The Impact of Transformational Learning Experiences on Personal and Professional Counselor-in-Training Identity Development

Michelle Kelley Shuler, Elizabeth A. Keller-Dupree

Transformational learning experiences for counselor training can be described as experiential activities that facilitate the ability to express feelings and meanings related to life issues. The authors investigated the impact of a 2-day seminar using transformational learning experiences on the personal and professional identity development of counselors-in-training. Quantitative results indicate that participants’ self-reported professional performance scores were not significantly different following the training. However, in the qualitative inquiry, participants noted that through the transformational learning experiences, they became aware of past and present challenges, the need for change, the impact of processing within a group, and the application of transformational activities in clinical practices. Such findings indicate how transformational learning experiences—particularly through the use of reflective journaling—might influence personal identity development among counselors-in-training. 

Keywords: personal identity development, professional identity development, transformational learning, counselor-in-training

The promotion of professionalism is a significant component of counselor training and is recognized by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) as a core curriculum requirement for graduate counseling programs (CACREP, 2009). Professionalism includes knowledge and understanding of professional organizations, legal and ethical standards, the role of counselors, professional competencies, and personal and professional growth. Development in this area includes both personal and professional growth and is often referred to as counselor development (Gazzola & Theriault, 2007; Rabinor, 2004; Skovholt & Rønnestad, 1996; Thompson, 2004) or counselor professional identity (Auxier, Hughes, & Kline, 2003; Cashwell, Kleist, & Scofield, 2009; Nugent & Jones, 2009; O’Bryne & Rosenberg, 1998; Reisetter et al., 2004).

 

Independently, professional development encompasses the acquisition of skills and knowledge, and is “concerned with the doing needs” (Donati & Watts, 2005, p. 476), and personal development includes the “being needs” (p. 476), like authenticity, interpersonal engagement, intimacy and self-evaluation. As dependent concepts, one can imagine the significance each has for counselor identity. A counselor lacking skills and knowledge will function quite differently than a skilled practitioner with years of experience and knowledge. Concurrently, counselors must attend to their own form of personal development (Skovholt & Rønnestad, 1996). Wilkins (1997) went so far as to suggest that personal development embraces everything else that facilitates being a practicing counselor. For example, personal development might include ways in which the counselor maintains a balanced lifestyle, or ways the counselor manages the stress brought on by difficult clients. A counselor lacking in personal well-being might not be considered fit to practice.

 

Many counselors view counselor identity development as a process (Auxier et al., 2003; Brott & Myers, 1999) that results in congruency between personal and professional worldviews (Reisetter et al., 2004), or consider it an equal combination of professional (e.g., roles, decisions, ethics) and personal selves (e.g., values, morals, perceptions; Auxier et al., 2003). This view suggests that personal and professional development are not mutually exclusive and are just as much interrelated as dependent concepts.

 

Research on counselor professional identity development has examined areas such as personal or professional fit (Woodside, Oberman, Cole, & Carruth, 2007), critical incidents experienced by counselors-in-training (CITs; Howard, Inman, & Altman, 2006), career concerns of CITs (Busacca & Wester, 2006), evaluation of personal and professional development (Donati & Watt, 2005; Hensley, Smith, & Thompson, 2003; Lamadue & Duffey, 1999), and ways for counselor educators to address problematic behavior of trainees (Bhat, 2005; Gaubatz & Vera, 2002; McAdams & Foster, 2007; McAdams, Foster, & Ward, 2007). Furthermore, recent research has provided counselor educators with a model for professional identity development, specifying transformational tasks such as “finding a personal definition of counseling, internalizing responsibility for professional growth, and developing a systemic identity necessary for professional identity development” (Gibson, Dollarhide, & Moss, 2010, p. 21).

 

According to the transformational tasks theory proposed by Gibson et al. (2010), change happens in relation to a “transformational process across time and experience” (p. 28). From these transformational experiences, CITs evolve from reliance on external authorities (i.e., supervisors and teachers) to provide learning experiences to a position of self-validation (i.e., integrated personal and professional identity), resulting in a more internalized view of counseling and the ability to personalize understanding of experiences. The concept of counselor development evolving across time in stages and encompassing a spectrum of elements also is reflected in Skovholt & Rønnestad’s (1996) research, which suggests that counselor development explains a complex interplay between the personal and professional realms over the career span.

 

The incorporation of transformational learning experiences in counselor training might significantly impact both personal and professional development of CITs. The importance of a more internalized view of counseling and the ability to self-reflect (Skovholt & Rønnestad, 1996) constitute significant distinctions between counselors who continue to develop versus counselors who face professional burnout and stagnation. Furthermore, lack of reflection also has been shown to have significant impact on selecting intervention strategies (McAuliffe, Eriksen, & Associates, 2002). However, few researchers have examined pedagogical methods used to enhance CITs’ level of professional development. As a result, there is a dearth of literature exploring strategies to incorporate student self-reflective experiences into counselor education in order to influence professional identity development. Counselor educators play a significant role (Griffin, 1993; Sheeley, 1986; VanZandt, 1990; Weiss, 1981) and are a key factor in counselor personal and professional development (Gibson et al., 2010; Oliver, Moore, Schoen, & Scarmon, 1989; Weiss, 1981) through the facilitation of tasks that will increase opportunities for CITs to self-evaluate, self-motivate and self-locate.

 

Transformational learning experiences for counselor training can be described as expressive techniques or experiential activities that facilitate CITs’ ability to express feelings and meanings related to life issues (O’Brien, 2008). Experiential activities in counselor training are applied to creative approaches in the classroom as well as in individual and group supervision (Newsome, Henderson, & Veach, 2005; Sommer & Cox, 2003; ter Maat & Bowman, 2001; Waliski, 2009; Wilkins, 1995). The inclusion of expressive arts in training assists CITs with reframing and deepening their understanding of experience (Bradley, Whiting, Hendricks, Parr, & Jones, 2008) and enhances the development of personal awareness skills (Newsome et al., 2005), functions that are both considered highly important to professional development in models of supervision (Bernard, 1997; Holloway, 1995; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Rønnestad & Skovholt, 2003; Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Delworth, 1998), as well as to personal development.

 

Such research led the present authors to ask how counselor training programs can best assist in professional and personal identity development using transformational tasks. One suggestion is to incorporate transformational learning experiences into counselor training course work. In the current study, the authors examined the effects of transformational learning exercises on counselor professional identity development, using the professional identity development model (Gibson et al., 2010). In addition, the authors examined how the integration of transformational learning experiences (Mezirow, 1997) impacted CITs’ self-reported skill development on the Professional Performance Review Policy Standards (PPRPS; McAdams, Foster, & Ward, 2007) assessment tool and how reflective journaling impacted CITs’ personal development.

 

Method

 

Participants

The current study involved 17 counseling graduate students (N = 17) at a Midwestern university, with eight students (47%) pursuing a specialty in clinical mental health counseling, 8 students (47%) pursuing addictions counseling and one student (6%) pursuing school counseling. One student was in the first year of graduate training (6%), 12 students (71%) were in their second year and 4 (24%) were in their third year. Four students (24%) identified as male and 13 students (76%) as female. Researchers collected demographic data only during the initial stage of data collection, or Time 1. At Times 2 and 3 of data collection, 21 students participated in the study; however, demographic data was obtained for only 17 student participants.

 

Instrumentation

The PPRPS (McAdams, Foster, & Ward, 2007) was used to evaluate participants’ self-reported perceptions of their dispositions and skills. The PPRPS is a 10-item survey with each item rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The 10 dispositions and skills measured on the PPRPS include the following: (a) openness to new ideas, (b) flexibility, (c) cooperativeness with others, (d) willingness to accept and use feedback, (e) awareness of own impact on others, (f) ability to deal with conflict, (g) ability to accept personal responsibility, (h) ability to express feelings effectively and appropriately, (i) attention to ethical and legal considerations, and (j) initiative and motivation. Currently, no psychometric information is available for the PPRPS survey.

 

Procedure

Graduate counseling students were invited to enroll in an elective 1-hour graduate seminar. Students were notified of this opportunity via a university flyer containing the following message: “Sign up now for this new seminar opportunity which seeks to infuse creative, transformational learning exercises for personal and professional counselor growth and development into a 2-day class.” As students signed up for the course, they were informed that the course would involve collecting pretest data and data from three subsequent posttests using the PPRPS survey, in which students would be asked to rate themselves on 10 counselor skills and dispositions. Students also received the opportunity to engage in a self-reflective journaling exercise that accompanied the experiential activities used throughout the seminar. Students were informed that completion of the PPRPS was mandatory for the purposes of the seminar, but that the data gleaned from the surveys and self-reflective journals would only be used for the purposes of this study with their informed consent.

