Feb 4, 2017 | Volume 7 - Issue 1
Clare Merlin, Timothy Pagano, Amanda George, Cassandra Zanone, Benjamin Newman
The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) recently released its 2016 standards. Included in these standards is a requirement for school counseling master’s programs to have a minimum of 60 credit hours by the year 2020. This credit hour requirement is an increase from the previous 48-hour requirement and has caused considerable debate in the counselor education field. In this article, the authors assert that the credit hour increase will lead to positive or neutral effects for school counseling programs and benefit the field of school counseling as a whole. This claim is supported by historical examples, anticipated benefits to school counseling, and findings from a pilot study with school counseling programs that previously transitioned to 60 credit hours (N = 22).
Keywords: CACREP, accreditation, school counseling, counselor education, credit hours
The unification of the counseling profession is an aspiration long held within the field (American Counseling Association, 2009; Bobby, 2013; Simmons, 2003). However, historic differences in Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) standards for completion of a counseling degree complicate a singular identity for the profession. Without a unified expectation of degree requirements, professionals who identify as “counselors” struggle to find a consentient definition for the counseling role. In order to reach unification in the field, it is necessary for counseling organizations and professionals to agree on the minimum credit requirements needed to obtain a counseling degree (Bobby, 2013; Williams, Milsom, Nassar-McMillan, & Pope, 2012).
Minimum credit requirements for a school counseling degree gained recent attention as CACREP released updated standards in 2016, including a new standard (1.J.) requiring 60 semester credit hours for all counseling specializations, including school counseling, rather than the previous 48-credit hour requirement (CACREP, 2015). CACREP designed this standard to create unity among program specialties so that all specialties—addictions counseling, career counseling, clinical mental health counseling, clinical rehabilitation counseling, college counseling and student affairs, marriage, couple, and family counseling, and school counseling—require the same number of credit hours (CACREP, 2015; Williams et al., 2012).
The publication of standard 1.J. has implications for numerous counselor education programs. In 2014, the authors researched the 229 CACREP-accredited school counseling programs in existence at the time and found that 170 programs, or 74%, required less than 60 credit hours for program completion. Similarly, in a study examining school counselor education programs (N = 126), Perusse, Poynton, Parzych, and Goodnough (2015) found that programs ranged in credit hour requirements from 30 to 67 semester credit hours, with an average of 49.6 credit hours. Sixty-one percent of program coordinators surveyed indicated that they required between 48 and 59 credit hours, whereas only 18% required 60 to 67 credit hours, and 14% required 36 to 45 credit hours. Although only 57% of the sample surveyed was CACREP-accredited, the percentage of participants requiring less than 60 credit hours in their programs in 2015 (75%) indicates that for these programs to become CACREP-accredited or reaccredited, many program coordinators will need to increase credit hours to 60 to meet standard 1.J.
Despite CACREP’s intentions for unification via standard 1.J., the standard’s implications for school counseling programs across the country have led to debate among counselor educators. In this article, the authors acknowledge concerns over the standard’s implications but suggest that an increase in required credit hours for CACREP-accredited school counseling programs will ultimately benefit school counseling programs and the school counseling field as a whole. The authors support this claim with a review of the history of CACREP and credit hour increases, prior research on the topic, results of a pilot study with programs that previously transitioned to 60 credit hours, and anticipated benefits for the school counseling field.
History
CACREP began in 1981 as a partnership between the Association for Counselor Education and
Supervision (ACES) and the American Personnel and Guidance Association, now known as the American Counseling Association (ACA; Bobby, 2013; Urofsky, Bobby, & Ritchie, 2013). This formation resulted when leaders from ACES, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA), the American College Personnel Association, and American Personnel and Guidance Association created comprehensive accreditation standards for counseling programs (Urofsky et al., 2013). Prior to the formation of CACREP in 1981, the only accreditation for counseling programs was provided by ACES on a voluntary basis (CACREP, 2017).
CACREP was formed to address three purposes: (a) to create guidelines reflecting expectations of the counseling profession, (b) to promote professionalism in counseling, and (c) to increase credibility in the profession (Adams, 2006; Bobby, 1992). More than 30 years later, the central mission of CACREP remains promoting the profession of counseling and related fields via “the development of preparation standards; the encouragement of excellence in program development; and the accreditation of professional preparation programs” (CACREP, 2017, para. 54). Through this process, CACREP provides accreditation to individual programs at the master’s and doctoral levels (CACREP, 2014).
Each area of CACREP accreditation maintains different programmatic standards in addition to a core set of general standards required of all counseling programs. CACREP designed the school counseling standards to prepare graduates to work with K–12 students to effectively address their personal/social, academic and career concerns (CACREP, 2015). CACREP standards appear increasingly valuable as leaders in the counseling profession seek a unified professional identity, particularly in light of the widely varying state licensing standards for counselors (Mascari & Webber, 2013). The CACREP standards serve as universal guidelines of best practices in educating future counselors. Moreover, researched benefits of attending a CACREP-accredited counseling program instead of a non-accredited program may include “increased internship and job opportunities, improved student quality, helpfulness in private practice, increased faculty professional involvement and publishing, and acceptance into a counselor education doctoral program” (Mascari & Webber, 2013, p. 20).
CACREP standards appear particularly relevant in the school counseling profession. In a study of 187 school counselors, on average, participants rated the CACREP school counseling standards as “highly” or “very highly” important to school counseling (Holcomb-McCoy, Bryan, & Rahill, 2002). This finding indicates support for the value of CACREP school counseling standards to the field of school counseling (Branthoover, Desmond, & Bruno, 2010), which is important, given that school counseling programs are the most represented master’s counseling specialty among CACREP-
accredited programs. School counseling programs comprise 36% of all CACREP-accredited programs, nearly 10% more than clinical mental health counseling programs (CACREP, 2016a).
Standards Changes
Despite research on the perceived value and benefits of CACREP standards, multiple facets of CACREP have proven controversial within the counseling profession. These controversies serve as proverbial lightning rods, creating conversation among leaders in the field (Schmidt, 1999). Historically, debate emerged in counselor education due to standards revisions. As in most professions, CACREP regularly modifies its standards to account for changes in the field of counseling (Adams, 2006). To modify the standards, a CACREP standards Revisions Committee formulates revised standards, releases the standards to the public for a comment period, and revises standards according to public feedback. They then release a second draft of revised standards, allow for public comment, and revise the standards accordingly before releasing a final set of revised standards (Williams et al., 2012). Periodic revisions of CACREP standards help counseling leaders address the current and future training needs of professional counselors (Bobby & Urofsky, 2008). These modifications are integral to the development of the counseling profession and parallel other helping professions that regularly revise training standards (Adams, 2006).
2009 Standards changes. One standards change controversy stems from the counseling profession developing a professional identity independent from counseling psychology and other counseling-
related fields. CACREP 2009 standard I.W.2. indicated that core faculty members preferably are trained in Counselor Education and Supervision doctoral programs (CACREP, 2009).
Research conducted shortly after the standard was published in 2009 demonstrated mixed opinions on the standards change—55% of the 180 counselor educators surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the standard and 45% disagreed or strongly disagreed with it (Cannon & Cooper, 2010). Although counseling leaders may be attempting to move the field toward unification with standards like I.W.2., standards changes will not transpire without debate in the field.
Around the same time, a second debate emerged when proposed 2009 CACREP standards required community counseling programs to become clinical mental health counseling programs with 60 credit hours, rather than the previous 48-hour community counseling requirement, in order to become accredited (CACREP, 2009). This standard eventually became part of the 2009 CACREP standards, but not before raising fractured dialogue among counselor educators (Henriksen, Van Wiesner, & Kinsworthy, 2008). Henriksen et al. (2008) found opinions among 51 counselor educators in the state of Texas were nearly evenly divided about the issue—49% preferred to keep a 48-credit hour minimum, and 51% preferred a switch to a 60-hour minimum.
Similarly, Cannon and Cooper (2010) surveyed 295 CACREP counselor educators and found that attitudes toward the 2009 standards changes were mixed. They found attitudes toward the credit hour increase differed between community counseling counselor educators and clinical mental health counselor educators. Twenty-seven percent of community counselor educators agreed or strongly agreed with the 48-credit hour requirement, whereas only 4% of clinical mental health counselor educators agreed with the same requirement. Across all participants, 31% indicated satisfaction with the 2009 standard revisions, 38% disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were satisfied with the revisions, and 31% reported indecision. Similar disagreement over standards changes emerged six years later around the 2016 CACREP standards.
2016 Standards changes. On May 12, 2015, CACREP released the 2016 Standards, effective July 1, 2016. These standards are the product of a review process in which a Standards Revision Committee comprised of counselor educators from across the country examined if and how the CACREP Standards needed to be changed to meet the shifting needs of the counseling profession. They also focused on “simplifying, clarifying, and consolidating the existing standards” in their revisions (CACREP, 2012, para. 1). CACREP released the first draft of the 2016 Standards in September 2012 and allowed for public comment. They revised the Standards according to feedback, released the revised draft for further public comment, and revised the standards once more (Williams et al., 2012). The Standards Revision Committee then submitted a final Standards draft to the CACREP Board of Directors for adoption. It was adopted and released in May 2015 (CACREP, 2016b).
The 2016 CACREP standards suggest more equitable education among the different counseling specializations with regard to the required number of credits a student must accrue in order to graduate (CACREP, 2015). For example, although the 2009 CACREP standards required that the addictions counseling, clinical mental health counseling, and marriage, couple, and family counseling programs had a minimum of 60 semester credit hours, the school counseling, career counseling, and student affairs and college counseling programs required only a minimum of 48 semester credit hours (CACREP, 2009). The proposed 2016 Standards, however, require that all degree programs have a minimum of 60 credit hours by 2020 (CACREP, 2015). In time, these changes aim to unify all counseling specializations (Williams et al., 2012). Such an increase in credits aligns with CACREP’s mission of developing standards that better the profession and affirm a unified identity (Bobby, 2013).
When CACREP published proposed standard 1.J., requiring school counseling programs to have a minimum of 60 credit hours by 2020 (CACREP, 2015), debate arose. At the 2013 ACES School Counseling Interest Network meeting, counselor educators expressed concern about the proposed standard (Transforming School Counseling and College Access Interest Network [TSCCAIN], 2013). Some attendees asserted that mandating an increase to 60 credit hours would disenfranchise low-income students. Attendees argued that an increase in program costs and subsequently, tuition costs, could make counseling less practically desirable to otherwise qualified prospective students. Additionally, some counselor educators stated that increasing the number of credits for school counseling programs would place an undue burden on the training programs themselves by forcing these programs to hire more faculty members to teach additional courses. However, some counselor educators expressed support for the proposed credit hour increase, suggesting the standard could lead to higher quality applicants to school counseling programs and ultimately produce better qualified professionals in the field (TSCCAIN, 2013).
Although concerns about the outcomes of transitioning to 60 credit hours are understandable, when compared to the gains that can be made by increasing credit hours, standard 1.J. appears warranted. Three pieces of evidence support this claim: existing research on credit hour increases, data from a pilot study, and anticipated benefits to the school counseling field.
Existing Research
To date, no research has explored the implications of changing school counseling credit hour requirements from 48 to 60; however, it is beneficial to explore other fields of study to understand trends, long-term effects and the manner in which other researchers have studied this topic. Previous studies either focused on non-counseling fields (T. K. Fagan, personal communication, November 1, 2014) or are in school counseling-related fields, but the research is significantly outdated (Barkley & Percy, 1984; Hollis, 1998).
More than 30 years ago, Barkley and Percy (1984) explored enrollment in counselor education programs. As the most recent individuals to publish on this topic, their research still warrants attention. Barkley and Percy’s study examined the declining rate of applications to counselor education programs (N = 90) in the United States at that time. They used correlation research to examine whether or not relationships existed between the number of applications to programs, program accreditation status, and whether programs had increased credit hours between 1975 and 1983. Barkley and Percy found that although accredited programs in their sample (n = 8) had more applicants than non-accredited programs (n = 77), those that increased credit hours (n = 39) encountered fewer applicants than those that did not (n = 37). They hypothesized that applicants to lower credit hour programs were more interested in attending lower credit requirement schools than higher credit requirement schools (Barkley & Percy, 1984; Hollis, 1998). They found that these relationships were weak, however, and concluded: “There is no evidence from this study to support a hypothesis that seeking accreditation and/or moderate increases in credit hour requirements results in declining enrollments” (Barkley & Percy, 1984, pp. 23–24).
In the related field of school psychology, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) is a professional association recognized by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education as a specialized professional association. NASP began reviewing and approving school psychology programs in 1988. In 2011, approximately 70% of school psychology programs in the United States were NASP-approved (Prus & Strein, 2011). When the NASP credit hour requirement for school psychology programs changed from a master’s degree to a 60-credit hour Educational Specialist (Ed.S.) requirement, programs that adjusted to meet this new requirement received a comparable amount of applications (T. K. Fagan, personal communication, November 1, 2014). This outcome in school psychology suggests that school counseling programs increasing to 60 credit hours also may receive similar numbers of applicants after increasing to 60 credits as they did before increasing credit hours.
Although little research addresses differences between counseling programs before and after credit hour changes, research on CACREP-accredited programs and non-accredited programs may indicate potential differences, given that, on average, accredited programs require more credit hours than non-accredited programs (Hollis, 1998; Mascari & Webber, 2013). In 1998, Hollis compared admissions data from 104 mental health counseling programs and found that on average, CACREP-accredited programs required students to have higher grade point averages for admission (3.02) than non-accredited programs (2.91). Minimum GRE scores for admissions were nearly the same, but graduation rates differed. Despite similar average enrollments across programs, CACREP-accredited programs graduate more students on average than non-accredited programs (Hollis, 1998). This research may indicate potential differences in graduation rates and admission standards between programs with higher and lower credit hour requirements.
These three examples suggest that credit hour increases do not lead to poorer outcomes for programs and may in fact enhance the overall educative experience. Though findings did not include conclusive evidence of benefits from increasing credit hours, the studies showed that after programs increased credit hours, they encountered similar admissions outcomes (Barkley & Percy, 1984; T. K. Fagan, personal communication, November 1, 2014) or improved graduation rates (Hollis, 1998) compared to those measures before increasing credit hours. Consequently, there is no research base to conclude that increasing counseling program credit hours is harmful to counseling programs in admissions or graduation rates.
Pilot Study
Although existing research is consistent, it is outdated. To understand the potential outcomes school counseling programs encounter when they increase credit hours, the authors conducted a pilot study to explore the admissions and job placement data of CACREP-accredited school counseling master’s programs that previously transitioned to 60 credit hours. In 2014, 59 (26%) of the 229 school counseling CACREP-accredited programs required 60 credits or more for program graduates. This number constitutes more than one quarter of all CACREP-accredited school counseling programs, despite CACREP requiring only 48 credit hours at the time. Furthermore, it supports Hollis’ (1998) assertion that counseling programs often increase their required credit hours before higher standards are established. These increases may symbolize support for and valuing of increased credit hours for the benefit of program graduates. The authors collected admissions and job placement data from CACREP program liaisons (henceforth, “participants”) whose school counseling programs previously transitioned to 60 credit hours. They also explored the participants’ perceptions regarding whether transitioning to 60 credit hours impacted program admissions and graduate job placement rates. Though the study was a pilot with limited sample size (N = 22), the exploratory data may prove insightful for school counseling faculty members looking to transition programs to 60 credit hours. These data also may be helpful for researchers to understand the potential impact of credit hour transitions on programs.
Participants provided data via a 26-item electronic questionnaire. Twenty-four questions addressed quantity of applications, quality of applications (measured by enrolled students’ undergraduate grade point average [GPA], GRE scores, racial demographics, gender demographics, international demographics, and out-of-state demographics [Cassuto, 2016]), and graduate job placement rates. Two open-ended questions explored participants’ perspectives on the topic. The questions read: “From your perspective, what, if any, impact did the transition to a 60-credit graduation requirement for master’s school counseling programs at your institution have on the quantity, quality and diversity of applicants?” and, “What (if any) feedback on the survey would you like to provide to the researchers?”
Positive and Neutral Outcomes
CACREP standard 1.J. established equal credit hour requirements in order to create unity among counseling specialties, thus leading to positive effects for the profession (Williams et al., 2012). In their pilot study, the authors found that all participants contributing program data (n = 7) experienced positive or neutral effects in some items measuring admissions quality, admissions quantity or graduate job placement rates after transitioning to 60 credit hours. Although data indicated mixed experiences for two items, enrolled students’ undergraduate GPAs and GRE scores, in the majority of items participants encountered only positive and neutral effects. These items were: racial diversity of enrolled students, number of enrolled international students, number of enrolled out-of-state students, and job placement rates of program graduates.
Participants who provided comments to open-ended questions (n = 22) contributed further insights on these positive outcomes after transitioning to 60 credit hours. Nine participants explicitly stated that transitioning to a 60-credit hour minimum had a positive impact on their school counseling master’s programs. For example, one participant stated that the 60-credit hour program format “brought better applicants,” and another participant said, “I believe our student applicant pool increased in size as well as improved in quality of applicant.” A third participant indicated the following as a result of changing to 60 credit hours:
The quality of our program increased as did our enrollment. We anticipated an initial drop in enrollment that never materialized. Students told us that they preferred the comprehensive training they would get with a 60-hour program and selected us over other 48-hour programs. Our program grew as a result of moving to 60 hours.
This feedback suggests that for this participant’s program, transitioning to 60 credit hours clearly led to positive results.
Six participants responded to open-ended questions indicating neutral outcomes from transitioning to 60 credit hours. They stated that they did not believe their programs’ transition to a 60-credit hour minimum had an impact on admissions or job placement rates. For example, one participant noted, “The transition from 48 to 60 hours seemed to have no effect whatsoever on the quantity and quality and/or diversity of applicants.” Another participant described the change as having “little to no negative impact” on their program, and another described it as having “minimal impact.” The latter participant wrote, “I see no significant change in applicant qualifications.”
