w111m1111111111111111111 «40 31293010941171 ‘1' ‘ 1W6»? ‘ OCT1.:,3=-~2001 ABSTRACT A CONCURRENT VALIDITY STUDY OF COUNSELOR PERFORMANCE ON THE C.R.C.C.* FIELD REVIEW UTILIZING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION BY Roger Livingston Since the Spring of 1970 there has been considerable discussion and activity in the field of rehabilitation counseling to establish professional standards and a criteria by which the public can evaluate individuals that provide rehabilitation services. The original impetus for this came from both the National Rehabilitation Counseling Association (NRCA) and American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA) and eventually resulted in the formation of the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC). To this group of twelve individuals fell the responsibility of establishing professional standards for eligibility for Certification as a Rehabilitation Counselor. Incorporated in January 1974 the Commission on Rehabilita- tion Counselor Certification has since deve10ped a Field Review examination. \A demographic questionnaire was also *The data base used in this research is owned by the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification. Roger Livingston developed and these two instruments have provided a wealth of information to describe certification applicants. The need for this type of information was considered to be imperative if the field of rehabilitation counseling was to continue to be a leader in providing a highly professional service delivery and if the qualifications of rehabilitation counselors was to be standardized. The Field Review examination contained 120 multiple choice questions that were primarily practice based in the following content areas: (a) rehabilitation philosophy, history and structure, (b) medical aspects of disability, (c) psychosocial aspects of disability, (d) occupational information, (e) counseling theory and techniques, (f) community organization and resources, (9) placement processes and job develOpment, (h) the psychOIOgy of personal and vocational adjustment, (i) evaluation and assessment, and (j) the ability to use research findings and professional publications. The demographic questionnaire addressed such areas as: (a) ratings of training, (b) desired job activity versus preferred job activity, (c) professional activities (conventions attended, professional journals read and recent training), (d) years experience in counseling, (e) graduate and undergraduate training, (f) frequency and helpfulness of in-service training, (9) job satisfaction, and numerous other areas. Roger Livingston The subjects of this research were 3,982 individuals who volunteered to apply for certification as Rehabilitation Counselors and completed the process in July and October 1975. This figure represented more than one-third of all of the nearly 10,000 individuals that have been certified at this time. The Field Review Examination results and the Demo- graphic questionnaire were utilized in this research to clarify and identify relationships between individual characteristics of applicants for certification as rehabili- tation counselors and their performance on a practice based field examination and to establish the concurrent validity of these instruments. Twelve statistically significant variables were identified on which the validity of these instruments could be based. The correlation coefficients found were low (less than .20) but these coefficients were considerably larger than their standard errors. Very rarely could the degree of correlation found occur by random sampling in a population where two variables are actually uncorrelated. Additional findings of this research were that: (l) supervisors attended more State, Regional, and National meetings than do counselors, (2) years of experience as a counselor had a minimal relationship to field review examination scores, (3) generally, counselors were engaged in the activities they desired for the percentage of time per week that they desired with one notable exception, that Roger Livingston being paper work, (4) individuals with Master's degrees in Rehabilitation Counseling generally scored higher on the field review than individuals with M.A.'s in all other fields combined; (5) counselor educators scored signifi- cantly higher on the field review than any other group, (6) there was no practical or meaningful evidence to support the notion of a relationship between ratings of training and field review sub-test performance, and (7) error in predicting field review scores through the use of demoqraphic variables could only be reduced by approxi- mately 14 percent through the use of multiple regression analysis. A CONCURRENT VALIDITY STUDY OF COUNSELOR PERFORMANCE ON THE C.R.C.C. FIELD REVIEW UTILIZING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION BY «“5 Roger Livingston A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1976 To my wife, Nancy, and my sons, Troy and Todd ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost I would like to extend my deepest appreciation to my wife, Nancy, for her love, understanding, and support during my studies throughout the years, and to my two sons, Troy and Todd, for their understanding, patience, and sacrifice during my academic endeavors. I also want to express my appreciation to Dr. Jim Engelkes, my advisor and dissertation chairman, who has become a friend, for his superb guidance and friendship. I would also like to thank the other members of my committee as follows: to the late Dr. Stan Ratner, who as a friend encouraged me to seek out the academic areas which provided the most pleasure; to Drs. Richard Johnson and Steve Yelon for being available for consultation regarding issues in my doctoral studies; Dr. William Mehrens for his advice and assistance in the develOpment of the demographic questionnaire and with the data analysis. I would like to thank the others who were also of assistance: Dr. Jerold Bozarth for his advice in the development of the demographic questionnaire; Leroy Natress and Dr. Mary Lunz of Natresources Inc. for their cooperation throughout the long days of data analyses. To one individual iii in particular for which there are no words superb enough to express my thanks for his assistance--to Mr. Bill Brown--of the Consulting Office of the Michigan State University Computer Center, who programmed and provided constant guidance in the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Science to make the volume of data into a manageable form so that data analyses could be conducted. Finally, I would like to thank the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification for the use of this extensive data base and to each individual who took part in this research’endeavor. