TPC Journal V7, Issue 2 - FULL ISSUE

200 The Professional Counselor | Volume 7, Issue 2 We conducted a Mann-Whitney U test to see if our rating of participants’ statements changed based upon the participant’s date of graduation: 1969–1999 ( n = 57, M = 1.97, SD = 2.03) and 2000–2012 ( n = 415, M = 1.50, SD = 1.90). The year 2000 saw the release of the 2001 CACREP Standards (CACREP, 2001), which emphasized student and faculty professional identity and professional orientation. Individuals graduating up to 1999 rated at Formula 2 and individuals graduating 2000 and after rated between Formula 1 and Formula 2. Median researcher ratings for participants graduating with their master’s degree from 1969–1999 (272.91) and participants graduating with their master’s degree from 2000–2012 (244.12) were not statistically different: U = 11170.5, z = -1.585, p = .11. We did not assign more advanced professional identity formulas to independently licensed counselors who had graduated more recently. We conducted a Kruskal-Wallis test to see if our rating of participants’ statements changed based upon the state issuing the independent counseling license to participants: North Atlantic state 1 ( n = 54, M = 1.96, SD = 2.07), North Atlantic state 2 ( n = 68, M = 1.10, SD = 1.71), Southern state 1 ( n = 47, M = 2.00, SD = 2.02), Southern state 2 ( n = 64, M = 1.58, SD = 1.93), Midwestern state 1 ( n = 65, M = 1.66, SD = 1.91), Midwestern state 2 ( n = 71, M = 1.63, SD = 1.89), Western state 1 ( n = 53, M = 1.52, SD = 1.94) and Western state 2 ( n = 50, M = 1.10, SD = 1.83). Participants from one North Atlantic state rated highest with Formula 2 while participants from one Western state and one North Atlantic state rated lowest with Formula 1. When the mean was computed by region, the two Southern states rated highest with a 1.79, and the two Western states rated lowest with a 1.31. However, both ratings fell between a Formula 1 and Formula 2. Median researcher ratings for participants by state were not statistically different: χ2(7) = 11.88, p = .11. We did not assign more advanced professional identity formulas to independently licensed counselors licensed in a specific state or region. We calculated Cohen’s kappa to determine the interrater agreement between the participants’ Likert scale self-rating about identifying consistently as a counselor to others and our rating of that participant’s discussion of their occupational role as a professional counselor to others. A kappa value of less than .20 represents poor agreement; between .21 and .40 represents fair agreement; between .41 and .60 represents moderate agreement; between .61 and .80 represents good agreement; and between .81 and 1.0 represents very good agreement beyond chance (Landis & Koch, 1977). The interrater reliability indicated k = 0.003 (95% CI, .000 to .034, p = .84). Participants’ self-rating of “Always Clear” identifying to others as a professional counselor did not agree with our ratings of these participants’ formulas. Participants’ self-rating of “Never Clear” identifying to others as a professional counselor did not agree with our ratings of these participants’ formulas. An independently licensed counselor’s self-ranking as consistently identifying professionally as a counselor to others did not agree with classification as an advanced counselor professional identity formula. Discussion Participants’ scores fell in the “Mostly to Frequently Clear” range when self-rating as clearly articulating to others as a professional counselor. As 56% of the participants rated themselves with the two highest ratings on the scale, it would seem that counselor professional identity is not a serious issue. However, when we evaluated participants’ narratives about their occupational role, we placed only 29% of counselors in the two highest formulas, 4 and 5. As 54% of participants never used the term “counselor” or “counseling” when discussing their occupational role with others, the continued concerns about counselor professional identity are warranted (Gale & Austin, 2003; Gibson et al., 2010; Kaplan & Gladding, 2011; Mellin et al., 2011; Myers et al., 2002). As counselors rated themselves high and the articulations shared rated low, it is not surprising that there was little agreement between a high or low self-rating of articulation and our assigning a high or low formula