Although those learning counseling receive counseling supervision as anticipatory training in the professional development process, most supervised students are rarely adequately prepared for supervision, often with little or no knowledge of the supervision process. When the supervisee knows that they will be supervised but does not know how supervision will proceed, they enter a supervisory relationship with limited understanding, which affects the relationship, supervisory quality, and supervisory effectiveness.

The reasons for and manifestations of supervisory anxiety differ, and multiple influencing factors exist. After collating domestic and foreign research, the researchers summarized four constructs: Performance anxiety, evaluation anxiety, structural anxiety, and relationship anxiety. 1. Performance anxiety: The degree to which the supervisee is concerned about the requirement to demonstrate their professional counseling skills in a supervisory situation. Example statements: “I worry about not being able to demonstrate my true counseling skills in front of my supervisor.” “I feel anxious when the supervisor asks about the case.” 2. Evaluation anxiety: The degree to which the supervisee is concerned that supervision assessment results reflect their professional effectiveness. Example statements: “I view the supervisor՚s suggestions as questioning my professional competence.” “I view a poor supervisor՚s assessment as an indication of my lack of professional competence.” 3. Structural anxiety: The degree to which supervisees are confused about their roles and tasks in a supervision situation. Example statements: “I am terrified of not knowing the expectations of my supervisor.” “I am anxious about not knowing the goals of my supervisor.” 4. Relationship anxiety: The degree to which supervisees are anxious because of their perception of the role of the supervisor in the supervisory relationship. Example statements: “I feel anxious imagining the supervisor՚s possible supervisory actions.” “I will keep my distance from the supervisor to maintain a harmonious supervisory relationship.”

Six localized consultation and supervision assessment tools have been compiled by domestic experts and scholars, including the Counseling and Supervision Professional Perception Scale, Counseling and Supervision Ability Scale, and Supervisor Countertransference Scale, which have been created from the supervisor՚s point of view. The only supervision scales that have been designed from the supervisee՚s point of view are the Supervised Dependent Behavior Scale, Intern Counselor՚s Experience of Supervision, and Supervisory Relationship Scale; thus, the development of research tools to examine supervisee perspectives is urgently required.

This study compiled a Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale and assessed its reliability, validity, and norms as an objective assessment tool for domestic assessment of supervision anxiety for use by counselling psychologists. Educators and supervisory practitioners conducted early assessments to develop more appropriate supervisory strategies and actions.

This study recruited counseling psychologists and full-time trainee counselling psychologists in the 2017–2018 academic year. The presample included 113 participants and 310 were officially tested. The results of the background variable analysis of the participants were as follows: 1. Gender: 23.5% were men and 76.5% were women. 2. University professional background: 59.4% were undergraduates of counseling, 25.8% were undergraduates in counseling-related departments (such as psychology, social work, or education), and 14.8% were undergraduates of unrelated departments. 3. Personal distinction: 34.2% were fulltime trainee counseling psychologists and 65.8% were counseling psychologists. 4. Main service units: Most worked at colleges and universities (41.9%), followed by student counseling and consultation centers (20%). 5. Time under supervision: Up to 2 years (48.7%), 2–5 years (34.2%). 6. Supervision experience: 94.5% had mostly positive experience, and 5.5% had mostly negative experience.

The research tool used was the Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale compiled by the researchers. After the questionnaires were collected and sorted, data analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0 and AMOS statistical software to test the reliability and validity of the scale. 1. Reliability test (internal consistency): SPSS 22.0 was used for item analysis, and the items in the pre-examination questions that were less strongly associated with the research construct were removed. The research construct was determined to establish the structure of the formal Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale and test the internal consistency. 2. Validity test: (1) SPSS 22.0 was used for factor analysis to explore the structure of the Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale to test the construct validity. (2) AMOS 20 was used to conduct structural equation modelling analysis to verify the Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale model.

The original scale had 43 questions. After statistical analysis (item analysis, exploratory factor analysis), the formal scale had 15 questions and an explained variation of 69.510%. The four factors obtained were consistent with those of the original scale. Although only 15 questions remained on the scale, the original four constructs were maintained and named relationship anxiety (original questions: 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, a total of five questions), performance anxiety (original questions: 4, 5, 6, 8, a total of four questions), structural anxiety (original questions: 23, 25, 26, a total of three questions), and evaluation anxiety (original question numbers: 12, 19, 20, a total of three questions).

The findings of this study were as follows: 1. The Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale had 15 questions. The scale was divided into four subscales, namely the performance anxiety subscale with four questions, the evaluation anxiety subscale with three questions, the structural anxiety subscale with three questions, and the relationship anxiety subscale with five questions. 2. The Cronbach՚s α coefficients of each subscale ranged from .79 to .86 (performance anxiety = .835, evaluation anxiety = .820, structural anxiety = .855, relationship anxiety = .794), and while that of the whole scale was .88, indicating substantial stability. 3. The scale exhibited high construct validity, indicating that the four factors (performance anxiety, evaluation anxiety, structural anxiety, and relationship anxiety) of the Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale developed by the researcher were supported.

The Supervision Situational Anxiety Scale designed in this research had a total of 15 questions, and the test could be completed in approximately 5–10 minutes. It provided a practical, convenient, and quick method of assessing the supervision anxiety experienced by supervisees.

For the different anxiety types, this study provides corresponding suggestions: 1. Performance anxiety and evaluation anxiety: Empathize with, affirm, and support the supervisee. 2. Structural anxiety: Allow the supervisee ample time and opportunity to prepare. 3. Relationship anxiety: Be aware of the supervisor role and consider the supervisory relationship.

Recommendations for future research are as follows: 1. Explore the indicators of supervisory situational anxiety at different stages of professional development. 2. Explore the relationship between supervisory situation anxiety and other variables. 3. Conduct a longitudinal study to understand changes in supervisory situational anxiety in supervisees. 4. Explore the psychometric quality of this scale and obtain more information regarding its reliability and validity.

Based on the results, this study proposes further concrete and feasible suggestions for the counseling psychology and supervision fields for the reference of counseling agencies and their staff.