Understanding supervisee nondisclosures in supervision with videorecording review and interpersonal process recall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to obtain an in‐depth understanding of supervisees' in‐the‐moment nondisclosure experiences, perceptions and internal processes as they occurred in clinical supervision involving videorecording review. The supervisees who participated in the study were students in their first year of a master's‐level counselling practicum in Western Canada. Utilising interpersonal process recall (IPR) interview methods, supervisees were asked to share their moment‐by‐moment nondisclosures that occurred during a recent videorecorded supervision session in which the supervisory dyad reviewed a videorecording of the supervisee's clinical work. Thematic analysis across cases yielded five overarching themes: (a) validation; (b) safety; (c) growth and accomplishment; (d) performance anxiety; and (e) avoidance. The findings revealed a broad range of positive and negative supervisee nondisclosures that were influenced by the supervision modality of videorecording review and the IPR interview. Implications for clinical supervision, limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".