 

The seminar consisted of a 2-day class in which various counselor development topics were taught and activities were facilitated. The activities were regarded as transformational learning opportunities or experiences, and students were told that the purpose of the seminar was to infuse the didactic content of counselor development with creative, hands-on learning opportunities. Following the facilitation of each activity, students were invited to reflect on their experiences through electronic journaling in the university computer lab. The following section outlines the structure of the seminar across both days for all participants:

 

1.  Discussion of professional development, including CACREP core curriculum requirements for graduate-level

counselor training;

2.  Discussion of developing the counselor professional identity across training and clinical experiences;

3.  Discussion of the role of counselor educators and supervisors;

4.  Discussion of professional fit, critical incidents in counselor training and career concerns of CITs;

5.  Discussion of research into models of professional identity development including transformational tasks;

6.  Discussion of the role of self-reflection in counselor personal and professional development;

7.  Discussion of CIT self-efficacy;

8.  Facilitation of transformational learning experience 1: True north activity;

9.  Discussion of wellness and self-care in counselor training;

10.  Facilitation of transformational learning experience 2: Puzzling wellness activity;

11.  Discussion of the use of music as an expressive art in counseling practice;

12.  Facilitation of transformational learning experience 3: Lyrics to my life activity;

13.  Discussion of the use of cinematherapy in counseling practice;

14.  Transformational learning experience 4: Viewing of the movie Prayers for Bobby, and facilitation of discussion

following viewing the movie;

15.  Discussion of values as a determinant of counseling theory and practice;

16.  Facilitation of transformational learning experience 5: Values bench activity; and

17.  Final post-seminar discussion of experiences.

(For a full explanation of each transformational learning exercise facilitated in the seminar, please contact the

first author).

 

Students completed the PPRPS pretest, demographic sheet and informed consent prior to arriving at the seminar on day 1. The PPRPS pretest data collection will be referred to as Time 1 data. The demographic sheet included a personal 4-digit code (for participant anonymity) and gathered information about the counseling specialty track in which the participants were enrolled, their year in the counseling program and their gender. Students completed the PPRPS posttest at the start of the seminar on day 1, subsequently referred to as Time 2 data. Throughout the 2 days, students completed five transformational learning experience activities and reflected on each through electronic journaling following each activity. Students were asked to save their reflective journals and submit them to the principal investigator at the end of the 2-day seminar. At the end of day 2, students completed the PPRPS posttest again, subsequently referred to as Time 3 data. In addition, students wrote down the two most meaningful transformational learning experiences of the 2-day seminar, to be used in a frequency count by the researchers. Approximately 3 months following the completion of the seminar, students completed the PPRPS posttest for the final data collection time point, subsequently referred to as Time 4 data. Researchers kept all student data confidential at each data collection time point through the use of the personal 4-digit codes. Electronic journals were submitted by students to the principal investigator via a protected email server and saved in a password-protected file for review and coding.

 

Results

 

A one-way, within-group, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare students’ self-reported professional performance using the PPRPS before, during and after the seminar. The comparison was conducted using the mean PPRPS score for all participants at Time 1, Time 2, Time 3 and Time 4. Nine participants did not submit PPRPS results at a minimum of one data collection time point and therefore were not included in the analysis. As such, 12 participants were included in the analysis of all four data time points (57% of participants). Results indicated that participants’ levels of self-reported professional performance scores were not statistically significantly different over time, F(3, 9) = .83, p = .51, partial η2 = .22. Although while the results across the four data collection time points were not significantly different, further evaluation of the data showed an increase in self-reported professional performance on the PPRPS across each data collection point. Mean data for the PPRPS across the four data collection time points can be found in Table 1.

 

Table 1

 

Descriptive Statistics for All Data Collection Time Points

Time 

N

M

SD

1

17

39.94

5.26

2

21

40.52

5.00

3

20

41.55

5.29

4

16

42.94

4.68

 

 

To explore the movement in the data further, the researchers completed an item analysis for descriptive statistics of all 10 PPRPS items across the four data collection time points. Results of the item analysis supported a positive movement in scores for all 10 areas assessed on the PPRPS, with the most meaningful movement in the data occurring in the following items: (a) Item 7: Ability to accept personal responsibility (+.62 from Time 1 to Time 4), (b) Item 2: Flexibility (+.49) and (c) Item 5: Awareness of my own impact on others (+.48). Table 2 highlights the mean data for each of the 10 PPRPS items across the four data time points.

 

Table 2

 

Item Analysis of PPRPS Survey

Time 1a

Time 2b

Time 3c

Time 4d

Item

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

1: Openness to new ideas

4.00

0.87

4.00

0.77

4.30

0.8

4.31

0.79

2: Flexibility

3.76

0.90

3.95

0.67

4.20

0.77

4.25

0.93

3: Cooperativeness with others

4.24

0.75

4.24

0.70

4.30

0.57

4.25

0.58

4: Willingness to accept and use feedback

4.00

0.61

4.29

0.64

4.20

0.7

4.38

0.72

5: Awareness of own impact on others

3.71

0.85

3.67

0.73

3.80

0.77

4.19

0.91

6: Ability to deal with conflict

3.76

0.83

3.76

0.83

4.00

0.65

4.13

1.02

7: Ability to accept personal responsibility

3.88

0.70

4.20

0.77

4.20

0.83

4.50

0.63

8: Ability to express feelings effectively and appropriately

3.82

0.81

3.81

0.73

4.20

0.83

4.13

0.72

9: Attention to ethical and legal considerations

4.29

0.85

4.24

0.89

4.05

0.83

4.31

0.87

10: Initiative and motivation

4.47

0.62

4.33

0.66

4.30

0.80

4.50

0.73

a n = 17. b n = 21. c n = 20. d n = 16.

 

Qualitative Analysis

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the impact of the transformational learning experiences, the researchers conducted a qualitative analysis of the reflective journals for each participant across each activity. A grounded theory design was used to assess the data, with which an emerging theory could become evident for the use of transformational learning experiences in counselor training. Each participant’s journal entry following each transformational learning experience was coded for common themes from open (broad) to axial (narrowed) to selective codes across all five activities (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

 

Prior to exploring commonalities and themes across the data, both researchers completed the open and axial coding process separately. Both researchers kept journals with reflective commentary throughout the seminar and coding process to identify, explore and process their emerging awareness, assumptions and biases. Following individual coding, the researchers collaborated to explore the emerging (selective) themes that were present in the data, as well as to further process self-understandings noted within the reflective commentary. Once the researchers identified the final selective codes, they used a member check to serve as a final trustworthiness measure to support the credibility of the findings, in which they invited three study participants to review their submitted journal transcripts to see if the overarching findings of the study accurately reflected their words.

 

Overarching Themes

Activities led to awareness of past and present challenges. Participants reflected that through the use of transformational learning experiences, they became more in touch with the past and present struggles they had encountered in their life journeys. One participant shared after completing the lyrics to my life activity, “I guess this means that the pain is sometimes still raw and close to the surface, although I haven’t thought about it in months.” Another participant noted, “As painful and troubled as that time of my life may have been, it did serve a purpose.” After the true north activity, a third participant said, “Anxiety, responsibilities, time/money constraints, and other people’s standards are my magnetic north.” In the same activity, one participant created a metaphor for her struggle and noted, “A picture of an army platoon was graced under the clock and weighed heavily on this magnetic pole. I believe it spoke to my affiliation with war. . . . It might represent my own inner conflicts.” Similarly, another participant stated, “This exercise provided me with a deep look at the small elements in my life that pull me off course. . . . My biggest accomplishment today was seeing my failures on paper.” When watching Prayers for Bobby, many participants explored the impact of discrimination, prejudice and judgment within their own lives. One participant shared, “I have experienced this type of constant condemnation from my grandma.” Another noted, “I can also relate to Bobby’s feelings of shame and not belonging as I felt some of that growing up, even the point of ‘what’s the use?’ ” With the values bench activity, one participant explored family conflict and noted the following about her father: “We have always had a very rocky relationship. . . . The message I got from him was I was not good enough to be his daughter.” Across all activities, participants recognized past and present struggles, challenges and conflict that impact their lives.