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O O O O I O O O O O O O Vii LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . x Chapter I . INTRODUCTI m 0 O O O O O O O O O O 1 Introductory Statement . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . 2 Need for the Study. . . . . . . . 4 Questions to be Addressed by this Study 0 O O O O O I O O O O 0 7 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . 8 summary 0 O O O O O O I O O O O 9 II. SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . ll Introductory Statement . . . . . . . ll Certification . . . . . . . . . . ll Biographical Information. . . . . 17 Reliability and Validity of Self- reports. . . . . . . . . . . . 21 III. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Selection of Research Participants . . . 24 Development of Experimental Materials . . 24 Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . 26 Introductory Statement. . . . . . . 26 Demographic Questionnaire. . . . . . 27 Field Review Examination . . . . . . 28 Reliability. 0 0 O O O O O O O 34 validity. O O O O O O 0 O O O 38 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 65 Statistical Analyses . . . . . . . . 67 Chapter IV. V. APPENDI Appendi A. B. BIBLIOG RESULTS . . O O C I . . . . . . . Introductory Statement . . . . . . . Results of Analyses . . . . . . . . Summary of Results . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION. . O O O O . O . . O . Introductory Statement . . . . . Results and Implications Regarding the Validity of the Fiew Review. . . . . The Effects of Professional Activities and Training on Field Review Performance . . . . . . . Limitations of the Research . . Implications for Future Research. Conclusions. CES x Standards for Eligibility for Certification. DemOgraphic Questionnaire. . . . . . . Reliability Analyses—-July and October 1975 Field Review . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Analyses Demographic Variables by Field Review Scores . . . . . . . Cross Tabulations--Area of Practice by State, Regional and National Meetings Attended. 0 . . O . . O O O C O RAPHY . . . O . . . O O . . O 0 vi Page 68 68 68 119 121 121 121 123 126 126 127 130 140 152 162 168 177 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.0 July and October Field Review Sub-test Categories and Number of Items in Each by Test Form. 0 I . . . . . O O O O 32 3.1 t-test Analysis Between July and October Demographic Variables. . . . . . . . . 42 3.2 Common Significant Correlation Coefficients . . 46 3.3 July Multiple Regression Analysis Summary. . . 50 3.4 July Cross Validation Regression Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.5 October Multiple Regression Analysis Summary. . 56 3.6 October Cross Validation Regression Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3.7 Common Variables and Regression Weights in Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . . 63 3.8 Common Variables and Regression Weights in Regression Analysis for Total Groups. . . . 64 4.0 Chi-Square Analysis--July. Area of Practice by State, Regional, and National Meetings Attended . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.1 Chi-Square Analysis--October. Area of Practice by State, Regional, and National Meetings Attended . . . . . . . . . . 73 4.2 Chi-Square Analysis--July and October. Area of Practice by State, Regional, and National Meetings Attended . . . . . . . 75 vii Table Page 4.3 One-way ANOVA--July and October--Total Score by Years of Experience. . . . . . . . 77 4.4 Personal Counseling: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity . . . . . . . 80 4.5 Vocational Counseling: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity . . . . . . . 83 4.6 Contact with Other Agencies: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity . . . . . . 85 4.7 Case Finding: Work Activity vs. Preferred work Act iVity. . O O . O . O O O O 87 4.8 Job Development: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity. . . . . . . . . . . 89 4.9 Job Placement: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity. . . . . . . . . . . 91 4.10 Administrative Work: Work Activity Preferred Work Activity. . . . . . . . . . . 93 4.11 Research and Evaluation: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity . . . . . . . 95 4.12 Program Development: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity . . . . . . . 97 4.13 Paper Work: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity. . . . . . . . . . . 99 4.14 Multiple Handicapped: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity . . . . . . . 101 4.15 t-test--Current Mean Percentage of Time Spent vs. Desired Mean Percentage of Time . . . 103 4.16 Correlations Between Ratings of Training and Field Review Sub-test Performance . . . . 105 4.17 One-way ANOVA--Field Review Scores by Hours of Individual Supervision--July and October . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 viii Table Page 4.18 One-way ANOVA--Field Review Score by Hours of Group Supervision--July and October. . . . 110 4.19 One-way ANOVA--Field Review Scores by Graduate Major. . . . . . . . . . . 112 4.20 One-way ANOVA--Field Review Scores by Area of Specialization in Practice. . . . . . 114 4.21 One-way ANOVA--Fie1d Review Scores by Helpfulness of In-Service Training . . . . 117 ix LI ST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.0 Typical Demographic Profile of Certification Candidates--Ju1y and October 1975. . . . . 35 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Introductory Statement The field of rehabilitation counseling has had a number of different emphases, since its inception in the 19203, primarily because of legislation which has had a direct impact on the role and function of the counselor as well as the type of academic training received. Rehabilitation is a generic term under which a wide range of activities are subsumed. It deals with restoring an individual to a "normal" or Optimum state of health or constructive activity. The techniques to accom- plish this restoration are extensive and include such activities as medical treatment and physical and psycho- logical therapy, to mention a few. The rehabilitation counseling profession is made up of individuals who are trained to function in a counseling relationship with a wide range of handicapped clients. Their counseling facilitates the activities which lead to rehabilitation. Within this group are individuals trained specifically in rehabilitation counseling as well as individuals trained in social work or psychology. Despite this variety of training backgrounds each qualify for rehabilitation positions because of existing patterns of service and the wide range of activities encompassed by the field of rehabilitation counseling. