The working alliance, beliefs about the supervisor, and counseling self-efficacy: Applying the relational efficacy model to counselor supervision.

There is need for closer examination of how counselors' efficacy beliefs develop and function within actual counseling or supervisory relationships. We adapted Lent and Lopez's (2002) model of relational efficacy beliefs to the context of counseling supervision, examining possible linkages of counselors' self-efficacy to beliefs about how their supervisor perceives their (counselors') efficacy (termed relation-inferred self-efficacy [RISE]), beliefs about the supervisor's efficacy (other-efficacy), and perceptions of the supervisory working alliance. Two hundred forty graduate student counselors completed the relational efficacy belief measures in relation to a particularly challenging client on their caseloads. Path analysis findings suggested that the hypothesized model provided good fit to the data. In particular, counselors' RISE beliefs regarding their supervisors were well-predicted by the supervisory working alliance, other-efficacy beliefs about the supervisor, amount of clinical experience, and perceived client distress level. RISE beliefs (along with amount of clinical experience), in turn, predicted counselors' self-efficacy. In addition, the strength of the relationship between RISE and counselor self-efficacy was moderated by other-efficacy, suggesting that supervisors' clinical credibility, from the perspective of their supervisees, plays an important role in their ability to promote the efficacy of their supervisees. (PsycINFO Database Record

The advisory working alliance and research training: test of a relational efficacy model.

Relatively little research attention has been devoted to understanding the mechanisms through which the advising relationship functions as a medium for fostering doctoral students' development as researchers. Adapting Lent and Lopez's (2002) model of relational efficacy, we examined three types of efficacy beliefs (self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and relation-inferred self-efficacy) in relation to the advisory working alliance and the prediction of doctoral students' research interest and productivity. Gelso's (1993) concept of the research training environment was also included in model testing to capture a view of the advisory relationship as existing within a larger program training context. Participants were 274 doctoral students in a variety of academic fields. The results suggested that a slightly revised version of the hypothesized model produced good fit to the data. In particular, controlling for year in the graduate program, we found the advisory working alliance was linked to students' research self-efficacy indirectly via relation-inferred self-efficacy (i.e., students' beliefs about how their advisors viewed their research capabilities). Students' self-efficacy was, in turn, predictive of their interest in and productivity at research. We discuss the implications of these findings for future research and the practice of advising and research training.

An interdisciplinary meta-analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of protégé perceptions of mentoring.

This meta-analysis summarized youth, academic, and workplace research on the potential antecedents (demographics, human capital, and relationship attributes), correlates (interaction frequency, relationship length, performance, motivation, and social capital), and consequences (attitudinal, behavioral, career-related, and health-related outcomes) of protégé perceptions of instrumental support, psychosocial support, and relationship quality to the mentor or to the relationship. A total of 173 meta-analytic correlations were computed based on data from 173 samples and a combined N of 40,737. Among antecedents, positive protégé perceptions were most strongly associated with greater similarity in attitudes, values, beliefs, and personality with their mentors (ρ ranged from .38 to .59). Among correlates, protégé perceptions of greater instrumental support (ρ = .35) and relationship quality (ρ = .54) were most strongly associated with social capital while protégé perceptions of greater psychosocial support were most strongly associated with interaction frequency (ρ = .25). Among consequences, protégé perceptions of greater instrumental support (ρ = .36) and relationship quality (ρ = .38) were most strongly associated with situational satisfaction while protégé perceptions of psychosocial support were most highly associated with sense of affiliation (ρ = .41). Comparisons between academic and workplace mentoring generally revealed differences in magnitude, rather than direction, of the obtained effects. The results should be interpreted in light of the methodological limitations (primarily cross-sectional designs and single-source data) and, in some instances, a small number of primary studies.