Catherine Clifton - The Professional Counselor

Development of Counseling Students’ Self-Efficacy During Preparation and Training

Feb 6, 2015 | Article, Volume 5 - Issue 1

Patrick R. Mullen, Olivia Uwamahoro, Ashley J. Blount, Glenn W. Lambie

Counselor preparation is multifaceted and involves developing trainees’ clinical knowledge, skills and competence. Furthermore, counselor self-efficacy is a relevant developmental consideration in the counseling field. Therefore, the purpose of this longitudinal investigation was to examine the effects of a counselor preparation program on students’ development of counseling self-efficacy. The Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale was administered to 179 master’s-level counselors-in-training at three points in their counselor training and coursework, including new student orientation, clinical practicum orientation and final internship group supervision meeting. Findings indicated that students’ experience in their preparation program resulted in higher levels of self-efficacy.

Keywords: counselor preparation, counselor training, self-efficacy, development, internship

The practice of counselor training is a complex, intentional process of reflective educational and experiential activities to promote the development of knowledge and skills (Bernard & Goodyear, 2013; Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs [CACREP], 2009; McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2011). As such, the primary goal of counselor preparation programs is to educate and train students to become competent counselors by equipping them with necessary skills, knowledge and experiences (American Counseling Association, 2014; Bernard & Goodyear, 2013; CACREP, 2009). Furthermore, students training to be counselors increase their self-awareness and reflective practice throughout their educational experience (Granello & Young, 2012; Lambie & Sias, 2009; Rønnestad, & Skovholt, 2003). Increased understanding regarding counseling trainee development may aid educators’ ability to develop and deliver educational and supervision interventions.

Self-efficacy represents an individual’s beliefs or judgments about his or her ability to accomplish a given goal or task (Bandura, 1995). Furthermore, self-efficacy is a recognized measure of development in the counseling field (Larson & Daniels, 1998), has a positive influence on work-related performance (Bandura, 1982; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), and consequently works as an outcome and developmental consideration for counselor training. In addition, there are assortments of published research examining counseling trainees’ self-efficacy (e.g., Barbee, Scherer & Combs, 2003; Cashwell & Dooley, 2001; Kozina, Grabovari, Stefano, & Drapeau, 2010; Melchert, Hays, Wiljanen, & Kolocek, 1996; Tang et al., 2004); however, limited research examines counseling trainees’ development of self-efficacy in a longitudinal fashion based upon their experiences from start (e.g., educational courses) to finish (e.g., initial clinical experiences) in counselor preparation programs. Therefore, the purpose of this longitudinal investigation was to examine counselor trainees’ self-efficacy as they progressed through the educational and experiential components of a counselor preparation program.

Counseling Students’ Self-Efficacy

Bandura (1995) described perceived self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (p. 2). Self-efficacy is considered an appropriate scientific lens for examining individuals’ beliefs regarding their ability to accomplish professional goals (Bandura, 1997) and is a common research topic in counseling literature (e.g., Larson & Daniels, 1998). Specifically, Bandura (1997) suggested that individuals’ ability to accomplish a task or goal not only necessitates skill and ability, but also the belief in oneself that provides the confidence and motivation to complete a task. Larson and Daniels (1998) stated that counseling self-efficacy is “one’s beliefs or judgments about her or his capabilities to effectively counsel a client in the near future” (p. 180). Self-efficacy is appropriate for the selection and training of counselors because of the construct’s stability and reliability (Beutler, Machado, & Neufeldt, 1994).

Self-efficacy is important in relation to counselor competence (Barnes, 2004; Larson & Daniels, 1998). Larson (1998) suggested that self-efficacy is a critical influence on one’s self-determining mechanisms and as a result is a critical variable in supervision. The importance of self-efficacy in the counseling field is documented by the development of measures of self-efficacy for various research constructs (e.g., Bodenhorn & Skaggs, 2005; Mullen, Lambie, & Conley, 2014; Sutton & Fall, 1995). Melchert and colleagues (1996) developed the Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES) to examine counselors’ and counselor trainees’ level of confidence in knowledge and skills regarding counseling competencies. Melchert and colleagues (1996) found that counseling students’ (N = 138) scores on the CSES varied based on their experience in their preparation program, with second-year students reporting more confidence than students in their first year of training. Additionally, Melchert and colleagues (1996) found that counselors (N = 138) with more years of clinical experience also reported greater levels of self-efficacy.

Counselors’ training, initial clinical experiences and supervision relates to their self-efficacy beliefs. Hill et al., (2008) found that skills training impacted undergraduate students’ confidence regarding the use of helping skills. However, Hill and colleagues (2008) noted that as students faced more difficult skills, their confidence decreased, but eventually increased upon gaining experience using the skill. Barbee and associates (2003) found that trainees’ (N = 113) participation in service learning had a positive relationship with counselor self-efficacy. However, these researchers also found that total credits of coursework (i.e., time in the preparation program) and prior counseling-related work were stronger predictors of self-efficacy as compared to service learning.

Supporting the findings from Barbee and colleagues (2003), Tang and colleagues (2004) found that students with more coursework, internship experience and related work experience reported higher levels of competence regarding counseling skills. Regarding self-efficacy during clinical experiences, Kozina and colleagues (2010) found that the counseling self-efficacy of first year master’s-level counseling students increased during initial work with clients during clinical experience. Additionally, Cashwell and Dooley (2001) found that practicing counselors receiving supervision, compared to those not receiving supervision, reported higher levels of self-efficacy, indicating that supervision supports increased beliefs of counseling efficacy. However, no published studies were identified examining counseling students’ longitudinal change in self-efficacy as a result of their participation in a counselor preparation program from the start of the program through their clinical experiences.

Purpose of the Study

The development of trainees is a vital topic for counselor education. Counselor educators and supervisors need a comprehensive understanding of student development with the aim of assessing student learning outcomes and facilitating pedagogical and supervisory interventions that support development. Enhancing counseling students’ self-efficacy regarding clinical skills is an important developmental goal within preparation programs, with higher self-efficacy suggesting increased likelihood of efficient and effective counseling services (Bandura, 1982; Bandura, 1997; Larson & Daniels, 1998; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Research on counselor self-efficacy is common; however, no studies have investigated change in master’s-level counseling students’ self-efficacy over the course of their preparation program (i.e., longitudinal investigation). Therefore, we investigated the following research questions: (1) What is the relationship between counseling students’ demographic factors and self-efficacy at three key times during their preparation program? (2) Does counseling students’ self-efficacy change at three points during their graduate preparation program?

Method

Participants and Procedures

Participants included 179 master’s-level graduate students from a single CACREP entry-level counselor education program at a university in the Southeastern United States. Specifically, participants included several cohorts of entry-level counselor trainees who started the counselor training program during the spring 2008 through fall 2011 semesters and completed the program by the Summer 2013 semester. Institutional Review Board approval from the university was obtained prior to data collection and analysis. To protect the rights and confidentiality of the participants, all identifying information was removed and the data were aggregated.

The study was introduced to the participants during the counselor preparation program’s new student orientation (NSO; a mandatory information session prior to the start of trainees’ coursework). At this point, students were invited to be part of the study by completing a paper-and-pencil packet of instrumentation. Participants were invited to complete the second data collection point during a mandatory clinical practicum orientation (CPO) occurring prior to their initial clinical and supervision experience (approximately midpoint during the students’ program of study). The final data collection point was at the participants’ final internship group supervision meeting (FIGSM; end of students’ program of study). A total accessible sample consisted of 224 students who fit the selection criteria for participate in this study. The selection criteria included the following: (a) started the program in the beginning of the spring 2008 semester and (b) graduated by the end of the fall 2011 semester. However, due to incomplete instrument packets, missing items (listwise deletion) or student attrition, 179 participants completed the instruments across all three data collection points, yielding a 79.91% response rate.

The participants included 151 females (84.4%) and 28 males (15.6%). Regarding age, 162 participants (90.5%) fell between the ages of 20 and 29, 13 participants (7.3%) were between the ages of 30 and 39, two participants (1.1%) fell between the ages of 40 and 49, and two participants (1.1%) were over 50 years of age. Participants’ ethnicities were as follows: 133 (74.3%) Caucasian, 36 (20.1%) African American, seven (3.9%) Hispanic American, one (0.6%) Asian American and 2 (1.1%) other ethnicity. Participants program tracks included mental health counseling (MHC; n = 78, 43.6%); marriage, couples and family counseling (MCFC; n = 46, 25.7%); and school counseling (SC; n = 55, 30.7%).