 

     Activities revealed the need for change. As the participants became aware of past and present struggles through the transformational learning experiences, they also began to express the need for growth and change. One participant shared in the true north activity that “understanding the paths that may be challenging for me can help me have a resolution.” In the same activity, another participant stated the following:

 

Being able to point out the stressors and the negative impacts of things that try to take away from me as a whole and who I am trying to become made it much easier for me to see what I need to work on and what I need to eliminate from my life.

 

Another participant noted, “I’ve got to break that cycle. . . . I have to let go of the distractors and truly take ownership of my situation.” Similarly, a participant stated in the puzzling wellness activity, “This activity brought out my desires and in a way reinforced my need to stay on target of what I want.” Another shared, “This exercise helped me to identify that I need to find more time to establish a better balance for all elements of wellness in my life.” After watching Prayers for Bobby, one participant described her need for better understanding and stated, “I am the only one who can live my life for me and directly suffer the consequences or reap the rewards.” When completing the values bench activity, one participant explored the impact of family struggle in her life and how the activity facilitated her desire to grow and move forward. She wrote, “I don’t mean that I want to win a Nobel peace prize or invent something unbelievable. . . . I simply mean to overcome the battles and issues within my family and get everyone on the same page.” Another participant shared, “What this assignment has done for me personally is to stop and think before I act at home, school, and work because the way you act and treat people is the legacy you will leave behind.” In realizing personal struggles, participants became aware of room for growth and change. The activities sparked discussions of how that growth and development could begin for the participants.

 

Group processing continued self-exploration and connection. It became apparent across the reflective journals that the participants felt connected to the small group processing that followed each transformational learning experience. Time and again, the participants relayed the relief they felt, as well as the ability to process more deeply when sharing their creative expression with others. In the lyrics to my life activity, a participant shared, “I really enjoyed this assignment and sharing my story with the group,” and another noted, “This activity brought out much emotion in most people that shared today. We all struggle.” One participant explained in the puzzling wellness activity, “I did feel better once we presented our puzzles to our groups. It was nice to see what other people struggle with and how they represent themselves.” Another student stated, “I enjoyed processing the work, which actually turned into a very interesting conversation.” One participant offered the awareness that emerged from processing as she shared the following: “As we processed, I noticed that I felt very content in my life and this often comes when I hear where others are in their own life.” In the true north activity, one participant discussed her “strong emotional reaction” and said, “I wasn’t fully aware of just how visceral the feelings I had about them [were]. I felt anger, disgust and even shame when processing with my group.” Another shared, “I had a little break down trying to explain it to my classmates, but it made me realize how this is important and a part of me.” After watching Prayers for Bobby, one participant noted, “This was a great movie and I think the reflection after with the group was powerful. The movie affected everyone in different ways; being able to relax and share our thoughts as a class was so important and refreshing.” Through the group discussion process, participants offered a glimpse into the self-exploration that this interpersonal opportunity facilitated. Participants voiced the normalcy and empathy that were promoted through group self-disclosure and how this processing opportunity deepened their awareness.

 

Activities became useful interventions for future counseling practice. Across all activities, participants noted the usefulness, relevance and effectiveness of creative interventions for their future professional counseling practice. After watching Prayers for Bobby, one participant said, “I have never thought about using film as a therapeutic tool . . . but now my mind is spinning with ideas.” In the same activity, another shared, “This movie could be helpful in the field with families who are struggling to find acceptance.” In the true north activity, one participant stated, “This assignment was very beneficial and it’s something I would definitely use in the future with my clients as well as with myself.” In the puzzling wellness activity, one participant said, “I would recommend this activity to someone that deals with low self-esteem.” In the same activity, another student shared, “I can see how this activity may be useful with a client who has not thought along the lines of wholeness and wellness.” In the lyrics to my life activity, one participant explained, “I will try to incorporate some of these learning tools with my clients,” while another student noted, “Great activity. Several ‘ah ha’ moments. This could be a powerful tool with a client.” Following the values bench activity, one participant shared, “I will also add this to my clinical techniques during session.” In each activity, the participants were able to articulate the utility and application of these transformational experiences not just for themselves, but for their future counseling clients as well.

 

Discussion

 

The current study’s researchers explored the impact of transformational learning experiences and reflective journaling on the personal and professional development of CITs who completed a 2-day seminar in a university setting. Results reflected an increase in each of the 10 areas of professional development across the four data time points, though findings were not statistically significant.

 

Professional development is meaningful for promoting best practice in counselor training and development. Results of this study show gradual improvement in professional development, mirroring the results of Gibson et al. (2010) and indicating that professional development occurs over time and through experience. Both studies shed light on the progression from “reliance on external (classroom and expert) teachings and validation to a more internalized view of counseling and self-validation” (Gibson et al., 2010, p. 33). Interestingly, the items showing the greatest improvement reflect (a) the ability to accept personal responsibility, (b) flexibility and (c) awareness of personal impact on others. One could argue that these three factors also are reflected in the following transformational tasks from Gibson et al. (2010): (a) finding a personal definition of counseling, (b) internalizing responsibility for professional growth, and (c) developing a systemic identity necessary for professional identity development.

 

The qualitative analysis of the reflective journals lends rich support to the use of transformational learning experiences for enhancing and promoting personal and professional development. Participants noted that through these activities, they became aware of past and present challenges, the need for change, the impact of processing within a group, and the application of transformational activities in clinical practices. Such findings provide justification for how transformational learning experiences, particularly through the use of reflective journaling, might influence personal development of CITs. The themes identified above, such as awareness of past and present challenges and the need for change, indicate that participation in such activities provides an opportunity for self-examination, which leads to identification of areas in need of personal attention. Finally, the remaining themes identified relate to the use of transformational activities in future counseling practice. These themes are representative of the integration of personal and professional development identified by Skovholt and Rønnestad (1996).

 

An interesting emergence from the qualitative data is that participants not only recognized challenges inherent to living, but that they also saw themselves as the vehicle for change. Across each activity, participants were aware of the need of personal and professional growth and development. Blonna (2010) wrote that one reasonable response to personal challenge is to “focus on the positive things that can result from taking on a potential stressor. When you feel challenged, you look at a situation for its growth potential or for what you might gain from the challenge” (p. 10). Participants in the study reflected on their desire to grow and change as much as they reflected on the situation that led to the struggle. They voiced their desire to see challenges as obstacles worth overcoming. Doing so could be the beginning of an evolving personal journey that deepens their experience and informs a more competent counseling practice in the future.

 

Limitations and Directions for Further Research

A notable limitation to the study was the limited number of participants. Furthermore, students in counselor education programs are asked to intrapersonally and interpersonally reflect on their development within a number of courses and learning experiences. As such, it would be misguided to assume that improvements in professional development across a semester were only due to the contribution of a 2-day seminar.

 

Additionally, results from data in the current study did not support a statistically significant impact in professional development, though a meaningful trend in the data was revealed. The findings must not be overgeneralized; however, the findings can be used to articulate the benefits that the students noted through the self-reported inventory. A follow-up study is currently underway to replicate the original study and identify commonalities as well as differences in findings with another cohort of graduate counseling students.

 

Conclusions

 

     As counselor educators, the authors believe that CITs benefit from gaining a deeper understanding of themselves, which in turn can positively impact their personal and professional growth. As indicated in the literature related to counselor identity development, the authors are not alone in thinking that greater self-awareness is connected to increased competence on both personal and professional levels. However, at times counselor training curriculum lacks emphasis on self-awareness and would benefit from increasing opportunities for students to engage in self-reflective and experiential activities. The incorporation of transformational exercises into counselor training curriculum can encourage and enhance positive counselor identity development. In participating in these exercises, CITs deepen their intrapersonal and interpersonal learning and developmental journey, thus potentially enriching the counseling relationship, skills and techniques they will eventually use with future clients.

 

 

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors reported no conflict of

interest or funding contributions for

the development of this manuscript.

 

References

 

Auxier, C. R., Hughes, F. R., & Kline, W. B. (2003). Identity development in counselors-in-training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43, 25–38. doi:10.1002/j1556-6978.2003.tb01827.x

Bernard, J. M. (1997). The discrimination model. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. (Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 310–327). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

Bhat, C. S. (2005). Enhancing counseling gatekeeping with performance appraisal protocols. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27, 399–411. doi:10.1007s10447-005-8202-z

Blonna, R. (2010). Stress less, live more: How acceptance and commitment therapy can help you live a busy yet balanced life. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.

