The range of scores on the counselor BLRI was between -31 and 107 (M = 64.
Individual contributions of the variables are shown in Table 2, with client BLRI making the only significant contribution.
These include (a) differences in priorities between the supervisory relationship and the therapeutic relationship, (b) the supervisor's theory of supervision and role usage, (c) demographic differences among supervisors, and (d) limitations of the BLRI in measuring only one aspect of the supervisory relationship.
Finally, it may be that the BLRI does not capture a complete enough picture of the supervisory relationship, because it measures only the facilitative conditions present and does not account for the many other aspects of the supervisory relationship.
The regression using client and counselor BLRI data resulted in a significant regression equation, which explained 5% of the variance in client outcomes.
In addition, because the BLRI measured only the facilitative conditions within the supervisory relationship, an alternative measure could be used that was developed specifically for assessing the supervisory relationship.
These scores exceed the scores that would be obtained by the "typical" individual using the BLRI.
The BLRI, while widely reported as being a reliable and valid instrument in the counseling literature, may not be valid for the assessment of the counseling skills for sales representatives.
Third, although some attempt was made to establish construct validity with the BLRI, Schacht et al.
Both likened the supervisory alliance to the counseling alliance by directly adapting items (from the WAI and BLRI, respectively), thus weakening their construct validity.