OBJECTIVE:Clinical supervision (CS) is widely used by allied health (AH) professionals, although with limited supporting research evidence. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CS for AH professionals in a regional health setting and to investigate differences in CS perceptions between AH disciplines. METHODS:Within a participatory action research project, a quantitative cross-sectional survey was distributed to AH professionals at a regional Australian health service. Data were collected using the Manchester Clinical Supervision Scale (MCSS-26), and differences between disciplines were analysed with independent-samples t-tests and one-way between-groups ANOVA. Of a possible 258 participants, 106 responded to the survey (response rate 41%). The action research group assisted with the interpretation of findings. RESULTS:The total mean for MCSS-26 scores across AH was 78.5 ± 13.9 (SD), which is above the recommended threshold score for effective CS (73). There were statistically significant differences in total scores between occupational therapy (82.8 ± 14.4) and physiotherapy (70.9 ± 11.3) and in the formative and restorative domains. CONCLUSIONS:While CS was perceived to be effective, there were significant differences between some disciplines. The findings demonstrate that CS is effective when it is practised within a structured framework; however, flexible models of CS across disciplines need to be explored.