Counselor Preparation Program Experience

Students participating in this study were entry-level counseling trainees attending an academic unit with three CACREP-accredited master’s-level programs. The students were enrolled in one of the following three programs of study: (a) MHC; (b) MCFC; or (c) SC. Students’ early coursework in the counselor preparation program included core curriculum courses that focused on content knowledge and initial skill development required for advanced clinical courses. The course prerequisites for initial clinical practicum experience for all students included: (a) Introduction to the Counseling Profession, (b) Theories of Counseling and Personality, (c) Techniques of Counseling, (d) Group Procedures and Theories in Counseling, and (e) Ethical and Legal Issues. Additionally, students in the MHC and MCFC tracks were required to complete a Diagnosis and Treatment in Counseling course. Students in the MHC and MCFC tracks were required to complete 63 credit hours, while students in the SC track were required to complete 60 credits hours (if they did not have a teaching certificate) or 51 credit hours (if they had a valid teaching certificate). Courses were delivered by a diverse set of counselor educators who determined course content and style based on their individual pedagogical approaches.

Students participated in their clinical practicum course after their course prerequisites were met. SC students completed their internship after a single semester of clinical practicum (100 total clinical hours in practicum). Students in MHC and MCFC tracks completed their internship experience after two consecutive experiences in clinical practicum (200 total clinical hours in practicum). During their internship experience, SC students completed 600 clinical hours over one or two semesters and MHC and MCFC students completed 900 clinical hours over two semesters. Overall, students progressed through their course and clinical experiences over 2.5–3.5years, depending on their course load and time commitment preferences. Importantly, it was not required for all coursework to be completed prior to initial clinical experiences. Students completed non-prerequisite coursework at the time most accommodating to their schedule, but were required to complete all coursework by the time of graduation, with the FIGSM being one of the last class-based tasks in the program.

Measures

We utilized the CSES (Melchert et al., 1996) in this investigation to gather data on counseling trainees’ level of self-efficacy. In addition, a demographic questionnaire was used to collect data regarding participants’ biological gender, age, ethnicity and program track (i.e., MHC, MCFC or SC). The following section introduces and reviews the CSES.

Counselor Self-Efficacy Scale. The CSES is a 20-item self-report instrument that assesses counseling trainees’ competency regarding key counseling tasks for group and individual counseling (Melchert et al., 1996). The CSES was developed based upon a review of the literature with the goal of identifying key types of counseling competencies for counselors. The CSES uses 5-point Likert scale responses that indicate an individual’s level of confidence in his or her counseling ability, including “Never,” “Rarely,” “Sometimes,” “Frequently” or “Almost Always” answer options. Half of the items are worded in a negative fashion to avoid acquiescent response bias, requiring reverse coding. The total score of the CSES ranges from 20–100 and is calculated by adding the responses to all 20 items with consideration given to the reverse coded items. Some sample items from the CSES include the following: (a) I am not able to accurately identify client affect, (b) I can effectively facilitate appropriate goal development with clients, and (c) I can function effectively as a group leader/facilitator.

Melchert and colleagues (1996) reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .91 and a test-retest reliability (r = .85; p-value not reported) in their initial psychometric testing of the CSES with counseling psychologist students and licensed professional psychologists. In addition, Melchert and colleagues (1996) tested for convergent validity and reported an acceptable correlation (r = .83; p-value not reported) between the CSES and the Self-Efficacy Inventory (Friedlander & Snyder, 1983). Constantine (2001) found that the CSES had an acceptable internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .77 with counseling supervisees. Additionally, Pasquariello (2013) found that Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .85–.93 with doctoral psychology students. For the current study, the internal consistency reliability for the CSES was acceptable, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .96 (Sink & Stroh, 2006; Streiner, 2003).

Data Analysis

A longitudinal study design was employed for this investigation. After completion of the data collection process, participants’ responses were analyzed using descriptive data analysis, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), repeated measures ANOVA, paired-samples t-test and mixed between/within-subjects ANOVA. Prior to analysis, the data were screened for outliers using the outlier labeling method (Hoaglin & Iglewicz, 1987; Hoaglin, Iglewicz, & Tukey, 1986), which resulted in identifying 11 cases with outliers. Therefore, Windsorized means were calculated based on adjacent data points to replace the outliers (Barnett & Lewis, 1994; Osborne & Overbay, 2004). The resulting data were checked for statistical assumptions and no violations were found. A sample size of 179 graduate counseling students was deemed appropriate for identifying a medium effect size (power = .80) at the .01 level for the employed data analysis procedures (Cohen, 1992).

Results

Counseling Trainees’ Self-Efficacy

Several one-way between-groups ANOVAs were conducted to examine the impact of each trainee’s age, gender, ethnicity and program track (i.e., SC, MHC or MCFC) on his or her level of self-efficacy at each of the three data collection points. There was no statistically significant relationship between self-efficacy and trainees’ age at the NSO data collection point (F[3, 178] = 1.35, p = .26), at the CPO data collection point (F[3, 178] = .39, p = .76) or at the FIGSM data collection point (F[3, 178] = .71, p = .55). Similarly, there was no statistically significant relationship between self-efficacy and trainees’ gender at the NSO data collection point (F[1, 178] = .48, p = .49), at the CPO data collection point (F[1, 178] = .02, p = .88) or at the FIGSM data collection point (F[1, 178] = .001, p = .97). There was no statistically significant relationship between self-efficacy and trainees’ ethnicity at the NSO data collection point (F[4, 178] = 1.03, p = .39), at the CPO data collection point (F[4, 178] = .82, p = .51) or at the FIGSM data collection point (F[4, 178] = .03, p = .97). Finally, there was no statistically significant relationship between self-efficacy and trainees’ program track at the NSO data collection point (F[2, 178] = .03, p = .97), at the CPO data collection point (F[2, 178] = .40, p = .67) or at the FIGSM data collection point (F[2, 178] = .04, p = .96).

Counseling Trainees’ Self-Efficacy Over the Course of the Program

A one-way within-subjects repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to examine participants’ (N = 179) CSES scores at the three data points (i.e., NSO, CPO, FIGSM). Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics. Mauchley’s Test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated, χ²(2) = .53, p < .001; therefore, the within-subjects effects were analyzed using the Greenhouse-Geisser correction (Greenhouse & Geisser, 1959). There was a statistically significant effect of time, F(1.3, 242.79)= 404.52, p < .001, Partial η²= .69 on participants’ CSES scores. Sixty-nine percent of the variance in CSES scores can be accounted for by the time participants spent in the program (large effect size; Sink & Stroh, 2006; Streiner, 2003). Therefore, trainees scored higher on the CSES at each interval during their counselor preparation program.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Self-Efficacy Across Data Collection Points

Data Collection Point	M	SD	Mdn	Mode	Range
New student orientation	57.09	14.42	59	58	23–84 (61)
Clinical practicum orientation	77.43	8.53	78	79	53–99 (46)
Final internship group supervision meeting	83.04	6.80	84	76	66–95 (33)
Note. N = 179.

Several paired-samples t-tests were employed to evaluate the impact of time in the program on trainees’ self-efficacy. There was a statistically significant increase in trainees’ CSES scores from NSO to CPO, t (178) = 18.41, p < .001; η²= .65. The mean increase in CSES scores between NSO and CPO was 20.33, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 18.15–22.51. There was a statistically significant increase in trainees’ CSES scores from NSO to FIGSM, t (178) = 23.19, p < .001; η²= .75. The mean increase in CSES scores between NSO and FIGSM was 25.94, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 23.74–28.15. There was a statistically significant increase in trainees’ CSES scores from CPO to FIGSM, t (178) = 10.37, p < .001; η²= .38. The mean increase in CSES scores between CPO and FIGSM was 5.61, with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 4.54–6.68. Overall, these results provide additional support indicating that trainees’ CSES scores had a statistically significant increase from the start of the program (NSO) to the end of the program (FIGSM). In addition, the span from the start of the program (NSO) to their initial clinical experience (CPO; i.e., completion of the core curriculum required for clinical work) had the largest increase in scores amongst consecutive time ranges (i.e., NSO to CPO and CPO to FIGSM).

A mixed between/within-subjects (split plot) ANOVA was conducted to assess the interaction effect of trainees’ degree track (i.e., SC; MHC; and MCFC) on their CSES scores across the three data points (i.e., NSO, CPO, FIGSM). Mauchley’s Test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated, χ²(2) = .53, p < .001; therefore, the effects were analyzed using the Greenhouse-Geisser correction (Greenhouse & Geisser, 1959). There was no significant interaction between trainees’ degree track and the data collection points, F(2.72, 239.58)= .12, p = .94; indicating that trainees’ track did not have an effect on their CSES scores across the data collection points, despite the differences in their program requirements.