It is notable that three of the items that did not change for any participants—quantity of enrolled international students, quantity of enrolled out-of-state students, and enrolled students’ racial diversity—are items measuring program diversity. This finding suggests that for the participants in this pilot study, the credit hour transition did not impact applicant diversity to their school counseling programs. This may counter the notion that requiring 60 credit hours for program completion will disenfranchise certain students due to increased tuition (TSCCAIN, 2013). In addition, previous research indicates variables such as financial aid packages, faculty contact with prospective students, diverse student populations, and faculty diversity influence the recruitment of diverse students (Guiffrida & Douthit, 2010; Shin, Smith, Goodrich, & LaRosa, 2011; Talleyrand, Chung, & Bemak, 2006). These variables may be more impactful on recruiting diverse students than program credit hours.
Negative Outcomes
Despite the professed intent of CACREP standard 1.J. (Williams et al., 2012), some counselor educators speculated that such credit hour increases would have negative effects on school counseling programs (TSCCAIN, 2013). Of all participants in the pilot study whose programs transitioned to a 60-credit hour requirement, none expressed perceptions that increasing their credit hours led to negative outcomes. This finding suggests opposition to arguments that increasing to 60 credit hours will result in harmful effects in programs. The fact that 22 study participants commented on their transitions to 60 credit hours and none expressed the belief that transitioning caused negative outcomes appears noteworthy.
Descriptive statistics of program data showed that only one item, enrolled students’ gender diversity, decreased or stayed the same when participants’ programs transitioned to 60 credit hours. Although this finding may indicate worsening gender disparity in counseling, recent statistics demonstrate a consistent discrepancy in the number of male and female individuals in the counseling profession (Evans, 2013). According to data from ACA, males consistently comprised only 26–29% of the ACA membership between 2002 and 2012 (Evans, 2013). Given the consistency of these percentages over time, it is reasonable that the participants in this study saw gender diversity decrease or stay the same despite transitioning to 60 credit hours because the construct is one that is stable over time and may not have been impacted by credit hour increases. Similarly, CACREP’s 2015 Annual Report authors noted that only 18% of students enrolled in CACREP programs are male (CACREP, 2016a), adding additional legitimacy to a concern for gender disproportionality in counseling overall and disaffirming concern for decreased gender diversity due to credit hour increases.
Program Factors Impacting Outcomes
In the debate over increasing school counseling program credit hours, dialogue centered on the impact that a credit hour increase might have on programs. However, pilot study findings indicated that when programs previously transitioned to 60 credit hours, program-specific characteristics likely had a greater impact on transition outcomes than the transition itself. For example, multiple participants indicated that current events during the time of their credit hour transition appeared to impact their program admissions and student job placement rate more than the actual credit hour transition. As one participant explained:
I don’t think the 60 credits had any impact. The year we moved to 60 was right when the economy went bust, so all of our programs experienced a drop in applicants. We tend to be pretty consistent in the quality of our applicants overall as well as in the relative diversity of our applicants.
Other participants noted that their original number of credit hours prior to transitioning to 60 credits likely impacted their program outcomes after transitioning. Several participants worked in school counseling programs that transitioned from 55 or 57 credit hours to 60 credits. They stated that increasing their program requirements by just a few credit hours did not appear to impact their program admissions or graduate job placement rate.
Another participant indicated school counselors in their state are paid a higher salary if they graduate from 60-credit hour programs. Therefore, offering a school counseling program with a 60-credit hour track helped market the program, the participant reported. If school counseling faculty members work in states in which school counselors receive higher salaries for earning 60 credit hours, then a credit hour increase may lead to more positive changes in admissions than negative ones.
Lastly, hosting other counseling specialties (e.g., clinical mental health, addictions) at a university may impact a school counseling program and its transition to 60 credit hours. One participant noted that their school counseling program increased to a 60-credit hour minimum because the other counseling programs at their institution already required 60 credit hours. This participant said, “We decided to move all programs to 60 hours rather than have the difference in concentrations (in part due to perceptions of why one concentration would require more than the other).” If faculty members are increasing credit hours for school counseling programs at institutions in which other counseling programs already required 60 credit hours, the credit increase may be more widely accepted by potential applicants and lead to neutral or positive outcomes in admissions.
According to pilot study participants, each of these program factors impacted the effects their programs encountered after changing to 60 or more credit hours. Counselor educators leading school counseling programs that have not yet transitioned to 60 credit hours may take note of the factors and examine their own programs’ characteristics that may impact transition outcomes. Counselor educators would benefit from reflecting on the context and characteristics of their programs before concluding that increasing to 60 credit hours will be problematic.
Benefits to School Counselors
As the field of school counseling has evolved, so has the preparation of school counselors-in-training. Such preparation has evolved from an emphasis on vocational guidance (Cinotti, 2014), to training on comprehensive programming (ASCA, 2012; DeKruyf, Auger, & Trice-Black, 2013), to training on leadership and advocacy to create systemic change in schools (Ockerman, Patrikakou, & Feiker Hollenbeck, 2015). Researchers, counselor educators and school counselors are frequently calling for even better training. Recent calls include better preparation in instructional techniques to effectively conduct classroom guidance lessons (Ohrt, Blalock, & Limberg, 2016), collaborative coursework with educational leadership students (Beck, 2016; DeSimone & Roberts, 2016), preparation specific to working in urban areas (Hannon, 2016), suicide assessment practice (Douglas & Wachter-Morris, 2015), training in navigating professional identity issues (Gilbride, Goodrich, & Luke, 2016; Scarborough & Luke, 2008) and improved training in Response to Intervention to advance school counseling services (Ockerman et al., 2015).
In creating CACREP standard 1.J., CACREP has created an opportunity for counselor educators to add coursework that meets these calls and better prepares school counselors-in-training for the needs they will encounter in schools. Counselor educators may want to consider adding courses on the preparation topics called for, such as consultation in school counseling (Ockerman et al., 2015), leadership in school counseling (Beck, 2016; DeSimone & Roberts, 2016), and conducting classroom guidance lessons (Ohrt et al., 2016). In better training future school counselors in these areas, counselor educators can enhance the expertise of school counselors graduating from their programs, and ultimately better support K–12 students.
Lastly, CACREP’s standard 1.J. holds the potential to benefit the school counseling field as a whole. School counselors serve as both counselors and educators in schools and often receive mixed messages about this dual role (Cinotti, 2014). CACREP’s previous school counseling credit hour requirements may have contributed to school counselor role confusion, suggesting that school counselors were not as well-trained as clinical mental health counselors or counselors in other specialties requiring 60 credit hours. In establishing the same credit hour requirements for all counseling programs, CACREP has asserted that school counselors are equally as well-prepared as their colleagues in clinical mental health, marriage and family counseling, addictions counseling, and other specialties. Such an affirmation lends support to the professional standing of school counselors in the counseling field.
Future Research
With the recent release of the 2016 CACREP standards and the inclusion of standard 1.J. requiring 60 credit hours for school counseling programs, faculty members who work at programs with less than 60 credit hours may want to look to the 59 programs that have already transitioned to 60 credit hours as models for transition. Although counselor educators have understandable concerns about the impact that a credit hour increase may have on school counseling programs, previous research and the authors’ pilot study findings provide limited support for these concerns. Instead, research indicates that on average, school counseling programs may encounter improved outcomes in programs admissions and graduate job placement rates or similar outcomes to those experienced before increasing credit hours. Future research on programs that transition to 60 credits will prove valuable in confirming these outcomes.
To conduct this research, researchers will need longitudinal program data, including ongoing admissions and job placement data, from universities. In collecting data for their pilot study, the authors learned that many school counseling programs do not maintain continuous data on admissions and job placement. Of the 34 participants who initially responded to the pilot study questionnaire, 27 participants could not provide complete quantitative data on program admissions or job placement rates. Many of these participants noted that they were unable to do so because such data were unavailable. Some participants reported that transitioning to 60 credit hours so long ago inhibited them from finding and submitting data; seven participants indicated that they transitioned to 60 credit hours more than 15 years ago.
Reasons for unavailable data varied, but most had to do with the absence of data-keeping over time. One participant wrote, “I apologize that I don’t have concrete data for you. It’s a long time ago that we changed to 60 hours (8 years). I was not program director then.” Another participant explained, “We transitioned almost 30 years ago . . . and it would be impossible to get the information to you.” A different participant highlighted that aggregate data-keeping presented a challenge. They wrote, “I am sorry I cannot answer the first part of this survey. Because we have a counselor-first identity, all program admission processes are in aggregate—we do not have separate data for community counseling students, clinical mental health counseling students, and school counseling students.”
These data-keeping challenges pose an obstacle for future research on the impact of credit hour changes on counseling programs. They also support Shin and colleagues’ (2011) findings that counselor education programs often do not maintain admissions data. In their survey research study of 114 CACREP liaisons, Shin et al. found that although some participants reported maintaining admissions and student race and ethnicity data for up to 20 years, other programs reported keeping this data for as little as one year. Moreover, 57% of participants reported not retaining information on prospective students that declined admission to their programs. Although these data may or may not be related to the impact that credit hour changes have on counseling programs, these data-keeping percentages suggest that counseling programs could benefit from collecting and maintaining data in more thorough and consistent ways.
When conducting research on credit hour increases, researchers may also want to examine data points other than admissions and job placement. When counselor educators devote added credit hours to new coursework, they can consider how this coursework will benefit counselors-in-training, then measure those benefits. For example, if counselor educators devote extra credit hours to coursework in advanced techniques, they should collect and maintain data on the counseling techniques of counselors-in-training before and after transitioning to 60 credit hours. If counselor educators create extra coursework in consultation in schools, advocacy or leadership, these skills can be assessed in students before and after creating the courses. Evaluations from employers of alumni can also be examined to explore if counselor ratings improve after increasing credit hours.
If researchers are to better understand the impact that credit hour changes have on counseling programs, it is imperative that counselor educators regularly collect and store data on program outcomes. If counselor educators can begin doing so before credit hour changes take effect, they may be able to track trends in program outcomes associated with the credit hour changes over time. Researchers would be wise to begin longitudinal studies with programs in order to collect data on an ongoing basis and determine if the credit hour change has any effect. This research could prove useful in informing future CACREP standards, including potential credit hour changes. As Barkley and Percy (1984) recommended more than three decades ago, “Counselor education programs [ought to] begin keeping data on applications, acceptances, and enrollments. . . . These factors are too important to the life of most counselor education programs not to have accurate data readily available” (p. 25).
Conclusion
In the three and half decades since CACREP was established, credit hour increases for accredited programs have been met with divided reactions from counselor educators (Cannon & Cooper, 2010; Henriksen et al., 2008; TSCCAIN, 2013). The publication of CACREP’s 2016 Standards is no exception. Counselor educators are wise to consider the program implications of any new standard, including standard 1.J. However, to date, no research provides cause to believe that this standard will significantly contribute to negative school counseling program outcomes. To the contrary, previous research indicates program outcomes will improve or stay the same after increasing credit hours, and findings from the authors’ pilot study reflect similarly. Future research can provide further valuable insights on the impact of credit hour increases on counseling programs.
Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
This research study was conducted by the authors and was supported in part by a CACREP Student Research Grant. The article is the sole work of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the beliefs or ideas of CACREP, the CACREP Board of Directors, or CACREP staff.
References
Adams, S. A. (2006). Does CACREP accreditation make a difference? A look at NCE results and answers. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory & Research, 34, 60–76.
American Counseling Association. (2009, January 20). 20/20 statement of principles advances the profession. Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/news/news-release-archives/by-year/2009/2009/01/20/20-20-statement-of-principles-advances-the-profession
American School Counseling Association. (2012). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.
Barkley, W., & Percy, R. (1984). Accreditation status, credit hours, and enrollments in master’s degree programs in counseling. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Association for Counseling and Development, Houston, TX.
Beck, M. J. (2016). Bolstering the preparation of school counselor–principal teams for work with LGBT youth: Recommendations for preparation programs. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 10, 2–15.
doi:10.1080/15538605.2015.1138099
Bobby, C. L. (1992). CACREP accreditation: Setting the standard for counselor preparation. ERIC Digest. (ED 347 470). Ann Arbor, MI: ERIC/CAPS.
Bobby, C. L. (2013). The evolution of specialties in the CACREP standards: CACREP’s role in unifying the profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 35–43. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00068.x
Bobby, C. L., & Urofsky, R. I. (2008). CACREP adopts new standards. Counseling Today, 51(2), 59–60. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00064.x
Branthoover, H., Desmond, K. J., & Bruno, M. L. (2010). Strategies to operationalize CACREP standards in school counselor education. The Journal of Counselor Preparation & Supervision, 2, 37–47.
Cannon, E., & Cooper, J. (2010). Clinical mental health counseling: A national survey of counselor educators. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 32, 236–246.
Cassuto, L. (2016, January 31). Inside the graduate-admissions process. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Inside-the-Graduate-Admissions/235093
Cinotti, D. (2014). Competing professional identity models in school counseling: A historical perspective and commentary. The Professional Counselor, 4, 417–425. doi:10.15241/dc.4.5.417
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 CACREP accreditation manual. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2012). March 2012 Standards Revision Committee Update. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/articles/march-2012-standards-revision-committee-update-2/
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2014). What is CACREP? Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). 2016 CACREP standards. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016-Standards-with-Glossary-rev-2.2016.pdf
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2016a). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/cacrep/docs/cacrep_2015annualreport_final_web
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2016b). Directory. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/directory/
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2017). About CACREP: A brief history. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/about-cacrep/
DeKruyf, L., Auger, R. W., & Trice-Black, S. (2013). The role of school counselors in meeting students’ mental health needs: Examining issues of professional identity. Professional School Counseling, 16, 271–282.
DeSimone, J. R., & Roberts, L. A. (2016). Fostering collaboration between preservice educational leadership and school counseling graduate candidates. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 8(2), 12–27. doi:10.7729/82.1081
Douglas, K. A., & Wachter Morris, C. A. (2015). Assessing counselors’ self-efficacy in suicide assessment and intervention. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 6, 58–69.
Evans, M. P. (2013). Men in counseling: A content analysis of the Journal of Counseling & Development and Counselor Education and Supervision 1981–2011. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 467–474. doi:10.1002/j.i 556-6676.2013.00119.x
Gilbride, D. D., Goodrich, K. M., & Luke, M. (2016). The professional peer membership of school counselors and the resources used within their decision-making. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 8(2). Retrieved from http://repository.wcsu.edu/jcps/vol8/iss2/4
Guiffrida, D. A., & Douthit, K. Z. (2010). The Black student experience at predominantly White colleges: Implications for school and college counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88, 311–318. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00027.x
Hannon, M. D. (2016). Professional development needs of urban school counselors: A review of the literature. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 8, 139–154. doi:10.7729/82.1171
Henriksen, R. C., Jr., Van Wiesner, V., III, & Kinsworthy, S. (2008). Counselor educators’ perceptions of training requirements. Journal of Professional Counseling: Practice, Theory, & Research, 36, 52–70.
Holcomb-McCoy, C., Bryan, J., & Rahill, S. (2002). Importance of the CACREP school counseling standards: School counselors’ perceptions. Professional School Counseling, 6, 112–119.
Hollis, J. W. (1998). Is CACREP accreditation making a difference in mental health counselor preparation? Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20, 89–92.
Mascari, J. B., & Webber, J. (2013). CACREP accreditation: A solution to license portability and counselor identity problems. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 15–25. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00066.x
Ockerman, M. S., Patrikakou, E., & Feiker Hollenbeck, A. (2015). Preparation of school counselors and response to intervention: A profession at the crossroads. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 7, 161–184. doi:10.7729/73.1106
Ohrt, J. H., Blalock, S., & Limberg, D. (2016). Preparing school counselors-in-training to conduct large group developmental guidance: Evaluation of an instructional model. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 41, 96–116. doi:10.1080/01933922.2016.1146377
Perusse, R., Poynton, T. A., Parzych, J. L., & Goodnough, G. E. (2015). Changes over time in Masters level school counselor education programs. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 7(3), 1–22. doi:10.7729/73.1072
Prus, J. S., & Strein, W. (2011). Issues and trends in the accreditation of school psychology programs in the United States. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 887–900.
Scarborough, J. L., & Luke, M. (2008). School counselors walking the walk and talking the talk: A grounded theory of effective program implementation. Professional School Counseling, 11, 404–416.
Schmidt, J. J. (1999). Two decades of CACREP and what do we know? Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 34–45. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1999.tb01788.x
Shin, R. Q., Smith, L. C., Goodrich, K. M., & LaRosa, N. D. (2011). Attending to diversity representation among Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) master’s programs: A pilot study. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 33, 113–126.
doi:10.1007/s10447-011-9116-6
Simmons, J. (2003). A golden opportunity: The 1950s. In D. R. Coy, V. L. Sheeley, & D. W. Engels (Eds.), American Counseling Association: A 50-year history 1952–2002 (pp. 9–12). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Talleyrand, R. M., Chung, R. C.-Y., & Bemak, F. (2006). Incorporating social justice in counselor training programs: A case study example. In R. L. Toporek, L. H. Gerstein, N. A. Fouad, G. Roysircar, & T. Israel (Eds.), The handbook for social justice in counseling psychology: Leadership, vision, and action (pp. 44–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Transforming School Counseling and College Access Interest Network. (2013, October). Minutes of the TSCCAIN Meeting. Denver, CO.
Urofsky, R. I., Bobby, C. L., & Ritchie, M. (2013). Introduction to Special Section. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 3–5. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00064.x
Williams, D. J., Milsom, A., Nassar-McMillan, S., & Pope, V. T. (2012). 2016 CACREP standards revision committee at turn one. Counseling Today, 55(5), 56.
