TPC-Journal-V1-Issue2

96 The Professional Counselor \ Volume 1, Issue 2 Table 1 Comparison of Group Differences in Level of Assertiveness across Orientation M SD M SD F P multivariate η 2 ASRI 13.40 2.92 16.05 2.63 7.75 .0088 .19 AS-AG 101.94 29.11 120.84 14.30 6.25 .0176 .16 SRAS 106.06 11.39 119.11 15.79 7.58 .0095 .19 Note . N = 35. Lower means indicate lower levels of assertiveness. ASIR = Assertiveness Self-Report Inventory and ranges from 0–25. AS-AG = Bakker Assertiveness-Aggressiveness Inventory and ranges from 36–180. SRAS = The Simple Rathus Assertiveness Schedule and ranges from 30–180. Next, the ANOVA on the AS-AG revealed a significant difference between each group: F (1, 33) = 6.25, MSE = 496.53, p < .0176. The mean score for the insight-oriented group was 101.94 ( SD = 29.11), and the mean for the action-oriented group was 120.84 ( SD = 14.30). The multivariate effect size η 2 = .16 indicates a moderate relationship between theoretical orientation and participant assertiveness. Finally, the results of the ANOVA on the SRAS revealed a significant difference between each group: F (1, 33) = 7.58, MSE = 195.05, p < .0095. The mean score for the insight-oriented group was 106.06 ( SD = 11.39), and the mean for the action-oriented group was 119.11 ( SD = 15.79). The multivariate effect size η 2 = .19 indicates a moderate relationship between theoretical orientation and participant assertiveness. Discussion The purpose of this study was to determine if passive counselors tend to adhere to more nondirective, insight-oriented theories, and if assertive counselors tend to adhere to more directive, action-oriented approaches. Data from scores on the Assertiveness Self-Report Inventory, the Bakker Assertiveness-Aggressiveness Inventory, and the Simple Rathus Assertiveness Schedule suggest that a significant difference does exist between insight-oriented and action-oriented counselors on level of assertiveness, suggesting that level of assertiveness in mental health professionals is a viable factor in theoretical orientation development. In fact, action-oriented counselors had significantly higher levels of assertiveness than the insight-oriented counselors did across all three measures, with the variability of the scores on the AS-AG indicating substantial differences between the two orientations. Not surprisingly, the results on all three measures were in the same direction, consistent with the convergent validity of the measures. Effect size analyses indicate that moderate relationships exist between theoretical orientation and participant assertiveness, which are clinically meaningful and of practical significance in addition to statistical significance (LeCroy & Krysik, 2007). This finding supports Kottler and Brown’s (2000) position on the nature and quality of directiveness in the therapeutic relationship. That is how assertiveness on the part of the counselor can be an influential factor in client growth and development. This suggests that possibly the two may in fact be parallel. Nonetheless, according to the results, counselors that choose directive approaches appear to be assertive themselves. Previous research has investigated several predictive factors that contribute to the adoption of a theoretical orientation by counselors (Bayne, 1995; Erickson, 1993; Freeman, 2003; Johnson et al., 1988; Murdock et al., 1998; Norcross & Prochaska, 1983; Steiner, 1978; Walton, 1978). No one study, however, has been able to identify each factor interdependently, opting to isolate specific factors independently via multiple examinations. This study aimed to add to the established list of identified predictive factors by examining whether an experienced counselor’s level of assertiveness relates to his or her chosen approach. We believe that we can now add assertiveness to the list of predictive factors, which Action Oriented ( n = 19) Insight Oriented ( n = 16) Trial Effects