Bradley, L. J., Whiting, P., Hendricks, B., Parr, G., & Jones, E. G. (2008). The use of expressive techniques in counseling. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 3, 44–57. doi:10.1080/15401380802023605

Brott, P. E., & Myers, J. E. (1999). Development of professional school counselor identity: A grounded theory. Professional School Counseling, 2, 339–348.

Busacca, L. A., & Wester, K. L. (2006). Career concerns of master’s-level community and school counselor trainees. Career Development Quarterly, 55, 179–190. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.2006.tb00012.x

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). Accreditation and procedures manual and application. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Cashwell, C. S., Kleist, D., & Scofield, T. (2009, August). A call for professional unity. Counseling Today, 52(2), 60–61.

Donati, M., & Watts, M. (2005). Personal development in counsellor training: Towards a clarification of inter-related concepts. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33, 475–484. doi:10.1080/03069880500327553

Gazzola, N., & Theriault, A. (2007). Super- (and not-so-super-) vision of counsellors-in-training: Supervisee perspectives on broadening and narrowing processes. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 35, 189–204. doi:10.1080/03069880701256601

Gaubatz, M. D., & Vera, E. M. (2002). Do formalized gatekeeping procedures increase programs’ follow-up with deficient trainees? Counselor Education and Supervision, 41, 294–305. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2002.tb01292.x

Gibson, D. M., Dollarhide, C. T., & Moss, J. M. (2010). Professional identity development: A grounded theory of transformational tasks of new counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 50, 21–38. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2010.tb00106.x

Griffin, B. (1993). ACES: Promoting professionalism, collaboration, and advocacy. Counselor Education and Supervision, 33, 2–9. doi:10.1002/j1556-6978.1993.tb00263.x

Hensley, L. G., Smith, S. L., & Thompson, R. W. (2003). Assessing competencies of counselors-in-training: Complexities in evaluating personal and professional development. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 219–230. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01813.x

Holloway, E. L. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howard, E. E., Inman, A. G., & Altman, A. N. (2006). Critical incidents among novice counselor trainees. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46, 88–102. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2006.tb00015.x

Lamadue, C. A., & Duffey, T. H. (1999). The role of graduate programs as gatekeepers: A model of evaluating student counselor competence. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39, 101–109. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1999.tb01221.x

Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 3–42. doi:10.1177/0011000082101002

McAdams, C. R., & Foster, V. A. (2007). A guide to just and fair remediation of counseling students with professional performance deficiencies. Counselor Education and Supervision, 47, 2–13. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2007.tb00034.x

McAdams, C. R., Foster, V. A., & Ward, T. J. (2007). Remediation and dismissal policies in counselor education: Lessons learned from a challenge in federal court. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46, 212–229. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2007.tb00026.x

McAuliffe, G., & Eriksen, K., & Associates. (2002). Preparing counselors and therapists: Creating constructivist and developmental programs. Marceline, MO: Walsworth.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. In P. Cranton (Ed.), Transformative learning in action: Insights from practice (pp. 5–12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Newsome, D. W, Henderson, D. A. & Veach, L. J. (2005). Using expressive arts in group supervision to enhance awareness and foster cohesion. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education, and Development, 44, 145–157. doi:10.1002/j.2164-490X.2005.tb00027.x

Nugent, F. A., & Jones, K. D. (2009). Introduction to the profession of counseling (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

O’Brien, E. R. (2008). From theory to practice: Transferring expressive techniques from supervision to counseling. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 2(3), 17–27. doi:10.1300/J456v02n03_03

O’Byrne, K., & Rosenberg, J. I. (1998). The practice of supervision: A sociocultural perspective. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 34–42. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1998.tb00555.x

Oliver, R., Moore, J., Schoen, J., & Scarmon, M. (1989). Trends in meaning and meaningful trends: A survey of counseling graduates (Report No. CG-022-583). Vermillion, SD: University of South Dakota.

Rabinor, J. R. (2004). The therapists’ voice. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 12, 361–365. doi:10.1080/10640260490521479

Reisetter, M., Korcuska, J. S., Yexley, M., Bonds, D., Nikels, H., & McHenry, W. (2004). Counselor educators and qualitative research: Affirming a research identity. Counselor Education and Supervision, 44, 2–16. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2004.tb01856.x

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

Sheeley, V. L. (1986). Roots of greatness: Future directions. Counselor Education and Supervision, 25, 246–254. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.1986.tb00673.x

Skovholt, T. M., & Rønnestad, M. H. (1996). The evolving professional self: Stages and themes in therapist and counselor development. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Sommer, C. A, & Cox, J. A. (2003). Using Greek mythology as a metaphor to enhance supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 42, 326–335. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2003.tb01823.x

Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B. W. & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM supervision: An integrated developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

ter Maat, M. B., & Bowman R. (2001, October). The use of art in supervision. Program presented at the annual conference of the Association for Counselor Education and Supervision, Athens, GA.

Thompson, J. M. (2004). A readiness hierarchy theory of counselor-in-training. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 135–142.

VanZandt, C. E. (1990). Professionalism: A matter of personal initiative. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 243–245. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1990.tb01367.x

Waliski, A. (2009). An introduction to expressive and creative techniques for counselors in training. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 4, 375–385. doi:10.1080/15401380903372711

Weiss, C. S. (1981). The development of professional role commitment among graduate students. Human Relations, 34, 13–31. doi:10.1177/001872678103400102

Wilkins, P. (1995). A creative therapies model for the group supervision of counsellors. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23, 245–257. doi:10.1080/03069889508253009

Wilkins, P. (1997). Personal and professional development for counsellors. London, England; Sage.

Woodside, M., Oberman, A. H., Cole, K. G., & Carruth, E. K. (2007). Learning to be a counselor: A prepracticum point of view. Counselor Education and Supervision, 47, 14–28. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2007.tb00035.x

 

 

Michelle Kelley Shuler and Elizabeth A. Keller-Dupree, NCC, are Assistant Professors at Northeastern State University- Tahlequah. Correspondence can be addressed to Michelle Kelley Shuler, College of Education, Northeastern State University – Tahlequah, 705 N Grand Avenue, Tahlequah, OK 74464-2300, michelle.shuler@gmail.com.

 

Supervisor, Counselor-In-Training and Client Perspectives in Counseling: A Qualitative Exploration

Corrine R. Sackett, Gerard Lawson, Penny L. Burge

The authors examined multiple perspectives of meaningful in-session events through participant observation of counseling sessions as well as interviews with client and counselor. The results are anchored with the perspective of a supervisor, and highlight similarities and differences among the three perspectives of supervisor, counselor-in-training and client. Six themes emerged from the observer’s perspective: immediacy with several subthemes, nonverbals and intuition, rescuing, depth of congruence, insights, and goal setting. For each theme and subtheme deemed meaningful in counseling sessions by a supervisor, an event representing the respective theme or subtheme is presented from the three perspectives of supervisor, counselor-in-training and client. The authors discuss implications for counselor training and supervision.

Keywords: supervisor, counselor-in-training, client perspectives, immediacy, counselor training

 

Researchers in the counseling field have much to discover about the counseling process and how it works (Paulson, Everall, & Stuart, 2001; Sackett, Lawson, & Burge, 2012). Researchers who examine multiple perspectives (Elliott & James, 1989; Moon, Dillon, & Sprenkle, 1990; Sackett et al., 2012; Sells, Smith, & Moon, 1996), in-session subjective experience (Bennun, Hahlweg, Schindler, & Langlotz, 1986; Elliott & Shapiro, 1992), and comparisons of those experiences further our comprehension of the counseling process (Elliott & Shapiro, 1992; Sackett et al., 2012). The client and counselor have separate perspectives, each of which is important to recognize in order to gain a picture of what is meaningful in counseling (Blow et al., 2009). Further, the perspective of an observer offers a compelling extension for our understanding (Elliott & James, 1989), as an observer can identify subtleties in interactions between clients and counselors, as well as shed light on experiences that clients may be less willing to report and of which counselors may be unaware. Consequently, capturing multiple perspectives on the counseling process, including client, counselor and observer, enriches understanding. Each perspective is compelling and contributes something unique to understanding the counseling process (Elliott & James, 1989; Sells et al., 1996).