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the 1974 Amendments, mandates that these individuals provide services to the severely disabled prior to any other disabled individuals that have applied. In previous legislation the priority of selection of clients concentrated on the disadvantaged and resulted in agencies tending to deny service to the severely disabled as being non-feasible for service. The present focus on the severely disabled has resulted in counselors being faced with a new emphasis and‘challenge in their case loads. Shifting prOgram priorities and requirements of federal legislation present a quandry as related to the training of rehabilitation counselors and their specific role and function as rehabilitation professionals. Of broader concern is a method of determining who the quali- fied individuals are who can provide "Vocational Rehabili- tation Services" so that there "is restoration of the handicapped to the fullest physical, mental, social, vocational and economic usefulness of which they are . capable" (National Council of Rehabilitation, 1958). Statement of the Problem The concern of two professional associations-- National Rehabilitation Counseling Association (NRCA) and American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA) has led to the formation of a Commission to establish standards and administer an examination for rehabilitation counselors to become certified. This certification is a major step toward providing the general public with a criterion upon which one can evaluate the qualifications of individuals in rehabilitation counseling and can serve to identify and clarify training requirements for the certified counselor. The activity and discussion toward certification of these two groups began in the Spring of 1970 primarily because of a need for professional standards to be deve10ped for the practice of rehabilitation counseling. Combined with these factors is recent legislation, The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 1974 Amendments, which placed a new emphasis on continuing education for the rehabilitation counselor. The emphasis is a renewed one but continuing education, including in-service training, has been a required part of each state plan since the 1954 Amendment to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. The current legislation has led to the formation of twelve Rehabilitation Continuing Education programs that are to establish a mechanism to: 1. train newly employed and inexperienced rehabilita- tion counseling personnel of state vocational rehabilitation agencies in the basic knowledge and skills of rehabilitation counseling in the public program; 2. train newly employed state agency staff at the administrative, supervisory, professional, sub- professional, or clerical levels in order to develOp skills for effective agency performance; 3. provide training opportunities for experienced state agency personnel at all levels of state agency practice to upgrade their skills and develOp mastery of new program deve10pments dealing with significant issues, priorities, and legislative thrust of the state/federal vocational rehabilitation proqram; 4. develOp and conduct training programs for staff of private rehabilitation agencies and facilities which participate closely with state rehabilitation agencies in the delivery of vocational rehabilita- tion services; and 5. assist the state vocational rehabilitation agencies in planning and conducting ongoing staff develOp- ment programs. This legislation and the concern of both ARCA and NRCA suggests that an examination of current and previous educa- tion and training programs as well as professional activi- ties of the counselors is a logical and necessary step. The divergence in background of rehabilitation counselors, shifting requirements of federal legislation, concern of professional organizations and consumer groups and varying in-service programs as well as professional activities of the counselor were all considered in con- structing materials related to certification. These factors present a formidable challenge which must be responded to immediately if rehabilitation counseling is to continue the development of its professional stature. Need for the Study The enactment of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-565) made available training grants which provided incentive for many universities and colleges to begin graduate rehabilitation counseling education (RCE) programs. Numerous conferences on rehabilitation counselor education and research studies on the role and function of the rehabilitation counselor were conducted to aid in the development of curriculum guidelines. The guidelines which resulted were not inclusive and specific courses and con- tent became the responsibility of administrators of RCE programs. In a recent study by the Council on Rehabilita- tion Education (CORE) to establish an accreditation procedure for master's level rehabilitation counseling programs a difference was found with respect to the emphasis placed on the various aspects of rehabilitation counselor training (Wright, Reagles & Scorzelli, 1973). In addition to providing training grants for rehabilitation counselor education, the Vocational Rehabili- tation Act of 1954 required that in-service training he a part of each state plan. In-service training involves special courses or workshOps, given to state agency employees in connection with their work to help them deve10p skills. This continued training appears to be a must because an estimated 30 percent or less of rehabilitation counselors are fully qualified by academic training and experience (Muthard & Miller, 1966) to perform the func— tions of a rehabilitation counselor. This factor, compli- cated by the fact that in-service training is known to vary in both quantity and quality (McAlees & Corthell, 1972) suggests that clarification of in-service training needs is necessary. An adjunct to in-service training involves other professionalizing activities such as the number of journals read and professional meetings attended. There appears to be considerable variability in this area according to personal observation and a study conducted by Hagan, Haug and Sussman (1975). A recent article in the Journal of Rehabilitation, "RRCEP's Director Discuss Continuing Education" suggests wide variation in the implementation of guidelines for RRCEP's