text:
The Common Factors Discrimination Model: An Integrated Approach to Counselor Supervision
Feb 5, 2017 | Volume 7 - Issue 1
A. Elizabeth Crunk, Sejal M. Barden
Numerous models of clinical supervision have been developed; however, there is little empirical support indicating that any one model is superior. Therefore, common factors approaches to supervision integrate essential components that are shared among counseling and supervision models. The purpose of this paper is to present an innovative model of clinical supervision, the Common Factors Discrimination Model (CFDM), which integrates the common factors of counseling and supervision approaches with the specific factors of Bernard's discrimination model for a structured approach to common factors supervision. Strategies and recommendations for implementing the CFDM in clinical supervision are discussed.
Keywords: supervision, common factors, specific factors, discrimination model, counselor education
Clinical supervision is a cornerstone of counselor training (Barnett, Erickson Cornish, Goodyear, & Lichtenberg, 2007) and serves the cardinal functions of providing support and instruction to supervisees while ensuring the welfare of clients and the counseling profession (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). Numerous models of clinical supervision have been developed, varying in emphasis from models based on theories of psychotherapy, to those that focus on the developmental needs of the supervisee, to models that emphasize the process of supervision and the various roles of the supervisor (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). However, despite the abundance of available supervision models, there is little evidence to support that any one approach is superior to another (Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007; Storm, Todd, Sprenkle, & Morgan, 2001). Thus, a growing body of clinical supervision literature underscores a need for strategies that integrate the most effective elements of supervision models into a parsimonious approach rather than emphasizing differences between models (Lampropoulos, 2002; Milne, Aylott, Fitzpatrick, & Ellis, 2008; Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007; Watkins, Budge, & Callahan, 2015). Common factors models of supervision bridge the various approaches to supervision by identifying the essential components that are shared across models, such as the supervisory relationship, the provision of feedback, and supervisee acquisition of new knowledge and skills (Milne et al., 2008; Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007). Other common factors approaches to supervision draw on psychotherapy outcome research, aiming to extrapolate common factors of counseling and psychotherapy—such as the therapeutic relationship and the instillation of hope—to clinical supervision approaches (Lampropoulos, 2002; Watkins et al., 2015)
Although reviews of the supervision literature allude to commonalities among supervision approaches (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014), there is a dearth of published literature offering practical strategies for bridging common factors of counseling and supervision. Perhaps even more limited is literature that addresses the necessary convergence of both common and specific factors, or the integration of common factors of supervision with particular interventions that are applied in various supervision approaches (e.g., role-playing or Socratic questioning; Watkins et al., 2015). In a recent article, Watkins and colleagues (2015) proposed a supervision model that extrapolates Wampold and Budge's (2012) psychotherapy relationship model to specific factors of supervision, encouraging supervisors to apply such relationship common factors to some form of supervision. However, there remains a need for a structured approach to supervision that integrates the common factors of counseling and supervision with the specific factors of commonly used, empirically supported models of clinical supervision.
Because the common factors are, by definition, elements that are shared among theories of counseling and supervision, it can be argued that common factors approaches can be applied to almost any supervision model. However, we argue for the integration of common factors with the discrimination model for several reasons. First, the relationship has been found to be the essential common factor shared among counseling (Lambert & Barley, 2001; Norcross & Lambert, 2014) and supervision approaches, and is often cited as the most critical element of effective supervision and other change-inducing relationships, such as counseling, teaching and coaching (Lampropoulos, 2002; Ramos-Sánchez et al., 2002). The supervisory roles of teacher, counselor and consultant are built into the discrimination model, providing supervisors with natural avenues for fostering a strong supervisory relationship. However, the proposed Common Factors Discrimination Model (CFDM) expands on the discrimination model by providing specific recommendations for how supervisors might use such roles as opportunities for developing and maintaining the supervisory relationship. Second, we consider Bernard's (1979, 1997) discrimination model to lend itself well to common factors approaches to supervision, as both are concerned with process aspects of supervision, such as tailoring supervision interventions to the needs of the supervisee. Finally, because the discrimination model is widely used by practicing supervisors (Timm, 2015), common factors approaches are likely to fit naturally with customary supervision practices of more experienced supervisors who espouse the discrimination model, yet the CFDM is concise enough for novice supervisors to grasp and apply. Thus, the purpose of this manuscript is to build on Watkins and colleagues' (2015) model by presenting the CFDM, an innovative approach to supervision that converges common factors identified in both counseling and supervision and integrates them with the specific factors of Bernard's (1979, 1997) discrimination model. Specifically, we will (a) review the relevant literature on common factors approaches to counseling and supervision and the discrimination model; (b) provide a rationale for a model of supervision that integrates the specific factors of the discrimination model with a common factors approach; and (c) offer strategies and recommendations for applying the CFDM in clinical supervision.
The Common Factors Approach
The notion of therapeutic common factors resulted from psychotherapy outcome research suggesting that psychotherapies yield equivalent outcomes when compared against each other and, thus, what makes psychotherapy effective is not the differences between therapies, but rather the commonalities among them (Lambert, 1986). Wampold's (2001) landmark research revealed that the theoretical approach utilized by the therapist (e.g., psychodynamic therapy) explained less than 1% of therapy outcome. In light of these findings, researchers and clinicians have been urged to minimize the importance placed on specific clinical techniques and interventions; instead, an emphasis on the commonalities among therapies that are associated with positive outcomes (Norcross & Lambert, 2011), such as the therapeutic alliance, empathy, positive regard, and collaboration within the therapeutic relationship (Norcross & Lambert, 2014; Norcross & Wampold, 2011), is more useful for describing therapeutic changes.
Among the most influential common factors approaches is Lambert's model of therapeutic factors (see Lambert & Barley, 2001, for a review). Although lacking in stringent meta-analytic or statistical methods, Lambert and Barley (2001) presented four primary factors that are shared among therapeutic approaches (with the percentage that each factor contributes to therapy outcome indicated): (a) extratherapeutic factors (i.e., factors associated with the client, as well as his or her environment; 40%); (b) common factors (i.e., relationship factors such as empathy, warmth, positive regard, supporting the client in taking risks; 30%); (c) placebo, hope, and expectancy factors (i.e., the client's hope and expectancy for improvement, as well as trust in the treatment; 15%); and (d) skills/techniques factors (i.e., components specific to various therapies, such as empty chair or relaxation techniques; 15%). Although a variety of common factors have been identified in the psychotherapy outcome research, numerous meta-analyses have identified the therapeutic relationship as the sine qua non (Norcross & Lambert, 2011, p. 12) of common factors that account for positive outcomes irrespective of the specific treatment utilized (Norcross & Wampold, 2011). They stated: "although we deplore the mindless dichotomy between relationship and method in psychotherapy, we also need to publicly proclaim what decades of research have discovered and what tens of thousands of relational therapists have witnessed: The relationship can heal" (Norcross & Lambert, 2014, p. 400).
Although the common factors are necessary for producing positive counseling outcomes, this does not mean that specific factors are irrelevant (Norcross & Lambert, 2011). On the contrary, prior research indicates that engaging in specific treatment interventions is associated with the working alliance and with positive counseling outcomes (Tryon & Winograd, 2011; Wampold & Budge, 2012). Watkins and colleagues (2015) noted that treatment interventions are necessary in maintaining client hope and expectations for positive counseling outcomes, stating, "The specific ingredients create benefits through the common factor of expectations, and respecting that interdependent common/specific factor dynamic is vital to treatment outcome" (p. 221).
Common Factors Approaches to Supervision
Although the concept of common factors in counseling and psychotherapy is not a new one and has been the focus of considerable empirical research (Frank, 1982; Lambert & Barley, 2001; Lambert & Ogles, 2004; Rosenzweig, 1936), applying the common factors approach to clinical supervision is relatively novel (Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007). Counseling and clinical supervision are distinct interventions; however, Milne (2006) makes a case for extrapolating findings from psychotherapy research to supervision, as both share common structures and properties of education, skill development, problem-solving and the working alliance. Furthermore, Bernard and Goodyear (2014) noted, "because therapy and supervision are so closely linked, developments in psychotherapy theory inevitably will affect supervision models" (p. 59).
Despite frequent reference to the similarities among supervision models, literature that specifically addresses common factors of supervision approaches is scarce (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). In our review of the supervision literature, we identified five articles that endorsed common factors approaches to supervision and counselor training (Castonguay, 2000; Lampropoulos, 2002; Milne et al., 2008; Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007; Watkins et al., 2015). Following Castonguay's (2000) seminal work on training in psychotherapy integration, Lampropoulos (2002) was among the first to address the parallels that exist between common factors of both counseling and supervision, advocating for a theoretically eclectic approach to supervision and for the prescriptive matching of common factors to supervisee needs. For example, Lampropoulos (2002) suggested that supervisors might integrate psychodynamic theory as a means of increasing supervisees' awareness of countertransference and attachment patterns, or cognitive theory in order to restructure supervisees' unhelpful thoughts about counseling and supervision.
In contrast to Lampropoulos's (2002) model, which extrapolates common factors of counseling to supervision, Morgan and Sprenkle (2007) and Milne and colleagues (2008) endorsed approaches that bridge similarities between supervision models. Morgan and Sprenkle (2007) identified a number of common factors among models of supervision, grouping these factors into the following three dimensions falling on their respective continua: (a) emphasis, ranging from specific clinical competence to general professional competence; (b) specificity, ranging from the idiosyncratic needs of supervisees and clients to the general needs of the profession as a whole; and (c) supervisory relationship, ranging from collaborative to directive. The authors (Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007) then proposed a model of supervision that applies these three dimensions of supervision to the supervisor roles of coach, teacher, mentor and administrator. In contrast, Milne and colleagues (2008) conducted a best evidence synthesis of the supervision literature to summarize the current state of empirical research on supervision practices and applied their findings to a basic model of supervision. Although both models (Milne et al., 2008; Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007) contributed viable descriptive models of common factors approaches to supervision, they were limited in providing specific strategies for supervisors to employ in a given situation. Furthermore, neither model specifically addressed the intersection of common factors of counseling and common factors of supervision. Thus, noting that common factors of counseling and specific factors of supervision approaches are interdependently related, Watkins and colleagues (2015) proposed a common/specific factors model, designating the supervisory relationship as the crowning common factor and encouraging supervisors to apply this relationship-centered model to the specific factors of "some form of supervision" (Watkins et al., 2015, p. 226). Following Watkins and colleagues' recommendations, we therefore present an integrated approach to supervision by applying the common factors of counseling and supervision to the specific factors of the discrimination model.
The Discrimination Model