Discussion

We examined the relationship between entry-level counseling trainees’ demographic characteristics and their reported self-efficacy at three key points during their graduate preparation program. The findings from this investigation indicated no relationship between participants’ age, gender, ethnicity or program track and their reported self-efficacy at any point in the program. These results are similar to Tang and colleagues’ (2004) findings, which identified no relationship between counseling trainees’ self-efficacy and their age. However, Tang and colleagues (2004) did find that total coursework and internship hours completed had a statistically significant impact on trainees’ counseling self-efficacy.

The current investigation is unique in that it longitudinally studied master’s-level counseling trainees’ self-efficacy at developmental points from the beginning to the end of their preparation program, while other studies have examined the construct of counseling self-efficacy through a cross-sectional framework or focused on clinical experiences (e.g., Barbee at al., 2003; Cashwell & Dooley, 2001; Kozina et al., 2010; Melchert et al., 1996; Tang et al., 2004). The results of this investigation identified differences in trainees’ self-efficacy at the three collection points (large effect size), indicating that trainees had an increase in self-efficacy as a result of their participation in the program. Additionally, the results identified mean differences in trainees’ self-efficacy as a result of time in the program from NSO to CPO and CPO to FIGSM. These findings are logical given the theoretical framework of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986); however, these findings are important and relevant as they provide innovative empirical evidence for Bandura’s (1986) theory of self-efficacy.

Trainees’ self-efficacy increased the most between NSO and CPO, indicating that completing initial prerequisite content coursework had a larger impact on trainees’ development of efficacy compared to their time spent on initial clinical experience. This finding is important, considering that prior research has shown that initial clinical work increases self-efficacy (Kozina et al., 2010), whereas the findings in this investigation indicate that the majority of efficacy is developed prior to initial clinical experiences. The present results are consistent with those of Tang and colleagues (2004), who found that trainees with more completed coursework and more completed internship hours reported higher levels of self-efficacy. The findings of the current study builds upon Tang and colleagues’ (2004) findings, identifying the specific time within a counseling preparation program (i.e., initial coursework versus clinical experience) when the most growth in efficacy belief occurs.

The findings from the present investigation support models of education and supervision that utilize a social cognitive framework (e.g., Larson, 1998). Counselor self-efficacy represents a practitioner’s judgment about his or her ability to effectively counsel a client (Larson et al., 1992). Therefore, knowledge regarding counseling trainees’ development of self-efficacy during their preparation program prior to their clinical experiences affords supervisor practitioners and researchers insight into student development. Much of the existing literature focuses on trainees’ initial clinical experiences, neglecting the large impact that early coursework has on the development of self-efficacy.

Implications for Counselor Education and Supervision

We offer several implications for clinical supervisors based on the results from this investigation. First, our findings demonstrate that master’s-level counseling trainees’ self-efficacy increases as a result of their experiences in their preparation program, providing further evidence for Bandura’s (1986) theory of self-efficacy. Counselor educators are expected to monitor trainees’ progress and development throughout their training (Bernard & Goodyear, 2013), and self-efficacy is an established measure of development (Larson & Daniels, 1998); therefore, it serves as an appropriate outcome consideration for counselor preparation programs. Counselor educators can make use of available self-efficacy measures that focus on competency (e.g., CSES; Melchert et al., 1996) and evaluate trainees at milestones in their program as a measure of student learning outcomes. It is logical that trainees entering counselor preparation programs need high levels of instruction, modeling and guidance due to their inexperience in the discipline. Opportunities for modeling counseling skills across topic areas, along with occasions for practicing skills, provide chances for trainees to build mastery experiences early in their program. As noted by Kozina and colleagues (2010), giving feedback on the discrepancy between trainees’ skill competency and perceived efficacy may promote reflection and development at key times throughout their training program (Daniels & Larson, 2001; Hoffman, Hill, Holmes, & Freitas, 2005).

In addition, our findings identified the importance of trainees’ counselor preparation coursework. Specifically, increased student course requirements to meet accreditation standards (e.g., Bobby, 2013; CACREP, 2009; Hagedorn, Culbreth, & Cashwell, 2012) are likely to improve trainees’ self-efficacy (Tang et al., 2004). Prior research indicates that increased coursework as a result of higher accreditation standards has an effect on counselor knowledge (Adams, 2006). Our findings build on existing literature by indicating that coursework has an impact on trainees’ self-efficacy prior to their initial clinical experiences. Counselor educators should be strategic and identify prerequisite courses to enhance students’ self-efficacy on vital topics (e.g., counseling skills, group counseling, diagnosis and treatment courses) prior to students’ initial work with clients.

An additional implication relates to trainees’ level of self-efficacy as they enter initial clinical experiences. Participants in this study entered practicum with high levels of self-efficacy regarding clinical competence; and furthermore, participants had low to moderate increases in self-efficacy between practicum and the end of their internship. As such, our findings challenge the notion that growth in self-efficacy occurs during the clinical work phase of preparation (e.g., Kozina et al., 2010), because the majority of growth in self-efficacy for this study’s participants occurred prior to initial clinical experiences. On the other hand, participants’ reports of self-efficacy due to coursework may have been inflated, given that they had yet to complete their clinical work. Therefore, counselor educators should examine supervisees during their initial clinical work to assess their perceived efficacy and actual competence.

Limitations

As with all research, the present study has limitations. First, this study took place at a single counseling preparation program whose individual systemic factors may have influenced the participants’ experiences. Therefore, future studies should replicate the current investigation to confirm these findings. Second, this study utilized a single instrument that we identified based upon the research objectives for the study; however, more recently developed or validated instruments or a collection of instruments measuring the same construct may produce results that have different findings or implications. Additional limitations include the following: (a) potential unknown/unseen extraneous variables, (b) practice effects of participants retaking the same instruments three times, (c) participant attrition (i.e., 79.91% response rate), (d) cross-generational differences and (e) test fatigue (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007). Nevertheless, longitudinal research is considered a complex and comprehensive method of examining individual participants’ change over time (Gall et al., 2007), offering a contribution to the counselor education and supervision literature.

Recommendations for Future Research

Future research might expand this study to examine changes in postgraduate practitioners’ self-efficacy over an extended period of time (longitudinal study). Additionally, future researchers may examine: (a) the impact of self-efficacy on clinical outcomes, (b) the impact of clinical supervision on trainees’ self-efficacy and (c) the impact of initial clinical experiences (e.g., practicum) on trainees’ self-efficacy. Furthermore, researchers may examine other factors associated with counselor development (e.g., emotional intelligence, application of knowledge and theory, cognitive complexity). Researchers may examine the impact of specific pedagogical interventions on counseling trainees’ self-efficacy. Lastly, the findings from this study should be replicated in other institutes that train counseling professionals.

Counselor educators and supervisors promote counseling trainees’ professional competencies, enhancing their ability to provide effective counseling services to diverse clients. Research on counseling trainees’ development is imperative for understanding and attending to their counseling students’ educational and supervisory needs. The findings from this study indicate that counseling trainees experience an increase in their self-efficacy during their preparation programs.

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors reported no conflict of

interest or funding contributions for

the development of this manuscript.

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. (2014). 2014 ACA Code of Ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.

Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Barbee, P. W., Scherer, D., & Combs, D. C. (2003). Prepracticum service-learning: Examining the relationship with counselor self-efficacy and anxiety. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 108–119. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01835.x

Barnes, K. L. (2004). Applying self-efficacy theory to counselor training and supervision: A comparison of two approaches. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 56–69. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01860.x

Barnett, V., & Lewis, T. (1994). Outliers in statistical data (3rd ed.). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2013). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Beutler, L. E., Machado, P. P. P., & Neufeldt, S. A. (1994). Therapist variables. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 229–269). New York, NY: Wiley.

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

Bodenhorn, N., & Skaggs, G. (2005). Development of the school counselor self-efficacy scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 38, 14–28.