which were discussed at length previously. The present study cannot change what has happened in the past in the training of rehabilitation counselors nor can it change the quality of services rendered to clients. A major step can be taken in influencing academic and in-service training as well as professional activities if (1) counselor characteristics and professional experi- ences that influence their performance on the examination created by the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC) are identified, and (2) counselor perceptions of their academic training and its relationship to their performance on this examination are clarified and identified. The certification procedure for rehabilitation counselors, during the grandpersoning period, has generated considerable data on approximately 4,000 of the 8,000 applicants. These data are in the form of both demographic characteristics and examination scores. _Fortunately with the increasing availability of computers and useful practi- cal tools that have grown out of statistical theory such as multiple regression analysis, a technology does exist for examining a large population and a complexity of variables such as those with which this study is faced. This study, because of its large population will also provide a more definitive picture of rehabilitation counselor characteristics than those conducted by Muthard and Salomone (1969) and Hagan, Haug and Sussman (1975). It is anticipated that this study will aid in meeting the mandates of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as related to the continuing education of rehabilitation personnel and will, hOpefully, reinforce the "Statement of Policy on the Professional Preparation of Rehabilitation Counselors" prepared by the American Rehabilitation Counseling Associa- tion in 1974. Questions to be Addressed by this Study The following questions serve to focus the major research intent of this study: 1. Can an additive combination of predictor variables, e.g., training, academic and in-service training, and professional activities, be identified to predict certification field review scores? 2. How do "years of experience" as a counselor influence performance on the certification field review? 3. How do the individuals' daily working activities differ from what they would like it to be? 4. How do the number of hours of supervision in practicum influence field review scores? 5. How do individuals with different M.A. majors perform on the certification field review? 6. How do individuals with different areas of specialization on their current job perform on the certification field review? 7. How do individuals' perceived training inadequacies relate to their performance on the certification field review sub-tests? Definition of Terms Definitions of key terms used in this research will follow to provide a common understanding of the terms. 1. Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certifi- cation (CRCC). McAlees (1975) indicates that, "the commission consists of five appointees from ARCA, five appointees from NRCA, and one each from the Council of Rehabilitation Educators, Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation, International Association of Rehabilitation Facilities, National Association of Non- White Rehabilitation Workers, Council of Rehabilitation Counselor Education, and a representative from a national consumer organization" (p. 160). 2. Field Review. A practice-based examination which emphasizes the application of knowledge in managing clients rather than on isolated bits of factual informa- tion. Items were written by a committee of commission members. An item pool exists from which items are drawn for each form on each administration. 3. Demographic Form. A questionnaire containing 64 items in areas such as education, job characteristics and satisfaction, and also inquiring into family background. The information is provided by each subject thus making it biographical in nature. 4. American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (ARCA). A division of the American Personnel and Guidance Association (APGA) that is dedicated to the development of rehabilitation counseling as a professor. 5. National Rehabilitation Counseling Association (NRCA). A professional division of the National Rehabilita- tion (NRA) that is dedicated to lifting the professionality of rehabilitation counseling practice for serving disabled people and is involved in the professional develOpment of all persons involved in the practice of rehabilitation counseling. Summary The field of rehabilitation counseling and particularly rehabilitation counselor educators and adminis- trators are faced with a complex problem of providing 10 relevant academic and in-service training programs to current and future counselors. The shifting requirements of federal legislation further complicate these problems. These factors plus diversity in academic programs, rehabili- tation continuing education programs and in-service training programs make it difficult to identify those individuals best qualified to provide services to the handicapped individuals who seek services from private and public rehabilitation agencies and facilities. A certification procedure for rehabilitation coun- selors has been established which may provide a mechanism to standardize the qualifications of rehabilitation counseling professionals. Through the use of self-reported demographic information and field review scores this study will attempt to identify relevant characteristics of individuals and training factors that influence rehabilita- tion counselor performance on the field review. Identifi- cation of these factors will hopefully lead to cohesiveness in the overall training of rehabilitation professionals thus making certification a viable means of identifying them. Certification should also provide some assurance to the consumer of rehabilitation services of a highly professional service delivery. CHAPTER II SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE Introductory Statement In accord with the focus of this study which is to identify characteristics of rehabilitation counselors through the use of self-reported demographic information and the relationship between these data and certification field review scores, three areas of relevant research literature were surveyed. The first concerned certifica- tion of professionals, particularly rehabilitation counselors. The second concerned the use of biographical information in descriptive and predictive studies, and the third deals with the use of self-reported inventories such as biographical forms. Certification