The discrimination model (Bernard, 1979, 1997) provides a conceptualization of clinical supervision as both an educational and a relationship process (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Borders & Brown, 2005). In essence, the discrimination model involves the dual functions of assessing the supervisee's skills and choosing a supervisor role for addressing the supervisee's needs and goals. The supervisee is assessed on three skill areas, or foci: (a) intervention (observable behaviors that the supervisee demonstrates in session, such as demonstration of skills and interventions); (b) conceptualization (cognitive processes, such as the supervisee's ability to recognize the client's themes and patterns, as well as the supervisee's level of understanding of what is taking place in session); and (c) personalization (supervisee self-awareness and ability to adapt his or her own personal style of counseling while maintaining aware-ness of personal issues and countertransference). Furthermore, over 30 years ago, Lanning (1986) proposed the addition of assessing the supervisee's professional behaviors, such as how the supervisee approaches legal and ethical issues.
When the supervisor has assessed the supervisee's skill level in each of the three foci, the supervisor utilizing the discrimination model assumes the appropriate role for addressing the supervisee's needs and goals: (a) teacher (assumed when the supervisor perceives that the supervisee requires instruction or direct feedback); (b) counselor (appropriate for when the supervisor aims to increase supervisee reflectivity, or to process the supervisee's internal reality and experiences related to his or her professional development or work as a counselor); or (c) consultant (a more collaborative role that is assumed when the supervisor deems it appropriate for the supervisee to think and act more independently, or when the supervisor aims to encourage the supervisee to trust his or her own insights). It is important to note that the supervisor does not take on the singular form of any of the three roles, but rather makes use of the knowledge and skills that are characteristic of each role (Borders & Brown, 2005). The discrimination model is situation-specific; therefore, supervisor roles and foci of assessment might change within a supervision session and across sessions. Consequently, supervisors are advised to remain attuned to the supervisee's needs in order to attend to his or her most pressing focus area and to assume the most suitable role for addressing these needs rather than displaying strict adherence to a preferred focus or role (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014).
The discrimination model is considered to be an accessible, empirically validated model for supervisors and can be adapted in complexity depending on the supervisor's level of readiness (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014; Borders & Brown, 2005). Using multidimentional scaling in an empirical study of the discrimination model, Ellis and Dell (1986) provided validation for both the teacher and counselor roles, although the consultant role did not emerge as a distinct role. Their findings are consistent with other studies that provided support for the teacher and counselor roles, but not for the consultant role (Glidden & Tracey, 1992; Goodyear, Abadie, & Efros, 1984; Stenack & Dye, 1982). Thus, the consultant role might be more difficult to distinguish from the teaching and counseling roles, perhaps, as Bernard and Goodyear (2014) noted, because the consultant role requires supervisors to put aside their position of expert or therapist and act more collaboratively with their supervisees. Ellis and Dell provided an alternate (and conflicting) explanation, suggesting that consultation might be an underlying component of both the teaching and counseling roles. These findings indicate a need for future research and possible modification of the discrimination model; however, the discrimination model is generally supported by empirical research.
Rationale for an Integrated Model
Watkins and colleagues (2015) stated: "Akin to the 'great psychotherapy debate' about effectiveness (Wampold, 2001), a 'great psychotherapy supervision debate' about effectiveness is eminently likely" (p. 17). Several cross-cutting models of clinical supervision have been proposed (Milne et al., 2008; Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007), as well as models that extrapolate common factors of counseling to supervision practices (Lampropoulos, 2002; Watkins et al., 2015); however, there has yet to be a model that systematically converges both. Given the abundance of empirical support for common factors in counseling, we have conceptualized a new model, the CFDM, to integrate a supervision approach that is grounded in effective counseling and supervision practices. Furthermore, Watkins and colleagues encouraged supervisors to apply common factors of counseling to the specific factors of some form of supervision; however, to our knowledge, no such model integrating common factors with the specific factors of an empirically supported model of supervision has been published. Thus, the CFDM combines essential factors of supervision models, converges them with common factors of counseling approaches, and applies them to the specific factors of Bernard's (1979, 1997) discrimination model for a structured approach that bridges effective elements of both counseling and supervision.
Bernard and Goodyear (2014) pointed to the supervisory relationship as one of the most essential factors in supervision; however, a major criticism of the discrimination model is that the model itself does not thoroughly address the supervisory relationship (Beinart, 2004). Similarly, Freeman and McHenry (1996) found that supervisors ranked the development of clinical skills as their top goal for supervising counselors-in-training and identified that supervision involves taking on the roles of teacher, challenger and supporter, but relationship building did not surface as an emphasis of counselor supervision (Bell, Hagedorn, & Robinson, 2016). Thus, the CFDM builds on the discrimination model by incorporating tenets of the supervisory relationship that are consistent with common factors of counseling and supervision, such as the working alliance (Bordin, 1983), the real relationship (Watkins, 2015), and the instillation of hope (Lambert & Barley, 2001; Lampropoulos, 2002). Historically, the supervision literature suggests that novice supervisors, in particular, might manage feelings of self-doubt and uncertainty by employing a highly structured supervision style, focusing on providing supervisees with feedback on counseling techniques or client diagnosis and placing less emphasis on attending to the supervisory relationship (Hess, 1986; Hess & Hess, 1983). Furthermore, whereas building rapport is a top priority in many therapeutic relationships, counselor supervisors might prioritize other factors instead, such as scheduling, paperwork, and evaluation, before establishing a relationship with the supervisee (Bell et al., 2016). Because the discrimination model is a widely used approach to supervision (Timm, 2015), experienced counselors who wish to incorporate common factors of supervision and counseling into their customary supervision practice will likely find the CFDM to be an intuitive supervision approach. The following section provides a description of the four primary tenets of the CFDM, as well as strategies and recommendations for applying the CFDM in supervision.
The Common Factors Discrimination Model
The CFDM is an innovative model of supervision that aims to integrate the common factors of counseling and supervision with the specific factors of Bernard's (1979, 1997) discrimination model for a structured, relationship-centered approach to clinical supervision. The CFDM builds on existing supervision models that extrapolate common factors of counseling to supervision practices (Lampropoulos, 2002; Watkins et al., 2015). The CFDM also draws on the discrimination model (Bernard, 1979, 1997) as a method of assessing supervisee needs and tailoring feedback and support accordingly. Although the melding of common factors with the discrimination model has yet to be empirically tested as an integrated approach to supervision, both approaches have received substantial empirical support as standalone models. Empirical research supports common factors approaches to counseling and other change-inducing relationships; however, the CFDM's underpinnings in the more prescriptive discrimination model provide a structured approach to common factors supervision. In addition, there is evidence to suggest the effectiveness of common factors approaches across cultures (Dewell & Owen, 2015).
We have proposed a model that combines effective common factors of counseling and supervision with the specific factors of Bernard's (1979, 1997) widely used, empirically supported and accessible discrimination model for a structured approach to common factors supervision. The primary tenets of the CFDM were derived by reviewing the literature on common factors models of supervision and purposively selecting the most common elements, including: (a) development and maintenance of a strong supervisory relationship, (b) supervisee acquisition of new knowledge and skills, (c) supervisee self-awareness and self-reflection, and (d) assessment of supervisees' needs and the provision of feedback based on the tenets of Bernard's (1979, 1997) discrimination model. The following section provides a brief fictional case illustration followed by specific strategies for applying the CFDM to supervision. Specific examples for matching common factors with tenets of the discrimination model are provided in Table 1, based on an illustrative case example, followed by a discussion of the primary tenets of the case to the CFDM.
Case Illustration
André, a master's student in mental health counseling, is completing his first semester of clinical practicum at his university's community counseling center. Although André demonstrates competency across many clinical and professional domains, as a novice counselor trainee he struggles with reflecting feeling with clients in session. His supervisor has noticed that André tends to sidestep emotional topics in session and, instead of reflecting feeling, responds to emotional content by asking the client unrelated questions or by changing the subject. In the few instances in which he has attempted to reflect feeling, André has been inaccurate in his reflections, undershooting the intensity of the client's feelings or misreading the client's emotions altogether. This has sometimes led to tension and frustration between André and his clients. Using the CFDM, his supervisor might utilize the following strategies in supervision with André. In the following section, the case of André is discussed, integrating the primary tenets of the CFDM.
Application of the CFDM
The Supervisory Relationship
Bernard and Goodyear (2014) suggested that the supervisory relationship is a critical factor in effective supervision, regardless of the model of supervision that is followed. Thus, the central tenet of the CFDM is the development of a collaborative supervisory relationship that is characterized by the Rogerian conditions of empathy, genuineness, and unconditional positive regard (Lampropoulos, 2002). Utilizing the CFDM with André, the supervisor approaches her supervisory roles of teacher, counselor and consultant with warmth and acceptance as she addresses André's difficulty reflecting feeling with his client, rather than using a confrontational or critical approach. Furthermore, she explores with André his personal experiences with emotion, taking into consideration his background and cultural factors that could play a role in his relationship with emotion.
The real relationship. The real relationship (Lampropoulos, 2002; Watkins, 2015) refers to a supervisory relationship that is unaltered by transference or countertransference and is characterized by empathy, warmth, genuineness, unconditional positive regard and trust. The expression of humor and optimism also is recommended in developing a common factors-influenced supervisory relationship. Extrapolating from Gelso's (2014) tripartite model of the psychotherapy relationship, Watkins (2015) defined the real relationship as "the personal relationship between supervisor and supervisee marked by the extent to which each is genuine with the other and perceives/experiences the other in ways that befit the other" (p. 146). Factors of the real relationship are critical in supervision, as they allow supervisees to develop trust in the supervisory relationship and provide safety for supervisees to disclose vulnerabilities, mistakes and personal concerns (Storm et al., 2001).
Because the evaluative and hierarchical nature of supervision might make the supervisory relationship vulnerable to supervisory ruptures (Burke, Goodyear, & Guzzardo, 1998; Nelson & Friedlander, 2001; Safran, Muran, Stevens, & Rothman, 2007), the CFDM utilizes a collaborative evaluation process (Rønnestad & Skovholt, 1993), in which supervisees have the opportunity to practice evaluating their skills independently throughout their training either by journaling or by completing an evaluation form about their session and submitting their self-evaluation to their supervisor. Supervisee self-evaluations are then processed in supervision. The CFDM supervisor in the case illustration might use this strategy with André to allow him to raise self-awareness and to receive regular feedback on his skills. Furthermore, assuming the teacher role of the discrimination model, his supervisor might direct André to conduct a self-assessment of his reflections of feeling following each session, which he could bring into supervision to discuss and receive her feedback.