 

Research on Client, Counselor and Observer Perspectives on Counseling Sessions

 

There is a dearth of research exploring multiple perspectives on counseling sessions beyond those of client and counselor. Several researchers have examined clients’ and counselors’ experiences and perspectives in counseling (Lietaer, 1992; Lietaer & Neirinck, 1986; Llewelyn, 1988; Martin & Stelmaczonek, 1988; Sackett et al., 2012; Sells et al., 1996). For example, in a recent study, Sackett et al. (2012) found that clients and counselors-in-training (CITs) consider many of the same aspects meaningful in a counseling session, including the relationship, goals, insights, immediacy and emotions. Findings such as these are valuable for clinical supervision, because supervisors’ awareness of similarities and differences in clients’ and counselors’ perspectives can enhance supervisors’ training of CITs to effectively work with clients. Further, when CITs are counseling, the supervisor’s perspective becomes part of the picture as well, and contributes indirectly to the counseling process through the supervision process.

 

As Elliott and Shapiro (1992) have noted, few researchers have added a third lens by exploring the process through client, counselor and observer perspectives. This statement from more than 20 years ago is still accurate today. In the research that does exist (Blow et al., 2009; Elliott & Shapiro, 1992), discrepancies have been found when comparing client, counselor and observer perspectives. Thus, including all three perspectives creates a more complete picture of the process (Llewelyn, 1988). In two studies, researchers explored a single client system (either a couple or an individual client) from multiple perspectives, including an observer’s. Blow et al. (2009) examined experiences of key therapeutic moments from the perspectives of counselor, client (i.e., a couple) and observation team. Therapeutic mistakes, as labeled by the observation team, did not detract from the work in counseling, given the strong therapeutic alliance. Similarly, what the observation team initially considered to be missed opportunities, they later saw as movement in a direction that they could not anticipate, and that worked well for the couple. Elliott and Shapiro (1992) elicited client, counselor and observer accounts of significant in-session events for a single client system (i.e., one client) as well. Most often the three perspectives were in general agreement. Elliott and Shapiro (1992) saw the few discrepancies in perspectives as opportunities for further understanding of the events and ultimately the counseling process.

 

Considering that research including an observer’s account of the process is limited (Blow et al., 2009; Elliott & Shapiro, 1992), and that researchers who have included an observer’s perspective have not connected this perspective with that of a supervisor to explore implications for clinical supervision, we intend to fill this gap in the literature. Sackett et al. (2012) called for studies to examine meaningful, in-session events from the perspectives of the client(s), the counselor and an observer who has training and experience as a supervisor, in order to give counselor educators a more holistic understanding of the process and to inform supervision with CITs. This particular approach to examining multiple experiences of counseling has not been explored before. Therefore, we addressed the following research question: What are the similarities and differences in what is meaningful in counseling from the perspectives of a supervisor, CIT and client? We frame this inquiry in a constructivist lens, which Ponterotto (2005) describes as the perspective that there is no objective reality outside the person experiencing the reality. Consequently, it is critical to gain perspectives from all involved in the process.

 

Methods

 

We chose the qualitative methodology of phenomenology to answer this research question because it provides a way to describe the meaning of participant experiences in counseling (Hays & Wood, 2011). We answered the research question with an emphasis on the supervisor’s perspective, comparing it with the CIT and client perspectives in order to find similarities and differences. We accomplished this comparison through analysis of field notes from participant observation (Jorgensen, 1989) and of transcripts of in-depth interviews (Seidman, 2013). We utilized a single session unit and significance sampling in this study. The single session unit allows for an examination of in-session events and session impact (Elliott & James, 1989). It also allows participants to reflect on their most recent session, leading to better understanding of experiences than if participants were reflecting on an entire course of treatment (Mehr, Ladany, & Caskie, 2010). Significance sampling is the examination of events that have significant meaning to the participant, or therapeutic impact (Elliott & James, 1989). We designed this study to approach therapeutic impact with what is meaningful in session, as illustrated by Mahrer and Boulet’s (1999) statement, “The emphasis is on whatever touches you as something impressive happening here rather than relying on your theory, your knowledge, and your being on the lookout for particular kinds of traditional significant in-session changes” (p. 1484). For the purposes of this study, meaningful experiences are defined as experiences that are important, significant or moving to the participant as described by Mahrer and Boulet (1999). They may be cognitive, emotional, relational or behavioral in nature. Meaningful experiences were defined in each case by both the supervisor and participants.

 

Participants

Participants in this study included clients and CITs from a master’s counselor education training clinic at a satellite center for a large mid-Atlantic public university. CITs were completing their practicum experience in the clinic and working with actual clients for the first time. Clients were enrolled in a local community college at the time of the study. The resulting sample consisted of 24 participants, specifically 12 CITs and 12 clients, totaling 12 CIT–client dyads. Ages for CITs ranged from 22–29, with an average age of 23. CITs consisted of 10 White females, one Hispanic female and one White male. Client ages ranged from 18–40, with an average age of 25. Among client participants were eight White females and four White males. Each participant chose or was assigned a pseudonym, which appear in the findings section. We gave a $5 coffee shop gift card to each participant as a token of appreciation for participating in the study.

 

Data Collection

One supervisor (the first author) was utilized as the observer across all sessions for consistency, and her perspective as the supervisor was captured through participant observation. The first author observed the second counseling session of each client–CIT pair from a different room in the clinic via televisions linked to cameras in the counseling rooms. Based on recommendations from Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2011), the first author took brief notes, which included key words or phrases of significant happenings, both verbal and nonverbal, during the observations of the sessions. Later that day or the next, the first author used these brief notes to aid in writing a field note for each observation. The observation, brief notes and subsequent field notes focused on meaningful events in the counseling session.

 

We conducted semistructured interviews with clients and CITs following their second counseling session. Interviews ranged from 10–45 minutes in length and were audio recorded and transcribed. Interview questions were open-ended and focused on what participants had found most meaningful in that particular counseling session. The client protocol contained a few additional questions that were not asked of the CIT and related to the client’s goals and expectations for counseling. Examples of interview questions for both clients and CITs included the following: What stood out for you in today’s session? Which of those things stood out the most for you?

 

Data Analysis

We analyzed the field notes from the participant observation through qualitative analytic coding described by Emerson et al. (2011). This process began with open coding, reading field notes line by line to identify ideas, themes or issues without limitation. Through the analytic process, we wrote memos as needed when insights arose that deserved further attention. Through the process of coding and writing memos, we identified themes that described a particular group of codes. We integrated initial themes and combined similar themes, and created subthemes when themes were related, but exhibited distinct differences. Focused coding followed theme development and consisted of re-reading field notes, allowing for elaboration of themes, further development of subthemes, and integration of interesting material that may have initially been overlooked. For the purpose of this study, we only used portions of CIT and client interview transcripts that corresponded to meaningful experiences as observed by the supervisor. Themes of meaningful experiences from the CIT and client perspectives can be found in Sackett, Lawson, and Burge (2012).

 

Credibility and Rigor

We used several methods in this study to establish credibility and demonstrate rigor as recommended by Anfara, Brown, and Mangione (2002). First, we utilized triangulation through the interview data of clients and CITs and field notes from observations. Obtaining data with two different methods provided an opportunity to describe the counseling process in a more complete way. After interviews were transcribed, we implemented member checks, which allowed each participant (clients and CITs) an opportunity to review his or her interview transcript and clarify or expand his or her perspective if needed. We kept an audit trail detailing the steps of the research process, which enhanced the deliberateness and completeness of the study. The audit trail is specific enough that a reader could retrace the researchers’ steps if he or she chose. Peer debriefing and a community of practice were utilized to ensure the ongoing practice of reflexivity by serving as forums for discussion of issues that arose throughout the process.

 

In qualitative research, all data passes through the researcher’s lens; therefore, our position as researchers was important to note. At the time of data collection, the first author and observer was a doctoral candidate in the same counselor education program as the master’s student participants. She had practiced for the past 3 years as a clinical supervisor of CITs, and is currently a faculty member in another counselor education program. The first author was purposeful in not having teaching or supervisory relationships with the cohort of CITs who participated in the study. The first author continually examined how she was positioned in the study and heavily utilized her community of practice for reflexivity work. Practicing reflexivity did not limit her perspective, but instead allowed for critical self-reflection of the ways she contributed to the research process. The second author is an associate professor in the counselor education program where the study was conducted, and the third author is a professor of educational research at the university where the study was conducted.