Selden (1972) as director of a project entitled, "The Study of Accreditation of Selected Health Educational Programs" enumerated four definitions of certification and related concepts which should lead to a clarification of the screening activities utilized in recognizing and controlling professional organizations. The four definitions are as follows: 11 12 Accreditation is the process by which an agency or organization evaluates and recognizes a program of study or an institution as meeting certain predeter- mined qualifications or standards. Certification is the process by which a non- governmental agency or association grants recognition to an individual who has met certain predetermined qualifications specified by that agency or associa- tion. Licensure is the process by which an agency of government grants permission to persons meeting predetermined qualifications to engage in a given occupation and/or use a particular title, or grants permissions to institutions to perform specified functions. Registration is the process by which qualified individuals are listed on an official roster main- tained by a governmental or non-governmental agency. (Selden, 1972, p. 39) It is obvious by these definitions that there is a strong relationship among the four concepts. In many professional and governmental certification, licensure, or registration procedures it is required that individuals have been graduated from an accredited prOgram of study. Certification, licensure and registration for individuals to practice in a variety of areas is not new. Medical specialties, for example, have met licensure requirements for nearly a century, in this country, but for the social sciences the process is relatively new. In medical specialties such as Urology and Otolaryngology Certification involves a very small and specific popula- tion. A minimal amount of demographic information is collected and it is obtained on the application blank for certification rather than on a separate questionnaire. For 13 certification within their specialties they must demon- strate competence on a lengthly and highly technical written examination (Natress, 1976). Implicit in certification, licensure or registration is the notion of control. Members of a profession, any profession, feel that they are best qualified to judge the competency of fellow members and that they can provide some protection, to the public, from unscrupulous and inadequate practitioners (Selden, 1972). Selden (1972) states, "the basic assumption behind control is that only the members of the profession know what would be best for the profession and what would be best for society, and that they could best decide, if there ever should be a conflict between these two interests" (p. 40). The Secretary of the Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare in a report to the United States Congress (June 1971) on Licensure and Related Health Personnel Credentialing addressed the issue of control: Only a few years ago, issues such as licensing, certification, and accreditation were generally thought to be the concern of only the professional individuals and organizations that were affected by them. The public policy aspects of these issues were not often perceived by decisions-makers long accustomed to the guild traditions that have charac- terized attitudes in this area. Today, these matters are not immune from public criticism; and the responsibility of both public and private leadership is to fuse health-manpowering credentialing with the public interest. (Selden, 1972, p. 40). Concerned individuals within the field of rehabili- tation counseling had taken notice of public and 14 professional demands for credibility within the profession prior to the aforementioned address. In the Spring of 1970 G. D. Carnes, of the Univer- sity of Texas‘Austin, was appointed chairman of a Joint Certification Committee composed of members of ARCA and NRCA. This committee evolved as a result of concern, for the professional status and future of rehabilitation counseling. The task was monumental but their efforts resulted in a certification philos0phy (Appendix A) which spelled out problems as well as how certification could be established. They also formulated plans for a national attitude survey on the subject of certification. The members of NRCA took part in the prOposed national survey. The response was minimal, 200 respondents, but somewhat paralleled the recommendations of the Joint NRCAnARCA Certification Committee (Parker, 1972). The results indicated that: the respondents clearly agreed that Rehabilitation-- Counselor Certification was needed, although only 55% thought there was substantial interest among Rehabilitation Counselors to support a certification program. A majority (69.7%) felt unionization was not a reasonable alternative to certification. A majority also agreed that certification standards should strongly influence university Rehabilitation Counselor Program content and state rehabilitation agencies' employment practices, and that some special recognition needs be given to those who might not meet the standards for professional Rehabilitation Counselor Certification. Finally, the majority of respondents indicated that those individuals with less than a Bachelor's Degree should not receive certification as a professional Rehabilitation Counselor regardless of experience (Parker, 1972, p. 176). 15 Evolving from the Joint ARCA-NRCA Committee on Certification was the Commission on Rehabilitation Coun- selor Certification which was incorporated in January 1974 and chaired by Daniel C. McAlees, of the University of Northern Colorado. Early tasks of the Commission included securing bids on a contract to deve10p evaluation instru- ments and procedures for the certification process, final drafts of Standards of Eligibility for certification and the issue of the grandpersoning process. The work of the Commission has continued with Standards for Eligibility for certification being completed (Appendix A) and the grandfathering certification period taking place between July 1, 1974, and October 21, 1975. Also during this time a field review examination was formulated and tested for item difficulty and reliability. Certification by Examination began in April 1976 with a somewhat modified set of Standards of Eligibility (Appendix A). Certification of rehabilitation counselors has become a reality over this six year period with individuals speaking for and against the process. Thoreson (1971) felt that the work of the Carnes committee was "a good provi- sional measure to solve immediate crisis, namely the press of legislatures and