Because the supervisory relationship is the central tenet of the CFDM, it is advisable to evaluate and monitor the relationship throughout supervision. Furthermore, Lampropoulos (2002) recommended that supervisors identify and attempt to repair ruptures as soon as possible, as ruptures can be deleterious to supervision process and outcome. One such measure for evaluation of the supervisory relationship is the Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ; Palomo, Beinart, & Cooper, 2010), a 67-item assessment of the supervisee's perceptions of the supervisory relationship. Other plausible measures include the Working Alliance Inventory (Bahrick, 1990) and the Revised Relationship Inventory (Schacht, Howe, & Berman, 1988). Allowing André to assess the supervisory relationship and give his supervisor feedback can provide insight into André's perception of their relationship and can allow the supervisor to consider making changes in her approach, if necessary. This also conveys to André that his feedback is valuable and that their supervisory relationship is collaborative.
The working alliance. The working alliance in supervision refers to the collaborative development of goals and tasks for supervision (Bordin, 1983; Constantino, Castonguay, & Schut, 2002; Lampropoulos, 2002). The working alliance is established in the CFDM by collaboratively developing a supervision contract between the supervisor and the supervisee (Lampropoulos, 2002) at the very beginning of the supervisory relationship. Goals for supervision that are addressed in the contract include evaluating supervisees' strengths and areas for growth and identifying specific skills to be learned, as well as issues related to supervisee theoretical orientation. The tasks used to reach these goals can include process notes, live supervision, and interpersonal process recall (IPR; Kagan & Kagan, 1997) as a collaborative approach to processing André's strengths and areas for growth, and for facilitating André's self-reflection and self-awareness. The purpose of these tasks is to provide structure and opportunities for instruction, feedback, and evaluation, while allowing the supervisee to engage in self-evaluation, application of new skills, corrective action, and exploration of alternative approaches. The CFDM draws from the discrimination model when developing the contract as a means of evaluating supervisee's three levels of foci (i.e., intervention, conceptualization and personalization). For example, when developing the supervision contract with André, the supervisor would consider André's current level of competency with regard to techniques and clinical skills, case conceptualization skills, and self-awareness and personal style.
Instillation of hope and the creation of expectations. Frank and Frank (1991) noted the impact of positive expectations and hope in effecting change in counseling. Placebo, hope and expectancy factors emerged as a single common factor among most counseling approaches, with Lambert and Barley (2001) noting that instillation of hope accounts for 15% of client outcome. Watkins (1996) addressed the issue of demoralization in supervision, stating that beginning counselors can experience poor self-efficacy and might feel overwhelmed as they navigate their professional identity development. Watkins (1996) stated that supervisors are able to utilize the supervisory relationship as a means of encouraging supervisees and providing structure within the relationship to foster hope. Recently, Watkins and colleagues (2015) endorsed the creation of expectations and the provision of some method of supervision as a pathway by which supervisee change occurs. CFDM supervisors can incorporate hope and expectancy into supervision by using the consultant role of the discrimination model to explain to supervisees the process of supervision, and by collaborating with supervisees to provide supervision that builds on those expectations. Practical tools that André's supervisor might implement to promote hope and positive expectations include developing a supervision contract with André or providing him with a professional disclosure statement in order to explain the process of supervision and to set supervisory rituals in motion (Watkins et al., 2015). Lampropoulos (2002) also suggested setting short- and long-term goals with supervisees as a means of instilling hope.
Supervisee Self-Awareness and Self-Reflection
An additional tenet of the CFDM is supervisee self-reflection concerning issues that influence professional development (Lampropoulos, 2002). CFDM supervision emphasizes the importance of encouraging supervisees to explore their strengths and areas for growth, and personal issues that might affect their work in counseling, as well as their therapeutic styles (Lampropoulos, 2002; Milne et al., 2008). The CFDM attempts to facilitate supervisee self-reflection by implementing strategies such as collaborative evaluation and the supervision contract (discussed above). Furthermore, the CFDM utilizes IPR (Kagan & Kagan, 1997), in which the supervisor and supervisee watch videotape of a supervisee's counseling session together, pausing the tape at moments that either the supervisor or supervisee deems critical for further inquiry and processing. Taking on the role of counselor, the supervisor utilized IPR to explore what André was experiencing during that moment of the counseling session that might have prevented him from demonstrating reflection. Consistent with the common factors model, the supervisor confronted André with warmth, empathy and acceptance.
Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills
According to the discrimination model (Bernard, 1979, 1997), one of the primary roles of the supervisor is that of teacher. Thus, in addition to providing support and feedback, supervisors are in a position to impart knowledge and to facilitate supervisees' acquisition of skills—a factor of supervision that surfaces in the majority of supervision models (Milne et al., 2008; Morgan & Sprenkle, 2007). Lampropoulos (2002) stated that supervisees might learn through direct instruction, through shaping (i.e., gradual learning of a desired behavior) and through their own personal experience. In addition, supervisees have opportunities to learn by imitating the behaviors of their supervisors and other counselors (Lampropoulos, 2002). Given that skills and techniques factors account for 15% of counseling outcome (Lambert & Barley, 2001), supervisors are in a position to model skills and techniques of counseling in supervision as a means of fostering supervisee learning and skill acquisition. Integrating common factors with the discrimination model, André's supervisor might take on the role of teacher to watch a video clip with André of a recent counseling session in which André struggled to reflect feeling, directing him to role-play with his supervisor other ways that he could respond to his client when emotional content is disclosed. André's supervisor also could provide him with a list of "feeling words" or other relevant resources in order to help him to increase his awareness of emotion and to broaden his feelings vocabulary.
Assessment of Supervisee Needs and the Provision of Feedback
A final tenet of the CFDM is assessment of supervisee needs and the provision of feedback utilizing the roles and foci presented in the discrimination model. Using the CFDM, the supervisor would implement tailoring (also referred to in the counseling literature as prescriptive matching)—or adapting supervision to fit the characteristics, worldviews and preferences of the supervisee—as would be done with clients in common factors approaches to counseling (Norcross & Halgin, 1997). In their review of the literature on clinical supervision, Goodyear and Bernard (1998) identified attending to supervisees' individual differences as an essential component of effective supervision. Furthermore, tailoring is inherent in the discrimination model, which recommends matching the supervisor's role to supervisee needs (Bernard, 1979, 1997). As a beginning clinician, André might express a greater need for structured, directive supervision compared to more experienced supervisees (Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Crethar, 1994). Because André self-disclosed his perception of emotion and how this relates to his identity as a male, his supervisor should include this in her conceptualization of André and how he approaches work with clients. Furthermore, this is a value that she might continue exploring with André in future supervision sessions if it could have an impact on his clinical work with clients. Multiple supervision models have recommended matching supervision to the supervisee's therapeutic approach and cognitive and learning styles (e.g., level of cognitive complexity; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Stoltenberg, 1981), and Norcross and Halgin (1997) suggested beginning the supervisory relationship with a needs assessment to determine the supervisee's unique needs, goals and preferences for supervision. Although tailoring can pose unique challenges for supervisors providing triadic or group supervision, individual differences such as supervisees' level of experience, learning goals, gender and ethnicity can be taken into account in these formats.
CFDM: Examples of DM Focus and Role Intersections and Common Factors Strategies (CFS)
Supervisor Roles (DM)
Supervision Focus Area (DM) and CFS
Intervention André reports that he is uncertain of how to perform a lethality assessment. André struggles to reflect feeling and meaning with clients. André is interested in using children's books in session with elementary-aged children.
Common Factors Strategy: Supervisor teaches André the necessary steps of assessing for lethality, then the dyad engage in a role play in which the supervisee tests his new knowledge by performing a lethality assessment with the supervisee acting as the client.(Acquisition of New Knowledge and Skills) Supervisor asks André to reflect on the fact that he demonstrates empathy toward his clients while in supervision but struggles to show empathy by reflecting feeling and meaning in session.(Self-Exploration, Awareness, and Insight) Supervisor provides André with resources for using bibliotherapy in child counseling and offers to help the supervisee brainstorm methods for utilizing this intervention in counseling.(Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills)
Conceptualization André struggles to provide client with accurate diagnosis. André perceives himself as being an ineffective counselor because he has difficulty choosing interventions in session. André requests more information on client stages of change.
Common Factors Strategy: Supervisor and André practice diagnosing fictional clients using case studies from a DSM-5casebook. Supervisor then assigns André homework to practice completing a few case studies independently. Supervisor and André review and discuss André's answers collaboratively during following supervision session.(Acquisition of Knowledge and Skills) Supervisor reflects supervisee's feelings of inadequacy, offers encouragement, and normalizes the developmental challenges of supervisees. (Supervisory Relationship – Instillation of Hope and Raising of Expectations) Supervisor assists supervisee with locating information on client stages of change and discusses with supervisee the idea of conceptualizing client's progress in counseling within the context of the client's stage of change. (Acquisition of Knowledge of Skills)
Personalization André exhibits behaviors that resemble racial microaggressions. André's performance anxiety causes him to appear distracted in session. André shares that a client reminds him of his deceased mother.
Common Factors Strategy: Supervisor reviews videotape of session with André and identifies an instance in which he exhibits a microaggression toward client. Supervisor gives André feedback on microaggressions and encourages André to engage in self-reflection on personal biases. (Provision of Feedback) Supervisor reflects André's feelings of anxiety and asks André to reflect on how his anxiety may be affecting his work with clients. (Supervisory Relationship – The Real Relationship) Supervisor offers to help André process countertransference and communicates to André that he has handled the situation ethically and professionally by sharing with his supervisor his feelings of countertransference toward his client. (Supervisory Relationship and Provision of Feedback)
Practical Challenges and Limitations
Utilization of the CFDM might pose challenges that warrant discussion. For example, the CFDM might intensify the parallel process due to its similarities to the structures and processes of counseling. Moreover, CFDM's parallels to counseling might blur the lines between supervision and counseling, making it important for supervisors to clearly delineate the role and functions of supervision. Thus, the CFDM endorses utilizing the Rogerian condition of genuineness to facilitate an open, collaborative discussion between the supervisor and supervisee when potentially problematic issues of parallel processing arise in supervision. Furthermore, the CFDM might be vulnerable to challenges in dual relationships, as the various discrimination model roles that the supervisor might assume could blur the lines between the supervisory relationship versus other relationships that the supervisor might have with the supervisee, such as that of instructor. Therefore, supervisors utilizing the CFDM are encouraged to have an open discussion with supervisees from the beginning of supervision concerning the purposes, limitations and boundaries of the supervisory relationship. Such conversations can be facilitated with the use of a professional disclosure statement that outlines the supervisor's roles (Blackwell, Strohmer, Belcas, & Burton, 2002; Cobia & Boes, 2000).
Because the central tenet of the CFDM is the identified supervisory relationship, a potential challenge that is perhaps inherent in the CFDM is addressing weaknesses and ruptures in the supervisory relationship. The CFDM might also be challenging for supervisors or supervisees who inherently struggle to establish strong supervisory and therapeutic relationships. Supervisees who demonstrate limited ability to establish a strong therapeutic relationship might benefit from direct instruction on behavioral skills that facilitate the therapeutic relationship, such as reflections of feeling and meaning. Lampropoulos (2002) recommended that gatekeeping measures be implemented for students who consistently demonstrate deficiency in establishing a strong therapeutic relationship with clients. Finally, outcome research is indicated to examine the validity of applying common factors principles of psychotherapy to clinical supervision, as well as the empirical merit of an integrated common factors and discrimination model of supervision.
