IJSP Number 5, 2023

51 highly talented) clinician would necessarily be a competent or talented supervisor. This assumption is unfounded. Similarly, first-rate professors or expert clinical researchers do not necessarily make good supervisors. The second assumption is that all supervisors are competent, regardless of ample evidence to the contrary. These assumptions together with limited education, training, including supervision-of-supervision, lead to inadequate preparation to provide clinical supervision. Also, clinical supervisors must possess content expertise in the areas in which they supervise. In fact, the tasks of supervision are complex and require a specific education and training to develop competence. Consider the various aspects involved in clinical supervision including balancing protection of the client, facilitating the growth and development of the supervisee, assessment, feedback, and relationship. The simultaneous tasks have been described as “a metaphorical version of the circus art of ‘plate spinning’” [23]. The metaphor reflects the view that supervision is highly complex and a conclusion to be drawn is that significant competence is required to prevent doing harm to the client(s) and the supervisee(s). Studies virtually never identify the training of the supervisors or the supervision models used. Also, one proposed issue (or obstacle) is the contention that competence is construed to be an endpoint—that completion of a course education, training, licensure/registration would lead to adoption of a closed attitude of having completed all study, inquiry, and critical thinking, and without any contextual, cultural lens. In fact, in our view, competence is far from an endpoint but an ever- moving target, through lens of cultural humility, respectful process, valuing individual differences, and value attached to relationship formation and maintenance. Further, there still is not agreement on the use of or components of clinical supervision or of a metatheoretical frame, with the significant exceptions of Australia [24], [25] and an international consortium [26], where competency-based supervision assessment tools have been developed and widely implemented. We believe the competencies movement in psychology continues to represent a vital intersection, the opportunity to better align education and clinical training to the ‘real world’ requirements for competent psychologists and other healthcare providers. Continued efforts to integrate a competency-based model ensure that qualifications for licensure more directly address the factors of protection of the public including supervisees in training, psychology doctoral program accreditation, and momentum towards a more scientific, systematic approach to track training outcomes and client outcomes in a framework of responsibility, caring, and justice. Essential research is requisite, while still lacking, to assess quality of clinical supervision and impact of therapeutic intervention on client progress and supervisee development and outcomes. A number of supervision models provide structures for more scientific, systematic approaches including competency-based [2] and CBT [27], [28] clinical supervision to name a few. Although substantial progress was made with the supervision guidelines developed by the American Psychological Association [21] and those from the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards [29], defining parameters