Cashwell, T. H., & Dooley, K. (2001). The impact of supervision on counselor self-efficacy. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 39–47. doi:10.1300/J001v20n01_03

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Constantine, M. G. (2001). The relationship between general counseling self-efficacy and self-perceived multicultural counseling competence in supervisees. The Clinical Supervisor, 20, 81–90. doi:10.1300/J001v20n02_07

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). 2009 standards. Retrieved from http://www.cacrep.org/2009standards.html

Daniels, J. A., & Larson, L. M. (2001). The impact of performance feedback on counseling self-efficacy and counselor anxiety. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 120–130. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2001.tb01276.x

Friedlander, M. L., & Snyder, J. (1983). Trainees’ expectations for the supervisory process: Testing a developmental model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 22, 342–348. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1983.tb01771.x

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Granello, D. H., & Young, M. E. (2012). Counseling today: Foundations of professional identity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.

Hagedorn, W. B., Culbreth, J. R., & Cashwell, C. S. (2012). Addiction counseling accreditation: CACREP’s role in solidifying the counseling profession. The Professional Counselor, 2, 124–133. doi:10.15241/wbh.2.2.124

Hill, C. E., Roffman, M., Stahl, J., Friedman, S., Hummel, A., & Wallace, C. (2008). Helping skills training for undergraduates: Outcomes and prediction of outcomes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 359–370. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.359

Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 1147–1149. doi:10.1080/01621459.1987.10478551

Hoaglin, D. C., Iglewicz, B., & Tukey, J. W. (1986). Performance of some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 991–999. doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478363

Hoffman, M. A., Hill, C. E., Holmes, S. E., & Freitas, G. F. (2005). Supervisor perspective on the process and outcome of giving easy, difficult, or no feedback to supervisees. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 3–13. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.3

Kozina, K., Grabovari, N., De Stefano, J., & Drapeau, M. (2010). Measuring changes in counselor self-efficacy: Further validation and implications for training and supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 29, 117–127. doi:10.1080/07325223.2010.517483

Lambie, G. W., & Sias, S. M. (2009). An integrative psychological developmental model of supervision for professional school counselors-in-training. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 349–356. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00116.x

Larson, L. M. (1998). The social cognitive model of counselor training. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 219–273.

Larson, L. M., & Daniels, J. A. (1998). Review of the counseling self-efficacy literature. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 179–218. doi:10.1177/0011000098262001

Larson, L. M., Suzuki, L. A., Gillespie, K. N., Potenza, M. T., Bechtel, M. A., & Toulouse, A. L. (1992). Development and validation of the counseling self-estimate inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 105. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.39.1.105

McAuliffe, G., & Eriksen, K. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of counselor preparation: Constructivist, developmental, and experiential approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Melchert, T. P., Hays, V. L., Wiljanen, L. M., & Kolocek, A. K. (1996). Testing models of counselor development with a measure of counseling self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 74, 640–644. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1996.tb02304.x

Mullen, P. R., Lambie, G. W., & Conley, A. H. (2014). Development of the ethical and legal issues in counseling self-efficacy scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47, 62–78. doi:10.1177/0748175613513807

Osborne, J. W., & Overbay, A. (2004). The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9(6). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=6

Pasquariello, C. D. (2013). Enhancing self-efficacy in the utilization of physical activity counseling: An online constructivist approach with psychologists-in-training. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

Rønnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on professional development. Journal of Career Development, 30, 5–44. doi:10.1177/089484530303000102

Sink, C. A., & Stroh, H. R. (2006). Practical significance: The use of effect sizes in school counseling research. Professional School Counseling, 9, 401–411.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240

Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18

Sutton, J. M., Jr., & Fall, M. (1995). The relationship of school climate factors to counselor self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 331–336. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01759.x

Tang, M., Addison, K. D., LaSure-Bryant, D., Norman, R., O’Connell, W., & Stewart-Sicking, J. A. (2004). Factors that influence self-efficacy of counseling students: An exploratory study. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 70–80. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01861.x

Patrick R. Mullen, NCC, is an Assistant Professor at East Carolina University. Olivia Uwamahoro, NCC, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Central Florida. Ashley J. Blount, NCC, is a doctoral candidate at the University of Central Florida. Glenn W. Lambie, NCC, is a Professor at the University of Central Florida. Correspondence can be addressed to Patrick R. Mullen, 225A Ragsdale Bldg., Mail Stop 121, Greenville, NC 27858, mullenp14@ecu.edu.

Factors Contributing to Counselor Education Doctoral Students’ Satisfaction with Their Dissertation Chairperson

Feb 6, 2015 | Volume 5 - Issue 1

Cheryl Neale-McFall, Christine A. Ward

The relationship between doctoral students and their chairpersons has been linked to students’ successful completion of their dissertations and programs of study. When students fail to complete their degrees, there is a rise in attrition rates, and both programs and students suffer. The current study, based on a survey developed by the first author, was based on previous literature and themes generalized from a qualitative pilot study of recent counseling doctoral graduates regarding the selection of a dissertation chairperson. The purpose of this study was to examine factors used by students to select their chairperson and behaviors exhibited by chairpersons as predictors of overall student satisfaction with their dissertation chairperson. One-hundred thirty-three counselor education doctoral students participated in this study. Results suggest that specific selection criteria and chairperson behavior components significantly predict counseling doctoral students’ overall satisfaction with their dissertation chairpersons.

Keywords: counselor education, chairperson, attrition, dissertation, student satisfaction

The process of successfully completing a doctoral program depends upon a variety of factors. One key component of degree completion hinges on the dissertation process. Students, faculty, departments and the university as a whole are affected when doctoral students fail to complete their degrees (Council of Graduate Schools, n.d.-b; Garcia, Malott, & Brethower, 1988; Gardner, 2009; Goulden, 1991; Kritsonis & Marshall, 2008; Lenz, 1997; Lovitts, 2001). In the United States, doctoral attrition rates have been measured at 57% across disciplines (Council of Graduate Schools, n.d.-a). More recently, data have shown that attrition rates are declining in most doctoral programs; however, those in the field of humanities continue to stall (Jaschik, 2007). Many students fall short of completing the dissertation or take much longer than expected to complete the dissertation due to a lack of supervision or mentorship (Garcia et al., 1988). In a meta-synthesis of 118 studies on doctoral attrition, the most frequent finding was that degree completion is related to the amount and quality of contact between doctoral students and their chairperson (Bair & Haworth, 2004).

Mentoring Relationships

Mentoring relationships are essential to doctoral education and contribute to timely dissertation completion (Council of Graduate Schools, n.d.-b; Garcia et al., 1988; Lovitts, 2001). Casto, Caldwell, and Salazar (2005) examined the importance of mentoring relationships between counselor education students and faculty members. They discussed the benefits of having a counselor education mentor to assist with co-teaching, carrying out research activities, and enhancing professional competence and identity development. Kolbert, Morgan, and Brendel (2002) also noted that counselor education doctoral students benefit from faculty mentors who guide students through interactive tasks such as supervision, research, co-teaching, administration, advising and helping new graduates find employment. Although the types of interactions between doctoral students and their faculty chairperson have been documented, the relative influences of these interactions on the overall student–chairperson relationship remain unclear.

Selection and Behaviors

Chairperson behaviors and the criteria used by doctoral students to select their chairperson influence student relationship satisfaction and degree completion (Goulden, 1991; Lovitts, 2001). Lovitts (2001) found that the amount of time faculty spent interacting with students, the location of interactions (formal vs. informal settings), and the quantity of work and social interactions with students all influenced doctoral students’ satisfaction with their chairperson. In addition, participants in the study who failed to complete their doctoral degree were six times more likely to have been assigned a chairperson rather than to have chosen a chairperson. Furthermore, students who completed their degrees were cited as feeling much more satisfied with their advisors than students who did not complete theirs.

Wallace (2000) researched meaningful student–chairperson relationships and the process by which students are assigned or select a chairperson, and found that previous interactions, personality matching and similar research interests were the three most common factors of meaningful relationships in the dyads. Smart and Conant (1990) conducted a qualitative study examining faculty members’ perceptions of key factors that doctoral students should consider when selecting a chairperson. The top suggestions were for someone with similar research interests, someone with a thriving reputation for publishing and someone well educated in methodology (Smart & Conant, 1990). Although this combination can equal success for some doctoral students, researchers also have identified other variables that contribute to a successful student–chairperson relationship. For example, Bloom, Propst Cuevas, Hall, and Evans (2007) accumulated letters of nomination for outstanding advisors. Five overarching behaviors of outstanding advisors included the following: demonstrating genuine care for students, being accessible, acting as a role model in professional and personal matters, individually tailoring guidance, and proactively integrating students into the profession (Bloom et al., 2007). Emerging themes centered on the importance of support and nurturing rather than on the research background or reputation of the chairperson.