Clare Merlin, NCC, is an Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Timothy Pagano, NCC, is a doctoral candidate at the University of North Dakota. Amanda George, NCC, is a Professional School Counselor for Loudon County Public Schools in Sterling, VA. Cassandra Zanone, NCC, is a J.D. candidate at the University of California at Los Angeles. Benjamin Newman, NCC, is a doctoral student at the College of William and Mary. Correspondence can be addressed to Clare Merlin, 9201 University City Boulevard, Charlotte, NC, 28223, cmerlin1@uncc.edu.
Feb 3, 2017 | Volume 7 - Issue 1
Edward Wahesh, S. Elizabeth Likis-Werle, Regina R. Moro
This content analysis includes 210 articles that focused on addictions topics published between January 2005 and December 2014 in the journals of the National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC), Chi Sigma Iota (CSI), the American Counseling Association (ACA), and ACA member divisions. Results include the types of addictions content and behaviors studied as well as the populations and data analytic techniques used in the addictions research articles. Whereas most articles discussed addictions counseling techniques, addictions issues among non-clinical populations, and professional practice issues, fewer articles addressed clients in treatment, utilized clinical populations, or analyzed intervention outcomes. Implications for addictive behaviors and addictions counseling scholarship in professional counseling are discussed.
Keywords: addictive behaviors, addictions counseling, content analysis, NBCC, ACA
Professional counselors have an ethical obligation to be actively involved in continuing education in order to remain current on relevant professional issues and scientific information related to their client population and setting (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014). Continuing education also is required by licensing and certification bodies for credential renewal. One way continuing education is achieved is through reading and contributing to peer-reviewed journal articles. Publications can expose professional counselors, counselor educators and counselors-in-training to new and innovative practices grounded in empirical research.
Professional journals represent “the repository of the accumulated knowledge of a field” (American Psychological Association, 2010, p. 9). A number of journals are produced by the major counseling certification and professional organizations, including The Professional Counselor, published by the National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC); the Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, published by Chi Sigma Iota International (CSI); and the Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD), which is the flagship journal of ACA. In addition to JCD, there are 20 journals published by ACA member divisions. ACA member division-sponsored journals publish articles that inform counseling practices and contribute to the body of research on topics that are salient to the particular settings, populations, interest areas, and issues associated with the division. An area that is relevant to most professional counselors, regardless of specialty area or setting, is addiction.
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), in 2014 there were an estimated 21.5 million Americans (8% of the population aged 12 or older) living with a substance use disorder (SUD; SAMHSA, 2015). It is likely that many individuals with SUDs also have other co-occurring mental health conditions. In fact, 2014 estimates suggest 7.9 million adults (i.e., 18 years and older) in the United States had both a past-year SUD and a mental illness diagnosis. Among adolescents, approximately 1.3 million reported a past-year SUD; 28.4% of these (over 300,000) had experienced a major depressive episode in the past year (SAMHSA, 2015).
While not all professional counselors will specialize in addictions counseling, given this prevalence it is likely counselors will need to provide services to individuals with an SUD (Chandler, Balkin, & Perepiczka, 2011; Harwood, Kowalski, & Ameen, 2004; Salyers, Ritchie, Cochrane, & Roseman, 2006). In addition, professional counselors are more than likely to come into contact with clients of any age who are impacted by someone else’s addiction (e.g., friend, family member). This may explain why the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP; 2016) requires that all counselors-in-training, regardless of counseling specialty, learn about the theories and etiology of addictions. Salyers et al. (2006) found little consensus among CACREP-accredited programs in how addictions issues were addressed; in fact, when asked where substance abuse was covered in the curriculum, more than 25 different courses were listed by CACREP program representatives. Counselors-in-training learn about addictions in a variety of ways, such as by taking a course in addictions, encountering clients with addictive behaviors in practicum or internship, or learning about addictions in other courses. Since addictions-related training seems to occur throughout the counseling curriculum, all counselor educators, regardless of their particular area of specialty, should maintain an awareness of current trends in addictions science and theory.
Given that knowledge of addictive behaviors is an important aspect of professional counselor identity (CACREP, 2009; 2016), it is necessary that professional counselors have access to scientific information and practice-oriented resources on addiction that are consistent with the philosophical orientation of the profession. Whereas related professions, such as psychology, public health and social work, produce peer-reviewed publications on addictions and addictions treatment that can be utilized by professional counselors, these resources may not reflect the qualities that make professional counseling unique. Examining the state of the counseling literature on addictive behaviors and additions counseling can inform efforts to improve access to scientific information and evidence-based practices that represent the core philosophy of the counseling profession. Further, an assessment of available addictions research can help to shed light on the state of the counseling profession, as production of original research has been regarded as a standard for measuring the identity development of a profession (Mate & Kelly, 1997).
Research on trends in addictions publications in professional counseling is scarce. Moro, Wahesh, Likis-Werle, and Smith (2016) utilized content analysis to investigate the frequency and type of addictions content within a sample of Association for Counselor Education and Supervision conference programs and four ACA-sponsored journals (JCD, Counselor Education and Supervision, Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation [CORE], and Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development) that appeal to counselor educators. These authors found that about 2% of conference sessions and articles between 2007 and 2011 addressed addictions counseling. Most of the articles identified in this analysis focused on treatment strategies, particularly among diverse populations. Although the study by Moro et al. is informative, it is limited in that it comprised a 5-year time period and included only a small subset of professional counseling journals. Examining all professional counseling journals during a lengthier time frame would provide professional counselors and researchers with a more comprehensive snapshot of what aspects of addictions theory, prevention, intervention and treatment have been discussed within the counseling literature. This information can be used to inform efforts to promote the production of research and publications that address specific areas of addiction that are currently lacking.
The purpose of the present study was to provide an overview of available literature on addictions topics in professional counseling journals published between January 2005 and December 2014. Moreover, the types of addictions content, addictive behaviors and addictions-related research were examined. The research questions that guided this study were: (1) To what extent do counseling journals address addictions topics? (2) What addictive behaviors and types of content were addressed? (3) How much addictions research was published in counseling journals? and (4) What types of populations and data analytic techniques were represented in this research?
Methods
Content analysis was utilized to address the research questions. This methodology was selected because content analysis is a systematic approach to summarize and make valid and replicable inferences from written communication (Krippendorff, 2013). A review of the literature shows that content analysis has served as a valuable methodology to identify publication trends over time and highlight attention on specific topics within the counseling profession. Content analysis has been used in the counseling literature to examine topics such as multicultural counseling (Arredondo, Rosen, Rice, Perez, & Tovar-Gamero, 2005), pedagogy in counselor education (Barrio Minton, Wachter Morris, & Yaites, 2014), and research in counseling (Ray et al., 2011). Studies by Barrio Minton et al. (2014), Arrendondo et al. (2005), and Ray et al. (2011) were of journal articles during a similar time frame as the present study (i.e., 10 years). Content analysis procedures used in this study include identifying articles, generating and refining the content analysis protocol, conducting a pretest, data collection, assessment of reliability and validity, and reporting the results.
The research team consisted of three professors and two master’s-level graduate students. The professors each possess a doctoral degree in counselor education and specialize in addictions counseling. Two professors identify as White females and one professor is a White male. The graduate assistants, both White females, hold bachelor’s degrees in psychology, completed a course in counseling research methods, and participated in a workshop on content analysis facilitated by the first author before joining the research team. The graduate assistants were responsible for searching for applicable articles using predetermined keywords and identifying the total number of articles for each journal during the time period; the three assistant professors (first, second, and third authors) participated in the search for articles as well as in the development of the content analysis protocol and coding process.
The Professional Counselor, published by NBCC, the Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, published by CSI, and 21 ACA and ACA member division peer-reviewed journals (Table 1) were identified as having published articles on addictions between the years 2005 and 2014. Because the purpose of the study was to present a survey of all available articles on addictions content in professional counseling journals between 2005 and 2014, all journals were included in the analysis even if they were not in press during the entire 10-year period under analysis.
A set of keywords was generated to identify relevant articles to be used in the study. These keywords included: (a) general terms taken from the literature on addiction and addictions treatment (e.g., addiction, prevention, relapse, recovery, abstinence, co-morbidity, behavioral and process addictions, and mutual support groups); (b) terminology drawn from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), such as substance use disorders, dependence, intoxication, withdrawal, substance abuse and opioid maintenance; and (c) a list of drug classifications (and common pseudonyms) from the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5, including alcohol (drinking), amphetamine, cannabis (marijuana), cocaine, hallucinogen, opioid, stimulant, gambling, inhalant, sedative, caffeine and nicotine (tobacco, smoking).
Two graduate assistants independently conducted electronic searches using PsycINFO, EBSCO and ERIC of the keywords, titles and abstracts of all articles (editorial statements, book reviews, errata and advertisements excluded) during the specified time period to identify relevant articles and provide the total number of articles published for each journal. Journals not indexed within these electronic databases were searched by reading the electronic version of each issue’s table of contents and article abstracts and keywords. Following this process, the first author met with the graduate assistants in order to reconcile any differences between their lists of applicable texts and total number of journal articles found. A preliminary list of 226 articles was identified and reviewed by each author to determine suitability for the study. Fifteen articles were removed from the analysis because they did not discuss addictions or addictions treatment; for example, two articles included the keyword “substance abuse” in the abstract, but not in the article itself. To maintain independence, one article was removed because it had been published twice.
The authors developed a content analysis protocol that included definitions and categories for each coding variable. To address research questions 1–3, the following variables were developed: (a) addiction-related content topic, (b) addictive behavior and (c) type of research article. In order to assess research question 4, (d) data analytic technique and (e) research population also were included as variables. Categories of each variable were initially developed by the authors based on their knowledge of the addictions literature as well as past content analysis research of counseling journals. The authors then pretested the protocol by coding 40 randomly selected articles within the sample (approximately 20%) to purify the coding scheme and conduct a preliminary assessment of coder agreement. Following this process, the authors met to refine existent category definitions, agree on the inclusion of additional variable categories and determine which variables would be single versus multiple classification. High inter-rater agreement (85% or higher) across all five study variables was observed among the three coders during the pilot phase. A pattern was not observed in the disagreements among the coders, suggesting that the framework possessed acceptable construct validity (Insch, Moore, & Murphy, 1997).
Once the protocol was refined, all articles were coded independently by two members of the research team (first, second, and third authors). Krippendorff’s alpha (Krippendorff, 2013), with a minimum acceptable value set at α = .80, was utilized to assess agreement among the coders. This coefficient was selected to capture inter-rater reliability because it estimates error in observed agreement attributable to chance and accounts for small sample sizes. Using a reliability measure designed for small samples was an important consideration because research question 4 relates only to a smaller subset of the sample used in the study. Further, the use of two coders for each article was to ensure that the total number of observations for each variable in this study exceeded the minimum number recommended by Krippendorff (2013) for an alpha value greater than .80 at the .01 level of significance (i.e., according to Krippendorff [2013] two coders would have to code at least 103 units). The “odd-man-out” procedure recommended by Insch et al. (1997), in which a third coder determined the final category when differences emerged, was used to reconcile disagreements between coders.
Coding Variables
Five variables were identified by coders in the study. All articles (N = 210) were coded utilizing three of the variables: addiction-related content topic, addictive behavior and type of research. Two variables were used to code research articles identified within the sample. Percentage of agreement (observed agreement [OA]) and Krippendorff’s alpha (α) were calculated for each variable.
Addiction-related content topic. The purpose of this variable was to identify the area of addictions counseling and research that the article addressed. Categories were initially drawn from content analyses by Ray et al. (2011) and Moro et al. (2016) and modified for the present study. Because the purpose of this variable was to identify the main content focus of the articles, a single classification system was used, which meant that coders were required to assign each article to one category. The use of a single classification system is recommended when coding variables that represent latent meaning and require greater interpretation by the coder (Insch et al., 1997). The variable included the following categories: approaches to counseling, professional practice, population variables, client variables, counselor variables, measurement, and effectiveness of counseling and preventative interventions (OA = 87.6%; α = .85). Approaches to counseling included articles that presented specific addictions-related counseling techniques, models or treatment programs. The professional practice issues category contained articles that described addiction-related counselor training, credentialing, ethics, diagnosis or trends in the field. Population variables included articles that described characteristics of a non-clinical population; the client variables category contained articles that addressed addictions or addictions counseling within a clinical population. Articles on the characteristics or perceptions of professional counselors were assigned to the counselor variables category. The measurement category included any article with a focus on instrument development, formal assessment or psychometrics. Effectiveness of counseling and preventative interventions represented articles that focused on evaluating an intervention or prevention program or technique.
Addictive behavior. This variable represented the types of addictive behavior addressed in the articles. Coders were instructed to record all addictive behaviors and substances described in each article (i.e., multiple classification) using a list of categories that included relevant keywords developed by the researchers for the text search. If a specific type of behavior or substance was not discussed, coders labeled the article as general substance use. Categories representing specific behaviors and substances included: general substance use, alcohol, nicotine, opioids, cannabis, stimulants, ecstasy and behavioral addictions (OA = 95%; α = .90).
Type of research. Each article was coded as non-research, qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods (OA = 98.5%; α = .98). Classifications were based on past content analysis research of counseling journals (Moro et al., 2016; Ray et al., 2011), and coders were required to assign each article to one category. Articles that were assigned to the three research categories (i.e., qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods) were used to address research question 4.
Data analysis. All research articles were coded in order to determine the types of data analytics used by the authors. The coding variable included 15 categories (i.e., descriptive statistics, regression analysis, theme analysis and coding, chi-square test, multivariate analysis of variance/multivariate analysis of covariance, correlation, analysis of variance/analysis of covariance, structural equation modeling, t-test, confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, other nonparametric test, discriminant analysis, canonical analysis, and cluster analysis), and coders were instructed to assign each article to multiple categories when appropriate (e.g., case where a single research article included multiple types of analysis; multiple classification). The scheme for grouping different types of data analysis was based on a framework by Erford et al. (2011) in their content analysis of articles published in JCD. Percentage of agreement among coders in the present study was 82.4% and α = .79. Because inter-rater reliability is slightly below the recommended minimum of .80 (Krippendorff, 2013), readers are encouraged to interpret these results with caution.
Research population. The various populations examined in the research articles were recorded using this variable (OA = 91%; α = .88). Because an article could potentially include multiple populations (e.g., African American, male, college students), coders were instructed to code each article with as many categories as necessary (i.e., multiple classification). When coding, research team members used a preliminary list of possible categories derived from several previous content analysis studies of counseling journals (Byrd, Crockett, & Erford, 2012; Smith, Ng, Brinson, & Mityagin, 2008). This resulted in 11 discrete categories: undergraduates, children and adolescents, adults (non-college, 18 years and older), families, men only, women only, clients in addictions treatment, addictions professionals, counseling students, multicultural populations and LGBT populations. To improve the conciseness of the findings, several smaller categories were combined to create the multicultural populations category. A twelfth category was designated for articles that did not include a research sample.
Results
Research Question 1: To What Extent Do Counseling Journals Address Addictions Topics?
Table 1 provides a listing of counseling journals as well as the number of addictions-related articles in relationship to total publication. The percentage of the total number of addictions-related articles in comparison to total number of published articles was 4.5%. As expected, the Journal of Addiction & Offender Counseling (JAOC) published the highest percentage of addictions articles (76.1%). The journal with the next highest percentage of addictions articles was the Journal of Military and Government Counseling (13.8%), followed by the Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling (9.6%), the Journal of College Counseling (8.6%), and CORE (8.3%). Six journals published less than 1% of their articles on addictions: The Career Development Quarterly (0.0%), Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy (0.0%), Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology (0.0%), Counselor Education and Supervision (0.5%), Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development (0.5%), and Professional School Counseling (0.9%).
The authors also examined the first research question by calculating the percentage of addictions-related articles during each year of publication. The number and percentage of addictions articles published for each year is as follows: 2005 (n = 18; 4.0%), 2006 (n = 20; 4.5%), 2007 (n = 20; 4.7%), 2008 (n = 14; 3.0%), 2009 (n = 17; 3.9%), 2010 (n = 21; 4.5%), 2011 (n = 30; 6.3%), 2012 (n = 30; 6.4%), 2013 (n = 20; 4.0%), and 2014 (n = 20; 4.7%). The percentage of addictions articles remained relatively stable during this period; however, a slight increase in the percentage of articles published on addictions was observed in 2011 and 2012.
Research Question 2: What Types of Addictive Behaviors and Content Topics Were Addressed?
All seven categories included in the addiction-related content topic variable were represented in the data. The highest number of addictions articles focused on population variables (n = 57; 27%), or addictions issues within non-clinical groups. The content topics approaches to counseling (n = 43; 20%) and professional practice issues (n = 39; 19%) were the second and third most represented categories. Fewer addiction-related articles were published on the following content topics: client variables (n = 20; 10%), measurement (n = 18; 9%), effectiveness of counseling and preventative interventions (n = 17; 8%), and counselor variables (n = 16; 7%).
Additional analysis revealed that among the 18 articles in the measurement category, 14 different assessment instruments were represented. Whereas most instruments (n = 10) were discussed in only one article each, the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory-3 (SASSI-3; Miller & Lazowski, 1999) was included in eight of the articles in this category. Three instruments were included in two articles: the Core Alcohol and Drug Survey (Core Institute, 1994), CAGE questionnaire (Ewing, 1984) and the Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (Selzer, 1971). Further, additional analysis of the effectiveness of counseling and preventative interventions category found that only four articles addressed prevention; three of these articles discussed a similar intervention to prevent college student drinking and one presented findings of an evaluation of a school-based substance abuse prevention program.