employing agencies. But for the future, we should look more to the nature of the profes- sional rather than the training that produced past success" (p. 83). Miller (1971) regarding certification stated, 16 "Now, wait, let me see, uh, is that really what I want . . ." (p. 85). On the other hand, McAlees (1975) feels that the "intent of certification is to establish a national professional scale which any interested group, agency, or individual may-use as a measure” and "aside from establishing a good measure of professional qualifications for the counselor, certificatiOn will further the public interest and the confidence of other professions and clients" (p. 163). Rehabilitation counseling has taken steps through this certification process to become a leader as it moves into the 19805. In a recent study by Jones (1976) it was reported that more than one-half of the state supervisors, in his study, in the field of guidance did not anticipate the licensure of counselors in the forseeable future. Controversy abounds on the issue of licensure and certifi- cation. Both American Psychological Association and American Personnel and Guidance Association are currently in the investigative phase of licensure on a national basis with certification for certain levels or areas of exper- tise (Guidepost, 1975b). Both groups are also active in encouraging state legislation in the area of Licensure (Jones, 1976). Rehabilitation counseling, certified rehabilitation counselors and the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification hOpefully will have significant impact and input on these problems so that issues regarding licensure l7 and certification will be resolved to the benefit of the counselor and the public at large. Biographical Information Demographic information has been collected through the use of biographical information forms by personnel men and psychologists since the beginning of industrial and personnel research. This utilization continues today in such diverse areas as rehabilitation counselor certification and in the determination of the posthOSpital employment and readmission of psychiatric patients (Lorei & Gurel, 1972; 1973). Biographical items appear to have a number of advantages over the usual trait descriptive items. They are easier to write unambiguously, they invite less falsi- fication and they have been more valid in predicting such criteria as vocational success (Nunnally, 1959). Biographical inventories have had considerable use because "it surveys experience more economically than the interview . . . it lends itself to quantitative treatment" (Super, 1951). Furthermore, Henry (1965) asserts, "Invari- ably biographical information has been found to be the best single predictor of future behavior . . . of a total or complex nature . . ." (p. i). The notion that the best predictor of future performance is past performance has also been proposed by Super (1951) and Owens (1968; 1971) in their research with biographical information. 18 The use of bio-data forms has been quite diverse and pervasive. Bozarth (1966) in an extensive review of the literature on biographical information forms reported: The forerunner of the biographical data form is the weighted application blank, which has been applied to office jobs (Kirchner & Dunnette, 1957), sales clerks (Mozel & Wade, 1951), clerical work (Kreidt & Gadel, 1953) and seasonal employees (Dunnette, 1955). Combined data, including biographical questionnaires, have ranged in use from the selec- tion of service station managers (Soar, 1956) to the selection of salesman in manufacturing (Obmann, 1941). Prediger (1956), however, concludes that biographical data has little to offer to the predic- tion of persistance with college males when ability and achievement are controlled. Nevertheless, most research suggests that biographical forms are a predictor of success. As is suggested by Bozarth's review the results obtained through the use of biographical information for prediction are somewhat diverse. For example, Scolloy (1956) was able to make accurate predictions regarding salary increases and Cline (1963) was successful in pre- dicting high school science success utilizing biOgraphical information. Abe (1965) also reported success in identi— fying individuals most likely to achieve with biographical data. Anastasia, Meade and Schneider (1960) found that the biographical data were more effective predictors of success than aptitude, achievement, personality or interest tests. Support for this study was found by Aiken (1964) where correlations in the upper 50's were found between grade point average and biographical inventory items. l9 Payne, Rapley and Wells (1973) utilized a bio- graphical data inventory to estimate college academic achievement. They found "some support for past-history- being-the-best-predictor assumption . . ." (p. 156). They did not feel that their results were as outstanding as they hoped for but felt that the use of biographical data in college selection should be given serious consideration. As in Bozarth's (1966) review not all of the results of studies using biographical data have been posi- tive. Skinner (1961), for example, in a study on the relationship of biographical data to student teaching effectiveness concluded that the biographical information form: . . . was not found to be a conclusive means of predicting effectiveness in student teaching. The measures of the biographical factors found to be related were low, varied in rejection of the hypotheses according to correlation techniques used, and isolated no corroborating factor from section to section. Hilton and Myers (1967) also reported negative results when they found multiple correlations ranging from .57 to .64 against senior high school year criteria-- standardized objective tests and rank in graduating class-— with a biographical inventory, SCAT and STEP scores and a test of general information (Payne, Rapley & Wells, 1973). Unequivocal results were found in studies by Lorei and Gurel (1972; 1973) in utilizing a biographical inventory to predict schiZOphrenics‘ posthospital employment and readmission. They concluded that the utility of historical 20 data as a predictor of behavior was confirmed but their attempt to predict readmission from historical data was unfruitful. In a replication of a study by Buell and Anthony (1973), Anthony and Buell (1974) obtained similar results. They concluded that these studies "uniformly indicate that the attempts to predict recidivism from demo- graphic variables has been notably less consistent and account for less outcome variance than similar attempts which have used demographic data to predict posthospital employment" (p. 422). In the field of rehabilitation, studies have been conducted by Bozarth (1966) and Bozarth, Muthard and Miller (1968) utilizing biographical items to differentiate rehabilitation counselor performance in counseling clients. The results of these studies were not encouraging in view of all of the positive results previously found but the authors suggest that further research should be conducted with biographical information forms. In view of the positive results found in the majority of the studies and highly theoretical work con- ducted by Owens (1971) which strongly advocates their use in all phases of psychological work, the continued use of biographical information forms appears to be warranted. Biographical information has been successful in prediction studies but because the data is self-reported there is often some question of its validity. A closer examination of this issue is undertaken in the next section. 