Zhao, Golde, and McCormick (2007) set out to examine how selection of a chairperson and chairpersons’ behaviors affect doctoral student satisfaction, noting that the process by which students and chairpersons come together is relatively unexplored. Data for the study were gathered from a national survey of advanced doctoral students across 11 disciplines at 27 leading doctorate-producing universities with over 4,000 student participants. The four broad discipline areas included humanities, social sciences, physical sciences and biological sciences. Results revealed differences among disciplines for selection, behaviors and satisfaction. For the humanities and social sciences, categories under which counselor education falls, academic advising contributed most to student satisfaction. Cheap labor, which was more of a factor in physical and biological sciences, was least important for humanities and social science students. Further, humanities students noted that intellectual compatibility and advisor reputation were most influential in selecting a chairperson, while potential pragmatic benefit resulting from working with the chairperson was rated unfavorably. Results suggest that overall satisfaction with the advising relationship, especially in the humanities, is positively correlated with advisor choice and advisor behaviors (Zhao et al., 2007).

Research indicates that the relationship between the doctoral student and the chairperson is a key element in determining the student’s success in completing his or her degree (Bloom et al., 2007). Much of the previous research in the area of assessing behaviors has been conducted in a qualitative manner in order to give voice to the participants. All of these studies have been informative across disciplines; however, researchers have acknowledged that “a limited amount of research focusing on counselor education doctoral students has been conducted” (Protivnak & Foss, 2009, p. 240).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine which variables are most influential in predicting counseling doctoral students’ and recent graduates’ overall satisfaction with their dissertation chairperson. Throughout the literature, terms such as advisor, chair and chairperson have been utilized; for the purpose of this study, the term chairperson is used. The research questions for this study included the following: (a) What selection criteria, if any, predict doctoral students’ and recent graduates’ overall satisfaction with their chairperson? and (b) What chairperson behaviors, if any, predict doctoral students’ and recent graduates’ overall satisfaction with their chairperson?

Method

Participants and Procedures

Counselor education doctoral students who had successfully proposed their dissertation and counselor education graduates who had defended their dissertation within 24 months of the date of the study were invited to participate. A survey instrument, designed by the first author using previous literature and a qualitative grounded theory pilot study, was posted on SurveyMonkey. Emails were distributed to CACREP-accredited department chairs and an invitation to participate was posted on CESNET, the counselor education listserv. The number of potential participants who fit the above criteria is unknown. A priori power analysis was conducted to determine the number of participants needed. Assuming a medium effect size of .05 at Power = .80, 91 participants were needed to successfully complete the survey (Cohen, 1992). After an 8-week period, 133 participants completed the survey, with 122 protocols valid and used for analysis.

Participant characteristics. Demographic information from the 122 participants was summarized and examined. Ages ranged from 26–63 years, with a mean age of 37. Ninety-one participants identified as female, 29 as male and one as transgender, and one declined to answer. The majority of participants identified as White (72 %) or African American (18%), with a small percentage identifying as Asian American (1.6%), Hispanic (2.5%), Native American (1.6%), and biracial (1.6%). Of the 122 participants, 42% were counselor education graduates and 58% were counselor education doctoral candidates. Lastly, 107 (88%) participants indicated that they had selected their chairperson and 15 (12%) indicated that their chairperson had been assigned to them.

Instrumentation

The survey instrument, developed in a qualitative pilot study, consisted of four sections: demographic items, participant selection criteria (e.g., is doing research similar to my dissertation topic), chairperson behaviors (e.g. provided effective feedback on my dissertation work) and participants’ overall satisfaction with their dissertation chairperson (e.g. overall, how satisfied were you with your dissertation chairperson?). An informed consent agreement appeared at the beginning of the survey and participants were required to confirm their consent in order to proceed to the overall survey.

Item generation. Survey items were developed based on the aforementioned qualitative pilot study. Grounded theory and axial coding were used to derive key themes used in conjunction with prominent themes from existing literature (Bair & Haworth, 2004; Gardner, 2009; Goulden, 1991; Kritsonis & Marshall, 2008; Lovitts, 2001; Zhao et al., 2007) in order to develop survey instrument items for the major constructs. These constructs were as follows: selection criteria used by doctoral students when choosing a dissertation chairperson (selection criteria); behaviors exhibited by the chairperson throughout the dissertation process (behaviors); and doctoral students’ satisfaction with their dissertation chairperson (satisfaction). Multiple survey questions were developed for each prominent theme in order to ensure comprehensiveness of each construct (DeVellis, 2003).

Content validity. The final instrument consisted of 62 items. The initial list of items was sent to a panel of counselor educators who had recently (within the last 5 years) completed their doctoral dissertation in a CACREP-accredited counseling program, for the purpose of ensuring the appropriateness of the items for the study. Changes were made, which included adding one demographic question, changing the wording on two selection items and removing one chairperson behavior item deemed redundant.

Data Analysis

Data screening. Surveys were assessed to identify incomplete responses. Eleven cases were removed, leaving a total of 122 valid surveys (N = 122). All variables showed less than 5% of missing values; therefore the listwise default was used. Linearity and normality were examined and variables did not violate assumptions.

A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed in order to appropriately group individual survey items into subscales for each of the constructs. Scree plots, eigenvalues and communalities were examined to determine the appropriate factor structure for the instrument’s subscales. The final PCA for selection criteria revealed four components, with an alpha reliability of .79 and 53% of variance accounted for within the four components (success/reputation, research/methodology, collaborative style, obligation/cultural). Component titles were chosen based on the questions that loaded into each component (see Appendix A for selection criteria components, items and loadings within each component). The final PCA for chairperson behaviors revealed five components, with an alpha reliability of .94 and 67% of variance accounted for within the five components (work style, personal connection, academic assistance, mentoring abilities and professional development; see Appendix B for chairperson behavior components, items and loadings within each component).

Data Analysis

Separate multiple regression analyses were conducted in order to predict doctoral students’ and recent graduates’ overall satisfaction with their chairperson. Selection criteria and behavior components identified in the PCAs were used as the predictor variables. Multiple regressions were conducted to investigate which selection criteria and which chairperson behaviors were most influential in predicting participants’ overall satisfaction with their chairperson. In regard to selection criteria, 15 participants stated that they were assigned to a chairperson and therefore were eliminated from this portion of the analysis, leaving 107 eligible participants. Prior to the regression, grouped quantitative variables were examined by testing Mahalanobis’ distance to screen for multivariate outliers. Within selection criteria, three cases exceeded the chi-square critical value, and for satisfaction items, one case exceeded the chi-square critical value, leaving a valid pool of 103 participants. Within chairperson behaviors, seven cases exceeded the chi-square critical value, and for satisfaction items, one case was found that exceeded the chi-square critical value, leaving a valid pool of 114 participants.

Results

Analyses focused on selection criteria and chairperson behaviors as predictors of counselor education doctoral students’ satisfaction with their dissertation chairperson. Regression results for selection criteria indicated that the overall model significantly predicted overall satisfaction, R² = .251, R²adj = .219, F(4,98) = 7.87, p ≤ .001. This model accounted for 25.1% of the variance in overall satisfaction. Review of the regression coefficients indicated that only one component, collaborative style, significantly contributed to the final model (β = .445, t(101) = 4.58, p ≤ .001; see Table 1).

Table 1

Rank Order for Selection Criteria

Component	Rank	b	SE	β	Partial r	t	p
Collaborative style	1	.376	.082	.445	0.43	4.56	.000*
Success/reputation	2	.058	.077	.084	0.08	0.75	.457
Research/methodology	3	.046	.078	.060	0.06	0.58	.560
Obligation/culture	4	-.027	.095	-.026	-0.03	-0.28	.779

* p ≤ .001

Regression results for chairperson behaviors indicated that the overall model significantly predicted overall satisfaction, R² = .720, R²adj = .707, F(5,107) = 55.10, p ≤.001. This model accounted for 72 % of the variance in overall satisfaction. Review of the regression coefficients indicated that two components, work style (β = .390, t(111) = 4.96, p ≤ .001) and personal connection (β = .456, t(111) = 6.19, p ≤ .001) significantly contributed to the final model. See Table 2.