The supervision literature abounds with approaches for supervising counselors; however, there is little evidence that any one approach outperforms another. Common factors approaches to counseling and supervision draw on the components that are shared among models for a parsimonious approach that places emphasis on the factors that are essential in producing positive counseling and supervision outcomes. However, although such factors are necessary, they are not sufficient for yielding positive change. Therefore, Watkins and colleagues (2015) noted the necessity of applying the specific factors of some form of supervision to a common factors approach. We have responded to this call by presenting the CDFM, which integrates the specific factors of Bernard's (1979, 1997) discrimination model with the most common elements of counseling and supervision approaches: (a) the supervisory relationship, (b) supervisee acquisition of new knowledge and skills, (c) supervisee self-awareness and self-reflection, and (d) assessment of supervisees' needs and the delivery of feedback according to the tenets of the discrimination model.
The authors reported no conflict of interest or funding contributions for the development of this manuscript.
Bahrick, A. S. (1990). Role induction for counselor trainees: Effects on the supervisory working alliance. Disser-tation Abstracts International, 51, 1484B.
Barnett, J. E., Erickson Cornish, J. A., Goodyear, R. K., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (2007). Commentaries on the ethical and effective practice of clinical supervision. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 268–275. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.38.3.268
Beinart, H. (2004). Models of supervision and the supervisory relationship and their evidence base. In I. Fleming & L. Steen (Eds.), Supervision and clinical psychology: Theory, practice, and perspectives (pp. 36–50). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Bell, H., Hagedorn, W. B., & Robinson, E. H. M. (2016). An exploration of supervisory and therapeutic relation-ships and client outcomes. Counselor Education and Supervision, 55, 182–197. doi:10.1002/ceas.12044
Bernard, J. M. (1979). Supervisor training: A discrimination model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 19, 60–68. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1979.tb00906.x
Bernard, J. M. (1997). The discrimination model. In C. E. Watkins, Jr., Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 310–327). New York, NY: Wiley.
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Blackwell, T. L., Strohmer, D. C., Belcas, E. M., & Burton, K. A. (2002). Ethics in rehabilitation counselor super-vision. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 240–247. doi:10.1177/00343552020450040701
Borders, L. D., & Brown, L. L. (2005). The new handbook of counseling supervision. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 35–42. doi:10.1177/0011000083111007
Burke, W. R., Goodyear, R. K., & Guzzardo, C. R. (1998). Weakenings and repairs in supervisory alliances: A multiple-case study. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 52, 450–462.
Castonguay, L. G. (2000). A common factors approach to psychotherapy training. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 10, 263–282. doi:10.1023/A:1009496929012
Cobia, D. C., & Boes, S. R. (2000). Professional disclosure statements and formal plans for supervision: Two strategies for minimizing the risk of ethical conflicts in post-master's supervision. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78, 293–296. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01910.x
Constantino, M. J., Castonguay, L. G., & Schut, A. J. (2002). The working alliance: A flagship for the "scientist-practitioner" model in psychotherapy. In G. S. Tryon (Ed.), Counseling based on process research: Applying what we know (pp. 81–131). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Dewell, J. A., & Owen, J. (2015). Addressing mental health disparities with Asian American clients: Examining the generalizability of the common factors model. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 80–87.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00183.x
Ellis, M. V., & Dell, D. M. (1986). Dimensionality of supervisor roles: Supervisors' perceptions of supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 282–291. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.33.3.282
Frank, J. D. (1982). Therapeutic components shared by all psychotherapies. In J. H. Harvey & M. M. Parks (Eds.), Psychotherapy research and behavior change: 1981 Master Lecture Series. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Frank, J. D., & Frank, J. B. (1991). Persuasion and healing: A comparative study of psychotherapy (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Freeman, B., & McHenry, S. (1996). Clinical supervision of counselors-in-training: A nationwide survey of idea
delivery, goals, and theoretical influences. Counselor Education and Supervision, 36, 144–158. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1996.tb00382.x
Gelso, C. (2014). A tripartite model of the therapeutic relationship: Theory, research, and practice. Psycho-therapy Research, 24, 117–131. doi:10.1080/10503307.2013.845920
Glidden, C. E., & Tracey, T. J. (1992). A multidimensional scaling analysis of supervisory dimensions and their perceived relevance across trainee experience levels. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23, 151–157. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.23.2.151
Goodyear, R. K., Abadie, P. D., & Efros, F. (1984). Supervisory theory into practice: Differential perceptions of
supervision by Ekstein, Ellis, Polster, and Rogers. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 228–237. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.31.2.228
Goodyear, R. K., & Bernard, J. M. (1998). Clinical supervision: Lessons from the literature. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 6–22. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1998.tb00553.x
Hess, A. K. (1986). Growth in supervision: Stages of supervisee and supervisor development. The Clinical Supervisor, 4, 51–68. doi:10.1300/J001v04n01_04
Hess, A. K., & Hess, K. A. (1983). Psychotherapy supervision: A survey of internship training practices. Profess-ional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 504–513. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.14.4.504
Kagan, H. K., & Kagan, N. I. (1997). Interpersonal process recall: Influencing human interaction. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 296–309). New York, NY: Wiley.
Lambert, M. J. (1986). Implications of psychotherapy outcome research for eclectic psychotherapy. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Handbook of eclectic psychotherapy (pp. 436–462). New York, NY: Brunner-Mazel.
Lambert, M. J., & Barley, D. E. (2001). Research summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy, 38, 357–361.
Lambert, M. J., & Ogles, B. M. (2004). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin & Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 139–193). New York, NY: Wiley.
Lampropoulos, G. K. (2002). A common factors view of counseling supervision process. The Clinical Supervisor, 21, 77–95. doi:10.1300/J001v21n01_06
Lanning, W. (1986). Development of the supervisor emphasis rating form. Counselor Education and Supervision, 25, 191–196. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1986.tb00667.x
Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 3–42. doi:10.1177/0011000082101002
Milne, D. L. (2006). Developing clinical supervision through reasoned analogies with therapy. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 215–222. doi:10.1002/cpp.489
Milne, D. L., Aylott, H., Fitzpatrick, H., & Ellis, M. V. (2008). How does clinical supervision work? Using a "best evidence synthesis" approach to construct a basic model of supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 27, 170–190. doi:10.1080/07325220802487915
Morgan, M. M., & Sprenkle, D. H. (2007). Toward a common-factors approach to supervision. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33, 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00001.x
Nelson, M. L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory relationships: The trainee's perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 384–395. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.384
Norcross, J. C., & Halgin, R. P. (1997). Integrative approaches to psychotherapy supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 203–222). New York, NY: Wiley.
Norcross, J. C., & Lambert, M. J. (2011). Evidence-based therapy relationships. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psycho-therapy relationships that work: Evidence-based responsiveness (2nd ed.) (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Norcross, J. C., & Lambert, M. J. (2014). Relationship science and practice in psychotherapy: Closing commentary. Psychotherapy, 51, 398–403. doi:10.1037/a0037418
Norcross, J. C., & Wampold, B. E. (2011). Evidence-based therapy relationships: Research conclusions and clinical practices. Psychotherapy, 48, 98–102. doi:10.1037/a0022161
Palomo, M., Beinart, H., & Cooper, M. J. (2010). Development and validation of the Supervisory Relationship Questionnaire (SRQ) in UK trainee clinical psychologists. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 131–149. doi:10.1348/014466509X441033
Ramos-Sánchez, L., Esnil, E., Goodwin, A., Riggs, S., Touster, L. O., Wright, L. K., . . . Rodolfa, E. (2002). Negative supervisory events: Effects on supervision and supervisory alliance. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33, 197–202.
Rønnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (1993). Supervision of beginning and advanced graduate students of
counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 396–405. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1993.tb02655.x
Rosenzweig, S. (1936). Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 412–415. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1936.tb05248.x
Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C., Stevens, C., & Rothman, M. (2007). A relational approach to supervision: Addressing ruptures in the alliance. In C. A. Falender & E. P. Shafranske (Eds.), Casebook for clinical supervision: A competency-based approach (pp. 137–157). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schacht, A. J., Howe, H. E., & Berman, J. J. (1988). A short form of the Barrett-Lennard relationship inventory for supervisory relationships. Psychological Reports, 63, 699–706. doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.63.3.699
Stenack, R. J., & Dye, H. A. (1982). Behavioral descriptions of counseling supervision roles. Counselor Education and Supervision, 21, 295–304. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1982.tb01692.x
Stoltenberg, C. (1981). Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective: The counselor complexity model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 59–65. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.28.1.59
Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B. W., & Crethar, H. C. (1994). Changes in supervision as counselors and therapists gain experience: A review. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 416–449.
doi:10.1037/0735-7028.25.4.416
Storm, C. L., Todd, T. C., Sprenkle, D. H., & Morgan, M. M. (2001). Gaps between MFT supervision assumptions and common practice: Suggested best practices. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27, 227–239. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb01159.x
Timm, M. (2015). Creating a preferred counselor identity in supervision: A new application of Bernard's dis-crimination model. The Clinical Supervisor, 34, 115–125. doi:10.1080/07325223.2015.1021499
Tryon, G. S., & Winograd, G. (2011). Goal consensus and collaboration. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Evidence-based responsiveness (pp. 153–167). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199737208.003.0007
Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wampold, B. E., & Budge, S. L. (2012). The 2011 Leona Tyler Award address: The relationship—and its relation-ship to the common and specific factors of psychotherapy. The Counseling Psychologist, 40, 601–623. doi:10.1177/0011000011432709
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (1996). On demoralization and awe in psychotherapy supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 14, 139–148. doi:10.1300/J001v14n01_10
Watkins, C. E., Jr. (2015). Extrapolating Gelso's tripartite model of the psychotherapy relationship to the psycho-therapy supervision relationship: A potential common factors perspective. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 25, 143–157. doi:10.1037/a0038882
Watkins, C. E., Jr., Budge, S. L., & Callahan, J. L. (2015). Common and specific factors converging in psycho-therapy supervision: A supervisory extrapolation of the Wampold/Budge psychotherapy relationship model. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 25, 214–235. doi:10.1037/a0039561
A. Elizabeth Crunk is a doctoral candidate at the University of Central Florida. Sejal M. Barden is an Assistant Professor at the University of Central Florida. Correspondence can be addressed to Elizabeth Crunk, University of Central Florida, College of Education and Human Performance, Department of Child, Family, and Community Sciences, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., P.O. Box 161250, Orlando, FL 32816-1250, elizabethcrunk@gmail.com.