Table 1
Addiction Articles in Professional Counseling Journals, 2005–2014
| Journal |
No. of Addiction Articles Found
|
No. of Total
Possible Articles
|
% Addiction to No. of Total
Articles
|
| The Professional Counselor |
5
|
113
|
4.4
|
| Journal of Counselor Leadership & Advocacy |
0
|
13
|
0.0
|
| Journal of Counseling & Development |
9
|
561
|
1.6
|
| Adultspan Journal |
5
|
101
|
5.0
|
| The Career Development Quarterly |
0
|
282
|
0.0
|
| Counseling and Values |
6
|
191
|
3.1
|
| Counselor Education and Supervision |
1
|
199
|
0.5
|
| Journal of Addiction & Offender Counseling |
70
|
92
|
76.1
|
| Journal of College Counseling |
14
|
163
|
8.6
|
| Journal of Employment Counseling |
5
|
182
|
2.8
|
| Journal of Humanistic Counseling |
3
|
175
|
1.7
|
| Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development |
1
|
194
|
0.5
|
| Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation |
4
|
48
|
8.3
|
| The Family Journal |
17
|
554
|
3.1
|
| Journal of Creativity in Mental Health |
15
|
251
|
6.0
|
| Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling |
13
|
136
|
9.6
|
| Journal of Mental Health Counseling |
11
|
244
|
4.5
|
| Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology |
0
|
87
|
0.0
|
| The Journal for Specialists in Group Work |
5
|
209
|
2.4
|
| Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development |
8
|
176
|
4.6
|
| Professional School Counseling |
4
|
432
|
0.9
|
| Rehabilitation Counseling |
10
|
208
|
4.8
|
| Journal of Military and Government Counseling |
4
|
29
|
13.8
|
| Total |
210
|
4,640
|
4.5
|
| Note. The first issue of The Professional Counselor was published in 2011; Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation was first published in June 2010; Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling was first published in October 2008; Journal for Social Action in Counseling was first published in April 2007; Journal of Creativity in Mental Health was first published in September 2007; the first issue of Journal of Military and Government Counseling was published in January 2013; the first issue of the Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy was published in 2014. |
The addictive behavior coding variable also was used to assess this research question. General substance use was by far the most represented addictive behavior in the articles (n = 142; 68%), followed by alcohol consumption (n = 46; 22%) and behavioral addictions (n = 11; 5%). Specific substances were addressed in fewer articles: nicotine (n = 8; 4%), opioids (n = 4; 2%), stimulants (n = 4; 2%), cannabis (n = 3; 1%) and ecstasy (n = 1; 0.5%). The total values exceed the actual number of research articles included in the analysis because some articles addressed more than one addictive behavior. In the behavioral addictions category, sex addiction was addressed in three articles, three articles included a general discussion of behavioral addictions, and addictions to gambling, gaming, Internet, self-injury and food were each mentioned once.
Research Question 3: How Much Addictions Research Was Published in Counseling Journals?
This research question was addressed using the type of research coding variable. Approximately 60% of addictions-related articles (n = 127) were original research. Among these articles, 82% were quantitative (n = 104) and 13% were qualitative (n = 17). Mixed methods was the smallest category (n = 6), representing 5% of all addictions research. Articles coded as “non-research” (n = 83) included innovative methods papers, professional practice papers, interviews, and literature reviews on topics such as counseling theory and special populations.
Research Question 4: What Types of Populations and Data Analytic Techniques Are Represented in the Addictions Research?
Research population and data analysis were the coding variables used to assess this research question. Table 2 lists the various types of participants used in the addictions-related research articles. The most common population examined was adults (n = 49; 40%), or individuals (18 years and older) not enrolled in college, followed by undergraduates (n = 36; 29%) and addictions professionals (n = 26; 21%). The total values exceed the actual number of research articles included into the analysis because some articles included more than one population. The multicultural populations category represented a number of ethnic groups including African Americans, Native Americans and Hispanic Americans, as well as a sample of participants in Korea. Three articles were not included in this analysis because they did not involve research with human subjects (e.g., content analysis of substance use screenings).
| Table 2 Types of Participants Used in Addictions Research Articles |
| Population |
Count |
%
|
| Adults |
49
|
40
|
|
| Undergraduates |
36
|
29
|
|
| Addictions Professionals |
26
|
21
|
|
| Clients in Addictions Treatment |
18
|
15
|
|
| LGBT Populations |
13
|
10
|
|
| Children and Adolescents |
9
|
7
|
|
| Multicultural Populations |
9
|
7
|
|
| Men Only |
8
|
6
|
|
| Families |
5
|
4
|
|
| Women Only |
4
|
3
|
|
| Counseling Students |
2
|
2
|
|
| Note. Three articles were removed because they did not include human subjects (n = 124). Some articles include more than one population. Therefore, the total values may exceed the actual number of research articles accepted into the analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
All 15 data analytic techniques were represented within the addiction-related research articles (Table 3). Descriptive statistics (n = 34; 27%), regression analysis (n = 31; 24%) and theme analysis/coding (n = 22; 17%) were the most used techniques. Data strategies less likely to be utilized include discriminant analysis (n = 4; 3%), canonical analysis (n = 3; 2%) and cluster analysis (n = 1; 1%). The total values exceed the actual number of research articles included in the analysis because some articles utilized more than one data analysis strategy.
| Table 3 Type of Data Analysis Used in Addictions Research Articles |
| Data Analytic Procedure |
Count
|
%
|
| Descriptive Statistics |
34
|
27
|
|
| Regression Analysis |
31
|
24
|
|
| Theme Analysis/Coding |
22
|
17
|
|
| Chi-Square Test |
16
|
13
|
|
| MANOVA/MANCOVA |
14
|
11
|
|
| ANOVA/ANCOVA |
13
|
10
|
|
| Correlation |
12
|
9
|
|
| Structural Equation Modeling |
10
|
8
|
|
| t-test |
9
|
7
|
|
| Confirmatory Factor Analysis |
7
|
5
|
|
| Exploratory Factor Analysis |
5
|
4
|
|
| Other Nonparametric |
5
|
4
|
|
| Discriminant Analysis |
4
|
3
|
|
| Canonical Analysis |
3
|
2
|
|
| Cluster Analysis |
1
|
1
|
|
| Note. Some articles used more than one procedure. Therefore, the total values may exceed the actual number of research articles accepted into the analysis (n = 127). MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance; MANCOVA = multivariate analysis of covariance; ANOVA = analysis of variance; ANCOVA = analysis of covariance. |
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion
Articles published in 23 professional counseling journals between January 2005 and December 2014 were examined to assess the scope with which addictions were represented in the professional counseling literature. Overall, 210 (4.5%) of the 4,640 articles published addressed addictions content. Not surprisingly, JAOC, a publication sponsored by the International Association of Addictions and Offender Counselors, contained the most articles on addictions. It also is noteworthy that several journals with higher percentages of addictions articles were launched within the period of time the analysis was conducted (e.g., Journal of Military and Government Counseling and Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling). The introduction of these journals may suggest that increased attention is being given to addictions issues or, at the very least, to populations that are more vulnerable to experiencing the consequences of addictive behaviors.
The higher percentage of articles in 2011 and 2012 may have been associated with changes to addictions-related professional training and diagnostic considerations that occurred around these years. In 2009, CACREP introduced an addictions counseling specialty area and added language in their standards requiring all students to learn about the etiology, prevention and treatment of addictions; therefore, it is possible that during the years following these changes, there was an increased interest in the teaching of addictions content to counselors-in-training. Alternatively, the revised formulation for the diagnosis of SUD in the DSM-5, published in 2013, also may have contributed to the increase in addictions articles. Leading up to the publication of the DSM-5 there may have been greater discussion as to how addictive disorders are conceptualized and assessed.
The most common type of article published addressed addiction-related issues within non-clinical populations; fewer articles focused on topics specific to individuals receiving addictions counseling. Even fewer articles included research on outcomes of prevention and counseling interventions. The presence of only four articles in the sample (1.9%) that assessed the efficacy of prevention efforts is concerning given that prevention has been found to be a key facet of professional counselor identity (Mellin, Hunt, & Nichols, 2011) and is considered by CACREP (2016) as “foundational knowledge” (p. 8) for all counseling professionals. This discrepancy may suggest that despite being regarded as an important component of professional training and identity, little is actually done pertaining to prevention practice and research by professional counselors.
Although relatively few articles in the sample included addictions outcomes research, it is promising that CORE was established by the Association for Assessment and Research in Counseling in 2010 as a venue for outcomes research and program evaluation findings (Hays, 2010). Since the inception of CORE, its publication of addiction research has resulted in it being one of the top five journals in our study publishing on addiction topics.
Among the assessment instruments in articles that focused on addictions-related measurement issues, the SASSI-3 (Miller & Lazowski, 1999) was the most commonly discussed. The amount of attention given to the use of the SASSI-3 appears to be warranted considering the popularity of this instrument among professional counselors and clinical mental health counselors in particular. In a national survey of counselor assessment practices by Peterson, Lomas, Neukrug, and Bonner (2014), the SASSI-3 was the highest ranked test of addictive behaviors among all professional counselors. Among clinical mental health counselors, it was the third highest ranked inventory overall, behind the Beck inventories for depression and anxiety. Further, Neukrug, Peterson, Bonner, and Lomas (2013) found that more than three-quarters of counselor educators who teach assessment use the SASSI-3 in their courses. Despite the widespread use of the SASSI-3, it does have its limitations; the SASSI-3 can be cost prohibitive for some clients and requires that those who use it receive specialized training. As a result, examining the psychometric properties of other instruments, specifically measures that are free or more cost effective and do not require specialized training to interpret, seems prudent.
The limited number of articles addressing specific types of addictive behaviors is problematic. Although common physiological and psychosocial processes exist across all addictive behaviors, there also are unique factors associated with the etiology, prevention and treatment of the various drug classifications and behavioral addictions (Brooks & McHenry, 2015). Indeed, prevention and intervention efficacy often correlate with information tailored to each need. In light of the current opioid and prescription drug epidemic—a 137% increase in drug overdose deaths and 200% increase in opioid deaths from 2000 to 2014 (Rudd, Aleshire, Zibbell, & Gladden, 2016)—examining the prevention and treatment of this specific classification of substances would be a prudent area of research.
Analysis of addictions-related research revealed that nearly two-thirds of all articles in the sample represented original empirical research. This is higher than what Ray et al. (2011) found in their content analysis of 15 counseling journals in print between 1998 and 2007; these authors found that approximately one in three articles published included original research. These findings suggest that despite addictions not being a topic commonly discussed across counseling journals, there may be greater attention to conducting research on addictive behaviors by counseling researchers. Or, this may reflect an overall trend among counseling journals to publish research since the final year (2007) of the content analysis conducted by Ray et al. (2011). The level of sophistication of data analysis in the articles in this sample is comparable to findings from past content analyses of long term publication trends in specific counseling journals; for instance, descriptive statistical techniques were among the most commonly used methods of analysis in JCD (Erford et al., 2011) and Journal of College Counseling (Byrd et al., 2012).
One of the most commonly used groups in addictions research was college students, which may indicate an over-reliance on the use of convenience sampling across institutions of higher education. A concerning trend observed in the data was that addictions professionals were utilized more as research participants than were clients in addictions treatment. Greater attention to understanding individuals who are enrolled in treatment can help researchers and professional counselors identify successful ways to tailor and personalize counseling interventions to fit the needs of specific client populations. In addition, although several articles used diverse populations, fewer studies examined addictions issues among discrete groups of men and women only. Moreover, twice as many articles were found that focused on men compared to women only. Additional research examining gender differences is necessary considering that men and women face unique issues related to the development and treatment of addictive behaviors (National Institute of Drug Abuse, 2015).
Limitations
The findings of this study should be viewed within the context of several limitations. An advantage of content analysis is that it can be used to help organize and summarize large quantities of information; however, by assigning each individual article to a category, it is possible that some distinctive characteristics of the articles in the sample may have been lost or trivialized (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 2014). In addition, the process of creating categories for the articles is researcher-driven and, even though efforts were made to develop the coding framework using the available literature, it is possible that different researchers would not have created the same levels of the study variables.
Other limitations relate to data collection and the coding process. Since the purpose of the present study was to analyze articles that focused on addictions, the sample was developed through a review of journal titles, abstracts and keywords only—an approach utilized in previous content analyses of specific topics within the counseling literature (Barrio Minton et al., 2014; Evans, 2013). In the unlikely event that an article focusing on addictions did not include one of the search terms in these three areas, it would not have been included in this study. Also, this study did not include articles in counseling journals that are affiliated with regional or statewide counseling organizations, such as The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, published by the North Atlantic Region Association for Counselor Education and Supervision, or the Virginia Counselors Journal, which is the journal of the Virginia Counseling Association. The authors chose to restrict their data collection to include only journals produced by NBCC, CSI, ACA and ACA member divisions because they believed that a content analysis of articles sampled from these national publications would provide a general overview of the addictions-related content discussed throughout the counseling literature.
Although inter-rater agreement among coders for most variables was satisfactory, reliability for coding the data analysis variable was lower than the minimal acceptable threshold suggested by Krippendorff (2013). Possible reasons for low concordance include the number of categories for this variable and the inconsistencies in how data analytic techniques were described within the various articles in the sample. Finally, as this study presented an overview of the types of addictions-related articles published in counseling journals, the quality of the publications was not evaluated during the coding process. This may be a possible next step for counseling researchers that could yield more rigor and, subsequently, evidence-based practices for addictions prevention and counseling.
Implications for Professional Counselors
According to the ACA Code of Ethics (2014), “Counselors have a responsibility to the public to engage in counseling practices that are based on rigorous research methodologies” (Section C, p. 8). When addressing issues related to addictive behaviors, professional counselors have a modest yet relatively diverse literature available to help guide their practice. Despite the fact that a large number of articles in the sample described approaches to addictions counseling, many of these papers were conceptual in nature and did not include original empirical research to assess counseling outcomes. To better assist professional counselors in using research-informed approaches, it is necessary for greater attention to be given by counselor educators and researchers to producing addictions-related intervention research and program evaluations.
The limited number of articles that evaluated treatment approaches also may represent a more endemic issue in counseling and counselor education. Many professional counselors report not feeling adequately prepared to operationalize and measure client outcomes, despite recognizing the need for these skills in their work (Peterson, Hall, & Buser, 2016). Although these skills have been identified as key research competencies in counselor education (Wester & Borders, 2014), it is unclear how these competencies are addressed in entry-level and doctoral research curricula. Researchers may wish to examine the ways in which professional counselors and counselor educators learn how to evaluate treatment outcomes. This may help inform the development of new pedagogical strategies that lead to an increased production of outcomes research on approaches to counseling and prevention in counseling journals.
In addition to a call for research on counseling outcomes, it also seems apparent that there is a need for more sophisticated research questions and hypotheses in research conducted on addictive behaviors. Addiction is a multifaceted phenomenon that involves the interplay of multiple biological, psychological and social determinants (American Society of Addiction Medicine, 2011); therefore, the use of descriptive statistics or univariate procedures may not capture the complexities of how addictive behaviors are initiated, maintained and extinguished. The use of more sophisticated data analytic techniques by researchers may help address this issue. Structural equation modeling can be utilized to simultaneously test the fit of an explanatory model of addictive behavior comprised of multiple independent and dependent variables. For example, Wahesh, Lewis, Wyrick, and Ackerman (2015) utilized structural equation modeling to evaluate the fit of a mediational model of collegiate drinking that included multiple determinants of alcohol use. Alternatively, qualitative methods can be used by researchers to provide an in-depth understanding of how various interpersonal, social and cultural variables shape individual behavior (Likis-Werle & Borders, 2017).
One way that counseling journals can increase the publication of articles that address specific issues related to addiction is by offering a special issue or section on these topics. Journal editors can develop a call for papers that focus on addictions-related issues salient to their publication’s readership. Depending on the particular journal’s audience, this can include examining prevention, a specific classification of addictive behaviors, or intervention outcomes, areas that were not well represented in the current sample of articles. For example, in 2011 CORE dedicated a special section (Volume 2, Issue 1) to substance abuse outcome research and measures. The use of special issues or sections across counseling journals can ensure that professional counselors have access to information that is germane to their work. JAOC may seem like a natural venue for topics related to addictions in counseling; however, that perception is problematic because JAOC is geared toward addictions and offender counselors, making it possible that the particular populations studied, findings and implications in articles published in this journal are not as relevant to professional counselors in other settings.
Although journal articles represent an important source of professional development, it is possible that professional counselors utilize other venues for continuing education. Future researchers can examine continuing education practices of counselors to determine the particular sources of education and whether or not the information provided through these venues is consistent with the typical scope of practice and professional identify of the counseling profession. Relatedly, it also seems necessary to determine where else counseling researchers and counselor educators publish their research on addictions counseling. While counselor educators in CACREP-accredited programs are expected to demonstrate scholarly activity in counseling (CACREP, 2016), it is possible that some addictions counselor educators publish in journals outside of counseling that specialize in addictions or have higher impact factors. Journal impact factors are a method of determining a journal’s significance in comparison to other journals in the field. Some counselor educators may seek to publish in journals with a more favorable impact factor for evaluation purposes related to faculty tenure and promotion (Fernando & Barrio Minton, 2011). Assessing author publication trends by reviewing the curriculum vitae of addictions counselor educators can help identify the journals in which they most frequently publish. Examining these trends can identify the types of addictions-related research and other scholarly work that are being produced by counselor educators and counseling researchers but are not appearing in counseling journals.
Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
The authors reported no conflict of interest
or funding contributions for the development
of this manuscript.
