TPC-Journal-V5-Issue1

The Professional Counselor /Volume 5, Issue 1 191 component), personal connection (behavior component) and success/reputation (selection component) together contributed 72% of the variance explained in overall satisfaction. The same two components from chairperson behaviors (work style and personal connection) ended up in both the combined regression and the individual regression (research question two), but their beta weights were reversed, indicating that when selection criteria and behaviors are combined, work style contributes more to overall satisfaction than personal connection. For the selection criteria component, success/reputation did not prove to be significant in the individual regression analysis (research question one), but was significant in the combined regression analysis. This finding could be due to the fact that the items within the success/reputation component are more closely related to external behaviors, which seem to match more consistently with chairperson behaviors such as providing effective feedback and providing a good amount of structure. Interestingly, when the selection criteria components were entered without the chairperson behaviors components, only collaborative style seemed to predict overall satisfaction; however, success/reputation predicted overall satisfaction when combined with chairperson behaviors. Previous research (Smart & Conant, 1990; Zhao et al., 2007) indicated that several of the selection items included in the success/reputation component are valuable factors to consider when selecting a chairperson; however, in the findings of the current study, these selection criteria only seem to play a significant role when combined with chairperson behavior components. Further, although the success and reputation of one’s chairperson may be an important factor for selecting a chairperson, it does not appear that the chairperson’s success and reputation contributes to a satisfactory relationship between student and chairperson. Limitations One of the primary limitations of this study is the use of a researcher-developed survey instrument as the sole measure of selection criteria, chairperson behaviors and overall satisfaction. Because the purpose of the study was not to establish the psychometric properties of the survey, it is difficult to gauge the reliability and validity of the survey with any certainty. Although both the selection criteria construct and the chairperson behavior construct revealed high alpha reliabilities (.79 and .94, respectively), additional research would have to be conducted in order to establish the overall psychometric properties of the survey. Another limitation was the inclusivity of the sample. Initially, participants were to be recruited using emails sent by CACREP-accredited department chairs to eligible past and present doctoral students; however, due to a lack of responses, the survey request was opened up to CESNET, a counselor educator listserv. Within both forms of participant recruiting, it is unknown how many eligible participants received the request for participation; therefore, the rate of return is unknown. Additionally, since the demographic composition of the counselor education doctoral student population is unknown, it is unclear whether the sample of participants who chose to complete the survey is representative of the broader population. Thus, results from this analysis may not be generalizable to the overall population of counselor education doctoral students. Recommendations for Future Research Because the results from this study represent only the perspective of the doctoral student and not that of the dissertation chairperson, future studies might include the voice of the chairperson, allowing researchers to gain a greater level of understanding and broadening the perspective of what constitutes a satisfactory relationship between chairperson and doctoral student. Conducting a larger, more thorough qualitative study, which might include focus groups and perhaps even counselor education doctoral students who did not complete their program, also could add value to this topic. In order to construct a more robust survey, future researchers may want to allow participants an opportunity to share their own influential selection criteria or helpful chairperson behaviors, which may have been inadvertently excluded from the current list. Lastly, researchers might establish formal psychometric properties for the survey instrument.