 

Results

 

Six themes emerged from participant observation by a supervisor of the counseling sessions, including the following: immediacy (with several subthemes), nonverbals and intuition, rescuing, depth of congruence, insights, and goal setting. With each theme and subtheme discussed below, an example from the supervisor’s field notes is provided. These examples are followed first by an account of how the CIT experienced the event, and then by an account of how the client experienced the event. In other words, for each theme deemed meaningful in the counseling session by a supervisor, an event representing that theme or subtheme is presented from three perspectives: supervisor, CIT and client. We chose to present only one example for each theme and subtheme from the supervisor field notes in order to illustrate each event from the three perspectives.

 

Immediacy

The supervisor identified many instances and facets of immediacy between the CITs and clients. Immediacy as a theme included the following three subthemes: processing the counseling process and relationship, here-and-now moments, and the CIT sharing his or her experience of client with client and the reverse.

 

     Processing the counseling process and relationship. Many CIT–client pairs engaged in conversations about the counseling relationship and about the counseling process in an attempt to define it, better understand it and gain insight into how the other participant was experiencing it. In other words, many dyads engaged in processing the process and the relationship. The example given to illustrate this subtheme is from Annie (CIT) and Heather’s (client) conversation about the counseling relationship, including the ways it differs from other types of relationships.

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor wrote the following in her field notes: “The counselor asked the client, ‘How about our relationship?’ The client talked about the relationship feeling awkward. The counselor validated the client’s observation that counseling is a different kind of relationship. The counselor offered, ‘Is there anything I can do to make it [the relationship] more comfortable?’”

 

     CIT. Annie reflected that this conversation about the relationship with Heather was meaningful in their session. She spoke in her interview of initiating the discussion about the relationship with Heather and of asking Heather if she could do anything to make the relationship more comfortable.

 

     Client. Heather experienced this conversation about the relationship as meaningful as well, and said the following about Annie: “Her concern . . . with our relationship . . . seemed something that I would think about and that I would care about . . . , but she seemed to care about that relationship, too.” The supervisor, Annie and Heather all experienced this immediacy moment of the process and the relationship as meaningful, and experienced it in similar ways, emphasizing different parts given their positions.

 

     Here-and-now moments. There also were many here-and-now moments in the counseling sessions that were meaningful to the supervisor. Susan (CIT) and Carol’s (client) session contained a very meaningful here-and-now event that was initiated by the client, Carol.

 

     Supervisor. The observer recorded the following in her field notes: “The client confronted the counselor by stating, ‘You’re not as relaxed’ and saying that the counselor had ‘aggressive energy.’ So the client was being very immediate and authentic, and it didn’t feel to me that the counselor was authentic; instead, the counselor responded by smiling and nodding.”

 

     CIT. Susan spoke about this event as meaningful during her interview, although she described the occurrence as the result of her body language; specifically, the CIT perceived that she was sitting close to her client. Susan appreciated Carol’s honesty and directness.

 

     Client. From the client’s perspective, Carol found it meaningful that Susan wanted her to feel comfortable in the relationship, saying to let her know if she made her uncomfortable. Interestingly, Carol did not mention her initiation of the here-and-now event with Susan in her interview. Although the CIT and client found aspects of this occurrence meaningful as well, the supervisor’s experience of this event and strong reaction to it were unlike the experiences of the CIT and client.

 

     CIT sharing his or her experience of client with client and the reverse. Finally, there were a few immediacy events that involved the CIT sharing his or her experience of the client with the client, and the reverse. The supervisor found the following event from Sue (CIT) and Bridget’s (client) session meaningful. They were working on Sue’s fear of speaking up in class.

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor reflected as follows in her field notes: “The client, Bridget, used role playing to give an example of an awkward moment. Sue, the CIT, reflected, ‘You have put yourself out there.’ Sue shared her experience of Bridget, saying, ‘I would like to provide my feedback,’ and went on to say that Bridget provided many things [positive contributions] in session and she wondered if others in the Bridget’s life were missing out on this side of her. There seemed to be a shift to the positive here.”

 

     CIT. The CIT, Sue, found this event meaningful in the session as well. She reported that she told her client, Bridget, that she really valued what Bridget said in session. Sue was hesitant about whether or not this disclosure was appropriate, as she was still learning about boundaries in counseling. Ultimately though, Sue found this to be a positive and meaningful experience in the session.

 

     Client. The client, Bridget, also found this occurrence meaningful, saying:

 

Well, something that was different that was really important and really meaningful to me was just the way that she shared herself with me much more than [in] the first session. . . . She also told me that the things I tell her, even though I think they might not be useful . . . can grow from my opinion and that she really likes to hear what I have to say.

 

Here again, the supervisor, CIT and client all found this immediacy occurrence meaningful, and in this case, their accounts of the event were compatible from their varied perspectives.

 

Nonverbals and Intuition

The supervisor found many moments meaningful that were nonverbal events or exchanges in session, or that were intuitive to the supervisor. These moments included silence and space in the counseling, shifts of energy, and other nonverbal occurrences that the supervisor noticed.

 

     Supervisor. During Alex (CIT) and Frank’s (client) session, the observer wrote, “I’m wondering if the counselor is uncomfortable in this session. The client seems dominant and as if he is educating the counselor.”

 

     CIT. The CIT (Alex) perceived the dynamic between herself and her client (Frank), as Frank wanting Alex to be directive with him, and reflected, “I feel like he’s kind of looking for someone to tell him what to do sometimes.” On the other hand, Alex also experienced the dynamic in the session as Frank fulfilling the counselor’s role, saying, “A lot of times I’ll go to like say something just to reflect something back and he’s there already. I’m like, ‘Oh, you steal my job.’ ” This comment from Alex was in line with the supervisor’s observation that Frank was dominant in the session. It seemed as though Alex saw Frank as both wanting her to be the expert and as jumping into the expert role himself.

 

     Client. In his interview, Frank evaluated Alex, concluding, “I was very impressed with my counselor today.” Frank confirmed in some ways the supervisor’s intuition here by making evaluative statements of Alex as a counselor, as though he was in a dominant role in relation to her.

 

Rescuing

The theme of rescuing included instances where the supervisor noticed either the client or CIT shifting the discussion away from something intimate or uncomfortable. Some examples included the CIT interrupting a silence rather than allowing the client to experience what he or she needed in that silence, or the CIT rescuing the client from an uncomfortable thought. In this example from Susie (CIT) and Wanda’s (client) session, the supervisor noticed Susie shifting the conversation away from a topic that seemed clearly important, intimate and likely uncomfortable for Wanda.

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor recorded in her field notes, “The client said she was ‘always a nervous person, even when [she] was little.’ The counselor left this conversation abruptly and shifted to talking about the client’s present relationships.”

 

     CIT. Susie, the CIT, did not mention that particular occurrence, but did have the following to say about the session, “I felt like . . . I didn’t do a lot of validating. So, at times . . . I would kind of forget to be in that moment with her and validate painful feelings.” It may be that the example from the observer’s perspective was one of the times Susie forgot to be in the moment with her client and validate her feelings. However, this perceived missed opportunity, or shifting away from something intimate, led to a conversation about present relationships, which ultimately led to a major insight for Wanda that she was judging others in her relationships.

 

     Client. Wanda, the client, did not mention this occurrence either, as rescuing was unique to the supervisor’s perspective.

 

Depth of Congruence

Depth of congruence included instances when CITs understood as well as did not understand their clients’ experiences, and also included questions that CITs asked to further their understanding of their clients’ experiences. This theme also comprised CITs’ efforts to validate and reframe their clients’ experiences. Finally, the theme included instances of clients expressing that their CITs understood their experiences. This example of Penelope (CIT) and Cindy (client) illustrates the supervisor’s perspective of the CIT not understanding her client’s pain and missing the expression of pain and her own part in that pain.

 

     Supervisor. The observer wrote the following in her field notes:

 

The client began the session saying that she felt . . . badly after last week’s session, that she spent the week feeling very negative. The counselor responded with nodding and smiling, [which seemed] disrespectful and heartbreaking. The client continuously brought it up throughout the session, without the counselor addressing it.

 

     CIT. The CIT in this dyad, Penelope, experienced this event differently and felt she had addressed the client’s pain. Penelope spoke to the difficulty she experienced in hearing her client’s discomfort, which may have contributed to her in-session behavior. Penelope’s experience of this event is as follows:

 

She [the client] initially came in and she said that after last week’s session, she felt like crap. . . . I tried to talk with her about why she felt so bad about the last session, . . . [how] to make it a better process for her . . . to make her feel more comfortable. . . . It was hard not to . . . blame myself . . . but, I was glad that she did at least feel comfortable being honest with me and I think that it will be more productive in the next couple of sessions.

