropriate behavior
by supervisee peers or training faculty, and seminars on professional
stressors, self-care patterns, and rehabilitation efforts. The reading of
literature (by supervisees) related to what to expect in supervision and
the nature of the supervisory relationship (see Berger & Buchholz,
1990), the use of peer (student) mentors, and advanced doctoral student
supervisors for early field experiences of first year students may also
prove helpful.
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 107

Lamb also discussed the concept of professional boundaries, sug-

gesting “that the incidence of problematic behavior and/or impairment
would be less likely to occur if supervisees and students can better learn
to identify and negotiate professional boundary dilemmas” (Lamb et al.,
1999, p. 707). Three such boundary dilemmas often faced by school
psychology supervisees include (1) issues related to maintaining con-
tact with clients/parents after identified (formal) services have been de-
livered; (2) dual relationship issues related to when a supervisee (or
school psychologist) is also a consumer of school services, (e.g., lives in
the school district in which they practice); and (3) when the school psy-
chologist also works with a student/client in another role such as athletic
coach either in the school or community.
There are a number of resources (Anderson & Kitchener, 1998;
Ebert, 1997; Gottlieb, 1993; Hayes & Reinhardt, 1996; Lamb, 2002;
Lamb & Catanzaro, 1998; Schoener, Milgrom, Gonsiorek, Luepker, &
Conroe, 1989; Shank & Skovholt, 1997; Younggren, 2002), which can
be helpful when providing didactic opportunities for trainees to discuss
boundary dilemmas.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This article has attempted to provide a template for addressing evalu-

ation issues in the training/supervising of school psychologists. The
emphasis has been on such procedures as they are applied to field based
training programs. It is believed, however, that these procedures can be
applied to the evaluation of student “classroom performance” as well as
for the evaluation of entry-level professionals.
It has been suggested that any evaluation system begin with the pro-
gram articulating its training expectations and corresponding respon-
sibilities in assisting supervisees to meet those expectations. Issues
related to the evaluation process (appreciating the stressors associated
with the transition from graduate school to training site, distinguishing
between formative and summative evaluation, being aware of supervi-
sory issues, defining the broad categories of evaluation, developing
specific criteria related to the evaluation categories) have been dis-
cussed, and a sample evaluation format has been provided. Based on
these evaluation considerations, programs are advised to develop a
setting-specific definition of impairment, one which is directly related
to the evaluation criteria and which is distinguished from “problem-
atic behavior.” Due process issues and processes associated with iden-
108 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

tifying and responding to impaired functioning have been provided.

Finally, we have provided suggestions related to the prevention of
and/or minimization of problematic or impaired behavior, with a par-
ticular focus on addressing professional boundary dilemmas with
supervisees.

REFERENCES
Allison, R. (2002). Best practices in supervision of school psychology staff. In A.
Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 115-129),
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
American Medical Association, Council on Mental Health. (1973). The sick physician.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 223, 684-687.
American Psychological Association. (1987). Report of the Ethics Committee. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 42, 730-734.
American Psychological Association, Committee on Accreditation. (2001). Accredita-
tion handbook. Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, S., & Kitchener, K. (1998). Nonsexual posttherapy relationships: A framework
to assess ethical risks. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 91-99.
Baron, A., Sekel, A., & Stott, F. (1983). Early career issues for counseling center psy-
chologists: The first six years. The Counseling Psychologist, 12 (1), 121-125.
Berger, S. S., & Buchholtz. E. S. (1990). On becoming a supervisee: Preparation for
learning in a supervisory relationship. Psychotherapy, 30, 86-92.
Bernard, J. (1975). Due process in dropping the unsuitable clinical student. Profes-
sional Psychology, 6, 275-278.
Berndt, D., & Rupert, F. (1980). Current status of evaluation and feedback procedures
in APA programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psycho-
logical Association, Montreal, Canada.
Biaggio, M., Gasparikova-Krasnec, M., & Bauer, L. (1983). Evaluation of clinical psy-
chology graduate students: The problem of the unsuitable student. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 9-20.
Boxley, R., Drew, C., & Rangel, D. (1986). Clinical trainee impairment in APA ap-
proved internship programs. The Clinical Psychologist, 39 (2), 49-52.
Conoley, J. C., & Sullivan, J. R. (2002). Best practices in the supervision of interns. In
A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 131-
144), Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Crespi, T. D., & Fischetti, B. A. (1997). Clinical supervision of school psychologists.
School Psychology International, 18, 41-48.
Ebert, B. (1997). Dual-relationship prohibitions: A concept whose time never should
have come. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 6, 137-156.
Forrest, L., Elman, N., Gizara, S., & Vacha-Haase, T. (1999). Trainee impairment: A
review of identification, remediation, dismissal, and legal issues. The Counseling
Psychologist, 27 (5), 627-686.
 Clinical Supervision in the Schools 109

