4.D.3
Monitoring compliance and responding when standards are not met
ASPPB's competency statement 4.D.3: Monitor supervisee compliance and address situations in which a supervisee does not meet standards and procedures
Supervisors remain responsible for clients served through supervisees, so they check the work directly rather than relying on the supervisee's account. When a supervisee falls short of a legal, ethical or agency standard, the supervisor first protects clients, then addresses the problem promptly and specifically, follows a documented, graduated process with clear goals and supports, and involves the training program as its due process requires.
Key ideas
- Direct monitoring
- Recordings, live observation, chart review and client outcome data show what actually happens in sessions. Trainees often withhold information in supervision, so self-report alone is not enough.
- Client safety first
- When a lapse could affect clients, the supervisor first checks that clients are safe and that any required action, such as a mandated report, is taken, then turns to the supervisee's learning.
- Remediation plans
- A written plan names the specific concern, the expected behavior, supports such as closer review or extra training, a timeline and the consequences if goals are not met. It is reviewed on schedule and documented.
- Due process
- Training programs set procedures for notice, a chance to respond, remediation and appeal before serious actions. Supervisors follow them and keep the program informed as agreed.
- Professional competence problems
- APA's 2025 supervision guidelines keep a domain on professional competence problems and add attention to how a supervisee's identities intersect with competence concerns, so responses are fair and free of bias.
Worked example
A clinic's monthly data report shows that a postdoctoral resident has given the clinic's required outcome questionnaire in only a few sessions since the spring, although the resident has said in supervision that they use it with every client.
- Confirm the facts in the records before drawing conclusions, and look for any clients whose scores, had they been collected, might have shown worsening.
- Raise the gap directly and without accusation, describe what the data show and hear the resident's reasons, such as time pressure or doubts about the measure.
- Restate the clinic's policy and its purpose, agree on specific steps (the questionnaire in every session, scores reviewed together each week) and set a review date.
- Document the discussion and the plan; if the gap persists, move to a written remediation plan and inform the training program as its procedures require.
Verify compliance with data, protect clients first, then respond in proportion and in writing.
Check yourself
Why is reviewing recordings or observing sessions a stronger basis for supervision than relying on supervisees' descriptions of their work?
Sources
- Gibson, Ellis and Friedlander (2019), Toward a nuanced understanding of nondisclosure in psychotherapy supervision, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(1), 114-121 (PMID 30070561), Abstract: trainees often withhold important information about clients and supervision
- Davis, Mazmanian, Fordis, Van Harrison, Thorpe and Perrier (2006), Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: A systematic review, JAMA, 296(9), 1094-1102 (PMID 16954489), Abstract: 13 of 20 comparisons showed little, no or an inverse relationship between self and external assessment
- Swift, Callahan, Rousmaniere, Whipple, Dexter and Wrape (2015), Using client outcome monitoring as a tool for supervision, Psychotherapy, 52(2), 180-184 (PMID 25286066), Abstract: supervision discussions largely based on trainees' subjective appraisals; strategies to bring client outcome data into supervision
- Grus, Falender, Goodyear, Tao and Jordan (2026), The revised American Psychological Association guidelines for clinical supervision: Rationale, revisions, and implications for practice and scholarship, Psychotherapy, advance online publication (PMID 42821409), Abstract: 2025 Domain E, Professional Competence Problems, and new guidance on supervisee identities and competence concerns
- APA (2002, with the 2010 and 2016 amendments), Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Standard 2.05, Delegation of Work to Others; Standard 7.06, Assessing Student and Supervisee Performance
- Lamb, Presser, Pfost, Baum, Jackson and Jarvis (1987), Confronting professional impairment during the internship: Identification, due process, and remediation, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18(6), 597-603, Due process and remediation procedures in training