References
American Counseling Association. (2014). 2014 ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Society of Addiction Medicine. (2011). Public policy statement: Definition of addiction. Retrieved from http://www.asam.org/quality-practice/definition-of-addiction
Arredondo, P., Rosen, D. C., Rice, T., Perez, P., & Tovar-Gamero, Z. G. (2005). Multicultural counseling: A 10-year content analysis of the Journal of Counseling & Development. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 155–161. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00592.x
Barrio Minton, C. A., Wachter Morris, C. A., & Yaites, L. D. (2014). Pedagogy in counselor education: A 10-year content analysis of journals. Counselor Education and Supervision, 53, 162–177.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2014.00055.x
Brooks, F., & McHenry, B. (2015). A contemporary approach to substance use disorders and addiction counseling (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Byrd, R., Crockett, S. A., & Erford, B. T. (2012). Journal for Specialists in Group Work (JSGW) publication pattern review: A meta-study of author and article characteristics from 1981–2010. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 37, 56–70. doi:10.1080/01933922.2011.632812
Chandler, N., Balkin, R. S., & Perepiczka, M. (2011). Perceived self-efficacy of licensed counselors to provide
substance abuse counseling. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 32, 29–42.
doi:10.1002/j.2161-1874.2011.tb00205.x
Core Institute. (1994). Core alcohol and drug survey. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 CACREP standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2016). 2016 CACREP standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Erford, B. T., Miller, E. M., Schein, H., McDonald, A., Ludwig, L., & Leishear, K. (2011). Journal of Counseling & Development publication patterns: Author and article characteristics from 1994 to 2009. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 73–80. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00062.x
Evans, M. P. (2013). Men in counseling: A content analysis of the Journal of Counseling & Development and Counselor Education and Supervision 1981–2011. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 467–474. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00119.x
Ewing, J. A. (1984). Detecting alcoholism: The CAGE questionnaire. Journal of the American Medical Association, 252, 1905–1907.
Fernando, D. M., & Barrio Minton, C. A. (2011). Relative influence of professional counseling journals. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 423–430. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2011.tb02839.x
Harwood, H. J., Kowalski, J., & Ameen, A. (2004). The need for substance abuse training among mental health professionals. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 32, 189–205. doi:10.1023/B:APIH.0000042746.79349.64
Hays, D. G. (2010). Introduction to counseling outcome research and evaluation. Counseling Outcome Research & Evaluation, 1, 1–7. doi:10.1177/2150137809360006
Insch, G. S., Moore, J. E., & Murphy, L. D. (1997). Content analysis in leadership research: Examples, procedures, and suggestions for future use. The Leadership Quarterly, 8, 1–25.
Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Likis-Werle, S. E., & Borders, L. D. (2017). College women’s gender identity and their drinking choices. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 38, 16–32. doi:10.1002/jaoc.12026
Mate, R. L., & Kelly, K. R. (1997). Research publication in the Journal of Mental Health Counseling as an indicator of professional identity development. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 19, 286–294.
Mellin, E. A., Hunt, B., & Nichols, L. M. (2011). Counselor professional identity: Findings and implications for counseling and interprofessional collaboration. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 140–147. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00071.x
Miller, G. A., & Lazowski, L. E. (1999). The adult SASSI-3 manual. Springville, IN: The SASSI Institute.
Moro, R. R., Wahesh, E., Likis-Werle, S. E., & Smith, J. E. (2016). Educating addiction counselors: A five-year content analysis of professional development in counselor education and supervision. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 37, 2–14.
National Institute of Drug Abuse. (2015 September). DrugFacts: Substance use in women. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/substance-use-in-women
Neukrug, E., Peterson, C. H., Bonner, M., & Lomas, G. I. (2013). A national survey of assessment instruments taught by counselor educators. Counselor Education & Supervision, 52, 207–221.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2013.00038.x
Peterson, C. H., Hall, S. B., & Buser, J. K. (2016). Research training needs of scientist-practitioners: Implications for counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision, 55, 80–94. doi:10.1002/ceas.12034
Peterson, C. H., Lomas, G. I., Neukrug, E. S., & Bonner, M. W. (2014). Assessment use by counselors in the United States: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 90–98. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00134.x
Ray, D. C., Hull, D. M., Thacker, A. J., Pace, L. S., Swan, K. L., Carlson, S. E., & Sullivan, J. M. (2011). Research in counseling: A 10-year review to inform practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 349–359. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00099.x
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rudd, R. A., Aleshire, N., Zibbell, J. E., & Gladden, R. M. (2016). Increases in drug and opioid overdose deaths — United States, 2000–2014. United States Department of Health and Human Services/Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Mortality and Morbidity Report, 64, 1378–1382.
Salyers, K. M., Ritchie, M. H., Cochrane, W. S., & Roseman, C. P. (2006). Inclusion of substance abuse training in CACREP-accredited programs. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 27, 47–58.
Selzer, M. L. (1971). The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: The quest for a new diagnostic instrument. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 1653–1658.
Smith, S. D., Ng, K.-M., Brinson, J., & Mityagin, E. (2008). Multiculturalism, diversity, and social advocacy: A 17-year content analysis of Counselor Education and Supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 47, 249–263. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2008.tb00055.x
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). Behavioral health trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 national survey on drug use and health. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov/data/
sites/default/files/NSDUH-FRR1-2014/NSDUH-FRR1-2014.pdf
Wahesh, E., Lewis, T. F., Wyrick, D. L., & Ackerman, T. A. (2015). Perceived norms, outcome expectancies, and collegiate drinking: Examining the mediating role of drinking motives. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 36, 81–100.
Wester, K. L., & Borders, L. D. (2014). Research competencies in counseling: A Delphi study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 447–458. doi:10.1002/j.1556-676.2014.00171.x
Edward Wahesh, NCC, is an Assistant Professor at Villanova University. S. Elizabeth Likis-Werle is an Assistant Professor at East Tennessee State University. Regina R. Moro, NCC, is an Assistant Professor at Boise State University. Correspondence can be addressed to Edward Wahesh, Villanova University, Education and Counseling (SAC 302), 800 E. Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085, edward.wahesh@villanova.edu.
Jan 24, 2017 | Book Reviews
Dr. Chad Luke’s book, Neuroscience for Counselors and Therapists: Integrating the Sciences of Mind and Brain, is an excellent addition to any student’s, professor’s, or practicing clinician’s library. The book is written as a textbook but is surprisingly readable and has utility beyond the walls of the classroom. As neuroscience seems to be a force in the field of mental health, it is important for counselors to learn to integrate new knowledge rather than feel pressured to study a completely different discipline . This book is a first step in learning the basics about the brain and how this information could be integrated into counseling practice, without promising to be a “fix” or replacement for the techniques and skills already utilized by counseling professionals.
The structure of the text lends itself well to reading the book cover to cover and using the index to read the sections most applicable to your current practice. The beginning of the book sets the foundation for principles of neuroscience that are incorporated throughout the text. The field of neuroscience can be intimidating, especially because of the jargon and complex concepts that are outside the realm of social science. The first section discusses the physical structures of the brain, including neurotransmitters and basic brain functions. Any counselor who graduated more than a year or two ago and has not pursued continuing education in neuropsychology or neuroscience would find the first two chapters very helpful. Even if you have some knowledge of the brain, these chapters provide examples of how the information translates into the counseling relationship and case conceptualization, which is helpful when trying to incorporate the information into your own practice.
The second section of the book consists of four chapters that speak directly to theoretical orientations and the integration of neuroscience principles into those orientations. Dr. Luke assumes that most counselors reading the text have a solid understanding of theory prior to reading the book. He works from this assumption to pull major tenets from each theory and explain them in the context of neuroscience. These sections are well organized and full of client in session vignettes to bring the information to life.
The third and final section of the book is trans-theoretical and addresses commonly diagnosed or sub-clinical symptomology in the field of counseling through the lens of neuroscience. For counselors who identify more with an eclectic theoretical orientation, this section will hold special appeal. Dr. Luke examines anxiety, depression, stress and stress disorders, and substance abuse through the lens of neuroscience. He speaks to what these commonly diagnosed disorders look like in the brain and how neuroscience could be integrated into treatment options.
I appreciate that Dr. Luke isn’t claiming to be a neuroscientist but rather is a counselor educator interested in the clinical implications that neuroscience can have for his clients and students. This book is written by a counselor, for counselors, which makes it unique among the neuroscience literature. He has taken the time to read, digest and translate the information for counselors.
One of the few limitations I see in this text is the lack of information concerning how trauma affects the brain. Some sections left me feeling that I needed more information or that the author could have gone more in depth; more on multicultural issues and poverty would be a helpful addition. Trauma and poverty can have significant effects on the brain, and the symptomology can be seen within the counseling relationship. More on these topics could have been useful, especially for counselors working in community mental health settings or with underserved populations. The book itself is relatively short and thus a manageable read for a busy student or an equally as busy clinician or professor. The possible downside to having a manageable book is that it isn’t comprehensive; but then again, it could be argued that it should not be comprehensive. After all, we are counselors, not neuroscientists. We need to know enough information about neuroscience to support our clients on their path to wellness, which I believe this book fulfills.
Luke, C. (2016). Neuroscience for Counselors and Therapists: Integrating the Sciences of Mind and Brain. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reviewed by: Charmayne R. Adams, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
The Professional Counselor
https://tpcwordpress.azurewebsites.net
Oct 28, 2016 | Volume 6 - Issue 4
Neal D. Gray, Lindsay Kozak
This interview begins the Lifetime Achievement in Counseling Series at TPC that will present an annual interview with a seminal figure who has attained outstanding achievement in counseling over a career. Although there are many people in counseling who deserve to be designated as the first interviewee, I am honored to present the inaugural interview of Dr. Theodore P. Remley, Jr. I have known Ted for 25 years and consider him to be a mentor, a colleague and foremost, a friend. His contributions to the counseling profession, from teaching, research and scholarship to mentoring and introducing students to the globalization of counseling, is laudable. Dr. Neal Gray and Lindsay Kozak are no less worthy in accepting my editorial assignment of interviewing Dr. Remley. What follows are thought-provoking reflections from an outstanding counseling leader and visionary. —J. Scott Hinkle, Editor
Theodore P. Remley, Jr. is an author or editor of three counseling textbooks, a monograph series, numerous book chapters, and over 40 refereed journal articles, most of which are related to law and ethics in counseling. His co-authored textbook with Dr. Barbara Herlihy, Ethical, Legal, and Professional Issues in Counseling, is the most widely used ethics text in the counseling profession. He also has published books on ethical and legal issues in school counseling and marriage and family therapy. Dr. Remley has been a professor of counseling for over 35 years and currently holds the position of Professor of Counseling and Booth-Bricker Endowed Professor at the University of Holy Cross in New Orleans. In addition, he has held full-time faculty positions at Old Dominion University, where he was also the Batten Endowed Chair, the University of New Orleans, Mississippi State University and George Mason University. He is a former Executive Director of the American Counseling Association. Dr. Remley held the rank of Captain in the United States Army and has practiced as a school counselor, college counselor and private practitioner in both counseling and law.
Dr. Remley received a PhD in counselor education and supervision from the University of Florida and holds a JD degree from Catholic University in Washington, DC. He is a National Certified Counselor and a Licensed Professional Counselor in Louisiana, Mississippi and Virginia, as well as a Marriage and Family Therapist in Louisiana. He also is licensed to practice law in Florida and Virginia. Dr. Remley is a Fellow in the American Counseling Association and is the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision. He was selected as a counseling leader and featured in the book Leaders and Legacies: Contributions to the Profession of Counseling, edited by West, Osborn and Bubenzer (2003).
Dr. Remley has directed international counseling institutes in Ireland, Bhutan, Argentina, Africa and Italy. He was President of the Virginia Counselors Association and Chair of the Southern Region of the American Counseling Association. He was one of the leaders involved in getting the first licensure bill for counselors passed in Virginia in 1976. He has served on four state counseling licensure boards and chaired the boards in Virginia and Louisiana. He helped draft regulations for the District of Columbia board when it was first established and chaired the ethics committee for the boards in Virginia, Mississippi and Louisiana. He is the Founding President of the American Association of State Counseling Boards, the organization that provides a forum for counseling licensure boards in all states and jurisdictions to communicate with each other and work toward appropriate and fair regulation of the counseling profession. He served as a trustee on the board of Divine Word College in Epworth, Iowa, and was a member of the TRICARE study panel for the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. Dr. Remley offers readers a valuable perspective on the counseling profession based on his extensive experiences.
In this interview, Dr. Remley responded to seven questions formulated to explore his career, his impact on the counseling profession, and his thoughts about the current state and future of the counseling profession:
1. The counseling profession has made substantial progress during the time you have been a member of the profession. In your opinion, what are the three major accomplishments of the profession?
I earned my master’s degree in counseling from the University of Florida in 1971. More than 45 years ago the counseling profession was in a much different place than it is today. At that time, counselors in schools were called guidance counselors and most had minimal preparation in the field of counseling; there was little conversation about the professional identity of counselors; cultural differences were not acknowledged in the counselor preparation curriculum; almost all counselor educators were counseling or clinical psychologists; and employment possibilities for master’s- level counselors were limited primarily to schools, higher education, and rehabilitation agencies. Counselors who earned doctoral degrees in counselor education and supervision at the time would obtain licenses as psychologists because there were no licenses for counselors. The profession has indeed come a very long way in the past 45 years.
The most significant accomplishment the counseling profession has made during my career has been achieving licensure for counselors in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2010). I was involved in lobbying the Virginia Legislature, which resulted in the first counselor licensure bill being passed in 1976. At that time in Virginia, counselors had been accused of practicing psychology without a license, and we thought the best response to that injustice was to create a separate license for counselors. We were fortunate to have Dr. Carl Swanson, who at the time was a counseling faculty member at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, lead the effort that resulted in the first counselor license in the United States being established. In addition to being a counselor, Dr. Swanson also was an attorney and an Episcopal priest. I’m not sure whether it was his legal preparation or his spiritual connections that helped us get the bill passed, but we were successful in Virginia and the rest of the United States followed our lead. California was the last state to pass a bill to license counselors in 2009 (ACA, 2010). So, the effort to establish counselor licensure in all states took from 1976 to 2009 . . . a total of 33 years.
The second most significant accomplishment of the counseling profession has been the successful accreditation of counseling graduate programs through the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP; 2015). My international work in counseling has taught me that to be a recognized profession in any country, counselors have to be educated at universities. In most of Europe and in some other places in the world, counselors are prepared in private schools outside university settings, as indicated in Counseling Around the World: An International Handbook (Hohenshil, Amundson, & Niles, 2013). But requiring university degrees in the United States to become counselors was not enough. We had counseling master’s degree programs long before CACREP was established, but most programs were weak in that many required only 30 to 36 credits; there was no standardized curriculum, and clinical practica and internships were rare. CACREP has led the profession in establishing minimum standards for counselor preparation. Today in the United States, when a counselor graduates from a CACREP-accredited program, employers and the general public know the counselor is well-prepared to provide counseling services to clients. I am proud that my graduate advisor and mentor, Dr. Robert Stripling at the University of Florida, was a major leader in establishing CACREP for the benefit of the counseling profession.
The third major accomplishment of the counseling profession is the success of the National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC, 2015). NBCC was created in 1982 when counselor education programs varied in quality and only a few states had licensure laws that provided a credential that demonstrated a counselor was well-educated and knowledgeable. Now that state licensure for counselors has been accomplished in all states, NBCC has developed into a major force in the continued development of the counseling profession. When the American Counseling Association is mired down by an impossible division-based governance structure and is pondering whether ACA can take a stand on important issues, NBCC, with its small board that has a strong commitment to advancing the counseling profession, has provided lobbying in Washington, DC, and throughout the United States to ensure counselors have the right to practice their profession and have access to jobs for which they are qualified. NBCC also has led the profession in supporting the development of the counseling profession throughout the world. By administering federal scholarships and creating their own scholarships, NBCC has supported the continued growth of the profession and encourages entry into needed areas in counseling (e.g., rural, minority services, military).
2. Which of the major accomplishments that you listed above was the most difficult to achieve for the counseling profession, and why?
Achieving counselor licensure in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico was the most difficult accomplishment. Counselors had to organize separately in 52 political jurisdictions, work together cooperatively and settle differences among themselves, overcome external resistance, particularly from psychologists and social workers, and often go year after year to state legislatures in order to get a state counselor licensure bill passed. Accomplishing such a monumental and difficult task in only 33 years still amazes me.
There was tremendous resistance to counselor licensure from many organizations, including state legislatures, psychologists, social workers and special interest groups. Ironically, the psychology profession actually started the counselor licensure movement by default because counselors were forced to seek licensure (or state regulation) when they started being accused by psychologists of practicing psychology without a license.
Generally, states do not favor regulating professions. In order to convince legislators that the counseling profession needed to be regulated, counselors argued that the general public cannot distinguish a qualified counselor from one who is not qualified and that unregulated counselors have the potential of doing significant harm to the public. State regulation of a profession defies the concept of free enterprise and has the potential of keeping qualified individuals from practicing a profession for which they have been prepared. Once a state starts regulating a profession, the process is quite expensive and must be monitored by legislatures to ensure that applicants and licensees are being treated fairly. Paradoxically, counselors who consider themselves helpers had to present arguments to legislators that some counselors had the potential of inflicting substantial harm upon members of the public who did not have the capacity to determine whether a particular counselor was competent. Providing examples of counselor incompetence to legislators was a painful but necessary task that was required to convince state lawmakers that regulation of the counseling profession was needed to protect the public.
In order to get counselor licensure bills passed, we also argued that counseling was a unique profession that was distinct and different from psychology and other helping professions. In Virginia, after the counselor licensure law was passed and implemented, we went back to the state legislature to argue that counseling was quite similar to the profession of psychology in that counselors had the proper training to diagnose and treat mental disorders, in order to be qualified to receive third party insurance company payments for services. Interestingly, legislative processes and politics often require compromise and even making seemingly contradictory arguments from time to time.