text:
366th FIGHTER ASSOCIATION AUDENTES FORTUNA JUVAT "ONCE A GUNFIGHTER, ALWAYS A GUNFIGHTER"
366th History
World War II >
The 366th in WW II
Citations & Awards >
Distinguished Unit
Belgian Fourragere
Croix de guerre
Distinguished Flying Cross - Lt Garr
WWII Aerial Victories >
WWII Aerial Victories - Alphabetical
WWII Aerial Victories - Chronological
WWII Casualties >
WWII Casualties - Alphabetical
WWII Casualties- Chronological
Lt. Baier's Scrapbook
Poems from the era
1943-86 Chronology
WWII Memorial
Brother to Brother
WWII Nose Art
P-47 "The Jug"
P-47 Pilot Interview
WWII MIA Updates >
1st Lt. Gray
2nd Lt. McGowan
The Nato Years >
The 366th 1953-1965
Viet Nam Era >
The 366th in Vietnam
Citations - Awards >
Capt Sijan Medal of Honor
Citations and Awards
Presidential Unit Citation 1967
Outstanding Unit Award w/Combat V Citation 1970-72
Award Criterion >
Presidential Unit Citation
Outstanding Unit Award
Vietnam Service Medal
RVN Campaign Medal
RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm
366th TFW Victories & Casualties Lists >
366th TFW Aerial Victories >
366 TFW Aerial Victories Alphabetical
366 TFW Aerial Victories Chronological
366th TFW Casualties >
366 TFW Casualties - Alphabetical
366 TFW Casualties Chronological
War Stories >
Gunfighters in the News
The Gunfighter Name
F-4C's Gun Down MIG's
Chico the Gunfighter
Pure Torture
366th - SE Asia Bases >
Da Nang >
They Called it Rocket City
Base Information - The Early Days
Miscelaneous Information
Takhli Royal Thai AFB
Maps - Da Nang & Vietnam >
Da Nang AB Maps
University of Texas - Maps of Vietnam
Audio - Video & News, Etc. >
Bobbie - The Weather Girls
F-4 Phantoms, Gunships, War Losses >
Gunships at Da Nang
Aircraft Losses - SE ASIA
U.S.A.F. >
USAF Orgs - Vietnam War
BS Bomber Leaflets
Oath of Enlistment
High Flight
Tropical Boot Care
366th TFW >
366 Mission Statement
Remembering the Original Gunfighter
Gunfighter Glasses
THE CAN DO BEARS
389th TFS >
389th - Da Nang 1968
389th - 1965 Photo - Alaska Air Command
390th Boars Head
Boar's Teeth on F-4D
Missed by a Nanosecond
This & That >
General Watson
Post Vietnam
Gulf War and Beyond >
Gulf War and Beyond Awards
Gulf War and Beyond Casualties
Sights and Sounds Today
Mt. Home F-15 Artwork >
F-15 Nose Art
Mt. Home F-15 Tail Art
366th Commanders >
Fighter Group Commanders
Fighter Bomb Wing Commanders
Tactical Fighter Wing Commanders
Wing Commanders
Air Expeditionary Wing Commanders
Fighter Wing Commanders
366th Heraldry >
Official Emblem of the 366th
366th Command Patches
366TH Group Patches
The Gunfighter Patch
Aircraft of the 366th
Units and Stations
366th Tac Ftr Wing "The Gunfighters" >
366 TFW Gunfighter Memorial History
Dedication Program
366 TFW Gunfighter Memorial Dedication Video
366th Tactical Fighter Wing Monument Photo
A Few Photos Taken At The Dedication
366th Fighter Group "The Hun Hunters" >
366th Fighter Group Memorial Dedication Ceremony NMUSAF
366th Fighter Group Monument Photo NMUSAF
366th Fighter Group Memorial and Tree Photo At The NMUSAF
366th FG Monument Area NMUSAF Map
366th Fighter Group Plaque USAF Academy
366th Reunions
2020 Firm - Tucson, AZ
2021 Tentative - Williamsburg, VA
Host Cities by Year
Latest Team Letter - July 2019
Older Team Letters
Availble From Us
Our Order Forms
More 366th Items on these web sites >
Precision Woodcrafting
Member Address Update Form
Membership Application - Sample
Life Member List
Links to our Friends and Related Sites
Book Project
Why a Book ?
How to Submit Pictures
How to Submit A Story
Seeking Gunfighter Contact Information
Requests For Assistance/Information
366th Fighter Association Scholarships
Sally Bradshaw Memorial Scholarships
The Gulf War and Beyond
Click for Award Detail
In early 1991, the Air Force announced that the 366th would become the Air Force's premier "air intervention" composite wing. The wing would grow from a single-squadron of EF-111As to a dynamic, five squadron wing with the ability to deploy rapidly and deliver integrated combat airpower. This resulted from General Merrill A. McPeak, then Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) and his belief that creating standing composite wings, wherein one commander would control all types of aircraft to defeat an enemy, would streamline and shorten tactical planning. General McPeak expressed that a composite wing would make "smaller mistakes because it works and trains together in peacetime. It knows the playbook. In other words, it can exploit the inherent flexibility of air power".
The air intervention composite wing's rapid transition from concept to reality began in October of 1991 when redesignated as the 366th Wing. The wing's newly reactivated "fighter squadrons" became part of the composite wing in March 1992. The 389th Fighter began flying the dual-role F-16C Fighting Falcon, while the 391st Fighter Squadron was equipped with the new F-15E Strike Eagle. These two squadrons provide Gunfighters round-the-clock precision strike capability.
In June 1992, as part of Air Force restructuring, Strategic Air Command and Tactical Air Command merged to form Air Combat Command. A month later, the 366th also gained the 34th Bomb Squadron. Located at Castle AFB, California, the 34th flew the B-52G Stratofortress, giving the composite wing deep interdiction bombing capabilities as the only B-52 unit armed with the deadly, long-range HAVE NAP missile. Next, in September 1992, Air Force redesignated the 390th Electronic Combat Squadron as the 390th Fighter Squadron, which began flying the Air Force's premier air superiority aircraft, the F-15C Eagle. With its internal 20-millimeter cannon and air-to-air missiles, the F-15C protects the wing's high-value assets from enemy air threats. At the same time, Air Force activated the 429th Electronic Combat Squadron, which assumed control of the wing's EF-111A aircraft as they prepared to transfer to Canon AFB, New Mexico.
During this buildup, however, the wing's Ravens remained busy flying combat missions over Iraq, both from Saudi Arabia in support of Operation Desert Calm, and from Incirlik AB, Turkey, in support of Operation Provide Comfort. In June 1993, however, the wing transferred its remaining EF-111As and the 429th ECS to Cannon AFB, ending Mountain Home's long association with the various models of the F-111 aircraft.
In October 1992, the composite wing gained its final flying squadron when the 22nd Air Refueling Squadron was activated and equipped with the KC-135R Stratotankers. These tankers give the wing its ability to deploy globally at a moment's notice.
1 January 1994, the 366th Wing consisted of the following squadrons and aircraft:
22nd Air Refueling Squadron, KC-135R Stratotanker
34th Bomb Squadron, B-52G Stratofortress (At Castle AFB, California)
389th Fighter Squadron, F-16C Flying Falcon
390th Fighter Squadron, F-15C Eagle
391st Fighter Squadron. F-15E Strike Eagle
In another change, on April 1, 1994, the 34th Bomb Squadron transferred its flag to Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. At the same time the squadron's B-52Gs were retired, making way for the squadron to be equipped with the technologically advanced B-1B Lancer. Next, a gradual transfer of the B-1s from Ellsworth to Mountain Home began in August 1996. The squadron completed a move to Mountain Home on April 1, 1997, when its flag was officially transferred to the Gunfighter home base. Also in 1996, the wing gained yet another operational squadron. On June 21st, the 726th Air Control Squadron was reassigned from Shaw AFB, South Carolina, to Mountain Home. The new squadron brought mobile radar surveillance, and command and control capabilities to the composite wing.
In the summer of 1996 some 500 people, 36 jets and tons of equipment moved to Incirlik as the 366th Wing from Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, mounted the largest single unit swap out in the five-year history of Operation Provide Comfort. The 366th Wing deployment brought a force equal to nearly half of all Air Force people assigned to OPC. They replaced the 23rd Fighter Squadron from Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, along with the 492nd and 493rd Fighter Squadrons from RAF Lakenheath, England.
In late October 1996, the wing's senior leadership also announced a new name for the 366th Wing. Henceforth, it would be known as the "Air Expeditionary Wing" while deployed in keeping with an Air Force decision to stand up a "battle lab" at Mountain Home to refine the new concept. The wing would soon begin working out the most efficient procedures for moving an airpower expeditionary force to pre-selected locations around the world. The Air Expeditionary Force Battlelab (AEFB) activated by paper only on 1 April 1997, stood up at MHAFB on 22 Oct 1997.
While all these changes in the wing's composition were going on, the Gunfighters met numerous operational challenges. They have supported numerous deployments in the United States and around the world from the time of composite wing implementation. Only the highlights of this hectic pace are described here. Twice, in 1993 and again in 1995, the wing served as the lead unit for Bright Star, a large combined exercise held in Egypt. In July 1995, the wing also verified its combat capability in the largest operational readiness inspection in Air Force history. The Gunfighters deployed a composite strike force to Cold Bay, Canada, and proved they could deliver effective composite airpower. Then in 1996, the wing deployed to Incirlik AB, Turkey, in support of Operation Provide Comfort.
In November 1997 the 366th Air Expeditionary Wing, nicknamed the Gunfighters, accomplished a series of firsts while deployed to Bahrain in support of Operation Southern Watch. It was the first time an Operational Readiness Inspection was completed in theater during a real-world contingency; the first time bombers, fighters and tankers from the same wing deployed to a location in support of a contingency; and the first time the B-1B Lancers from the 34th Bomb Squadron have bedded down with the wing in a deployed location. Conducting an ORI during a real-world contingency came as an ACC initiative to lower operational tempo in a unit.
The 366th deployed twice to Shaikh Isa AB, Bahrain, to support Operation Southern Watch. In 1997 the 366th Air Expeditionary Wing deployed to Shaikh Isa AB [aka Sheik Isa / Shaikh Asa] Air Base, Bahrain (now known as Isa Air Base) from 24 September 1997 through 02 Octber 1997, with 6 F-15C, 6 F-15E, 10 F-16, 2 B-1B, and 2 KC-135. The 366 AEW from Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, deployed F-15s, F-16s, B-1 bombers, and KC-135s to Shaikh Isa, Bahrain. During its deployment, the wing flew 444 sorties in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. They were deployed for the second time in 1998. These Air Expeditionary Force (AEF) deployments showed that the 366th Wing could employ and sustain its composite force while conducting the mission. Gunfighters returned on a second rotation relieving the unit who had replaced them after the wing's first visit to Bahrain. This historical first set the pace and made way for operational advancements. The 366th Wing then helped develop the way the Air Force will fly and fight in the next century through its participation as the lead AEF unit during Expeditionary Force Experiment 98. This CSAF experiment combined actual flights and combat simulations to create realistic war fighting environments. It aimed to rapidly mature initiatives that integrated air and space competency while applying decisive air and space power, thus dramatically improving command and control.
The 14 Sep 1998 announcement by CSAF Michael Ryan that the whole Air Force will reorganize into an 'Aerospace Expeditionary Force' came as no to surprise to Gunfighters. Consequently, the 366th Wing ('Air Expeditionary Wing' (AEW), when deployed) is and has been leading the way as the model from which other wings will be built. The wing also participated in Operation Desert Thunder in 1998.
Following the arrival of the 366th Wing's 44 aircraft and 1,200 personnel at Shaikh Isa Air Base, Bahrain, in March 1999 the 366th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron developed an environmental program that utilized available host nation resources. For the next 75 days, the wing met the stringent requirements of the Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Document (OEBGD) and the Air Force Handbook 10-222 Volume 4, Environmental Guide for Contingency Operations. Their efforts resulted in the operation of a highly effective hazardous waste management program and the Air Force's first-ever full-scale recycling program for an Air Expeditionary Force (AEF). The 366th Wing processed more than 70 hazardous waste increments and recycled more than 50 tons of material within 45 days. To accomplish this task, the wing sought out existing resources and formed proactive partnerships with the US Navy Administrative Support Unit (ASU) Environmental Office in Manama, Bahrain, and a scrap recycling firm in the host nation.
In early 1999, the wing's three fighter squadrons flew combat missions over southern Iraq, with the 391st dropping more bombs than any other unit since the end of Desert Storm. From April-June 1999, the 22 ARS supported Operation Allied Force, the NATO air campaign against Serbia. During this period, the squadron refueled 600 aircraft and off-loaded over 7 million pounds of fuel. The 726th Air Control Squadron also supported Kosovo operations from May-July 1999. They were the first American unit to deploy to Romania in 53 years. In September 1999, the Gunfighters participated in JEFX 99, the latest in a series of exercises focused on testing emerging command and control technologies for deployed air expeditionary forces. Immediately following JEFX 99, the wing hosted Red Flag 00-1.1, the first red flag exercise in history not conducted at Nellis AFB, Nevada. Flown completely at night, the exercise combined traditional composite strike aircraft packages with low-observable F-117s and B-2s in a simulated interdiction campaign.
Following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 and the resultant initiation of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, the 366th Wing once again got the call. While the 34th Bomb Squadron deployed to Diego Garcia as the B-1 component of the 28th Air Expeditionary Wing, the wing sent a Base Operations Support package to Al Udeid AB, Qatar to transform the bare base into a fully operational airfield for large-scale combat operations.In October 2001, the 391st FS deployed to the Arabian Peninsula, while the 389th FS went to Al Udeid in November. Meanwhile, the 22 ARS, 390th FS, and 726th ACS supported Operation Noble Eagle protecting the skies of the Northwestern United States. The TDC Team displayed an exceptional performance at all levels in Support of Noble Eagle. In January 2007, the 391st FS deployed to Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan as the first F-15E Strike Eagle unit to patrol the skies over that country during Operation Enduring Freedom.
During the air campaign against Afghanistan that began on 7 October 2001, the 366th Wing's deployed crews flew nearly 1,000 sorties and dropped a total of 7.6 million pounds of bombs against Al Qaeda and Taliban targets—the most out of any unit participating in the operation.
Text sources: The 366 Wing History Office ; Air Force Historical Research Agency; WIKIA - MILITARY on the WIKI And from an article, about Shaikh-Isa Air Base, posted on the globalsecurity.org web site
Return to: History of the 366th