Gottlieb, M. (1993). Avoiding exploitative dual relationships: A decision-making

model. Psychotherapy, 30, 4l-48.
Harvey, V. S., & Struzziero, J. (2000). Effective supervision in school psychology.
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Hayes, D., & Reinhardt, B. (1996). Help, my clients are everywhere: Examining dual
roles, ethics, and diversity. Champaign, IL.
Hollander, P. (1996). Legal issues relevant to due process at APPIC internships.
APPIC Newsletter, 21 (2), l, 34-36.
Holloway, E. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hunley, S. A., Curtis, M. J., & Batsche, G. (2002). Best practices in supervision of
school psychological services. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.). Best practices in
school psychology IV (pp. 103-114), Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Kaslow, N., & Rice, D. (1985). Developmental stresses of psychology internship train-
ing: What a training staff can do to help. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 16, 253-26l.
Knoff, H. (1986). Supervision in school psychology: The forgotten or future path to ef-
fective services? School Psychology Review, 15, 529-545.
Knoff, H., & Prout, H. (1985). Terminating students from professional psychology
programs: Criteria, procedures, and legal issues. Professional Psychology: Re-
search and Practice, 16, 789-797.
Kurtz, S. (1986). Defining “impaired psychologist.” American Psychologist, 41, 220.
Ladany, N., Lehrman-Waterman, D., Molinaro, M., & Wolgast, B. (1999). Psychother-
apy supervisor ethical practices: Adherence to guidelines, the supervisory working al-
liance, and supervisee satisfaction. The Counseling Psychologist, 27 (3), 443-475.
Laliotis, D., & Grayson, J. (1985). Psychologist heal thyself: What is available to the
impaired psychologist? American Psychologist, 40, 84-96.
Lamb, D. (1999). Addressing impairment and its relationship to professional boundary
issues. The Counseling Psychologist, 27 (5), 702-711.
Lamb, D. (2002). Variations on dual relationships: Some thoughts when considering
new relationships with clients, supervisees, or students. The Illinois Psychologist,
39 (3), 12-13.
Lamb, D., Anderson, K., Beebe, B., Johnson, B., & Luppe, S. (1990). Factors which
contribute to and reduce stress during the pre-doctoral internship. Unpublished
manuscript. Illinois State University.
Lamb, D., Baker, J., Jennings, M., & Yarris, E. (1982). Passages of an internship in pro-
fessional psychology. Professional Psychology, 13, 661-669.
Lamb, D., & Catanzaro, S. (1998). Sexual and nonsexual boundary violations involv-
ing psychologists, clients, supervisees, and students: Implications for professional
practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 498-503.
Lamb, D. H., Presser, N. R., Pfost, K. S., Baum, M. C., Jackson, V. R., & Jarvis, P. A.
(1987). Confronting professional impairment during the internship: Identification,
due process, and remediation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18
(6), 597-603.
Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model.
The Counseling Psychologist, 10 (l), 3-42.
110 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

Miller, H., & Rickard, H. (1983). Procedures and students’ rights in the evaluation pro-
cess. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 830-836.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Standards for school psychol-
ogy: Credentialing standards. Bethesda, MD: Author.
Olkin, R., & Gaughen, S. (1991). Evaluation and dismissal of students in master’s level
clinical programs: Legal parameters and survey results. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 30, 276-288.
Orr, P. (1997). Psychology impaired? Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
tice, 28, 293-296.
Peterson, D., & Bry, B. (1980). Dimensions of perceived competence in professional
psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 11, 965-97l.
Robertson, J. (Ed.) (1978). In-patient and out-patient treatment techniques. In Pro-
ceedings of the Third AMA Conference on the Impaired Physician (32-35). Chi-
cago: American Medical Association.
Robiner, W., Fuhrman, M., & Ristvedt, S. (1993). Evaluation difficulties in supervis-
ing psychology interns. The Clinical Psychologist, 46 (l), 3-13.
Schoener, G., Milgrom, J., Gonsiorek, J., Luepker, E., & Conroe, R. (1989) Psycho-
therapists sexual involvement with clients: Intervention and prevention. Minneapo-
lis: Walk-In Counseling Center.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Cur-
riculum Evaluation, 1, 39-83.
Shank, J., & Skovholt, T. (1997). Dual-relationship dilemmas of rural and small com-
munity psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 28, 44-49.
Solway, K. (1985). Transition from graduate school to internship: A potential crisis.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 50-54.
Stoltenberg, C. (1981). Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective:
The counselor complexity model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 59-65.
Stoltenberg, C., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sutter, E., McPherson, R., & Geeseman, R. (2002). Contracting for supervision. Pro-
fessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33 (5), 495-498.
Ward, S. (1999). Field-based intern supervision: A study of practices. Communique, 28
(3), 32-33.
Ward, S., & Ward, T. J. (2000). Supervisory style and its relationship to field-based in-
tern supervision. Trainer’s Forum, 19 (1), 1-6.
Worthington, R. L., & Gugliotti, T. (1997, August). Toward guidelines for ethical be-
havior among supervisory supervisees. Paper presented at the annual conference of
the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Younggren, J. (2002). Ethical decision-making and dual relationships. http://kspope.com/
younggren.html.
Zins, J. E., Murphy, J. J., & Wess, B. P. (1989). Supervision in school psychology: Cur-
rent practices and congruence with professional standards. School Psychology Re-
view, 18, 56-63.
Copyright of Clinical Supervisor is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.