When state counselor licensure bills were being considered, psychologists, supported financially by the American Psychological Association (APA) and state psychological associations, argued before state legislators that counselors did not have adequate education to provide counseling services. Social workers essentially agreed with psychologists. Of course it was to the advantage of psychologists and social workers to keep counselors out of the job market so that counselors could not compete for professional positions and clients in private practices.
But psychologists and social workers were not the only groups who opposed counselor licensure—some counselors opposed it as well. Counselors who did not meet the minimum requirements state licensure bills established to become licensed argued that counselor licensure would take away their ability to practice in their respective states. As a result, almost all states grandfathered in the counselors who were already practicing, whether or not they met the minimum licensure requirements. While many counselors at the time were distressed that unqualified counselors were allowed to be licensed, this was one of the many compromises that had to be reached in order for counselor licensure bills to be passed.
Other compromises included the number of credits required for a counseling master’s degree (which ranged from 30 to more than 60), the required post-degree supervised experience (which ranged from none to 3 years), and the type of exam required (which varied from state to state). The result of such compromises was counselor licensure laws varying widely from one state to another. The differences in state counselor licensure laws is currently having an adverse effect on counselors who move from one state to another and also confuses the public because of the lack of standardization regarding the requirements for practicing the profession of counseling. It would be possible to rewrite state statutes to align with one another, but that would need to be accomplished state by state over time.
3. What do you consider to be your major contribution to the development of the counseling profession and why?
While I was Executive Director of the American Counseling Association (between the years 1990 and 1994), I wrote a column in the ACA newsletter called Guidepost, in which I listed the elements of professional counselor identity. That column has been quoted often and the statements of professional counselor identity being published today look very similar to what I wrote about more than 20 years ago. In my opinion, these are the four critical elements of professional counselor identity: (a) counselors approach mental health from a wellness (rather than an illness) perspective, (b) counselors believe that most mental health problems are related to a person’s developmental stage in life and therefore are transitory in nature, (c) counselors value prevention of mental health problems and early intervention when possible, and (d) counselors strive to empower clients to live independently and help them avoid becoming reliant on counseling services. After consultation with my colleagues in rehabilitation counseling, I added the fourth empowerment component of my counselor identity statement.
Counselors-in-training and counselors who interact with the public at large have to be able to articulate in a positive manner who counselors are and what we believe. We should never say that counseling is similar to psychology or social work, but instead should focus on statements that define our philosophy of helping others. When we fully explain our beliefs about helping, we are able to assist the members of the public to choose practitioners who are best suited to address their mental health needs. By providing counselors the four areas listed above that define our beliefs about counseling, I believe I have helped to advance the counseling profession and I am pleased I was able to publish that statement.
4. What three challenges to the counseling profession as it exists today concern you most?
The American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Ineffectiveness. ACA officers and staff members are dedicated and capable professionals who are not able to be effective in advancing the counseling profession because of the flawed structure of the organization. Our national counseling professional association has an organizational structure ineffective in moving the counseling profession forward; this is arguably the most significant challenge to the profession today. The major divisions of ACA have created very successful independent specialization organizations at the expense of the success of ACA. Unfortunately, we have the impossible situation in which specialty associations are actually in control of ACA, and whose interests likely include maintaining a weak national counseling association. Currently, divisions are allowed to include members who are not members of ACA, which increases their membership at the expense of ACA membership numbers. Divisions can operate independently of ACA, holding their own revenue-generating conferences and being involved with other activities that directly compete with similar ACA revenue-generating activities. This independence of divisions allows them to reap the benefits of being under the ACA umbrella without having any responsibilities and enables them to compete directly with ACA for members and revenue. Our professional association should have the ability to stand firm on professional issues that affect the livelihood of all professional counselors and should not be limited and held back by those who appear to want ACA to be a weak organization so that specialization organizations can prosper.
Unfortunately, the governing body of ACA is made up primarily of division representatives whose first allegiance is to promote their specialization organizations, not to promote the counseling profession as a whole. The unfortunate governance structure of ACA that allows divisions the power to make decisions for ACA as a whole is the result of the history of ACA, an umbrella association that was created as a federation of independent counseling associations. Although the profession of counseling has moved beyond the specialties controlling the overall counseling profession, ACA is stuck in the past with a governance structure that allows specialty divisions to make decisions for ACA. The profession of counseling currently lacks one singular, strong professional association presence. ACA should provide the united voice for all counselors and not allow special interest viewpoints to keep the profession from moving forward. We have worked hard to create the recognized and viable profession of counseling. CACREP and NBCC have done an excellent job of strengthening the counseling profession as a whole. However, the fact that the specialization divisions of ACA have separate administrators, offices, conferences and programs that compete directly with ACA threatens the future of the counseling profession. For each professional issue affecting counselors, for ACA to take a position, all specializations have to agree, which is almost impossible to accomplish. ACA as an organization is paralyzed and must be restructured or replaced with an effective association for all counselors if the counseling profession is to continue to prosper.
Failure to Standardize. A second concern is the inability of the counseling profession to standardize. CACREP has provided a model for preparing capable counselors and now the CACREP standards need to become the standard for state licensure. CACREP has already been adopted by NBCC as the standard for future national certification (NBCC, 2014). A lack of standardization has led to current issues and problems, including portability of counseling licenses from state to state, that in turn keep the profession from agreeing upon a strong professional identity, which in turn confuses the general public. If we want the public to embrace the counseling profession, we must standardize the profession and agree upon what is required to be a professional counselor.
The current attention given to complaints from psychologists about excluding them from holding faculty positions in counselor education programs and the response of some leaders trying to accommodate these complaints is a symptom of the counseling profession not having the ability or courage to take the steps necessary to standardize. Of course, as the counseling profession becomes stronger, there will be individuals who are dissatisfied. But those who are not supportive of strengthening the counseling profession should not be given the power to limit the counseling profession from moving forward. All counselors should be supportive of CACREP and NBCC, and those who are not supportive should refrain from negatively affecting the future of the counseling profession.
Job Categories. A third concern is that there continue to be many governmental agencies at all levels (federal, state and local) that lack job categories for counselors. As a result, counselors are sometimes not eligible for jobs they are qualified to perform where such positions are filled only by psychologists, social workers, or other non-counselors. In some agencies, counselors take jobs that include titles such as psychological technician, psychological assistant, social assistant, or even psychologist or social worker. With such inappropriate job titles, counselors often have no opportunity for advancement and their professional identity as counselors is compromised. We have made some progress in getting job categories for counselors established in some agencies, but there is much more work to be done in this arena.
5. What needs to change in the counseling profession for these three concerns to be successfully resolved?
ACA’s Ineffectiveness. Unfortunately, ACA is a dysfunctional association that has been paralyzed by its governance structure. The specialization divisions have control over the association that should be representing all counselors. The only solution, in my opinion, would be to restructure ACA so that the association would be governed by a small board of directors that is elected from the general membership and is responsive to the counseling profession, instead of being controlled by specializations within the profession. Interestingly, the TPC editor discussed this point at the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision conference 20 years ago (Hinkle & Kline, 1996), yet ACA continues to have an ineffective governance structure. Those in control of ACA should have a commitment to the best interests of the counseling profession as a whole. Currently, individuals whose main allegiance is to counseling specializations are in control of ACA. In order for the ACA governance to be restructured, the current ACA Governing Council members, who represent counseling specializations, would have to vote to give up their power over ACA, which I doubt they would consider. In my opinion, the division representatives who hold ACA Governing Council seats do not represent the view of the vast majority of ACA members who want ACA to be a strong association that promotes the overall counseling profession. If ACA cannot restructure so that it represents the counseling profession as a whole, then perhaps a new association that is not controlled by specializations should be formed that would replace ACA.
Failure to Standardize. State counseling licensure boards need to work together to achieve standardization in licensure laws and rules. The current movement to require that those licensed hold master’s degrees from CACREP-accredited programs is the best way to achieve standardization. NBCC has already announced that in the future only graduates of CACREP-accredited programs will be eligible for national counselor certification. The American Association of State Counseling Boards (AASCB; 2015) is encouraging state licensure boards to standardize counselor licensure requirements and to recognize counselor licenses from state to state. When AASCB was formed in 1986, a major goal of the new association was to standardize state counseling statutes, but obviously it is a difficult task since 30 years later that goal has not been accomplished.
Job Categories. In order to create job categories for counselors, each federal, state, and local agency and all private companies that hire mental health professionals must be lobbied individually. A massive effort to create job categories should be supported by NBCC and all counseling professional associations, and that effort should become a top priority.
6. Assuming some challenges will get resolved and others will not, what do you think the counseling profession will look like 20 years from now?
In 20 years, if the current challenges I have identified can be met and resolved successfully, I believe the public will have a better understanding of who counselors are, what their training is, and what services they are capable of delivering. Counselors will be the preferred mental health providers of the public because counselors are better prepared than other mental health professionals to deliver high quality counseling services. If the current challenges for the counseling profession are not resolved, in 20 years we will be where we are today, stalled on the road to establishing counseling as a strong profession in American society and being left behind in the arena of public recognition compared to other mental health professions.
7. If you were advising current counseling leaders, what advice would you give them about moving the counseling profession forward?
I see several contemporary leaders in the counseling profession already providing strong positive leadership. So I would say to other counselors that they should follow the lead of counselors who are arguing that ACA should be restructured so that it represents the counseling profession as a whole, who are advocating that state licensure boards adopt CACREP-accredited master’s degrees as the standard for licensure, and who are strongly and continually urging ACA to recognize that CACREP is the only legitimate organization that accredits counseling graduate programs. At the state level, counselor leaders should work toward getting counselor licensure board members appointed by governors who support adopting CACREP-accredited master’s degrees as the minimum standard for state counselor licensure. I appreciate the courageous leaders in counseling today who are willing to take the steps necessary to advance the counseling profession even when they lack the support they deserve.
This concludes the initial interview for the annual Lifetime Achievement in Counseling Series. TPC is grateful to Dr. Neal Gray and Lindsay Kozak for providing this interview. Neal D. Gray is an Associate Professor at Lenoir-Rhyne University. Lindsay Kozak is a counselor at Crossroads Counseling Center. Correspondence can be mailed to Neal Gray, Lenoir-Rhyne University, LR Box 7409, 625 7th Avenue NE, Hickory, NC 28601,
neal.gray@lr.edu.
References
American Association of State Counseling Boards. (2015). Welcome to AASCB. Broken Arrow, OK: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aascb.org
American Counseling Association. (2010). Licensure and certification. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/docs/licensure/72903_excerpt_for_web.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). Welcome to CACREP. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org
Hinkle, J. S., & Kline, W. B. (1996, October). Issues in mental health counselor education and certification: Why are we doing what we are doing? Paper presented at the National Meeting of the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision, Portland, OR.
Hohenshil, T. H., Amundson, N. E., & Niles, S. G. (Eds.) (2013). Counseling around the world: An international handbook. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
National Board for Certified Counselors. (2014). Important announcement. Greensboro, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nbcc.org/assets/Change-announcement-flyer_2014.pdf
National Board for Certified Counselors. (2015). Understanding national certification and state licensure. Greensboro, NC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.nbcc.org/Certification/CertificationorLicensure
Remley, T. P., Jr., & Herlihy, B. P. (2016). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
West, J. D., Osborn, C. J., & Bubenzer, D. L. (Eds.) (2003). Leaders and legacies: Contributions to the profession of counseling. New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Oct 28, 2016 | Volume 6 - Issue 4
Emily Goodman-Scott, Jennifer Scaturo Watkinson, Ian Martin, Kathy Biles
School counselors’ job roles and preferences reportedly vary by educational level (i.e., elementary, middle and high school); however, several organizations, such as the American School Counselor Association, conceptualize and recommend school counseling practice and preparation through a K–12 lens. Little is known about how or if school counseling faculty members vary their preparation for specific educational levels. In this article, we discuss a national, mixed methods study of school counseling faculty (N = 132) experiences and perceptions regarding school counselor preparation for the elementary level. We focused on elementary school counselors due to their unique roles. Findings included faculty’s varied experiences and perceptions of differentiation, prioritizing a K–12 preparation focus, and several external factors driving their preparation such as state licensure and mandates, school counseling job opportunities, and student enrollment, motivation and interest in elementary school counseling.
Keywords: school counseling, elementary school, elementary school counseling, school counselor preparation, school counseling faculty
School counselors meet students’ academic, career, social and emotional needs through comprehensive school counseling programs (CSCPs) such as the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) National Model (2012, 2014a; Gysbers & Henderson, 2012). CSCPs have existed for the last 40 years and are frameworks for facilitating data-driven, student-focused, preventative, systemic and developmental school counseling services implemented in schools from preschool through 12th grade (ASCA, 2012; Gysbers & Henderson, 2012). According to student reports, CSCP implementation has been associated with higher student achievement scores (Sink, Akos, Turnbull, & Mvududu, 2008; Sink & Stroh, 2003); higher student grades and a more positive school climate (Lapan, Gysbers, & Sun, 1997); and students feeling safer, having better relationships with teachers, and earning higher grades (Lapan, Gysbers, & Petroski, 2001). Additionally, researchers found CSCP implementation was associated with higher student math and reading achievement scores; increased college and career readiness; lower suspension, discipline and truancy rates; and higher attendance, graduation and retention rates (Burkard, Gillen, Martinez, & Skytte, 2012; Carey, Harrington, Martin, & Hoffman, 2012; Carey, Harrington, Martin, & Stevenson, 2012). In summary, “when highly trained, professional school counselors deliver ASCA National Model comprehensive school counseling program services, students receive measurable benefits” (Lapan, 2012, p. 88).
Typically, school counselors are first equipped to implement CSCPs through their pre-service preparation programs. School counselor preparation, licensure and practice are often recommended as uniform across educational levels (i.e., elementary, middle, and high school). The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), the primary counseling accrediting organization, provides school counselor preparation standards P–12 (CACREP, 2015); most U.S. states and territories (N = 43/55) certify and license school counselors K–12 (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2012); and the ASCA National Model also describes their CSCP as K–12 (ASCA, 2012). However, many researchers have found differences in school counselors’ reported perceptions and job activities by educational level and have highlighted the unique role of the elementary school counselor (Dahir, Burnham, & Stone, 2009; Hatch & Chen-Hayes, 2008; Perera-Diltz & Mason, 2008; Rayle & Adams, 2008; Scarborough, 2005; Scarborough & Culbreth, 2008; Studer, Diambra, Breckner, & Heidel, 2011).
Compared to school counselors at other educational levels, elementary school counselors reported performing and placing greater emphasis on delivering classroom lessons and curriculum (Dahir et al., 2009; Perera-Diltz & Mason, 2008; Rayle & Adams, 2008; Scarborough, 2005; Studer et al., 2011), counseling interventions (Dahir et al., 2009; Perera-Diltz & Mason, 2008; Rayle & Adams, 2008; Scarborough, 2005), and school counseling program coordination and management activities (Dahir et al., 2009; Rayle & Adams, 2008; Scarborough, 2005). Further, elementary school counselors reported a greater emphasis on personal and social development and focused less on academic and career development when compared to high school counselors (Dahir et al., 2009); spent more time on parent planning, teacher consultation and collaboration, non-CSCP activities, and CSCP implementation based on the ASCA National Model (Rayle & Adams, 2008); were the most likely level to conduct activities aligned with CSCPs (Scarborough & Culbreth, 2008); and performed the least individual student planning (i.e., individual and group advisement) of all the levels (Perera-Diltz & Mason, 2008). Thus, despite the K–12 focus in school counselor preparation, licensure, certification and practice, school counselors reported significant differences between job activities at the elementary and secondary levels.
While much is known about differences among the educational levels, there has been little research directed toward investigating school counselor preparation by level. In this article, our research team reports the perceptions and experiences of a national sample of school counseling program faculty (N = 132) regarding elementary level preparation and discusses potential implications and future research. The aim of this study was to gain preliminary data and provide a foundation for future in-depth research and potential advocacy. Next, we will review literature on school counselor preparation.
School Counselor Preparation
General trends in school counselor preparation are sparse within the literature. School counseling faculty are members of master’s- and doctoral-level school counselor preparation programs who prepare pre-service school counselors through related academic, supervision and practical experiences (ASCA, 2014b; CACREP, 2015). Examining how school counseling students are prepared, Pérusse, Poynton, Parzych, and Goodnough (2015a) published the results of a national survey of school counselor preparation programs (N = 131) to identify trends in school counselor preparation credit hours, faculty professional experience, and course content required for school counseling students, comparing data collected in 2010 to similar data collected in 2000 (Pérusse, Goodnough, & Noël, 2001). When comparing trends in previous course offerings to those more recent, the researchers found substantial decreases in the percentage of school counseling preparation programs offering elementary (from 14.3% to 1.6%) and secondary (from 13.8% to 1.6%) school counseling specific courses (Pérusse et al., 2015a).
Next, Pérusse and Goodnough (2005) examined school counselors’ perceived preparation by educational level. In this national study, school counselors (N = 568) ranked the importance of 24 course content areas that prepared them for school counseling jobs; results included both similarities and differences in elementary and secondary school counselors’ responses. Both elementary and secondary school counselors ranked the same top five course content items as most important: individual and small group counseling, parent and teacher consultation, child growth and development, and legal and ethical issues in counseling. However, elementary school counselors ranked the following course content items as having a higher importance than secondary school counselors: understanding child growth and development; theories in counseling; psychopathology, DSM-IV and diagnosis; play therapy; curriculum and instruction, including classroom management; individual counseling, including crisis interventions; small group counseling; consultation with parents and teachers; coordination between teachers, parents and community; classroom guidance curriculum; program evaluation and developmental needs assessment; parent education; and writing research and grant proposals. Several participants recommended distinguishing elementary from secondary school counselor preparation. In analyzing participants’ anecdotal comments, researchers reported: “preparation should reflect that elementary school counseling is different from secondary school counseling” (Pérusse & Goodnough, 2005, p. 115).
