IJSP Number 8, 2026

International Journal of Supervision in Psychotherapy, Number 8, 2026 Page | 49 medicalization of educational processes when clinical models are uncritically transferred to non-clinical contexts [7, 8]. Thus, what transfers from the integrative paradigm is the relational understanding of development, the focus on process, the valuing of guided reflection, and the recognition of self-regulation as a central mechanism of professional development. It also transfers attention to the relational frame and the importance of experiential coherence in professional learning processes [17]. By contrast, therapeutic goals, clinical language, and interventions aimed at symptom treatment or psychopathological restructuring do not transfer. Supervision informed by integrative psychotherapy does not aim to modify personality structures, resolve trauma, or intervene in psychological suffering in a clinical sense. The supervisor’s role remains distinct from that of the therapist, focusing on facilitating professional reflection, supporting self-regulation, and developing professional identity [9]. This clear delimitation enables the responsible use of integrative principles in professional training and provides the conceptual premises for understanding supervision as a reflective educational space. Within this framework, integrative psychotherapy functions as a formative paradigm, offering theoretical references for understanding relational and self-regulatory processes without turning supervision into a clinical intervention context. 3. SUPERVISION AS A REFLECTIVE EDUCATIONAL SPACE 3.1. CONTEMPORARY MODELS OF SUPERVISION: RELATIONAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, AND TRANS-THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES The specialized literature describes supervision as a complex, multidimensional process combining formative, evaluative, and practice-support functions. Over time, multiple supervision models have been developed, which can broadly be grouped into relational, developmental, and trans-theoretical perspectives [7, 8]. Relational models emphasize the quality of the supervisor–supervisee relationship as a central determinant of formative effectiveness. In this view, the supervisory alliance is conceptualized as a relational framework in which safety, trust, and collaboration facilitate exploration and integration of professional experience [9]. The relationship is not reduced to a contextual support for competence evaluation; it becomes an active process of co- constructing professional meaning. Developmental models approach supervision as a dynamic process adapted to the supervisee’s stages of professional development. These models emphasize that learning needs, reflective capacity, and professional autonomy evolve over time, and effective supervision requires adjusting supervisor roles and interventions accordingly [7]. From this perspective, supervision is not uniform but differentiated, sensitive to professional identity development. Trans-theoretical and “common factors” perspectives represent a relatively recent but rapidly developing direction that seeks to identify fundamental elements shared across supervision models. These approaches highlight transversal relational and formative processes, such as the supervisory alliance, guided reflection, and support for professional