Table 2

Rank Order for Chairperson Behaviors Criteria

Component	Rank	b	SE	β	Partial r	t	p
Personal connection	1	.498	.080	.456	0.51	6.19	.000*
Work style	2	.327	.075	.390	0.43	4.96	.000*
Mentoring abilities	3	.089	.082	.089	0.11	1.10	.276
Academic assistance	4	.029	.093	.020	0.03	0.31	.757
Professional development	5	.010	.053	.012	0.02	0.18	.856

* p ≤ .001

Because both regression models in research questions one and two were significant, a third regression was conducted in order to assess both the selection criteria components and the behavior components in predicting overall satisfaction with the participants’ chairperson. The intent of this analysis was to show a possible interaction between the two separate constructs when predicting overall satisfaction. For this analysis, stepwise regression was used based on the previous regression results. Components were entered based on significant contribution by assessing each component’s beta value. The components were entered in the following order: personal connection, collaborative style, work style, mentoring abilities, success/reputation, research/methodology, obligatory, academic assistance and professional development. Results from the regression indicate that two behavior components, work style and personal connection, and one selection component, success/reputation, accounted for 72.7% of the variance for the dependent variable, overall satisfaction, and contributed significantly to the model. See Table 3.

Table 3

Chairperson Behaviors and Selection Criteria Model Summary

	R	R²	R²adj	∆R²	F_chg	p	df₁	df₂
Model 1	.770	.593	.589	.593	138.52	.000	1	95
Model 2	.846	.715	.709	.122	40.14	.000	1	94
Model 3	.853	.727	.719	.012	4.23	.043	1	93

Note. Model 1 = work style; Model 2 = work style and personal connection; Model 3 = work style, personal connection and success/reputation.

Discussion

The present study was conducted in order to better understand which variables best predict satisfaction in the relationship between counseling doctoral students and their dissertation chairperson. Specifically, the study was designed to address gaps in the literature regarding selection criteria and chairperson behaviors as predictors of satisfaction among counselor education doctoral students.

The authors sought to understand the extent to which selection criteria predict doctoral students’ overall satisfaction with their chairperson. Results from the regression analysis suggest that collaborative style significantly contributes to overall satisfaction with one’s dissertation chairperson. There are four items within the component of collaborative style, which include the following: work ethic, personality match, previous work with faculty member and faculty member willing to serve as chairperson. Results suggest that doctoral students’ perception of their ability to collaborate with their chairperson is most influential in predicting overall satisfaction in the relationship between the two. The items within this component seem to share a sense of alignment between the student and professor that focuses more on internal compatibilities, such as similar work ethic and similar personality styles, as opposed to external similarities and benefits, such as a focus on similar research interests or receiving a beneficial recommendation letter. Although there is limited research on how and why doctoral students select their dissertation chairperson, the findings from the present study support those of Wallace (2000), who found that both previous interactions and personality match are among the top themes for why doctoral students select their dissertation chairperson.

The second research question explored which chairperson behaviors best predict overall satisfaction with one’s chairperson. Results from the regression suggest that two components, work style and personal connection, significantly predict overall satisfaction, and the model containing the two components contributed over 71% of the variance in overall satisfaction. Work style includes items such as the following: spoke in “we” vs. “you” statements, provided appropriate structure, held me accountable and on track, provided effective feedback, and discussed expectations prior to the working relationship. Items within the personal connection component included the following: personable and comfortable to be around, used humor in our interactions, advocated for me with others, was patient with my progress, and was invested in me as a professional. The chairperson behavior components that were found to significantly contribute to students’ overall satisfaction with their chairperson seem to center on personal, mentoring and validating behaviors shown by chairpersons as perceived by students. The other components, which include more external assistance (such as building professional relationships, assisting with career possibilities, and providing articles and tips for conducting research), were not found to significantly predict overall satisfaction. Current findings support previous research indicating that students feel more comfortable and more satisfied when expectations are shared and discussed up front (Friedman, 1987; Golde, 2005; Goulden, 1991). In addition, the current findings uphold previous research showing that students are more satisfied with their chairperson when the chairperson displays genuine care and regard for the student (Bloom et al., 2007). However, results from the present study conflict with Zhao et al.’s (2007) findings, which showed that humanities and social science students identified academic advising as the most important factor in a satisfactory advising relationship. Although the current study’s work style component includes some items that reflect academic advising functions, most academic advising roles fall under the present study’s professional development and academic assistance components. Neither of these two components significantly predicted overall satisfaction in the present study.

As a follow-up to research questions one and two, a subsequent multiple regression analysis was conducted. The predictor variables included the four selection criteria components and the five chairperson behavior components. Results from the regression model suggest that three components, work style (behavior component), personal connection (behavior component) and success/reputation (selection component) together contributed 72% of the variance explained in overall satisfaction. The same two components from chairperson behaviors (work style and personal connection) ended up in both the combined regression and the individual regression (research question two), but their beta weights were reversed, indicating that when selection criteria and behaviors are combined, work style contributes more to overall satisfaction than personal connection. For the selection criteria component, success/reputation did not prove to be significant in the individual regression analysis (research question one), but was significant in the combined regression analysis. This finding could be due to the fact that the items within the success/reputation component are more closely related to external behaviors, which seem to match more consistently with chairperson behaviors such as providing effective feedback and providing a good amount of structure. Interestingly, when the selection criteria components were entered without the chairperson behaviors components, only collaborative style seemed to predict overall satisfaction; however, success/reputation predicted overall satisfaction when combined with chairperson behaviors. Previous research (Smart & Conant, 1990; Zhao et al., 2007) indicated that several of the selection items included in the success/reputation component are valuable factors to consider when selecting a chairperson; however, in the findings of the current study, these selection criteria only seem to play a significant role when combined with chairperson behavior components. Further, although the success and reputation of one’s chairperson may be an important factor for selecting a chairperson, it does not appear that the chairperson’s success and reputation contributes to a satisfactory relationship between student and chairperson.

Limitations

One of the primary limitations of this study is the use of a researcher-developed survey instrument as the sole measure of selection criteria, chairperson behaviors and overall satisfaction. Because the purpose of the study was not to establish the psychometric properties of the survey, it is difficult to gauge the reliability and validity of the survey with any certainty. Although both the selection criteria construct and the chairperson behavior construct revealed high alpha reliabilities (.79 and .94, respectively), additional research would have to be conducted in order to establish the overall psychometric properties of the survey.

Another limitation was the inclusivity of the sample. Initially, participants were to be recruited using emails sent by CACREP-accredited department chairs to eligible past and present doctoral students; however, due to a lack of responses, the survey request was opened up to CESNET, a counselor educator listserv. Within both forms of participant recruiting, it is unknown how many eligible participants received the request for participation; therefore, the rate of return is unknown. Additionally, since the demographic composition of the counselor education doctoral student population is unknown, it is unclear whether the sample of participants who chose to complete the survey is representative of the broader population. Thus, results from this analysis may not be generalizable to the overall population of counselor education doctoral students.

Recommendations for Future Research

Because the results from this study represent only the perspective of the doctoral student and not that of the dissertation chairperson, future studies might include the voice of the chairperson, allowing researchers to gain a greater level of understanding and broadening the perspective of what constitutes a satisfactory relationship between chairperson and doctoral student. Conducting a larger, more thorough qualitative study, which might include focus groups and perhaps even counselor education doctoral students who did not complete their program, also could add value to this topic. In order to construct a more robust survey, future researchers may want to allow participants an opportunity to share their own influential selection criteria or helpful chairperson behaviors, which may have been inadvertently excluded from the current list. Lastly, researchers might establish formal psychometric properties for the survey instrument.

Implications

Previous literature states that the relationship between a doctoral student and the dissertation chairperson is essential in determining the student’s successful completion and defense of his or her dissertation (Gardner, 2009; Lovitts, 2001). Findings from the current study reveal how counselor education doctoral students’ selection of their chairperson and the behaviors that the chairperson exhibits are influential in predicting students’ overall satisfaction with the student–chairperson relationship. Specifically, students who select their chairperson based on the chairperson’s work style and the students’ perceptions of their own abilities to collaborate with the chairperson appear to be more satisfied with their relationship with their chairperson than students who select their chairperson based on having a personal relationship. This knowledge can inform doctoral students and faculty members about the criteria and behaviors that contribute to good advising relationships and positive dissertation outcomes. Understanding the most influential selection criteria (similar work ethic, personality match, previous relationship) and chairperson behaviors (patience, investment in the relationship and the student, advocacy for the student, timely and effective feedback) can result in greater satisfaction in the student–chairperson relationship. This information has the potential to influence both students and faculty when making decisions about selection or behaviors that may lead to a favorable dissertation outcome.