In contrast, Goodman-Scott (2015) conducted a national survey that examined school counselors’ perceptions of their preparation and actual job activities (N = 1052), using a modified version of the School Counselor Activity Rating Scale (Scarborough, 2005). She found no significant difference by educational level in regards to participants’ reported preparation or job activities. Findings from Goodman-Scott, as well as those of Pérusse et al. (2015a), denote school counseling preparation and job activities could be shifting toward uniformity across K–12 settings, rather than differentiation by educational level.
Rationale and Purpose of This Study
Scarborough and Culbreth (2008) proposed that school counselors “may receive more generic training that covers grades K through 12 and lack exposure to the differences that exist between school levels” (p. 457). However, there is very little published research on school counselor preparation by educational level. The present study was developed by members of the Elementary Advocacy Task Force for the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision School Counseling Interest Network. We sought to conduct a study to investigate the current status of elementary school counselor preparation and lay the groundwork for future research and advocacy. We collected data from a national sample of school counseling faculty regarding their perceptions and experiences preparing school counseling students for the elementary level. The following mixed methods research question guided our study: What are school counseling faculty members’ perceptions and experiences preparing school counseling students for the elementary level?
Method
Mixed method designs employ both qualitative and quantitative methods, which can provide a rich and comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2010; Frels & Onwuegbuzie, 2013). Researchers in the past have used descriptive studies to gather preliminary data and summarize trends on under-researched areas within counseling (Holcomb-McCoy, 2010; Lambert et al., 2007). Further, studies often employ qualitative methods to explore a phenomenon (Hunt, 2011). Due to the lack of research on school counselor preparation by educational level, we adopted similar approaches within a convergent mixed methods design. We analyzed demographic data and descriptive closed-ended survey responses (quantitative), and performed a qualitative thematic analysis on open-ended survey responses (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Then we used triangulation to converge the results of all analyses, with the overall goal of expansion, increasing the depth and breadth of the study due to multiple methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2010; Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). We prescribed to a social constructivist paradigm and relied heavily upon relativistic theory. Within this perspective, reality is subjective, there exists no absolute truth, and gathering multiple perspectives across sources is a research priority (Hays & Singh, 2012; Schwandt, 2007).
The Survey
We used a Web-based survey as a low-cost, rapid-return data collection method (Fowler, 2014). Through this survey, we gathered quantitative and qualitative data: participant and program demographics, descriptive information regarding school counseling topic differentiation, and open-ended responses regarding school counselor preparation by level. All data for this study were collected via Qualtrics, a university-sponsored, Web-based survey tool. We pilot-tested the survey for content and procedures with two leaders in school counselor education (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2008) and made several related changes based on their feedback.
We collected a range of participant and program demographic and background information. Specifically, we gathered participant personal and professional demographics, and background information on their preparation programs and state requirements. Further, participants reported their related opinions and preferences regarding elementary school counselor preparation.
We examined school counseling faculty members’ perceptions of their differentiation of topics for elementary school counseling using 24 descriptive items. On the survey, we defined differentiation as school counselor preparation programs tailoring or modifying school counseling topics and program requirements, such as academic advisement and internship, respectively, by educational level (i.e., elementary, middle or high school). Based on the literature and national foci, we created these 24 items based on topics that elementary school counselors frequently conducted and current school counseling trends. These 24 descriptive items were two-part questions in which participants responded using two 5-point Likert scales: one to report their current level of differentiating each topic for elementary school counseling (0 = no current differentiation; 4 = highly differentiated; n/a = not applicable), and the second to communicate their preferred level of differentiating topics for elementary school counseling (0 = no differentiation; 4 = high differentiation; n/a = not applicable). Lastly, participants responded to open-ended questions regarding their perceptions and experiences pertaining to school counselor preparation by level.
Data Collection and Procedures
We solicited participants after obtaining approval from the primary researcher’s university institutional review board and recruited participants through several e-mail lists and professional contacts. For instance, we e-mailed the following individuals and organizations approximately twice, requesting they complete and distribute the survey to their membership: (a) the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision national and regional leadership, as well as the corresponding School Counseling Interest Network; (b) the Counselor Education and Supervision Network Listserv; (c) professional school counseling faculty contacts; and (d) counselor educators listed in the American School Counselor Association online membership directory. Our e-mail solicitations included a description of the participation criteria and study, informed consent, participants’ rights, researchers’ contact information and a survey link.
After closing the survey, we cleaned the data, including participants who met the inclusion criteria: participants who (a) identified as full-time school counseling faculty in the United States whose job description included teaching and supervising students in school counseling master’s programs, (b) completed 90% or more of our survey, and (c) agreed to the informed consent. Regarding survey completion, 271 participants started the survey, 192 completed the survey, and 132 met the inclusion criteria. We were unable to calculate a response rate due to the unknown number of individuals who received the request and were eligible for participation.
Participants
Participants were 74% female and 26% male. Their races and ethnicities included: 85% Caucasian, 4% African American, 3% Latino and 2% Asian and Pacific Islander, and 2% self-identified as multi-ethnic. Participants worked in 37 different states within the United States, representing all regions (19% West, 24% Midwest, 32% South and 25% Northeast).
Ninety-eight percent of the participants had earned a doctorate; doctorates included counselor education (64%), counseling psychology (11%), and either doctorates in educational leadership, educational psychology or clinical psychology (22%). Fifty-three percent of participants earned their doctorates from CACREP-accredited programs. Many participants described previously working as a full-time school counselor (94%), while approximately 63% of participants reported that either they, or another full-time school counseling faculty member in their program, had paid work experience as an elementary school counselor. Lastly, most participants (94%) believed school counseling professional organizations should advocate for elementary school counselors to be mandated in every state. In Table 1 we list additional reported participant, program and state information.
Table 1
School Counseling Program Demographics
|
School Counseling Program Demographics
|
%
|
| Require Clinical Experience at All Three Educational Levels |
31
|
| Clinical Requirements Are Based Upon State Certification/Licensure Standards |
83
|
| Group Supervision Is Separated by Educational Level |
15
|
| Internship Group Supervision with Other Counseling Specialties [e.g., mental health] |
26
|
| Program Has a Concentration for Students Who Desire to Be Elementary SC |
15
|
| State Mandates Elementary School Counselors |
27
|
| K–12 Certification/Licensure |
86
|
| Program Meets State’s School Counseling State Certification/Licensure Requirements |
100
|
| Program Is Accredited by CACREP |
66
|
| ASCA National Model Is Taught |
93
|
Data Analysis
As is common with convergent mixed methods studies (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2010), our data analyses involved independently analyzing each type of data (demographic and descriptive) and conducting the qualitative thematic analysis. We then merged the data in the interpretation. We concurrently organized demographic data and analyzed descriptive data using Microsoft Excel 2013 to examine participants’ reported current and suggested differentiation of school counseling topics for elementary school counseling.
Simultaneously, we also analyzed the open-ended survey data through Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis (TA) methodology to analyze participants’ perceptions and experiences related to elementary school counselor preparation. Scholars have described TA as an independent method and a “flexible and useful research tool, which can potentially provide a rich and detailed, yet complex account of data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 5). Braun and Clarke outlined TA as a six-step process to identify, analyze and report qualitative data, including: (1) becoming familiar with the data, (2) creating initial codes through systematically coding the data, (3) developing initial themes, (4) reviewing the themes, (5) defining and naming the themes, and (6) creating a corresponding research report. We began TA by first becoming familiar with and immersing ourselves in the data—reading and re-reading the content, discussing our overarching reactions, and deciding on data analysis within the TA framework. Next we, the four members of the research team, each independently open coded the data (Creswell, 2013) and compared our results through consensus coding (Hays & Singh, 2012). During in-depth research meetings over the span of several months, we engaged in the iterative and consensual process of creating, defining and reviewing codes and themes until reaching consensus, or agreement between all team members. During this analysis, we used several TA strategies: theoretical theme development (i.e., analysis driven by the research question), a semantic approach (i.e., codes created from the data—we analyzed the concrete words/descriptions), and utilizing an essentialist-realist method to communicate participants’ realities (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Concurrent with the last stage of TA, we discussed our results and created this manuscript.
Lastly, we used data triangulation to compare several survey data sources. For instance, we triangulated demographics and background information, descriptive data and qualitative TA results to gain information about varied aspects of elementary school counselor preparation and create a more multifaceted understanding of the specified phenomenon (Maxwell, 2013). Overall, triangulation “is both possible and necessary because research is a process of discovery in which the genuine meaning residing within an action or event can best be uncovered by viewing it from different vantage points” (Schwandt, 2007, p. 298).
Strategies for Trustworthiness
We used a myriad of trustworthiness strategies to strengthen rigor of the qualitative thematic analysis (Hays & Singh, 2012). First, we utilized investigator triangulation to analyze data through many in-depth collaborative research meetings over the span of several months (Creswell, 2013; Hays & Singh, 2012), and we engaged in consensus coding–intercoder agreement through verbally reaching shared agreement on codes and themes (Creswell, 2013; Hays & Singh, 2012). Next, we created an audit trail to document our data analysis and research processes (Hays & Singh, 2012; Schwandt, 2007), and enlisted an external auditor who reviewed our codes, themes and data analysis to provide feedback and confirm systematic data analysis (Creswell, 2013; Hays & Singh, 2012). We participated in research team discussions at the start of and during data analysis to identify and bracket our assumptions and researcher biases (Schwandt, 2007).
The research team. A crucial component of the methodology was the establishment of the research team (Creswell, 2013). The research team was comprised of four individuals who met regularly for 2 years as part of the Elementary Advocacy Task force for the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision School Counseling Interest Network. This research project was initiated as part of the named task force. All authors were counselor educators and had previous school counseling experience. Specifically, the first author completed 2 years as a counselor educator and 3 years as a school counselor; the second author was a counselor educator for 8 years and a school counselor for 14 years; the third author was a counselor educator for 7 years and had 5 years of school counseling experience; and the fourth author had 12 years of experience as a counselor educator and 4 years of experience as a school counselor. The first three authors identified as Caucasian of European descent and had previous elementary school counseling experience; the fourth author identified as multi-ethnic (Caucasian of European descent and Native American) and had experience as a secondary school counselor. Additionally, the primary author was a female in her mid-30s; the second author was a female in her mid-40s; the third author was a male in his 40s; and the fourth author was a female in her mid-50s. We utilized the research team to challenge each other’s assumptions and biases during data analysis, as well as engage in researcher triangulation.
Results
In this study, we examined school counseling faculty members’ perceptions and experiences regarding school counselor preparation for the elementary level. To examine the research question, we triangulated three data sources: demographic and background information, descriptive data (Table 2), and qualitative thematic analysis results. Three themes resulted from the data analysis: Varying Conceptualizations of Differentiation, K–12 Preparation Focus and Factors Driving Elementary School Counseling Preparation. We will subsequently describe the themes and provide the results of the triangulation.
Table 2
School Counseling Faculty’s Highest Five Means and Lowest Five Means for Perceived Current and Preferred Differentiation of Elementary School Counseling Topics
| Current Elementary School Counseling Topic Differentiation |
M
|
SD
|
Preferred Elementary School Counseling Topic Differentiation |
M
|
SD
|
| Highest Five Items |
|
|
Highest Five Items |
|
|
| Classroom Lessons |
2.62
|
1.38
|
Classroom Lessons |
3.26
|
1.03
|
| Social/Emotional Issues |
2.50
|
1.46
|
Career Exploration |
3.20
|
1.20
|
| Human Growth and Development |
2.48
|
1.62
|
Human Growth and Development |
3.05
|
1.37
|
| Career Exploration |
2.41
|
1.51
|
Classroom Management Techniques |
3.04
|
1.89
|
| Creative Counseling Techniques |
2.37
|
1.41
|
College Readiness |
3.02
|
1.22
|
| Lowest Five Items |
|
|
Lowest Five Items |
|
|
| Educational Policies (Federal and State) |
1.36
|
1.34
|
Educational Policies (Federal and State) |
2.01
|
1.50
|
| Professional Identity |
1.24
|
1.40
|
School Counselor Leadership |
1.90
|
1.58
|
| School Counselor Leadership |
1.19
|
1.38
|
Professional Identity |
1.80
|
1.57
|
| Cultural Competency |
1.18
|
1.40
|
Social Justice/Advocacy |
1.73
|
1.58
|
| Social Justice/Advocacy |
1.09
|
1.34
|
Cultural Competency |
1.69
|
1.60
|
Note. M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Perceived Current Differentiation of Elementary School Counseling Topics items: 0 = no current differentiation; 4 = highly differentiated. Perceived Preferred Differentiation of Elementary School Counseling Topics: 0 = no differentiation; 4 = high differentiation.
Varying Conceptualizations of Differentiation
Participants described their perceptions and experiences regarding the differentiation of school counseling preparation through descriptive and open-ended qualitative data. In looking at the current and preferred descriptive items, participants ranked the degree to which they were currently and preferably differentiating school counseling topics for elementary school counseling, using a 0–4 point scale (0 = no differentiation and 4 = high differentiation). Participants’ current differentiation means were fairly moderate to low (means ranged from 1.09–2.62), meaning participants perceived providing little to average elementary school counseling topic differentiation. At the same time, participants communicated differences between their current level of differentiation and their preferred level of differentiation (preferred means ranged from 1.69–3.26). For example, participants’ means for each preferred item were higher than the means for each current item. Thus, participants reported low to moderate differentiation for the elementary level, but desired to differentiate elementary school counseling content to a greater degree than they were actually doing. Further, participants reported conducting and desiring greater differentiation among practical or application-based topics (e.g., developing classroom lessons, addressing social and emotional issues) compared to theoretical or philosophically geared topics (e.g., professional identity, cultural competency).
Through the open-ended responses, participants described their perceptions of and experiences with differentiating school counselor preparation for educational levels. For example, one participant described a practicum experience specific to the elementary level:
Our program adopted a K–5 charter school who has no school counseling services. We . . .
provided supervised classroom lessons pre-practicum in this elementary school. . . . The experience has been phenomenal for my students to learn about developmentally appropriate classroom management, curriculum design, lesson planning and delivery, as well as the social-emotional needs of kids.
Another participant described differentiation as modifying class discussions according to level: “The discussion in a class will of course be different depending on the level being addressed.” A different participant described differentiation occurring for assignments, based on students’ interests, yet also provided an alternative strategy for viewing the concept of differentiation:
Students can often tailor assignments so that they are most relevant to the [desired] level(s). . . .
Readings that have to do with specific levels are generally required for everyone [because] . . . it’s good to know what’s happening at other levels. I wonder if differentiation is what’s called for or if instead, inclusion and gauging the needed depth of exposure and skill?
A separate participant conceptualized differentiation as, “separate courses by level or that the instructor differentiates within the course by providing examples or options for various levels.” Yet, another participant described differentiation within the context of school counseling compared to other counseling tracks such as mental health counseling: “I have seen programs with ‘concentrations’ by which students take only one standalone course in SC [school counseling], MH [mental health], CC [college counseling] and the rest of the program is generic counseling.” Overall, participants’ responses to open-ended questions revealed varying conceptualizations and the implementation of differentiation.
K–12 Preparation Focus
Through demographic data and open-ended responses, participants relayed exposure to and a preference for using a K–12 focus when preparing school counseling master’s students. First, the majority of participants conveyed graduating from a CACREP-accredited doctoral program (53%) and current employment in a CACREP-accredited school counseling master’s program (66%). Nearly all participants reported teaching the ASCA National Model in their preparation program (95%). Additionally, most participants (86%) reported working within states with K–12 school counseling certification and licensure, and all (100%) participants’ preparation programs met their states’ certification and licensure requirements.
Through open-ended responses, several participants also described preferring and implementing a K–12 focus in preparing school counseling students. One participant said:
I think we are doing a disservice to our SC graduate students if we specialize too much during their master’s programs. It is important that they really understand the full range of developmental challenges and educational transitions so they can best collaborate across a comprehensive K–12 SC program.
Further, another participant stated: “Clearly there are level differences, but comprehensive programming needs to be K–12 and counselor education programs need to teach as such.” A different participant described:
I like that we prepare our students for elementary and secondary levels. This gives them the confidence to work at all levels once they graduate. I also think that training across levels is important to promote vertical articulation in school counseling programs and services.
Within the K–12 school counseling focus, participants valued some topic differentiation for elementary school counseling to reflect the unique components of that level. For example, two participants described the distinct differences between levels within a K–12, unified professional identity:
In our state, our students earn a K–12 certification. . . . We try to do the best job we can in preparing students for working at ALL levels. . . . There are some areas where we need to provide specific differentiated knowledge or skills just for elementary-age, but there are many things that cut across all levels (e.g., strong collaboration, teaching, listening, meeting facilitation, student advocacy, partnering skills and clear sense of school counselor identity, professional advocacy, comprehensive planning).
Another participant suggested providing a unified professional identity overall, despite some differentiation for each level:
The expectations . . . and the emphasis on specific roles, skills are different [for each level], and that needs to be addressed. . . . At the same time, too much differentiation can lead to more splintered identity and a less general skills set, which in the long run may not serve our graduates or their students well. [We are] striving for a balance of knowledge, skills and supervision that is level-specific with enough breadth of experience to solidify a professional identity.
Factors Driving Elementary School Counseling Preparation
Through open-ended responses and demographic data, participants described various drivers or influencing elements that impacted their decisions and beliefs regarding elementary school counselor preparation. Examples of drivers included state licensure and mandates; school counseling job opportunities; and student enrollment, motivation, and interest in elementary school counseling. According to participants, several external drivers impacted their school counseling preparation.
