TPC-Journal-V4-Issue4

The Professional Counselor \Volume 4, Issue 4 396 time in counseling on amount of change ( p = .12). Therefore, no demographic variables were included in the hierarchical multiple regression. Results A repeated measures t test showed that client OQ’s significantly improved from pretreatment ( M = 72.6, SD = 19.1) to the final session of counseling ( M = 64.0, SD = 20.0), t (48) = 5.42, p < .001. To test our first hypothesis that lower SES levels would be linked to lower levels of client motivation, treatment expectancy and subjective social support, we conducted zero-order correlations for continuous variables. Table 2 displays the results, starting with objective SES variables (e.g., education level, income) and subjective SES variables (e.g., perceived financial security, perceived SES), followed by the two indicators of motivation (identified and external), as well as treatment expectancy and social support. For the dichotomously coded objective SES variable, health insurance status, independent samples t tests were conducted on the four dependent variables of identified motivation, external motivation, treatment expectancy and subjective social support. Reported effect sizes adhered to Cohen’s (1992) conventions for correlations, with small, medium and large effect sizes corresponding to r = .10, r = .30, and r = .50, respectively. Table 2 Summary of Intercorrelations for Continuous SES Indicators with Social Support, Treatment Expectancy and Motivation Scores Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Education level – 2. Income level .15 – 3. Financial security .31 * .10 – 4. Perceived SES .25 .48** .27 – 5. Identified motivation .10 –.05 –.19 –.18 – 6. External motivation –.11 –.01 –.13 –.08 –.11 – 7. Treatment expectancy .01 –.17 .27 –.22 .14 .19 – 8. Social support .21 .00 .40** –.03 .08 –.08 .14 – Note . N = 49; financial security = perceived financial security; social support = Subjective Social Support; treatment expectancy = Treatment Expectancy Scale. Health insurance status is a categorical variable and is not included in this table. * p < .05. ** p < .01. As shown in Table 2, neither of the continuous objective SES variables (e.g., educational attainment, income level) significantly related to identified motivation, external motivation, treatment expectancy or subjective social support. The independent samples t tests indicated no significant effect regarding insurance status ( p > .05). The subjective SES variable, perceived financial security, significantly and positively correlated with subjective social support ( r = .40, p < .01), with a medium to large effect size. Consistent with our hypothesis, clients who reported feeling more secure financially also felt more supported by their social network;