476 The Professional Counselor | Volume 10, Issue 4 Table 1 Structured Q Sample Dimensions Types N 1. Design a. Materials (Items 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 23, 28, 39) b. Experiences (Items 3, 22, 24, 25, 36, 37, 43, 45) 2 2. Delivery c. Content (Items 2, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 35, 38) d. Process (Items 6, 8, 12, 30, 32, 41, 44, 46) 2 3. Evaluation e. Formative (Items 7, 20, 21, 29, 33, 40, 42, 47) f. Summative (Items 1, 9, 11, 16, 19, 31, 34, 48) 2 *Q-set = D (Criteria) (Replications); D ([1₂] [2₂] [3₂]) (n); D (2) (2) (2); D = 8 combinations; D (2) (2) (2) (6 replications); D = 48 statements for the Q sample. Third, the 48-item Q sample was then evaluated by three expert reviewers using a content validity index (Paige & Morin, 2016). Expert reviewers who had a minimum of 10 years of experience as counselor educators, had designed and delivered doctoral CETI courses, had published frequently on teaching and learning, and were familiar with Q methodology were solicited by the first author. Accordingly, expert reviewers rated each of the 48 items on a 4-point scale using three criterion questions: 1) Is the statement clear and unambiguous as read by a counselor educator? 2) Is the statement clear and unambiguous as read by CEDS? and 3) Is the statement distinct from the other statements listed here? Items receiving a score of 3 (“Mostly”) or 4 (“Completely”) were included; items receiving a score of 2 (“Somewhat”) were reviewed and modified by the authors for appropriateness; items receiving a score of 1 (“Not at all”) were discarded from the sample. After the three expert evaluators completed the content validity index, the authors refined the Q sample by rewriting two items to improve clarity, eliminating one duplicate item, and adding an item the reviewers thought important. For the final step, two of the experts completed Q-sorts to assure the final Q sample facilitated the expression of views on supervisee roles. The results of these two pilot Q-sorts were not included in the data analysis. Participant Sample Researchers followed McKeown and Thomas’ (2013) recommendations for selecting an intensive participant sample (i.e., fewer than 20 participants), which included a combination of purposeful and convenience sampling strategies (Patton, 2015) to obtain participants for the study. We purposefully selected the doctoral CETI course and the instructor because it was offered within a reputable, CACREP-accredited doctoral program; developed by a counselor educator known for teaching excellence and professional contributions; and taught and refined in an on-campus, inperson program by that same instructor for over 16 years. Additionally, the participants engaged in the course at the time of investigation constituted a convenience sample of eight first-year CEDS. Participants collectively represented a group of individuals holding similar theoretical interests and the ability to provide insight into the topic of investigation (Brown, 1993). All nine participants were from a large, top-ranked counselor education program located in the Midwest. Seven of the students identified as White cisgender females, and one as a cisgender Asian