The Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory–Trainee Form (SWAI-T) is among the most frequently used instruments for measuring the quality of supervisor–supervisee relationships within counselor supervision. Although the full-scale SWAI-T instrument has proven utility, there are instances when a shorter form may be useful for research and field applications. The current study used secondary data from a pair of cross-sectional studies to test the utility of a brief form of the SWAI-T in a two-step process: (a) reduction of the SWAI-T based on item analyses from an electronic survey of 87 rehabilitation counselors working in a Western state vocational rehabilitation agency and (b) an initial validation study of the instrument using electronic survey responses from a national sample of 228 rehabilitation counselors working in private rehabilitation. The resultant 5-item scale showed evidence of high internal consistency, convergent validity, and minimal differences in psychometric properties relative to the full-scale instrument. An abbreviated supervisory working alliance scale offers practical advantages for select research purposes and for continuous evaluation of supervisory relationships in field environments.
BernardJ. M.GoodyearR. K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
2.
BernardJ. M.GoodyearR. K. (2014). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
3.
BezyakJ. L.OsoskieJ. N.TriceA. L.YeagerP. (2010). The importance of counseling supervision in the professional development of public rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 41(4), 30–35.
4.
BirnbaumM. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803–832.
5.
BordinE. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 35–42.
ConwayJ. M.HuffcuttA. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices on organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147–168.
DePueM. L.LambieG. W.LiuR.GonzalezJ. (2016). Investigating supervisory relationships and therapeutic alliances using structural equation modeling. Counselor Education and Supervision, 55, 263–277.
11.
EdwardsP. J.RobertsI.ClarkeM. J.DiquiseppiC.WentzR.KwanI.. . .PratapS. (2009). Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, MR000008.
12.
EfstationJ. F.PattonM. J.KardashC. M. (1990). Measuring the working alliance in counselor supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 322–329.
13.
EllisM. V.BergerL.HanusA. E.AyalaE. E.SwordsB. A.SiemborM. (2014). Inadequate and harmful clinical supervision: Testing a revised framework and assessing occurrence. The Counseling Psychologist, 42, 434–472.
14.
Fernández-BallesterosR.BotellaJ. (2008). Self-report measures. In NezuA. M.NezuC. M. (Eds.), Evidence-based outcome research: A practical guide to conducting randomized controlled trials for psychosocial interventions (pp. 95–122). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15.
FinchH. (2006). Comparison of the performance of varimax and promax rotations: Factor structure recovery for dichotomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43, 39–52.
16.
GallM. D.GallJ. P.BorgW. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
17.
GanskeK. H.GnilkaP. B.AshbyJ. S.RiceK. G. (2015). The relationship between counseling trainee perfectionism and the working alliance with supervisor and client. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 14–24.
18.
GonsalvezC. J.HamidG.SavageN. M.LivniD. (2017). The supervision evaluation and supervisory competence scale: Psychometric validation. Australian Psychologist, 52, 94–103.
19.
GoodyearR. K.RodolfaE. (2012). Negotiating the complex ethical terrain of clinical supervision. In KnappS. J.GottliebM. C.Van de CreekL. D. (Eds.), APA handbook of ethics in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 261–276). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20.
GunnJ. E.PistoleM. C. (2012). Trainee supervisor attachment: Explaining the alliance and disclosure in supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 6, 229–237.
21.
HerbertJ. T. (2017). Rehabilitation counselor supervision. In TarvydasV. M.HartleyM. T. (Eds.), The professional practice of rehabilitation counseling (2nd ed., pp. 419–435). New York, NY: Springer.
22.
HerbertJ. T.ByunS.SchultzJ.TamezM.AtkinsonH. A. (2014). Clinical supervision of state vocational rehabilitation supervisors. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 38, 19–34.
23.
HerbertJ. T.TrustyJ. (2006). Clinical supervision practices and satisfaction within the public vocational rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 49, 66–80.
24.
HinkinT. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21, 967–988.
25.
HinkinT. R.TraceyJ. B.EnzC. A. (1997). Scale construction: Developing reliable and valid measurement instruments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 21, 100–120.
26.
KaiserH. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
27.
LadanyN.MoriY.MehrK. E. (2013). Effective and ineffective supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 28–47.
28.
LadanyN.Muse-BurkeJ. L. (2001). Understanding and conducting supervision research. In BradleyL. J.LadanyN. (Eds.), Counselor supervision: Principles, process and practice (pp. 304–329). Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor & Francis.
29.
LivniD.CroweT. P.GonsalvezC. J. (2012). Effects of supervision modality and intensity on alliance and outcomes for the supervisee. Rehabilitation Psychology, 57, 178–186.
30.
McCarthyA. K. (2013). Relationship between supervisory working alliance and client outcomes in state vocational rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 57, 23–30.
31.
NeukrugE. S.FawcettR. C. (2015). The essentials of testing and assessment: A practical guide to counselors, social workers, and psychologists (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
32.
PalomoM.BeinartH.CooperM. J. (2010). Development and validation of the Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) in UK trainee clinical psychologists. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 131–149.
33.
SabellaS. (2017). Stratified leadership components and needs within public rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 61, 41–53.
34.
SchultzJ. C. (2008). The tripartite model of supervision for rehabilitation counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 39, 36–41.
35.
SchultzJ. C. (2011). Construction and validation of a Supervisor Principle Ethics Scale. Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counseling, 17, 96–105.
36.
SchultzJ. C.OsoskieJ. N.FriedJ. H.NelsonR. E.BardosA. N. (2002). Clinical supervision in public rehabilitation counseling settings. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 213–222.
37.
StantonJ. M.SinarE. F.BalzerW. K.SmithP. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55, 167–194.
38.
TangenJ. L.BordersL. D. (2016). The supervisory relationship: A conceptual and psychometric review of measures. Counselor Education and Supervision, 55, 159–181.
39.
ThielsenV. A.LeahyM. J. (2001). Essential knowledge and skills for effective clinical supervision in rehabilitation counseling. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44, 196–208.
WatkinsC. E.Jr. (2014). The supervisory alliance as quintessential integrative variable. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 44, 151–161.
42.
WatsonJ. C.FlamezB. (2015). Counseling assessment and evaluation: Fundamentals of applied practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43.
WheelerS.RichardsK. (2007). The impact of clinical supervision on counsellors and therapists, their practice and their clients: A systematic review of the literature. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 7, 54–65.
44.
WhistonS. C. (2017). Principles and applications of assessment in counseling. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
45.
YongA. G.PearceS. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9, 79–94.