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Valerian and the City of A Thousand Planets: The Art of the Film Review
by Matt Heywood on August 3, 2017 CollectingFeaturesMoviesReviewsVideo ReviewYouTube Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Titan Books sent over a copy of its latest art book, which features behind-the-scenes looks at Valerian and the City of A Thousand Planets, and like most other Titan Books art books, it's a high quality item to add to your coffee table or library. The book features 192 glossy pages that cover the plot of the film from start to finish. Each page is full of beautiful imagery and concept art for the film, and there are also anecdotes about why certain design choices were made. It really is a great look into the making of the film, so if you're a fan of Besson's latest sci-fi epic, then you should check out the full video review below.
Titan Books sent over a copy of its latest art book, which features behind-the-scenes looks at Valerian and the City of A Thousand Planets, and like most other Titan Books art books, it's a high quality item to add to your coffee table or library. The book features 192 glossy pages that cover the plot of the film from start to finish. Each page is full of beautiful imagery and concept art for the film, and there are also anecdotes about why certain design choices were made. It really is a great look into the making of the film, so…
Matt Heywood
Titan Books has once again crafted a fine companion piece for a massive sci-fi film that features some of the most imaginative visuals to ever grace the silver screen. This book is a great pickup for fans of the franchise, and Besson himself.
Valerian Art Book Review Summary
Readability - 8.5
Presentation - 9
Price - 9.5
Entertainment Value - 8
Review Statement: The author of this review was provided a sample copy by the publisher for the purposes of this review.
Tags : Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
Thrones Time Show: The Queen's Justice Breakdown and Items of Note
'Fable Fortune' Preview
Valerian and The City of One Thousand Planets Video Review