21 Reliability and Validity of Self-Reports Research relevant to the validity and reliability of self-reported information runs the gamut from studies dealing with the validity of work history information obtained by interviews (Keating, Paterson & Stone, 1950; Schletzer, Dawis, England and Lofquist, 1961) to the reliability of self-recorded behaviors (Simkins, 1971). In reviewing the literature related to the validity of work history information obtained by interview Engelkes (1968) reported that a study by Schletzer, Dawis, England and Lofquist (1961) found: (1) the validity of work history information obtained by interview was not very high, (2) validity varied from the most valid item being the reason for leaving and hours worked, to the least valid being items con- cerned with pay, (3) time between leaving a job and the research interview was the most influential on validity, and (4) there were more upgrading types of invalidity than downgrading. The most important implication is that memory distortion is not random but tends toward more socially desirable conclusions and that memory produces invalidity. (p. 4) Weiss and Dawis (1960) also conducted a study which strongly questions the validity of data obtained by inter- view. They collected certain types of information through a survey type interview and felt that ego involvement and possibly social desirability was operating thus varying the validity with the type of information sought. In reporting and recording one's own behavior there appears to be a need to examine not only the reliability of the behavioral measures but also events related to the behavior because the reports may be a function of social 22 approval factors related to the individual requesting the data. This influence may result in inaccurate reporting of information (Simkins, 1971). These studies strongly challenge the reliability and validity of self-reported information in an interview type situation. The prevalent factor that is influencing behavior appears to be one of social desirability in personal interaction. On the other hand, studies in which paper and pencil measures are utilized support the reli- ability and validity of self-reported information. In studies by Bowen and Berdie (cited in Pohlman & Beggs, 1974), it was found that self-report methods of assessing cognitive variables, such as intelligence or academic ability were positively related to observed measures of the same variables. Berdie's study utilized college students and found correlations between self- claimed and test knowledge of famous peOple in three areas ranging from .47 to .74. Pohlman and Beggs (1974) reported that Bowen found self-estimates of ability to do school work correlated (.64) with high school grade point average. Hamilton (1971) in assessing affective variables with self-report found that simple single item self-ratings of self-esteem, dominance and Open-mindedness perform as well as other methods of measurement, such as peer nomina- tions and empirically derived scales in terms of their convergent and discriminant validity. 23 In a study conducted by McMorris and Ambrosino (1973) they report: . . . several recent investigations have studied the relationship between self-report and school-report data under naturally occurring conditions judged to produce stress, and even under conditions designed to increase stress (Baird, 1971; Hanna, Bligh & Lenke, 1970; Maxey & Ormsby, 1971; Walsh, 1967, 1968, & 1969), under such stressful conditions, one might hypothesize more falsification of self-report data. However, correlations between self-report and school— report data were in the .80 and .90's which compare reasonably with the reliability of school-report data. Similarly the self-report means were nearly identical to the school-report means. The above investigators also found that self-reported academic performance generally predicted future academic performance and in some studies, better than did test scores. (p. 13) In their own study with college seniors, in a non-stress situation, the students provided accurate reports of past academic performance and the authors suggest that future investigators include at least a quick self-report measure in their set of predictors. These studies tend to support that individuals report academic performance, using paper and pencil measures, accurately even under a variety of situations and that these self-reports provide good predictions of future academic performance. Given these results there is little reason to believe that accurate reports would not be given on biOgraphical data, particularly data related to academic ratings and performance. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Selection of Research Participants The subjects of this research were 3,982 individuals that volunteered to apply for certification as Rehabilita- tion Counselors and completed the process in July and October 1975. Development of Experimental Materials In January 1975 a Research Committee was appointed by the Commission on Rehabilitation Certification to inves- tigate the potential uses of the wealth of information available on those individuals seeking certification. Dr. James Engelkes, held a-meeting in Chicago, Illinois, with another member of the committee, Dr. Mary Lunz, two consul- tants, Drs. Jerold Bozarth and William Mehrens, and two of Dr. Engelkes' graduate assistants to explore the uses of the demographic information and field review results. The outgrowth of this meeting was the development of an expanded demographic questionnaire containing 64 items (Appendix B). In the construction of the demographic questionnaire a determination was made that 