Additionally, results from this study and future studies may provide information to programs on how to decrease doctoral student attrition. Being aware of potential behaviors displayed by faculty members in a myriad of roles throughout the program, such as chairperson, advisor, supervisor or professor, could assist in increasing doctoral students’ overall satisfaction. By utilizing the current study’s findings and understanding which selection criteria and chairperson behaviors are most likely to influence overall satisfaction, counselor educators can enhance their advising behaviors to best meet the needs of students, thereby increasing the likelihood that students will successfully defend their dissertations and graduate from the counselor education doctoral program.

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors reported no conflict of

interest or funding contributions for

the development of this manuscript.

References

Bair, C. R., & Haworth, J. G. (2004). Doctoral student attrition and persistence: A meta-synthesis of research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research: Vol. 19 (pp. 481–534). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Bloom, J. L., Propst Cuevas, A. E., Hall, J. W., & Evans, C. V. (2007). Graduate students’ perceptions of outstanding graduate advisor characteristics. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 28–35. doi:10.12930/0271-9517-27.2.28

Casto, C., Caldwell, C., & Salazar, C. F. (2005). Creating mentoring relationships between female faculty and students in counselor education: Guidelines for potential mentees and mentors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83, 331–336. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00351.x

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155

Council of Graduate Schools. (n.d.-a). Ph.D. completion and attrition: Analysis of baseline demographic data from the Ph.D. completion project—Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.phdcompletion.org/information/executive_summary_demographics_book_ii.pdf

Council of Graduate Schools. (n.d.-b). Ph.D. completion project: Policies and practices to promote student success. Retrieved from http://www.phdcompletion.org/information/executive_summary_student_success_book_iv.pdf

DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Friedman, N. (1987). Mentors and supervisors (IIE Research Report No.14). New York, NY: Institute of International Education.

Garcia, M. E., Malott, R. W., & Brethower, D. (1988). A system of thesis and dissertation supervision: Helping graduate students succeed. Teaching of Psychology, 15, 186–191. doi:10.1207/s15328023top1504_2

Gardner, S. K. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and low-completing doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education, 58, 97–112. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9184-7

Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 669–700. doi:10.1353/jhe.2005.0039

Goulden, N. R. (1991, April). Report on the perceptions of communication and relationship during the dissertation process by speech communication doctoral advisors and advisees. Association for Communication Administration Bulletin, 76, 39–48.

Jaschik, S. (2007, December 7). Hope on Ph.D. attrition rates – – except in humanities. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/12/07/doctoral

Kolbert, J. B., Morgan, B., & Brendel, J. M. (2002). Faculty and student perceptions of dual relationships within counselor education: A qualitative analysis. Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 193–206. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2002.tb01283.x

Kritsonis, W. A., & Marshall, R. L. (2008). Doctoral dissertation advising: Keys to improvement of completion rates. National FORUM of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 25(3), 74–82.

Lenz, K. S. (1997). Nontraditional-aged women and the dissertation: A case study approach. New Directions for Higher Education, 99, 65–74. doi:10.1002/he.9906

Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Protivnak, J. J., & Foss, L. L. (2009). An exploration of themes that influence the counselor education doctoral student experience. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48, 239–256. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2009.tb00078.x

Smart, D. T., & Conant, J. S. (1990). Marketing dissertations: Profiling the successful thesis candidate. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(3), 2–8. doi:10.1177/027347539001200301

Wallace, D. D. (2000). Critical connections: Meaningful mentoring relationships between women doctoral students and their dissertation chairpersons (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 9998714)

Zhao, C.-M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: How advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31, 263–281. doi:10.1080/0309877070142498

Appendix A

Component Loadings for Selection Criteria Construct

Items	S/R	R/M	CS	O/C
Has a good reputation as a researcher	.810
Has a good reputation as a dissertation chairperson	.801
Recommended by other colleagues or peers	.733
Higher chance of publishing my dissertation study	.606
Has excellent writing skills	.586
For a beneficial recommendation letter	.537
Number of chairpersons’ previous publications	.460
Is doing research similar to my dissertation topic		.727
I was approached by the faculty member		.630
Previously worked with this person on research projects		.518		.505
Has the ability to understand my methodology		.490
Ability to use already collected data		.473
We share a similar work ethic			.743
Matches my personality style			.733
Previously worked with this person as a professor			.598
Willing to serve as my chair			.519
Felt obligated to work with this person				-.684
Previously worked with this person in my assistantship				.572
Is the same race/ethnicity				-.493

Note. S/R = success/reputation; R/M = research/methodology; CS = collaborative style; O/C = obligation/cultural.

Appendix B

Component Loadings for Behavior Construct

Items	WS	PC	AA	MA	PD
Spoke in “we” versus “you” statements	.756
Provided appropriate structure	.732
Held me accountable and on track	.725
Provided effective feedback on my dissertation work	.698
Discussed expectations prior to the working relationship	.685
Personable and comfortable to be around		.872
Used humor in our interactions		.678
Advocated for me with others		.670
Was patient with my progress		.634
Invested in me as a professional		.609
Unwilling to see others’ perspectives*			.711
Did not involve me in methodological decisions*			.698
Did not allow for flexibility and individuality*			.693
Did not focus on my strengths*			.647
Did my research for me*			.582
Was difficult to schedule appointments*				.643
Provided helpful edits	.518			.606
Was accountable and dependable	.516			.582
Was patient with me and the dissertation process		.519		.573
Sent me helpful research articles				.521
Helped me develop relationships in the field					.829
Assisted with career possibilities					.694
Taught me about research practices					.620

Note. WS = work style; PC = personal connection; AA = academic assistance; MA = mentoring abilities; PD = professional

development

* reverse-coded items; all loadings below .5 were suppressed.

Cheryl Neale-McFall, NCC, is an Assistant Professor at West Chester University of Pennsylvania. Christine A. Ward is an independent scholar. Correspondence can be addressed to 1160 McDermott Drive, Suite 102, West Chester, PA 19383, cneale@wcupa.edu.

Video Review — Empowering Adults with Developmental Disabilities: A Creative Arts Therapies Approach with Stephen Snow, PhD

Jan 27, 2015 | Video Reviews

Empowering Adults with Developmental Disabilities: A Creative Arts Therapies Approachwith Steven Snow, PhD is a 42-minute video that focuses on the experiences of a group of people with developmental disabilities at The Centre for the Arts in Human Development at Concordia University. The video is broken up into two sections: “In Their Own Voices” and “Epilogue.”

The first part of the video, “In Their Own Voices,” focuses on a 3-year study Dr. Snow and his colleagues conducted at The Centre for the Arts in Human Development at Concordia University. The study focused on using a form of ethnodramatherapy called “Playback Theater” with adults with developmental disabilities. Playback theater occurs when one of the participants tells a story about something that has happened in his or her life and other participants act out that anecdote. For example, a participant named Angela relates the story of when she went to the bathroom in school and two girls made fun of her. When she went to tell her teacher, her teacher said that she was making up a lie. As part of playback theater, other project participants act out Angela’s story in the form of a skit. In addition, participants perform another skit about living in a world where name calling is against the law. Some participants note that they are uncomfortable repeating negative names in the play because they are names that others have called them.

The video narrator emphasizes that it is important to follow up with participants who have told their stories to see whether the skits have accurately reflected their narratives. This follow-up can occur in the form of processing feelings in a group setting or using art therapy. At one point, Dr. Snow brings in art therapists to help participants convey their thoughts and feelings through artwork. One participant is described as someone who does not speak often, but is shown expressing herself on stage through the use of finger painting. Participants also are encouraged to express themselves through dance with the help of dance movement coaches and dance therapy. The video discusses the definition of the word “stigma” and how people with disabilities face stigma in their daily lives. Some participants describe frustrations with being unable to do things other people are able to do such as catch the city bus on their own. The first section of the video concludes with the participants putting on a play for the community in which they incorporate everything they have learned from participating in the project.

The second section of the video, titled “Epilogue,” gives more in-depth information about the concept of ethnodramatherapy and how Dr. Snow and his colleagues have used this therapy with program participants. Dr. Snow discusses how to incorporate expressive and performance art into work with adults with developmental disabilities to help them to cope with issues of daily living. He reports that the research team has conducted participant interviews as a way of collecting qualitative data to measure the therapeutic impact of ethnodramatherapy.

This video would be appropriate for graduate students in counseling, especially those studying rehabilitation counseling, to understand the unique experiences of adults with developmental disabilities and how counseling can be more than just talk therapy. This video also would be an excellent resource for current practitioners who are looking for more creative ways to work with adults with specials needs. Introductory counseling students may have trouble following the Epilogue, as it focuses heavily on the methodology used by the research team during the project. However, counselor educators will find this section interesting when considering more creative ways to measure therapeutic outcomes and impact from a qualitative perspective. Overall, this video helps all audiences to remember what one participant boldly stated: “Labels don’t belong to anyone. Labels belong on jars.”

