This study examined the factor structure of supervisee disclosure in clinical supervision. An original survey measure was created for this study, the Supervisee Disclosure Scale (SDS). Through exploratory factor analysis eight specific content areas of supervisee disclosure were identified. The eight specific content areas of supervisee disclosure include: Perceived Clinical Inadequacy, Transference Issues, Strengths of the Supervisory Relationship, Clinical Successes, Self, Weaknesses of the Supervisory Bond, Dissatisfaction with the Clinical Setting, and Own Clinical Voice. Furthermore, this study examined the potential relationship of clinical experience with the content areas of supervisee disclosure. The results of this study support a relationship between greater clinical experience and disclosure of items related to Self but not with the other content areas. Additionally, the bi-level factor structure of the Working Alliance Inventory/Supervision-Short (WAI-SS) was validated via confirmatory factor analysis. The bi-level factor structure of the WAI-SS identifies a hierarchical structure of general alliance in addition to the specific factors of task, bond, and goal. Lastly, this study preliminarily evaluated the relationship between WAI-SS factors of general alliance, task, bond, and goal and the preliminary specific content areas of supervisee disclosure. The hierarchical factor of general alliance was a statistically significant predictor for all specific content areas of supervisee disclosure. The preliminary findings of this study, highlight the important differences in the relationships among the specific factors of the supervisory working alliance and content areas of supervisee nondisclosure. The factor of task was not significantly correlated with content areas of supervisee disclosure and the factor of goal was only a significant predictor for two content areas of disclosure: Strengths of the Supervisory Relationship and Dissatisfaction with Clinical Setting. The factor of bond was significantly correlated with six content areas of supervisee disclosure and significantly predicted five content areas: Strengths of the Supervisory Relationship, Clinical Successes, Self, Weaknesses of the Supervisory Bond, and Dissatisfaction with the Clinical Setting. This study contributes specificity to the supervision literature on supervisee disclosure and nondisclosure. The results of this study provide a psychometrically sound foundation for future research to identify aspects of the supervisory working alliance that may reduce supervisee nondisclosure.

This study examined the role of substance use in the relationship between the working alliance and outcome symptomatology. In this study, two groups of participants were formed: the at risk for substance abuse (ARSA) group consisted of participants who indicated 'almost always,' 'frequently,' 'sometimes,' or 'rarely' on either of two items on the Outcome Questionnaire-45.2 (OQ-45.2) (i.e., the eye-opener item: "After heavy drinking, I need a drink the next morning to get going" and the annoyed item: "I feel annoyed by people who criticize my drinking (or drug use)"). The non-ARSA group consisted of participants who indicated 'never' on both of the eye-opener and annoyed screening items on the OQ-45.2. Data available from a counselor-training center for a client participant sample (n = 68) was used. As part of the usual counselor training center procedures, clients completed questionnaires after their weekly counseling session. The measures included the Working Alliance Inventory and the OQ-45.2. Results revealed no significant differences between the ARSA and non-ARSA groups in working alliance, total outcome symptomology, or in any of the three subscales of symptomatology. Working alliance was not found to be significant in predicting outcome symptomatology in this sample and no moderation effect of substance use on the relationship between working alliance and outcome symptomatology was found. This study was a start into the exploration of the role of substance use in the relationship between working alliance and outcome symptomatology in individual psychotherapy. Further research should be conducted to better understand substance use populations in individual psychotherapy.