text:
Джузеппе Лонги (; , Монца — , Милан) — один из виднейших итальянских гравёров на меди, педагог.

Биография
Обучался в христианской семинарии, где изучал философию и филологию. В 1786 решил стать художником и отправился во Флоренцию, где занимался с гравером Винченто Вангелисти (1740—1798), позже — под руководством живописца Джулио Траваллези и Франки в Риме. Затем трудился в Риме и Милане.

Вернувшись в Милан, стал профессором гравюры и преподавал гравировку в Академии  изящных искусств Брера. Среди его учеников были Беретта, Э. Бизи, Коззи, Паоло Каронни, Гиберти, Капорали, Джузеппе Биси, Якоб Фельзинг, Крюгер, Грунер, Стейнл, Гаравалья и Пьетро Андерлони.

В 1801 Лонги посетил Париж, где встретился со многими художниками, в том числе Жаком-Луи Давидом и Николя-Анри Тардьё.

Творчество

Его работы высоко ценятся любителями искусства. Особенно хорошо владел он сухою иглою.

К числу лучших его гравюр резцом относятся
 «Видение Иезекииля» с Рафаэля (1803),
 «Madonna del divino-amore» с картины неаполитанского музея, которая считалась прежде произведением Рафаэля, а потом признана картиною Дж. Романо (1828),
 «Обручение Богоматери» с миланской картины Рафаэля,
 «Madonna del lago» с рисунка Леонардо да Винчи,
 «Отдохновение на пути в Египет» с Джулио Чезаре Прокаччини,
 «Галатея, плывущая на раковине» с Ф. Альбани,
 «Мария Магдалина» с дрезденской картины Корреджо,
 «Наполеон I во время Аркольской битвы» с А. Ж. Гро (1798),
 некоторые из многочисленных портретов и «Страшный Суд»,
 гравюра с Микеланджело, оставшаяся неоконченной.

В своих офортах Лонги более всего воодушевлялся Рембрандтом, произведения которого передавал весьма характеристично.

Написал биографию Микельанджело, изданную в 1816 году, «Теорию халькографии» (1830).

Умер в Милане в 1831 году от инсульта во время гравировки картины «Страшный суд» по Микеланджело.

Ссылки

 Giuseppe Longhi

Гравёры XVIII века
Гравёры XIX века
Гравёры Италии
Педагоги Италии
Педагоги XIX века
Умершие от инсульта

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


The number of traffic accidents and fatalities increased marginally during the first six months of this year compared to the same period last year, though the number of injuries dropped.
According to data from the Ministry of Interior, there were 1,883 traffic accidents in the first half of the year, resulting in 919 deaths, an increase of 0.8 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively, on the same period last year.
The number of injured, however, declined by 9 percent to 2,982.
More than three out of four people killed in road accidents were on a motorbike, accounting for 76 percent of the deaths. Among those fatalities, in 82 percent of cases, those killed were not wearing a helmet.
According to the same report, the leading cause of road accidents was speeding, which accounted for 36 percent of all cases, followed by disrespecting another driver's right of way, breaking the law by driving right-hand steering vehicles and drunk driving.
Run Roth Veasna, the head of the ministry's Public Order Department, said yesterday that the number of casualties resulting from road accidents remains a concern for the government.
"The implementation [of the new traffic laws], which has lasted for almost a year, shows that it is getting better, but the numbers are still worrisome," he said, adding that authorities will impose stricter enforcement of traffic laws.


Authorities say a man arrested after fleeing the scene of a Cobleskill store burglary may be the same person wanted in a series of recent thefts. According to the Cobleskill Police Department, Matthew Michaels of Warnerville was booked into jail on felony charges for stealing items from a France Lane store last Thursday. Michaels was arraigned and sent to jail in lieu of $25,000 cash bail or $70,000 bond. Investigators say a search of Michaels's car resulted in evidence tying him to other burglaries and additional charges are expected to be filed.


Click here to view Christian men looking for Christian women.
I like flowers, Manolo Blahniks and quiet time. I always write in my journal and update my blogs online. I like meeting new people and talking about the weather (haha), politics (maybe), and about each other.
I love the outdoors: running, hiking, and camping. I also love traveling and taking road trips; it�s so fun and exciting! I�m a romantic at heart; I read romantic novels and watch sappy movies. Well, I also get a kick walking around wearing my skimpy lingerie all day long.
Those who love, beleive the impossible.
It is a secret, but I really love studying! Apart from that, I love extreme sports like skiing and snowboarding. I also unwind by swimming and reading a good book.
Want to check other cities in Massachusetts?


text:
Cowboys' Rookies Lose Preseason Finale to Bucs
David Helman
DallasCowboys.com Staff Writer
ARLINGTON, Texas – If this had been the regular season, it would have been quite the dramatic finish.
Strictly speaking, the Cowboys fell to Tampa Bay, 17-15, on Thursday night after a last-gasp two-point conversion fell incomplete.
Keeping this game in its true context, though, it doesn't quite live up to that billing. After all, it was fourth-string quarterback Taryn Christion who found Jalen Guyton for a 69-yard touchdown that might have tied the game up.
Dak Prescott, Amari Cooper and the rest of the Cowboys' starters watched from the sideline.
That's the theme of the fourth preseason game, as the rookies and youngsters of the NFL swap places with the stars and starters in their bid to earn a precious roster spot.
Give Christion, Guyton and plenty of others credit – they certainly left it all on the field.
The night started with a bang, as Donovan Olumba found himself in the end zone after a pick-six on just the ninth play of the game. Jameill Showers tipped a Ryan Griffin pass that was intended for Bobo Wilson, and the ricochet fluttered into Olumba's arms for the 26-yard return.
From there, it stalled into a bit of a stop-and-go affair – and that's perfectly fine. The fourth preseason game is all about evaluation, and plenty of young players put their best foot forward against the Buccaneers.
Of those, none might stand out more than defensive tackle Daniel Wise. The rookie out of Kansas tallied five on the night, but his true highlights came when he sacked Griffin twice within five minutes of game time.
The Cowboys' young receivers also made a good accounting of themselves. Jon'Vea Johnson had struggled with drops through most of the preseason, but he finished his night with three catches for 32 yards. Devin Smith, who is making a push for one of the team's final roster spots, caught two balls for 31 yards.
Apparently it wouldn't be a preseason game if Donovan Wilson didn't nab an interception. The rookie safety made a great read on a pass from Vincent Testaverde – yes, Vinny's son – and covered 10 yards to pick it off. It was Wilson's third interception this preseason.
Wilson's night was cut short when he exited the game with an ankle injury, which puts a damper on an otherwise fantastic preseason. It's likely Wilson has earned his way onto the 53-man roster, so his injury status will be something to watch heading into the weekend.
Meanwhile, the second half saw Tampa Bay take control. Testaverde led the Buccaneers on an eight-play, 39-yard field goal drive to open the third quarter, and he followed that up with an eight-play, 61-yard touchdown drive a few moments later.
Tampa's 17-9 lead would hold up – but only barely, thanks to Christon and Guyton.
Taryn Christion took over for Mike White late in the third quarter and guided the Cowboys on a couple promising possessions, but his red zone fumble led to a touchback and quashed what might have been a Cowboys scoring drive.
It was Christion's most extensive work at quarterback, finishing the night 9-of-11 with 116 yards and the touchdown.
Give Guyton plenty of credit for that score, too. Christion found Guyton on a comeback route on 3rd-and-5 with 2:40 to play, and the Allen, Texas, native broke two tackles before racing the final 60 yards to the end zone.
Cowboys coach Jason Garrett elected to go for the two-point conversion and the tie, but the out route intended for Cedrick Wilson flew harmlessly out of the end zone.
With the game now out of the way, all eyes turn toward the Cowboys' roster cuts. The coaching staff will likely begin the process of trimming the roster on Friday afternoon, and the deadline to reach the 53-man limit is Saturday at 3 p.m.
Truthfully, the final roster felt mostly set heading into Thursday night, but there will be a few interesting decisions to make. What will the Cowboys do about the running back position, while Ezekiel Elliott is still absent from the team? Will the duo of Devin Smith and Cedrick Wilson find their way into the receiver group, or will the coaching staff choose one over the other?
Defensively, the depth along the defensive line creates a challenge. Wise had a standout game against Tampa Bay, but will that be enough to win a roster spot over the likes of Daniel Ross or Taco Charlton? The same can be said for the secondary, as the coaches will have to choose which youngsters they like best at the back of the depth chart.
However it all shakes out, it won't be a long wait now that the preseason is over. That might be the best news of all.
The Cowboys kick off the regular season against the New York Giants on Sept. 8th at AT&T Stadium. Tickets start at $35. Get your tickets now!
Updates: Martin Among 12 Players on Injury Report
Don't miss any of the action with our daily update, with news and notes and even more as the Cowboys get ready for the 2019 season.
Scout's Notebook: How The WR Battle Will Finish
As always, Bryan Broaddus came away with a lot of notes about Thursday night's 17-15 loss to Tampa Bay. Here are his thoughts from the Cowboys' preseason finale at AT&T Stadium.
Jones Sees Scenario Where Elliott Misses Games
Will Ezekiel Elliott rejoin the Cowboys in time for the Sept. 8 season opener against the New York Giants?
Bubble Watch: 5 Players Who Helped Themselves
The Cowboys' preseason is over, and they'll start cutting their roster on Friday. They have until Saturday afternoon to trim the team to 53 players.
Eatman: Six Things We Learned Thursday Night
I've never liked the term "meaningless" when talking about a football game, even the fourth preseason one when just a handful of players – if that – are going to be around after this weekend.
These Guys Have Something To Play For Tonight
While Thursday's game might be meaningless to some on the roster, these final four quarters of the preseason could make or break the careers of others. Here are some players to watch on both sides of the ball tonight.
Rank'Em: Staff Predicts Cowboys' 53-Man Roster
From top to bottom, the staff writers have weighed in on the final 53-man roster, predicting all the way to the end, including a debate on the final 10 bubble players.
Mick Shots: Offseason Hay Almost In The Barn
Camp is done. In a day, preseason will be completed.
Team Still "Open For Business" With Dak, Cooper
From the outside, it sure feels like the pressure is mounting.
Scout's Eye: Secondary Continues To Surge
Following the Cowboys' last practice of training camp, Bryan Broaddus came away impressed with what he saw from this young group of defensive backs.
Jerry Jones: No Deadline For Zeke Elliott Deal
Cowboys owner/general manager Jerry Jones says there's no deadline in his mind regarding negotiations with running back Ezekiel Elliott on a new contract.