Reviewed by: Jessica L. Martin, doctoral student in counselor education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.

Psychotherapy.net (Producer), & Herbison, P. (Director). (2014). Empowering Adults with Developmental Disabilities: A Creative Arts Therapies Approach with Stephen Snow, PhD [DVD]. (Available in DVD and video streaming from http://www.psychotherapy.net/video/developmental-disabilities-therapy-video)

Available in DVD and streaming format as part of video subscription at Psychotherapy.net/subscriptions.

The Professional Counselor

https://tpcwordpress.azurewebsites.net

Video Review — Anger Management in Counseling & Psychotherapy with Howard Kassinove, PhD & Raymond Chip Tafrate, PhD

Dec 15, 2014 | Video Reviews

Anger is an emotion that everyone experiences at one time or another. Unfortunately, some people acquire unhealthy ways to manage their anger. In their DVD Anger Management in Counseling & Psychotherapy, Howard Kassinove and Raymond Chip Tafrate present the viewer with a model of psychotherapy techniques geared toward helping counselor educators and clinicians navigate distinctive anger interventions. The DVD’s main purpose is to be used as an adjunct to their text, Anger Management: The Complete Treatment Guidebook for Practitioners; however, the videos can be valuable if viewed individually.

The video series presents a solid conceptualization of anger and anger management in counseling. The presenters’ main approach is to characterize anger as disconnected from hostility and aggression. In order to support this idea, they have developed an Anger Episode Model to help clients highlight their most troubled areas in relation to anger and to recognize that there is a specific anger problem. In an overview, the authors display a sequence of videos demonstrating techniques to help clients cope with their anger through assessment and awareness. In addition to the introduction and the final comments, there are seven video chapters titled Increasing Awareness, The Anger Episode Model, Progressive Muscle Relaxation, Social Problem Solving, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, The Barb Technique and The Outcome of Forgiving.

Tafrate and Kassinove explain the Anger Episode Model in relation to clients in anger management counseling, and also provide examples through actual interviews with real clients. In these interviews, the presenters utilize the techniques and skills discussed within the video chapters. These examples are especially helpful resources for clinicians, as Tafrate and Kassinove not only explain the skills, but also demonstrate them in a realistic environment. Paradoxically, this asset to the video series also can be a limitation, because the interviews may not portray the counseling techniques with clear fluidity, as the presenters must go with the flow of a real counseling session. Furthermore, because every client’s situation is unique, at times there may not be a clear process for how the clinicians should apply the model in a particular situation. In addition to the interview examples, the DVD also includes a helpful Instructor’s Manual. In this manual, Kassinove and Tafrate provide discussion questions, role-play activities, reaction paper ideas and other resources for instructors to use when teaching a class how to implement anger management in counseling.

Counselor educators and clinicians will benefit from this video series given that the videos present real clients in a real clinical setting. Viewers will be able to appreciate the authentic process of the sessions and gain a better feel for what happens during interventions. Overall, this video series is a great resource for counselors and counselor educators. The presenters explain techniques clearly and concisely, and the model and techniques demonstrated in this series effectively convey anger management as a therapeutic task and provide a holistic approach to helping clients manage their anger. This video set is an effective addition to the Anger Management textbook and serves as a more hands-on teaching tool for counselor educators to include in their classrooms.

Reviewed by Coralis Solomon and Shaywanna Harris, doctoral students in counselor education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.

Impact Publishers (Producer). (2014). Anger management in counseling & psychotherapy with Howard Kassinove, PhD & Raymond Chip Tafrate, PhD [DVD]. (Available in DVD and video streaming from http://www.psychotherapy.net/video/anger-management-psychotherapy)

Available in DVD and streaming format as part of video subscription at Psychotherapy.net/subscriptions.

The Professional Counselor

https://tpcwordpress.azurewebsites.net

Video Review — Counseling & Psychotherapy Theories in Context and Practice: Skills, Strategies, and Techniques with John Sommers-Flanagan, PhD and Rita Somers-Flanagan, PhD

Dec 15, 2014 | Video Reviews

Counseling & Psychotherapy Theories in Context and Practice: Skills, Strategies, and Techniques is an educational video of just under 4 and a half hours prepared by professors John Sommers-Flanagan, PhD and Rita Sommers-Flanagan, PhD based on their textbook Counseling and Psychotherapy Theories in Context and Practice, and demonstrates certain techniques and strategies for 11 different psychotherapy approaches throughout theory-based counseling sessions. The theories covered in the video are psychoanalytic, Adlerian, existential, person-centered, Gestalt, behavior, cognitive-behavioral, reality, feminist, solution-focused and family systems. Each counseling session takes approximately 20 minutes and is conducted with real people with real problems. The video has 12 chapters, including an introduction and 11 theory-based counseling sessions. Each segment demonstrates a specific theory and is divided into two parts; during the break within each session, Drs. John and Rita Sommers-Flanagan talk about what happened in the first part and give information about the second part. In addition, before and after each session, the professors preview and review the concepts, techniques and strategies covered in the session.

The concepts of many theories may be confusing for some students and novice counselors. However, real people present with real problems in the video, enabling the audience to make better sense of many theories and the application of their concepts in session. For example, the family constellation concept of Adlerian therapy might seem abstract to some students and professionals. Therefore, in the related section, Dr. John Sommers-Flanagan demonstrates how to implement and use the family constellation concept in a counseling session. Another example is the video’s clear presentation of Gestalt therapy’s empty chair technique. One other advantage of the video is the opportunity to watch sessions with members of varied populations, such as individuals, families and children, as well as clients from diverse backgrounds, such as Muslim clients.

One possible limitation of the video might be that, in order to follow the demonstrated techniques and strategies, a person might need basic information about the theories. Otherwise, it could be difficult to follow and fully understand presented theories. However, the segments do cover some basic concepts of the theories, and it is understood that it is not possible to cover every aspect of 11 different theories in a video.

An instructional manual by Shirin Shoai, MA is provided with the video, which reviews each theory and provides guidelines for instructors and any audience. The manual also provides possible topics and guidelines for role plays, group activities and reflection papers, which instructors can use as classroom activities. In addition, the manual contains recommended readings and Web sites as additional resources. Another important aspect of this video is that earning continuing education (CE) credits is possible. The information about CE credits is presented in both the video and the manual.

This video can be used for educational purposes by counselor educators, instructors, students, supervisors or counseling professionals. An instructor or a counselor educator can easily use the video in theory classes as a classroom or homework activity. The manual is undoubtedly useful and directive for instructors. The video also is a good resource for students for reviewing and seeing the application of presented theories. Students can easily watch the video by themselves without direction. Additionally, supervisors can use the video as a resource for their supervisees. Finally, as mentioned before, CE credits are available for this DVD. Thus, the video is a good opportunity for professionals to review techniques and strategies as well as earn CE credits.

In summary, this video is well-prepared and organized for students, educators, supervisors and professionals. Thanks to this video, it is possible to learn about the application of 11 theories and various techniques and strategies. The video can be easily used in educational settings and for professional development.

Reviewed by: Abdi Gungor, doctoral student in counselor education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.

Irish Luck Productions (Producer), & Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (Directors). (2014). Counseling & Psychotherapy Theories in Context and Practice: Skills, Strategies, and Techniques with John Sommers-Flanagan, PhD and Rita Somers-Flanagan, PhD [DVD]. (Available in DVD and video streaming fromhttp://www.psychotherapy.net/video/counseling-psychotherapy-theories)

Available in DVD and streaming format as part of video subscription at Psychotherapy.net/subscriptions.

The Professional Counselor

https://tpcwordpress.azurewebsites.net

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Development of Counseling Students’ Self-Efficacy During Preparation and Training

Factors Contributing to Counselor Education Doctoral Students’ Satisfaction with Their Dissertation Chairperson

Video Review — Empowering Adults with Developmental Disabilities: A Creative Arts Therapies Approach with Stephen Snow, PhD

Video Review — Anger Management in Counseling & Psychotherapy with Howard Kassinove, PhD & Raymond Chip Tafrate, PhD

Video Review — Counseling & Psychotherapy Theories in Context and Practice: Skills, Strategies, and Techniques with John Sommers-Flanagan, PhD and Rita Somers-Flanagan, PhD

Recent Publications