 

Penelope perceived her client’s honesty as evidence that they could have a more productive counseling relationship in the future.

 

     Client. Interestingly, Cindy, the client, experienced the CIT’s reaction to her pain as positive, in contrast to the supervisor’s perception. She said the following:Yeah, today was good. I think what helped is . . . before we even started I let her know how I felt last week, and she was great about it. She didn’t take offense to it. . . . She . . . thanked me for telling her.” The supervisor, CIT and client all experienced this occurrence as meaningful, yet each had her own distinctive view of what happened. While the supervisor saw the CIT as missing on joining with the client on her experience, or as lacking congruence, neither the CIT nor client experienced the situation this way.

 

Insights

Insights were present in many sessions and constituted meaningful occurrences in the supervisor’s perspective. Included in this theme were new realizations, ah-ha moments, and questions and experiences that led to insights. The supervisor described the following meaningful event, in which Wanda (client) came to a new realization in her session with Susie (CIT).

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor wrote the following in her field notes:

 

The client, Wanda, talked about feeling judged by her partner’s mother. Wanda came around to saying that her partner’s mother’s behavior might not be about her. Susie, the counselor, affirmed this idea and asked if Wanda felt judged in any other relationships besides her relationship with her partner’s mother. There was a long pause and Wanda finally said that she felt judged by her cousin. Wanda said at one point, “Maybe I’m judging her.”

 

     CIT. Susie, the CIT, found this event meaningful as well:The first moment when she [the client] said, . . . ‘Maybe it wasn’t them being judgmental, it’s me that is being judgmental towards others,’. . . I felt like that was a big moment for her. . . . I think that’s important for [the client] to realize.”

 

     Client. Wanda had the following to say when asked what she had learned about herself through counseling: “I . . . realized that maybe I judge people a little bit too, like I think they have maybe an ulterior motive sometimes, or that they’re being mean or judgmental, and when it’s really just them being themselves.” All three perspectives—the supervisor, CIT and client—found this event meaningful in session, and experienced the event in very similar ways.

 

Goal Setting

The final theme, goal setting, encompassed formulating and mutually setting goals and creating plans of action for clients. Clients seemed energetic in sessions during conversations about goal setting. The following example of goal setting in Kerry (CIT) and Ava’s (client) session, although important to the client, felt like avoidance of painful issues to the supervisor.

 

     Supervisor. The supervisor wrote the following in her field notes:

 

They ended the session with suggestions about how the client could busy herself so that she is not lonely (such as focusing on her school work). The client stated that she wants to be an ER nurse, start a family and then ‘everything will be ok.’ This feels like avoidance and/or denial to me, and feels sad.

 

     CIT. Kerry, the CIT in this dyad, did not experience the goal setting as meaningful and did not mention the event in his interview.

 

     Client. The client, Ava, did find the goal setting meaningful, saying, “Schooling . . . is a huge goal that I need to focus on and to keep in mind, and I know schooling will overcome everything if I just focus.” Although the supervisor and client both found this event meaningful, it was for different reasons. The client gleaned hope from the goal setting, while the supervisor felt it was a temporary solution for a deeper issue.

 

Discussion and Implications

 

The findings from this study contribute to our understanding of the counseling process by providing an examination of the similarities and differences between meaningful happenings from three different perspectives—the client, the CIT and a supervisor. Operating from a constructivist paradigm (Ponterotto, 2005), we see multiple and equally valid realities in the findings. In answering the research question, beginning with themes from the supervisor’s perspective, we found that supervisors, CITs and clients were in general agreement about what was meaningful, as was in the case in Elliott and Shapiro’s (1992) study, with some differences in how they experienced the events given their position. Purposely approaching the findings through a supervisor’s lens allows us to clearly delineate implications for supervision.

 

First, many of the findings of this study regarding meaningful events in counseling have support in the literature from the client and counselor (or CIT) perspectives. Immediacy has been found meaningful in counseling from the client and CIT perspectives (Sackett et al., 2012). Goal setting as an important aspect of counseling also is supported in the literature. Sells et al. (1996) demonstrated that both clients and counselors find a focus on goals effective in counseling, and Sackett et al. (2012) found that both clients and CITs find goals meaningful in counseling. Not surprisingly, the literature shows that the counseling relationship is important to both clients and counselors or CITs (Sackett et al., 2012; Thomas, 2006). Further, Singer (2005) established that clients value feeling understood by their counselors, and Paulson et al. (2001) found that clients’ feeling connected with their counselors allows them to engage in the process. Several researchers also have found insight important from both client and counselor perspectives (Lietaer & Neirinck, 1986; Martin & Stelmaczonek, 1988; Sackett et al., 2012). The present study provides evidence that these aspects of counseling are meaningful to a supervisor as well.

 

In some cases, the supervisor, client and CIT not only found the same event meaningful, but also had similar experiences of the events. This was the case for the immediacy subtheme of processing the counseling process and the relationship. Hill and Knox (2009) suggested that when clients and counselors process their relationship, the relationship is enhanced, and clients transfer this relational learning to their other relationships. Relatedly, Bowman and Fine (2000) found that counselor transparency is helpful to clients in counseling. Further, Knight (2012) asserted that counselor transparency is critical to client openness in counseling and serves as a model for clients, and that this learning can be transferred to other relationships. Supervisors who observe CIT transparency can reinforce this skill and the benefits for CITs, as well as model this behavior themselves in their supervisory relationships. Osborn, Paez, and Carrabine (2007) recommended participating in reflective conversations in supervision, creating a collaborative relationship that assists CITs in becoming more aware of their own feelings.

 

Two examples of meaningful events in this study were consistent with Blow et al.’s (2009) finding that a “mistake” as seen by the supervisor did not hinder the process when the counseling relationship was solid, as was the case in the here-and-now subtheme of immediacy, and in the theme depth of congruence. These two examples also are consistent with the finding of Rhodes, Hill, Thompson, and Elliott (1994) in which a client experiencing discomfort in counseling was able to share concern with the CIT, and the CIT responded with understanding and the counseling relationship was strengthened. Similarly, in the case of rescuing, the current results are in line with Blow et al.’s (2009), in that a missed opportunity can lead to a direction that the observer does not anticipate, yet works well for the client.

 

Other differences in perspectives exist in the findings and give us fodder for discussion of supervision. In the example given for the goal-setting theme, the supervisor and the client both found goal setting meaningful, though for different reasons. In supervision with this CIT, the supervisor might have encouraged him to focus less on the client’s seemingly idealistic goals and more on the client’s loneliness, unaware that the focus on the goals was so meaningful to the client. In the case of nonverbals and intuition, the supervisor picked up on a dynamic, or a force producing change, between the client and CIT that she could see since she was not directly involved in the dynamic. In the example given for rescuing, the supervisor was the only one who experienced the abrupt shift away from an intimate topic as meaningful. The rescuing in this example actually led, albeit abruptly, to a conversation that ultimately led to a major insight for the client. This finding supports the discovery of Elliott and Shapiro (1992) that a discrepancy in perspectives eventually can lead to a significantly helpful event for the client. In supervision, the first author might have drawn the CIT’s attention to the rescuing, as well as pointed out that the direction taken led to a realization for the client. Examining meaningful events from multiple perspectives allows for identifying discrepancies and how they might be manifested in supervision with CITs.

 

These findings indicate many recommendations for supervisors. Supervisors can encourage CITs to elicit client experiences throughout the counseling process, as other researchers have recommended (Sackett et al., 2012; Singer, 2005), including directly talking about the alliance as suggested by Hill and Knox (2009). In moments of immediacy, the supervisor can view these intimate interactions from a distance and offer valuable feedback to the supervisee. However, the supervisor is not in the room for these moments of immediacy, and therefore may experience the feeling differently than the CIT and client. Even in these instances, the supervisor can engage in productive conversations with the CIT about the differences in perspectives, facilitating awareness and growth for the supervisee. In addition, modeling conversations about the process and relationship ideally can occur within the context of the supervisory relationship, which also has been suggested by Hill and Knox (2009), as well as Osborn et al. (2007). Clearly, the counseling relationship is paramount, and the supervisor is not part of that relationship. Therefore, what the supervisor sees as a therapeutic mistake might in fact be experienced differently in the counseling room because of the relationship between the client and CIT. Consequently, the significance of the counseling relationship must be continually stressed to supervisees, and the supervisory relationship should be treated with as much care.