text:
Silhouette: The Story
Anonymous - January 1, 1998
Silhouette is the product of internal Nintendo research over several years. In my opinion, the history of Silhouette is nothing short of fascinating, so please read this document at least once before you throw it in the trash. Originally developed under the code-name "Mirage" and designed to serve as a Super Famicom development environment, Silhouette has been modified into a working Super Nintendo emulation environment which rivals the best efforts of any public development. Adequate explanation of Silhouette requires a step back to the original days of Super Famicom development.
The first batch of games for the Super Famicom were developed around 1988 and 1989. Popular Super Famicom titles, like F-Zero and Super Mario World, were the most difficult for several reasons--if nothing else, the Super Famicom hardware specifications changed in small ways at least twice during the development project, requiring changes to existing code. (Trivia tidbit: the original Super Famicom plans called for much more extensive onboard 3D hardware--PilotWings was developed assuming that this hardware would be present, and since this chip was scrapped from the Super Famicom at the last minute, Nintendo was forced to include this 3D chip on the PilotWings board in order to keep the game on schedule.)
The other reason for difficulty in development is much less known, and very surprising--almost all the programming for these titles was done on the Apple IIgs! This seems ridiculous until you realize that both the Super Famicom and the Apple IIgs are based on the 65816 processor, a cheap toy with inadequate processing power that was stuck in the Super Famicom to smooth over the early development process (since it is backwards compatible with the 6502, the NES' processor). However, it was soon realized by the development teams that a reliable 65c816 development platform could not be found on the usual Nintendo platforms (most Nintendo devs at that time had a generic PC, excluding the art and marketing department which was mostly Macintosh and a few segments of the development team). Deadlines approaching, the Apple IIgs was chosen as a quick if inelegant solution--several C and assembly compilers were available, and testing and debugging was easier since we were able to use a native 65816 for testing.
However, the IIgs proved woefully inadequate for large projects. Most machines didn't even have hard drives! Compile times for even meager projects were horrendous, and keeping all the work on floppies was getting out of hand. And obviously, the graphics support on IIgs' was minimal, so testing out small programs required switching between a Super Fami prototype on the left and a IIgs on the right. Programmers, in general, hated the thought of Super Famicom development. Many continued to write 6502 code using the old NES development environment, choosing to ignore on the 16-bit advantages of the 65816 in order to complete the project without losing their sanity.
Nintendo soon pushed its efforts hard into developing a reasonable development platform for Super Famicom (and soon, the Super Nintendo). The project was codenamed Mirage, and several of the key designers of the Super Fami hardware were assigned to the project. Along with full 65c816 emulation, interrupt timing and memory management, the Mirage dev platform offered realtime debugging, code stepping, breakpoints, limited video support and almost instant compile times. Developers were happy, and Mirage proved to be an excellent way to write Super Famicom software in record times.
At first, Mirage was anything but a traditional emulator--the video consisted of squares on a black background (showing where sprites would be) and pages of debugging information. It did not run in real-time, there was no controller interface, no SPC700 chip emulation (required for sound), a text-based user interface. It was meant for programmers and used for writing code. Final testing was done on a real Super Fami unit.
However, over time, the Mirage project got more advanced. Of course, bugfix after bugfix was added, patching the code to make sure its output matched that of a real Super Fami. A team working on some tricky graphical effects added the first major patch, a separate window (originally forced onto a second monitor) which would render a virtual SNES screen. This process took several seconds on our original hardware--one could watch the screen slowly draw from top to bottom--but it worked, and it was more accurate than most of the emulators you see today. A second team optimized the code, and combined with computer upgrades around the Nintendo offices, this let Mirage run in pseudo-realtime, although it was a fraction of the speed of a real Super Famicom.
It soon became common to test games on Mirage more and more extensively. Developers found that the time needed to load their code from Mirage into the testing units (up to a minute for large games) was excessive, when with a click of the mouse they were able to immediately see the game running within Mirage. Of course, there were a lot of limitations, and nobody would argue that Mirage could replace a real unit, but it was a start.
This is where the story gets interesting. In late 1996, a high-level executive (who will remain anonymous) at Nintendo came to the Rare labs one day, and saw a coder working on his game using Mirage. (Trivia tidbit: Yes, Rare has many of its development labs within Nintendo of America headquarters nowadays -- they were always in bed together, now more recently they've even shacked up. Diddy Kong Racing -- shudder.) By now, computer hardware had advanced to allow Mirage to run at playable speeds on this guy's average desktop hardware. Suddenly the potential struck him -- Super Nintendo games on household PCs! Obviously there's a market.
Nintendo of Japan shrugged off the idea, but they always have -- NOJ is known for passing over potentially valuable markets, and focusing on selling elaborate junk to young children (Virtual Boy, anyone?). On the other hand, Nintendo 64 has not been the blockbuster that was hoped for in the US market; obviously the higher-ups overestimated the market for $79 games designed for kids when competing systems sell their games for $39. Regardless, the project Silhouette was spun off from Mirage in an attempt to broaden Nintendo's market to PC owners, especially those who liked SNES software. Silhouette had two main developers, myself being one of them; the Mirage team also worked on large portions. Silhouette was designed to be a subset of Mirage; its purpose was to play games, and be as optimized as possible for today's computer hardware, but be as accurate as possible. No debugging windows, no test modes, no compiler--just the emulated hardware, with the best possible gaming experience. Every attempt was made in Silhouette's course of development to obtain speed without sacrificing compatibility.
In many cases Silhouette was forced to expand to include features that Mirage did not cope with. For example, Mirage had no sound support whatsoever--Silhouette includes a full SPC700 APU emulator, designed by myself and my partner from the ground up. Original versions of Silhouette also included an encryption scheme to prevent customers from hacking the software and using ROM images other than the game included with the emulator; the version you have does not include this encryption, however.
An interesting note is that most employees at Nintendo had no idea that other people had already thought of SNES emulation until very recently. The entire SNES9X cancellation story is a huge mess of bad PR for Nintendo, but it couldn't be helped--if a Super Nintendo emulator were released as freeware (along with the heavy ROM piracy that is characteristic of the Internet), the market for Silhouette would be slim to none. Nintendo's efforts in combatting ROM image piracy have always been swift and effective, and frankly I feel nothing but satisfaction seeing ROM pirates get shut down. Try watching your colleague's or friend's hours and hours of labor get translated into a ZIP file and get spread across the Internet and see how it makes you feel. Piracy sucks, people--don't use Silhouette as a vehicle for piracy.
Unfortunately, as you can see, Silhouette did not make it into stores nationwide as planned. Within the past few months, Nintendo of America has undergone some extensive reorganizations and layoffs. Much of the blame for this rests with the current state of N64 sales (let's just say we're not doing so well; Sony destroyed us this Christmas). The high-level executive who brainstormed Silhouette lost his job in the red tape. After that, it was only a matter of time before the word came down from NOJ to axe the Silhouette project, still unfinished. That ended my career at Nintendo, since Silhouette had been my only major project at Nintendo for several months and I had nothing to do after the project was gone. I packed my bags and made sure to get a copy of Silhouette on Zip disk before taking off.
I'm pretty sure that Silhouette is dead at Nintendo. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they denied that it ever existed, at this point. But let the facts speak for themselves--here's Silhouette, now on your hard drive. Have fun. Due to the facts behind this program's development, and the confidential nature of Silhouette, my colleague and I chose to release Silhouette only under anonymity.
Most of all, please enjoy Silhouette! It's got a lot of hard hours of work invested into it, and although I know there's a lot of rough edges--transparency masking, for example, is all wrong, and the SPC700 really needed a little more testing--it really is the best out there. Special thanks to whoever drew these icons--I lifted them off another emulator in haste, since I am not an artist.
Future versions of Silhouette may emerge from time to time. No promises, and no release dates -- I have already gotten myself a new job where I'm extremely happy, but the days are long and you can only program for so many hours in a day. Have fun, and thanks for trying Silhouette!
-- Silhouette Public Release 1.0, 1/1/98
Archaic Ruins is not connected or affiliated with any mentioned company in any way. The opinions of Archaic Ruins do not reflect the views of the various companies mentioned here. Companies and all products pertaining to that company are trademarks of that company. Please contact that company for trademark and copyright information. © 1997/1998 Archaic Ruins


text:
Amherst Cinema: The Juniper Tree
March 29 @ 9:45 am - 11:00 pm
28 Amity Street
Amherst,
New 4K Restoration from the original 35mm camera negative.
Set in medieval Iceland, The Juniper Tree follows Margit (Björk in a riveting performance) and her older sister Katla (Bryndis Petra Bragadottir) as they flee for safety after their mother is burned to death for witchcraft.
Finding shelter and protection with Johan (Valdimar Orn Fygenring), and his resentful young son, Jonas (Geirlaug Sunna Pormar), the sisters help form an impromptu family unit that's soon strained by Katla's burgeoning sorcery.
Photographed entirely on location in the stunning landscapes of Iceland in spectacular black-and-white by Randy Sellars, The Juniper Tree is a deeply atmospheric film, evocative of Carl Theodor Dreyer's Day of Wrath and Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring, and filled with indelible waking dream sequences (courtesy of legendary experimental filmmaker Pat O'Neill).
An unsung talent in her lifetime, director, professor and Fulbright scholar Nietzchka Keene's stark, stunning debut feature The Juniper Tree is loosely based on a Brothers Grimm fairy tale of the same name, and stars Björk in her first on-screen performance.
Time: 9:45 am - 11:00 pm
Event Categories: Community Events, Amherst Cinema, Film
Website: https://amherstcinema.org/films-and-events/juniper-tree
Venue Name: Amherst Cinema
Address: 28 Amity Street
Website: www.amherstcinema.org
Organizer Name: Amherst Cinema
Éthiopiques: Revolt of the Soul
Éthiopiques After Party with Peace & Rhythm!
Strong House Thursday Night Market
Jane Bunnett & MaquequeHistory Bites: Cowls in Amherst – A Founding Family's Generational Contributions to Building Community 1741-2019