TPC-Journal-V1-Issue2

The Professional Counselor \ Volume 1, Issue 2 95 from almost always (AA = 1) to almost never (AN = 5). Normative data were collected from seven groups, including health professionals, city employees, college students, and clients of an adult development program seeking assertiveness training. Test-retest reliability data are strong for both scales: .75 for the assertiveness scale and .88 for the aggressiveness scale, and split-half reliability of .58 and .67 for both scales, respectively (Bakker et al., 1978). Validity measures were obtained by comparing each group with the college sample, since it was the largest (n = 250). The only group to significantly differ in assertiveness/aggressiveness was the adult development program clients (p < .001), confirming “that the scales are sensitive to differences in functioning” (Bakker et al., p. 282). The Simple Rathus Assertiveness Schedule. The Simple Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (SRAS; McCormick, 1985) is a revised measure of the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (Rathus, 1973) designed to improve the original measure’s readability and usability (Corcoran, 2000). A 30-item instrument, the schedule measures social boldness by asking readers to rate themselves on various personal inclinations, such as I enjoy meeting and talking to people for the first time and I have sometimes not asked questions for fear of sounding stupid (McCormick, 1985). Items are scored on a six-point Likert scale, ranging from 6 (very much like me) to 1 (very unlike me). Reliability for the SRAS is “very good” (Corcoran, 2000, p. 746) when compared with the original Rathus, with the correlation between odd and even items on both versions at .90, and overall total scores correlating at .94, suggesting that “a satisfactory degree of equivalence had been obtained between both measures” (McCormick, 1985, p. 97). The original Rathus reported test/retest reliabilities of .77 (p < .01) and strong convergent validity with other measures of assertiveness. Procedure Participants were placed in one of two groups based on their reported theoretical orientation, which Kottler and Brown (2000) categorized as insight-oriented and action-oriented. Insight-oriented approaches believe that self-discovery and revelation is the path to true growth and consists of humanistic, psychodynamic, interpersonal, and experiential theories. Action-oriented approaches are defined as theories that utilize direct interventions and action for symptom reduction. Theories within this category are behavioral, cognitive, strategic, and solution-focused in nature. Both groups completed an assessment packet, consisting of an informed consent form, a demographic sheet, and the three measurements of assertiveness. Presentation of instruments was identical in both groups. Scores were totaled and compared between each group. Consent forms were kept separate to ensure confidentiality of the information. Results A Pearson product-moment correlation analyzed the relationship between all three assertiveness instruments to investigate convergent validity. This analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between the ASRI and SRAS ( r = .78, p < .0001) between the ASAG and SRAS ( r = .56, p = .0017) and between the ASRI and ASAG ( r = .51, p = .0004). The nature of the correlation coefficients indicates a strong convergent validity between all three instruments. Data were analyzed via a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in order to find differences between insight-oriented and action-oriented counselors on three assertiveness instruments. Additionally, effect sizes are reported as small ≥ .02, medium ≥ .13, and large ≥ .26 (see Steyn & Ellis, 2010). Sample means and trial effects are presented in Table 1. The ANOVA on the ASRI revealed a significant difference between each group: F (1, 33) = 7.75, MSE = 7.66, p < .0088. The mean score for the insight-oriented group was 13.40 (SD = 2.92), and the mean for the action-oriented group was 16.05 ( SD = 2.63). The multivariate effect size η2 = .19 indicates a moderate relationship between theoretical orientation and participant assertiveness.