Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy

2019 Edition
| Editors: Jay L. Lebow, Anthony L. Chambers, Douglas C. Breunlin

Bug-in-the-Ear Supervision

  • Linda WarkEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49425-8_641

Synonyms and Acronyms

Audio-cuing; BIE; Bug-in-the-ear technology; BITE*; Earphone; Third ear; Third ear mechanical device; Third mechanical ear

Theoretical Context

The intention of the bug-in-the-ear in the clinical professions is to improve the abilities of supervisees. It is part of the evolution of live supervision wherein an intrusion is made by a supervisor during an ongoing therapy session to assist the student therapist. Therapy trainees receive instant help or suggestions which, in turn, can provide clients with immediate help from a more experienced vantage point. Authors have described mutual benefits of this method for both therapy trainee and clients. Benefits for trainees include help with blind spots and instant support from supervisors (DeRoma et al. 2007) as well as minimal disruption (Carmel et al. 2016). Benefits for clients include an alteration in therapist’s behavior that leads to changes in client behavior (Smith et al. 1998). Some opposition to BITE*...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adamek, M. S. (1994). Audio-cueing and immediate feedback to improve group leadership skills: A live supervision model. Journal of Music Therapy, 31(2), 135–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alila, S., Määttä, K., & Uusiautti, S. (2015). How does supervision support inclusive teacherhood? International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(3), 351–362.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, B. (1978). Learning family therapy through simulation. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(1), 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyle, R., & McDowell-Burns, M. (2015). Modalities of marriage and family therapy supervision. In K. B. Jordan (Ed.), Couple, marriage, and family therapy supervision (pp. 51–70). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Boylston, W. H., & Tuma, J. M. (1972). Training of mental health professionals through the use of the “bug in the ear”. American Journal of Psychiatry, 129(1), 124–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carmel, A., Villatte, J. L., Rosenthal, M. Z., Chalker, S., & Comtois, K. A. (2016). Applying technological approaches to clinical supervision in dialectical behavior therapy: A randomized feasibility trial of the bug-in-the-eye (BITE) model. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 23(2), 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Champe, J., & Kleist, D. M. (2003). Live supervision: A review of the research. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 11(3), 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeRoma, V. M., Hickey, D. A., & Stanek, K. M. (2007). Methods of supervision in marriage and family therapist training: A brief report. North American Journal of Psychology, 9(3), 415–422.Google Scholar
  9. Friedberg, R. D., & Brelsford, G. M. (2013). Training methods in cognitive behavior therapy: Tradition and invention. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 27(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haney, J. N., Sewell, W. R., Edelstein, B. A., & Sartin, H. H. (1975). A portable, inexpensive, walkie-talkie-type “bug-in-the-ear”. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 7(1), 19–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kaplan, R. (1987). The current use of live supervision within marriage and family therapy. The Clinical Supervisor, 5(3), 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liddle, H. A., & Halpin, R. J. (1978). Family therapy training and supervision literature: A comparative review. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 4(4), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Locke, L. D., & McCollum, E. E. (2001). Clients’ views of live supervision and satisfaction with therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(1), 129–133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Mathis, H. I. (1971). Training a “disturbed” boy using the mother as therapist: A case study. Behavior Therapy, 2(2), 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mauzey, E., Harris, M. B. C., & Trusty, J. (2000). Comparing the effects of live supervision interventions on novice trainee anxiety and anger. The Clinical Supervisor, 19(2), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rousmaniere, T., & Frederickson, J. (2013). Internet-based one way mirror supervision for advanced psychotherapy training. The Clinical Supervisor, 42(1), 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Russell, A. (1976). Contemporary concerns in family therapy. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 2, 243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saba, G. W., & Liddle, H. A. (1986). Perceptions of professional needs, practice patterns and critical issues facing family therapy trainers and supervisors. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 14(2), 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Singer, J. L. (1990). The supervision of graduate students who are conducting psychodynamic psychotherapy. In R. C. Lane (Ed.), Psychoanalytic approaches to supervision (pp. 165–178). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, R. C., Mead, D. E., & Kinsella, J. A. (1998). Direct supervision: Adding computer assisted feedback and data capture to live supervision. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 24(1), 113–125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Tauber, L. E. (1978). Choice point analysis – formulation, strategy, intervention, and result in group process. The International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 28(2), 163–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Young, R. A. (1986). The function of supervision and means of accessing interview data. The Clinical Supervisor, 4(3), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana University – Purdue UniversityFort WayneUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Thorana Nelson
    • 1
  1. 1.Utah State UniversitySanta FeUSA