238 The Professional Counselor | Volume 12, Issue 3 National Model (ASCA, 2019b; CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .08). Through Pearson’s correlation, the researchers revealed that concurrent validity was significant (r = .68, p < .01). Additionally, in their sample, Gibson et al. reported strong internal consistency reliability with a Cronbach’s α = .94. In the current study, Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s (ω) for the SCTLI were .93 and .94, respectively. School Counseling Program Implementation The School Counseling Program Implementation Survey-Revised (SCPIS-R; Clemens et al., 2010; Fye et al., 2020) is a self-report survey that measures school counselors’ level of CSCP implementation. The SCPIS-R (Fye et al., 2020), used in the current study, is a 14-item Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not present) to 4 (fully implemented). The factor structure was established through two studies that utilized EFA (Clemens et al., 2010) and CFA (Fye et al., 2020) to test the factor structure. The data from the original study (Clemens et al., 2010) yielded a three-factor model structure of the SCPIS, which includes programmatic orientation (7 items, α = .79), school counselors’ use of computer software (3 items, α = .83), and school counseling services (7 items, α =. 81), and a total SCPIS of α = .87. That said, Fye et al.’s (2020) CFA findings suggested a modified two-factor model was a more appropriate fit; thus, the modified twofactor model structure of the SCPIS includes only programmatic orientation (7 items, α = .86) and school counseling services (7 items, α = .83) and a total SCPIS of α = .90. Examples from each factor are (a) needs assessments are completed regularly and guide program planning (programmatic orientation) and (b) services are organized so that all students are well served and have access to them (school counseling services). We calculated participants’ total SCPIS scores with higher scores indicating greater CSCP implementation (Mason, 2010; Mullen et al., 2019). In the present study, the SCPIS-R demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .90; McDonald’s ω = .90) in our sample. Data Analysis Missing Data Analysis and Assumptions Test We received a total of 1,128 responses. Of all these responses, 336 respondents missed a significant portion (over 70%) of one or more of the main scales (i.e., WEIP-S, SCTLI, and SCPIS-R). We assessed this portion of values as not missing completely at random (NMCAR), and we proceeded with employing listwise deletion to 336 cases. The data NMCAR may be because of the survey length and time commitment, which is discussed more in the Limitations section. With the remaining 792 cases, the missing values counted for 0.1%–0.7% of missing values across respective scales. We performed a Little’s Missing Completely at Random test using SPSS Statistics Version 26.0 with a nonsignificant chisquare value (p > .05), which suggested that the missing values (across cases) were missed completely at random. Therefore, we retained all 792 cases and followed multiple imputation (Scheffer, 2002) to replace the missing values, using SPSS. Our data met assumptions for mediation analysis, normality based on histograms, and linearity and homoscedasticity as demonstrated through the scatterplots generated from univariate analysis. Mediation Analysis In our mediation model (see Figure 1), given its combined trait-ability nature and stability over time, school counselors’ emotional intelligence was hypothesized as the causal antecedent to program implementation; we then hypothesized transformational leadership practice to be a mediator for the effect of school counselors’ emotional intelligence on program implementation. We tested our mediation model based on Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach. Specifically, our mediation analysis entailed four steps involving (a) the role of school counselors’ emotional intelligence (X) in predicting CSCP implementation (Y), with the coefficient denoted as c to reflect the total effect that X has on Y; (b) the predictive role of school counselors’ emotional intelligence (X) on transformational leadership practice (M), with the coefficient denoted as a; (c) the effect of transformational leadership practice
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1