 

The findings point to meaningful experiences that may be unique to a supervisor’s perspective, such as those related to nonverbals and intuition, which are often outside the awareness of the CIT and client in the relationship; and rescuing, which may be beyond the developmental level of the CIT and not an aspect with which clients would be in tune. Supervisors can challenge CITs by informing them of moments when they rescue clients. Rescuing is an aspect of counseling that must be seen by the supervisor (live or via video), as CITs likely will be unaware of doing this and therefore not report it. Similarly, supervisors can offer CITs another perspective on what may be happening in the counseling session and in the counseling relationship that the CIT is unable to see, such as nonverbals and intuitive observations. The use of live supervision and video recordings can reinforce how powerful these meaningful experiences are in counseling sessions. For instance, in the case of Sue and Bridget, the supervisor noticed a clear, positive shift in the session following the CIT’s disclosure of how she experienced her client, and although the CIT experienced this event as meaningful, she may not have noticed an overall positive shift in the session or attributed the shift to her disclosure.

 

It is important for supervisors to remember that although they bring expertise to the table, they can only see through their own lens, and therefore should be aware of their predispositions. The use of live supervision and video recording is important in adding the supervisor’s perspective to supplement the CIT’s account of the session. Interpersonal process recall (Kagan, 1980) can be used to enhance supervisee self-awareness (Getz, 1999) by pausing at vital moments while viewing a video recording and checking in with the supervisee about his or her feelings and thoughts from that moment in the counseling session. The supervisor’s perspective can be added to this process as well. The reflective model of supervision (Stinchfield, Hill, & Kleist, 2007) also can be effective in facilitating supervisee self-awareness and growth. This technique involves the supervisor and a peer supervisee observing the presenting supervisee’s work and then discussing feedback for the presenting supervisee with each other while he or she only listens and reflects internally. These supervision techniques can include the multiple perspectives of the supervisor, supervisee and peer supervisee(s). However, it is important to remember, as indicated in the findings of this study, that the clients’ experience can only be accurately known by eliciting it.

 

In summary, we found general agreement among a supervisor, CITs and clients about what was meaningful in the counseling events examined in this study. We did find some differences in how they experienced the events given their roles. We purposely approached the findings through a supervisor’s lens, which allowed us to discuss implications for supervision.

 

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

 

There are limitations to this study that are important to mention. We chose examples for each theme to illustrate a meaningful event as seen by the observer, and described them from each of the three perspectives of the supervisor, client and CIT. As such, the similarities and differences among the three perspectives on the chosen events cannot be generalized to the other meaningful events within those same themes. Also, the study was conducted in one particular clinic, which is associated with a counselor education program that has its own training and style preferences that may not be representative of other counselor education programs and their supervisors.

 

Future research concerning multiple perspectives on meaningful events in counseling sessions can further our understanding of the counseling process. It would be useful to replicate this study across a variety of settings and populations. Finally, using a quantitative or mixed-methods research methodology to examine multiple perspectives on the process would likely provide new, helpful information for supervisors.

 

Conflict of Interest and Funding Disclosure

The authors reported no conflict of

interest or funding contributions for

the development of this manuscript.

 

References

 

Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007028

Bennun, I., Hahlweg, K., Schindler, L., & Langlotz, M. (1986). Therapist’s and client’s perceptions in behaviour therapy: The development and cross-cultural analysis of an assessment instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 25, 275–283. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1986.tb00707.x

Blow, A. J., Morrison, N. C., Tamaren, K., Wright, K., Schaafsma, M., & Nadaud, A. (2009). Change processes in couple therapy: An intensive case analysis of one couple using a common factors lens. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35, 350–368. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00122.x

Bowman, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Client perceptions of couples therapy: Helpful and unhelpful aspects. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28, 295–310. doi:10.1080/019261800437874

Elliott, R., & James, E. (1989). Varieties of client experience in psychotherapy: An analysis of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 443–467. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(89)90003-2

Elliott, R., & Shapiro, D. A. (1992). Client and therapist analysts of significant events. In S. G. Toukmanian & D. L. Rennie (Eds.), Psychotherapy process research: Paradigmatic and narrative approaches (pp. 163–186). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Getz, H. G. (1999). Assessment of clinical supervisor competencies. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 491–497. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02477.x

Hays, D. G., & Wood, C. (2011). Infusing qualitative traditions in counseling research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89, 288–295. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00091.x

Hill, C. E., & Knox, S. (2009). Processing the therapeutic relationship. Psychotherapy Research, 19, 13–29. doi:10.1080/10503300802621206

Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human sciences. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Series Eds.), Applied Social Research Methods Series: Vol. 15. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kagan, N. (1980). Influencing human interaction—Eighteen years with IPR. In A. K. Hess (Ed.) Psychotherapy supervision: Theory, research, and practice (pp.262–286). New York, NY: Wiley.

Knight, C. (2012). Therapeutic use of self: Theoretical and evidence-based considerations for clinical practice and supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 31, 1–24. doi:10.1080/07325223.2012.676370

Lietaer, G. (1992). Helping and hindering processes in client-centered/experiential psychotherapy: A content analysis of client and therapist postsession perceptions. In S. G. Toukmanian & D. L. Rennie (Eds.), Psychotherapy process research: Paradigmatic and narrative approaches (pp.134–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lietaer, G., & Neirinck, M. (1986). Client and therapist perceptions of helping processes in client-centered/experiential psychotherapy. Person-Centered Review, 1, 436–455.

Llewelyn, S. P. (1988). Psychological therapy as viewed by clients and therapists. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 27, 223–237. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1988.tb00779.x

Mahrer, A. R., & Boulet, D. B. (1999). How to do discovery-oriented psychotherapy research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 1481–1493. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199912)55:12<1481::AID-JCLP6>3.0.CO;2-#

Martin, J., & Stelmaczonek, K. (1988). Participants’ identification and recall of important events in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 385–390. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.35.4.385

Mehr, K. E., Ladany, N., & Caskie, G. I. L. (2010). Trainee nondisclosure in supervision: What are they not telling you? Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 10, 103–113. doi:10.1080/14733141003712301

Moon, S. M., Dillon, D. R., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1990). Family therapy and qualitative research. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 16, 357–373. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1990.tb00056.x

Osborn, C. J., Paez, S. B., & Carrabine, C. L. (2007). Reflections on shared practices in a supervisory lineage. The Clinical Supervisor, 26, 119–139. doi:10.1300/J001v26n01_09

Paulson, B. L., Everall, R. D., & Stuart, J. (2001). Client perceptions of hindering experiences in counselling. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 1, 53–61. doi:10.1080/14733140112331385258

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126–136. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.126

Rhodes, R. H., Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Elliott, R. (1994). Client retrospective recall of resolved and unresolved misunderstanding events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 473–483. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.41.4.473

Sackett, C., Lawson, G., & Burge, P. L. (2012). Meaningful experiences in the counseling process. The Professional Counselor, 2, 208–225. doi:10.15241/css.2.3.208

Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education & the social sciences (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Sells, S. P., Smith, T. E., & Moon, S. (1996). An ethnographic study of client and therapist perceptions of therapy effectiveness in a university-based training clinic. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 22, 321–342. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1996.tb00209.x

Singer, M. (2005). A twice-told tale: A phenomenological inquiry into clients’ perceptions of therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31, 269–281. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2005.tb01568.x

Stinchfield, T. A., Hill, N. R., & Kleist, D. M. (2007). The reflective model of triadic supervision: Defining an emerging modality. Counselor Education & Supervision, 46, 172–183. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6978.2007.tb00023.x

Thomas, M. L. (2006). The contributing factors of change in a therapeutic process. Contemporary Family Therapy, 28, 201–210. doi:10.1007/s10591-006-9000-4

 

 

Corrine R. Sackett is an Assistant Professor at Clemson University. Gerard Lawson, NCC, is an Associate Professor at Virginia Tech. Penny L. Burge is a Professor at Virginia Tech. Correspondence can be addressed to Corrine R. Sackett, 307 Tillman Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, csacket@clemson.edu.

 

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

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, 122147. 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, 240261. 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

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, = .251, adj = .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, = .720, adj = .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

adj

Fchg

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.