Beyond the "acid test": a conceptual review and reformulation of outcome evaluation in clinical supervision.

Theoretical models abound within clinical supervision, but these rarely have been applied to supervision evaluation. Instead, it appears that reviewers and researchers have simply transferred to supervision the conceptual frameworks used within medicine, especially the idea that clinical outcomes are the "acid test" of supervisory effectiveness or quality. Following a careful examination of the key literature, in this paper I argue that this has led to an over-emphasis on clinical outcomes, with the net effect of reducing scientific confidence, understanding, and the effectiveness of supervision. To begin to rectify this bias, an augmented fidelity framework is used to reformulate evaluation, drawing on some of the key concepts guiding evaluation within related fields (i.e. service evaluation; staff development; psychotherapy; applied research). The resulting evaluation model is specific to clinical supervision and can help to increase our understanding, enhance our practice, re-prioritise research, and inspire confidence in supervision.