Several participants conveyed that various state licensing requirements and mandates influenced their elementary level preparation. For example, the majority of participants (86%) reported their state certified or licensed school counseling K–12, and all participants (100%) identified that their preparation programs met the state certification or licensure requirements. Thus, most participants’ school counselor preparation was driven by their state’s K–12 certification and licensing requirements. Several participants echoed these sentiments in their open-ended responses, including: “The certificate [is] K–12 so students must be prepared for all levels,” and “When I first started teaching about 13 years ago, there seemed to be a greater differentiation in levels. But within our state over the past year, the cert has moved to a PK–12, which better aligns with ASCA model roles and functions.”
Next, most participants’ states (70%) did not mandate elementary school counseling; thus, many participants did not feel they could prioritize elementary school counselor preparation. One participant stated: “Elementary school counselors are not required [in my state].” Another participant noted, “but for those of us in states with no mandate for ESC [elementary school counseling] positions, it’s [focusing on elementary school counseling] not feasible.”
Participants further described school counseling job availability as a driving force in their elementary school counselor preparation. A participant said, “we cannot offer courses specific to level based on the limited opportunities for elementary school counselors in our state,” and “[it] would be hard to justify an elementary school counseling focus in my program . . . locally few school districts have them [elementary school counselors].” Similarly, another participant stated: “Our students get 90% of their jobs in high schools.” Thus, participants may focus little on elementary school counseling due to the lack of available jobs.
Additionally, job availability and student interests were co-mingled driving forces. Some participants described implementing a K–12 focus in order to expose their students to a range of levels, in the event they cannot secure a job at their desired level. According to one participant:
Frequently, students leave our program hoping to work at a particular level but due to job scarcity in the region where they chose to live, they need to obtain a job at a different level. Sometimes they end up loving the level where they end up even though it was not their first choice.
Another participant mentioned: “I find that some of our students don’t necessarily go on to work at the level they interned at (or thought they would work at) and [the students] indicate they benefitted by being in courses that address all levels.”
According to several participants, student interest in pursuing jobs at the elementary school level was low and offering courses specific to preparing the elementary school counselor was not feasible. According to one participant: “We cannot offer courses specific to level based on enrollment issues.” Other participants stated the following: “We have a small program so we would not be able to offer classes for specific levels of school counseling practice,” and “We also have very few students interested in elementary. For some reason, only about two students or less tend to be interested in elementary every year. Most prefer secondary.” According to participants, students’ preferences were driving forces in school counselor preparation programs’ elementary school counseling focus. Generally speaking, participants’ decisions and preferences regarding elementary school counseling differentiation and preparation were influenced by the driving factors, or contextual realities, associated with certification and licensure, state mandates, job availability, and student interests.
Discussion
The school counseling faculty in our study reported conducting and preferring a K–12 focus in preparing school counselors, which is similar to preparation standards, certification and licensure requirements, and suggested school counseling job activities (ACA, 2012; ASCA, 2012; CACREP, 2015). The K–12 school counseling preparation focus in this study also is consistent with findings from recent studies from Pérusse et al. (2015a) and Goodman-Scott (2015), in which participants reported little difference in preparation by educational level. Thus, despite school counselors in several studies reporting differences in job activities and perceptions by level, school counseling preparation programs may incorporate a K–12 focus.
However, within a K–12 preparation focus, participants did see the necessity for differentiating certain educational topics to the elementary school level more than others. The highest means for current and preferred differentiation items included classroom lessons, classroom management techniques, social and emotional issues, human growth and development, career exploration, and creative counseling techniques. In comparison with the literature, school counselors at the elementary level report performing classroom instruction and management more often than school counselors at the secondary level (Dahir et al., 2009; Perera-Diltz & Mason, 2008; Rayle & Adams, 2008; Scarborough, 2005; Studer et al., 2011). Additionally, Dahir and colleagues (2009) reported that elementary school counselors spend more time on personal and social development as compared to their secondary counterparts. Furthermore, Pérusse and Goodnough (2005) found that elementary school counselors placed more priority on human growth and development and creative counseling techniques, such as play therapy, than secondary school counselors. Differentiating topics specific to career exploration and college readiness suggest that the participants believed these topics to be developmental, or K–12 in nature. A developmental perspective related to college and career counseling is widely discussed within the school counseling literature (Gysbers, 2013; Pérusse, Poynton, Parzych, & Goodnough, 2015b; Trusty & Niles, 2004). For instance, the College Board National Office for School Counselor Advocacy (2010) differentiates college and career readiness objectives by educational level with a strong focus on career exploration at the elementary level, where high school counseling attends to college admission and post-secondary transition to college. In addition to a career exploration, Trusty, Mellin, and Herbert (2008) contended that elementary school counselors should focus on building caring school cultures and increasing opportunities for family engagement as part of the college and career focus.
Content topics that participants perceived as requiring little differentiation at the elementary school level were the professional skills and knowledge associated with leadership, cultural competency, social justice and advocacy, professional identity, and knowledge of federal and state policies. Hence, the school counseling faculty in our study conducted and suggested less differentiation for broad, philosophical topics often addressed in the literature as spanning K–12. For example, within the ASCA National Model (2012), leadership, social justice and advocacy are addressed within a K–12 framework for program implementation. The most recent version of the ASCA National Model (2012) does not distinguish the role responsibilities of elementary school counselors differently than the secondary level. Additionally, within school counseling literature, professional identity (Gibson, Dollarhide, & Moss, 2010; Konstam et al., 2015), leadership (Mason, 2010), social justice and advocacy (Ratts, Dekruyf, & Chen-Hayes, 2007) and cultural competency (Moore-Thomas & Day-Vines, 2010) are not discussed specific to the role responsibilities of counselors at different educational levels.
Not only did participants express differentiating some educational topics, but through their open-ended responses they conveyed varied perceptions of and experiences with the overall differentiation construct, including differentiating class discussions and assignments, specific courses, practical experiences, and differentiating school counseling courses from other counseling tracks, such as mental health counseling. The examination of the school counseling preparation differentiation construct has been nearly nonexistent in the literature. The results of this study demonstrate initial insight to school counseling faculty’s perceptions and experiences regarding differentiation and the need for further related research.
Lastly, according to the school counseling faculty in our study, their preparation was driven by several external factors. Participants described their desire and actions to prepare school counseling students for all educational levels, K–12, which was often driven by K–12 state licensure and certification requirements. However, due to a lack of state-level elementary school counseling mandates, as well as limited job opportunities and student enrollment and interests, many school counseling faculty expressed concerns with and a lack of focus specifically on elementary school counselor preparation. In light of these external forces, it appears that the preparation of elementary school counselors may be less prioritized within a K–12 focus. Similarly, with the heightened national focus on college and career readiness, including the Reach Higher (The White House, n.d.) and Race to the Top (U. S. Department of Education, 2016) initiatives, and increased emphasis on college application rates, we wonder if elementary school counseling could be de-emphasized in national school counseling conversations.
Future Research and Implications
This study provided preliminary data on school counseling faculty members’ perceptions of and experiences with preparing school counselors for the elementary level. The most substantial implication is our hope that this study will provide a springboard for future research, which may inform teaching and advocacy. First, we suggest future studies utilize qualitative interviews to gain in-depth information regarding school counseling faculty processes and conceptualizations of differentiation in pre-service school counseling preparation. Researchers also could develop an instrument to measure differentiation in school counselor preparation to better understand the construct and its application. Further, more research is needed to examine the impact of external drivers and how school counseling faculty and preparation programs address such external drivers, including state-level school counseling mandates, job opportunities and national initiatives. Specifically, how do these external drivers influence school counseling preparation, practice and policy? Finally, future research can examine school counselor preparation for all levels. For instance, are certain levels prioritized within a K–12 focus?
This study also contains interesting implications for teaching and advocacy. Our findings suggest that many school counselor preparation programs wrestle with preparing students for aspirational practice versus preparing students for the realities of the field. Research shows the benefits of implementing a school counselor-run CSCP from kindergarten through graduation; however, there are many barriers to doing so. School counseling faculty must teach students best practices and cultivate their professional identity, while also preparing students to navigate the current educational climate and advocate for systemic change, bridging the gap between ideal and real school counseling. Further, school counseling faculty also must advocate for systemic change, supporting state-level mandates requiring school counselors at all levels and ensuring that national school counseling conversations and initiatives are inclusive of a K–12 focus.
Limitations
We identified several study limitations. Web-based surveys reach a limited sample due to the need for e-mail addresses (Fowler, 2014), and e-mail solicitations may be undeliverable due to e-mail filters (Dillman et al., 2008). We attempted to mitigate these concerns by soliciting participants through various school counselor education outlets. Next, we enlisted a convenience sample, and participants may have been motivated to complete the survey due to their interests and experiences; thus, our sample is not necessarily representative of all school counseling faculty across states. At the same time, the goal of this study was not to generalize findings but to gather exploratory data to guide future inquiry. Lastly, despite providing a definition of differentiation in the survey, participants expressed differing views on this construct, which turned out to be one of our primary themes.
Conclusion
Scholars have shown that students benefit from fully implemented CSCPs, which are facilitated at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Elementary school counseling is a crucial foundation of K–12 school counseling, especially in regard to proactive prevention activities for all students. Thus, school counseling students should be prepared for school counseling across all three levels. While little research has been conducted on differentiating school counselor preparation for the three levels, this study provides findings regarding school counseling faculty’s perceptions and experiences differentiating preparation for the elementary level, finding varying conceptualizations of differentiation, a K–12 preparation focus generally with some differentiation of school counseling topics, and factors driving elementary school counseling preparation. While more research is needed to further examine and expand on our study, there also exists a need to take stock of these preliminary findings. Participants reported several barriers to school counseling preparation at the elementary level. School counselors and school counseling leaders must investigate and advocate for the role and existence of the elementary school counselor to ensure that K–12 school counseling truly remains K–12, and that all students in K–12 can be served by a school counselor.
Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure
The authors reported no conflict of interest
or funding contributions for the development
of this manuscript.
References
American Counseling Association. (2012). A guide to state laws and regulations on professional school counseling. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org/PublicPolicy/SchoolCounselingRegs2012.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2012). The ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.
American School Counselor Association. (2014a). Mindsets and behaviors for student success: K–12 college- and career-readiness standards for every student. Alexandria, VA: Author.
American School Counselor Association. (2014b). The school counselor and school counselor preparation programs. Retrieved from https://schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/home/MindsetsBehaviors.pdf
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Burkard, A.W., Gillen, M., Martinez, M. J., & Skytte, S. (2012). Implementation challenges and training need for comprehensive school counseling programs in Wisconsin high schools. Professional School Counseling, 16, 136–145. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2012-16.136
Carey, J., Harrington, K., Martin, I., & Hoffman, D. (2012). A statewide evaluation of the outcomes of the implementation of ASCA national model school counseling programs in rural and suburban Nebraska high schools. Professional School Counseling, 16, 100–107. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2012-16.100
Carey, J., Harrington, K., Martin, I., & Stevenson, D. (2012). A statewide evaluation of the outcomes of the implementation of ASCA national model school counseling programs in Utah high schools. Professional School Counseling, 16, 89–99. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2012-16.89
The College Board National Office for School Counselor Advocacy. (2010). Eight components of college and career readiness counseling. Retrieved from http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/nosca/
11b_4416_8_Components_WEB_111107.pdf
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). 2016 CACREP standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dahir, C. A., Burnham, J. J., & Stone, C. (2009). Listen to the voices: School counselors and comprehensive school counseling programs. Professional School Counseling, 12, 182–192. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.182
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frels, R. K., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2013). Administering quantitative instruments with qualitative interviews: A mixed research approach. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91, 184–194.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2013.00085.x
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method
evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274 doi:10.3102/01623737011003255
Gibson, D., Dollarhide, C., & Moss, J. (2010). Professional identity development: A grounded theory of trans-
formational tasks of new counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 21–38. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2010.tb00106.x
Goodman-Scott, E. (2015). School counselors’ perceptions of their academic preparedness and job activities. Counselor Education and Supervision, 54, 57–67. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2015.00070.x
Gysbers, N. C. (2013). Career-ready students: A goal of comprehensive school counseling programs. The Career Development Quarterly, 61, 283–288. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2013.00057.x
Gysbers, N. C., & Henderson, P. (2012). Developing and managing your school guidance and counseling program (5th ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.
Hatch, T., & Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2008). School counselor beliefs about ASCA national model school counseling program components using the SCPCS. Professional School Counseling, 12, 34–42.
doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.34
Hays, D. G., & Singh, A. A. (2012). Qualitative inquiry in clinical and educational settings. New York, NY: Guilford.
Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2010). Involving low-income parents and parents of color in college readiness activities: An exploratory study. Professional School Counseling, 14, 115–124. doi:10.5330/prsc.14.1.e3044v7567570t04
Hunt, B. (2011). Publishing qualitative research in counseling journals. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 296–300. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00092.x
Konstam, V., Cook, A., Tomek, S., Mahdavi, E., Gracia, R., & Bayne, A. H. (2015). What factors sustain profes- sional growth among school counselors? Journal of School Counseling, 13(3). Retrieved from http://jsc.
montana.edu/articles/v13n3.pdf
Lambert, S. F., LeBlanc, M., Mullen, J. A., Ray, D., Baggerly, J., White, J., & Kaplan, D. (2007). Learning more about those who play in session: The national play therapy in counseling practices project (Phase I). Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 42–46. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00442.x
Lapan, R.T. (2012). Comprehensive school counseling programs: In some schools for some students but not in all schools for all students. Professional School Counseling, 16, 84–88. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2012-16.84
Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., & Petroski, G. (2001). Helping 7th graders be safe and academically successful: A statewide study of the impact of comprehensive guidance programs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 320–330. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01977.x
Lapan, R. T., Gysbers, N. C., & Sun, Y. (1997). The impact of more fully implemented guidance programs on the school experiences of high school students: A statewide evaluation study. Journal of Counseling & Development, 75, 292–302. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1997.tb02344.x
Mason, E. (2010). Leadership practices of school counselors and counseling program implementation. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 274–285. doi:10.1177/0192636510395012
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moore-Thomas, C., & Day-Vines, N. (2010). Culturally competent collaboration: School counselor collaboration with African American families and communities. Professional School Counseling, 14, 53–63.
doi:10.5330/prsc.14.1.0876387q7466x634
Perera-Diltz, D. M., & Mason, K. L. (2008). Ideal to real: Duties performed by school counselors. Journal of School Counseling, 6(26). Retrieved from http://jsc.montana.edu/articles/v6n26.pdf
Pérusse, R., & Goodnough, G. E. (2005). Elementary and secondary school counselors’ perceptions of gradu-
ate preparation programs: A national study. Counselor Education & Supervision, 45, 109–118. doi:10.1002/j,1556-6978.2005.tb00134.x
Pérusse, R., Goodnough, G. E., & Noël, C. J. (2001). A national survey of school counselor preparation programs: Screening methods, faculty experiences, curricular content, and fieldwork requirements. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40, 252–262. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2001.tb01258.x
Pérusse, R., Poynton, T. A., Parzych, J. L., & Goodnough, G. E. (2015a). Changes over time in masters level
school counselor education programs. Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 7(3), 185–203. doi:10.7729/73.1072
Pérusse, R., Poynton, T. A., Parzych, J. L., & Goodnough, G. E. (2015b). The importance and implementation of eight components of college and career readiness counseling in school counselor education programs. Journal of College Access, 1, 29–41.
Ratts, M. J., Dekruyf, L., & Chen-Hayes, S. F. (2007). The ACA advocacy competencies: A social justice advocacy framework for professional school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 11, 90–97.
doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-11.90
Rayle, A. D., & Adams, J. R. (2008). An exploration of 21st century school counselors’ daily work activities. Journal of School Counseling, 5(8). Retrieved from http://jsc.montana.edu/articles/v5n8.pdf
Scarborough, J. L. (2005). The school counselor activity rating scale: An instrument for gathering process data. Professional School Counseling, 8, 274–283.
Scarborough, J. L., & Culbreth, J. R. (2008). Examining discrepancies between actual and preferred practice of school counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 446–459.
doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00533.x
Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sink, C. A., Akos, P., Turnbull, R. J., & Mvududu, N. (2008). An investigation of comprehensive school coun-seling programs and academic achievement in Washington state middle schools. Professional School Counseling, 12, 43–53. doi:10.5330/PSC.n.2010-12.43
Sink, C. A., & Stroh, H. R. (2003). Raising achievement test scores of early elementary school students through comprehensive school counseling programs. Professional School Counseling, 6, 350–364.
Studer, J. R., Diambra, J. F., Breckner, J. A., & Heidel, R. E. (2011). Obstacles and successes in implementing the ASCA national model in schools. Journal of School Counseling, 9(2). Retrieved from http://jsc.
montana.edu/articles/v9n2.pdf
Trusty, J., Mellin, E. A., & Herbert, J. T. (2008). Closing achievement gaps: Roles and tasks of elementary school counselors. The Elementary School Journal, 108, 407–421. doi:10.1086/589470
Trusty, J., & Niles S. (2004). Realized potential or lost talent: High school variables and bachelor’s degree completion. Career Development Quarterly, 53, 2–15. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2004.tb00651.x
The White House. (n.d.). Reach higher. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/reach-higher
U. S. Department of Education. (2016). Race to the top fund. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/
racetothetop/index.html
Emily Goodman-Scott, NCC, is an Assistant Professor at Old Dominion University. Jennifer Scaturo Watkinson is an Associate Professor at Loyola University Maryland. Ian Martin is an Associate Professor at the University of San Diego. Kathy Biles, NCC, is a Senior Instructor at Oregon State University, Cascades Campus. Correspondence can be addressed to Emily Goodman-Scott, Old Dominion University, 110 Education Building, Norfolk, VA 23529, egscott@odu.edu.
