Listening to the audio tape and exploring transference and countertransference issues, the supervisor reacts and responds to silence, language used by both therapist and client; judgments, criticisms, blurred boundaries, and tone of voice. The supervisor also reacts to a number of issues such as: “how the therapist responds when challenged or praised by the client; if the therapist sounds appropriately attuned to the client’s current emotional state; the client’s response to the therapist’s interventions; the therapist’s ability to remain theoretically consistent or if the theory is abandoned due to lack of immediate results; and if the therapist is able to keep the conversation on track or finds it difficult to stay on topic and appropriately interrupt the client if indicated.” (Hernandez-Hons & Fulan, 2010 p.4).
Some authors support the claim that as an educational experience, video playback enables microanalysis of key in-session events (Aveline, 1992; Binder, 1993; Levenson, 2006), and the opportunity to expose less experienced therapists to treatment nuances. Using recordings, therefore, may help trainees overcome rigid adherence to a technique which can occur at the expense of the therapeutic alliance (Strupp, Butler, & Rosser, 1988). Video recording allows the detection and analysis of subtle nonverbal cues communicated between patient and therapist that would otherwise go unnoticed. With video recording, the supervisor can touch on aspects such as body language, posturing, facial expressions, and physical reactions to communication and interventions. This tool is also helpful because the counsellors can watch themselves and notice reactions they may not have been aware of in the moment as well as general areas for improvement, such as questions they may have asked differently or information that would be helpful to explore further in future sessions.
Furthermore, the use of video playback can enable greater specificity in guiding the timing and application of therapeutic technique, providing anchored instruction (Binder, 2004). Furthermore, Hilsenroth et al, (2006) found that using video recording in psychotherapy training facilitated the acquisition of psychodynamic skills. In contrast to earlier findings, however, Haggerty & Hilsenroth (2011) concluded that recording therapy sessions can limit memory functions and cause forgetting, misattribution, absent-mindedness, bias and reduce the rate of accurately examining session content. Thus far, previous studies have demonstrated that recorded sessions supplement and facilitate the supervisory process as well as provide the opportunity for therapists to conduct self-analysis (Wolberg, 1954; Aveline, 1992; Alpert, 1996; Huhra, Yamokoski-Maynhart, & Prieto, 2008)
According to an investigation by Abbass, (2004), self-awareness is increases and anxiety tolerance improved when therapists are exposed to videotapes of their own sessions and those of others. In a study by Gossman & Miller (2012), on the effects of recording on therapy, both authors interviewed 13 trainee counsellors and found out that almost all participants felt that the practice helped them to develop their clinical skills and that benefits outweighed drawbacks to the practice. However, a number of studies show that significant negative effects of audio and video recording differences do exist. According to Gill, et al. (1968); Wallerstein & Sampson, (1971) therapists experience a significant impact of audio-recordings than their clients. Many authors have argued that clients rarely object to having their sessions audio recorded (Blackey, 1950; Kogan, 1950; Lamb & Mahl, 1956; Haggard, Hiken, & Isaacs, 1965; Redlich, Dollard, & Newman, 1950). In addition, therapists are uncomfortable and anxious about exposing their work to others ((Blackey, 1950; Bogolub, 1986) and are concerned about the effects of recording on therapy and clients. (Haggard, Hiken, & Isaacs, 1965; Redlich, Dollard, & Newman, 1950).
Tanney & Gelso (1972), investigated therapist-client dyads in 3 recording conditions: audio, video, and no recording and reported that the non-recorded clients found counselling more stimulating than clients in the other 2 groups and clients in the video group found it the least stimulating. The authors concluded that video-recording inhibited self-exploration in clients with personal problems and resulted in lower client satisfaction. In an investigation about the resistance of therapists-in-training to the use of video recording, Goldberg, (1983) suggested that despite some basic fears such being scrutinized by peers and supervisors in audio recording, video presentations offer fewer chances for refuge.
Some authors have claimed that the anxiety associated with observation and recording is especially intense for therapists-in-training. Covner, (1942) found that 7 of 33 counsellors reported “undesirable” reactions in knowing that their interviews might be recorded and listened in on (undesirable meaning that they were so distracted that the session was disrupted). The seven participants were assigned to the group described as having less experience. Redlich, Dollard & Newman, (1950) stated that it is more difficult for students to bring their method into the open. Goldberg, (1983) stated that psychotherapy students respond with anxiety and resistance to videotaping because they view it as threatening. The major challenge of trainees is to be active participants during each session, and at the same time be able to evaluate what is going on in the room. According to Copperman, 1990) the presence of an observer would promote the development of the observing self, given that the therapist could collaborate with the observer and give more objective views of the situation.
I would expand the comment at the end to connect above text– like those studies about negative aspects are from 1950, 60, 70 – perhaps because video and audio equipment were generally new at the time and maybe provoking more anxiety, but the studies conducted later (mostly at the beginning of 21st century) are generally showing the advantages of audio/video recordings – perhaps as modern technic become part of everyday life (cameras on phones). However, these studies were not investigating trainees’ experiences with therapy observation as a learning process, or their experiences with observation in different therapy modalities, or their experiences with international clients.
22.214.171.124 Reflecting team
Tom Andersen a Norwegian family therapist, trained in medicine and psychiatry, coined the term “reflecting team” in 1985. Reflecting team evolved from Andersen´s experience working in teams with family therapists. In this setting both the therapist and client are in the therapy room while a team of colleague observing in the adjoining room through a one-way mirror. According to Bernard ; Goodyear, (2009) at a certain point in the session, the therapist leaves the therapy room and meets the observing team for consultation. Questions, suggestions and comments are raised by any member on the team and not just the supervisor or therapist. By switching the room light or camera transmission, clients(s) watches the team as it reflects on the clinical process and content.
Family therapy has a long-standing tradition of drawing on the input of a range of therapists who observe sessions through a one-way mirror (Selvini-Palazolli, Boscolo, Cecchin, ; Prata, 1978; Watzlawick, Weakland, ; Fisch, 1974). This combination of live observation and input from a team of therapists can create some remarkably impactful therapeutic experiences for psychotherapists in training as well as clients. In his seminal 1987 article, Andersen suggested the following assumptions of reflecting team;
1. “The observer generates the distinction called “reality” with many possible meanings constituting the many possible worlds.
2. When people share their views, each person receives different versions of “reality”, and these enriched pictures form ecology of ideas.
3. People can only respond or participate in modes of relating that are available in their repertory
4. Sharing different versions of the same world allows “stuck” system to move away from their “standstill” position.”(Jenkins 1996, p 219)
The reflecting team follows the assumption that information needs to be shared rather than withheld (Andersen, 1987, 1990; Lax, 1989). With this assumption, reflecting members can share their thoughts and ideas with the client(s) during session. According to Andersen, (1987) when two or three people share their ideas, they can hear different perceptions of reality; he further argues that clients need to hear the differences among the team members to enrich their picture of family and it´s dilemma called “ecology of ideas” (Bogdan, 1984; Town et al. 2012).
Davanzo et al. (1990), compared trainees’ reactions to therapy observation through a one-way mirror versus observation in the therapy room. Those who observed using the mirror felt they were protected but more distant from the therapy process, and tended to favor observation in the therapy room. The researchers reported that the observers benefited from the experience by obtaining an overall impression of the development of a session.