14 items from the original 24 25 questionnaire that had been used since the first field review, be incorporated into the revised format for con- tinuity of data. With some revisions these 14 items became questions 5, 6, 9, 10, ll, 13, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, and 54 of the revised demographic questionnaire. The "Studies in Continuing Education for Rehabilitation Coun- selors" (Miller, Roberts et al., 1971) provided insight into additional questions that could be incorporated into the questionnaire in the areas of educational, employment, supervisory, and socioeconomic information. Because of the large number of participants in this study it was felt that considerable data could also be obtained in the area of academic training. A listing of training needs in 54 areas being utilized by the Region V office of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (R.S.A.) was adapted to help in the formulation of questions 51 to 53 of the questionnaire, which provided data pertaining to training desired, training never used and ratings of their training in the 54 areas. Additional input was provided by Drs. Bozarth, Engelkes and Mehrens regarding content and format of the questionnaire. Due to the large number of individuals that were to respond to the questionnaire considerable emphasis was placed on formulating questions so that machine scoreable answer sheets could be used to facilitate subse- quent statistical analysis. The complexity of the question- naire also required that specific directions be formulated for responding to the questionnaire (Appendix B). 26 In Chapter II it was proposed that the continued use of biographical information forms was warranted. Results of the studies cited suggested that in the majority of cases prediction was possible with this form of informa- tion. It should be remembered though that the field review is a practice based examination and that "a higher premium was placed on the application of knowledge in managing clients rather than on isolated bits of factual information (McAlees, 1975, p. 162). The demographic questionnaire was pilot tested in May 1975 on doctoral students in the Rehabilitation Coun- seling proqram at Michigan State University. These students provided data on the clarity of questions and the length of time necessary to complete the questionnaire. Instrumentation Introductory Statement Two instruments were utilized in this study to obtain the relevant information required. Each instrument will be reported separately providing an explanation of their construction and use in this research. The demographic questionnaire is presented in Appendix B including the directions for completing it. Due to security reasons the field review is not included but an in depth explanation of its construction, reliability, and validity will be provided. 27 Demographic Questionnaire The construction of the demographic questionnaire was explained previously. With those thoughts in mind the questionnaire was administered for the first time in July 1975, to individuals taking the field review. They were asked to respond to the questions concurrently with taking the field review. The same procedure was followed during the October 1975 administration of the field review but it was necessary to modify the instructions for completing the questionnaire because of errors, such as improperly located and coded identification numbers, that were encountered in the July administration. Of solace in utilizing the demographic questionnaire was the knowledge that in the event biographical information was not a predictor of field review performance, a wealth of information far superior, at least in numbers, to the data collected in the Muthard and Salomone (1969) and Hagan, Haug and Sussman (1975) studies would be available for descriptive purposes. These data, particularly in the area of academic and in-service training would provide direction for Rehabilitation Counselor Education and Continuing Education Programs. The information related to current and deSired job activities would provide further insight into the role of the rehabilitation counselor thus again influ- encing all types of training programs. 28 Field Review Examination 1 With the formation of the Commission on Rehabilita- tion Counselor Certification in 1973 one of the first tasks to be accomplished was the development of the field review examination. The Commission defined ten areas which it determined to be most relevant to the field of rehabilita- tion counseling. This decision was not an arbitrary one but one based on the training and experience of Commission members the composition of which has been explained earlier. They determined that to be certified as a rehabilitation counselor each individual had to demonstrate competence in the following areas on a written examination: (a) rehabili- tation philoSOphy, history and structure; (b) medical aspects of disability; (c) psychosocial aspects of dis- ability; (d) occupational information and the world of work; (e) counseling theory and techniques; (f) community organization and resources; (g) placement processes and job development; (h) the psychology of personal and vocational adjustment; (i) evaluation and assessment; and (j) the ability to use research findings and professional publications. To accomplish the task of writing the examination questions the Commission appointed a task force composed of twelve members. This task force included Drs. Engelkes, English, Hansen, McAlees, and Taylor all of whom were directly involved in rehabilitation counselor training programs in major universities throughout the United States. 29 Mrs. Florence Curnutt, counselor of handicapped students, San Jose State University; William Joslin, Director, Council Workshop for Senior Citizens in New York City; Ms. Barbara Korn, Unit Supervisor, Epilepsy Foundation, New York, New York; George McCrowley a counselor with the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), Chicago, Illinois; Ed Navis, a DVR counselor in Richmond, Virginia; Harold Rubin, a counselor in New York City; and Jim Stephens, Staff DevelOpment, DVR, Raleigh, North Carolina. Each member of the task force was to formulate 60 multiple choice questions in their own specialty area as related to the ten areas defined by the Commission. The writers then exchanged their questions with another member of the task force so that ambiguities in content and form could be clarified. The original writer then received their own questions in return to examine changes and make any necessary corrections. The questions were then for- warded to Natresources Incorporated, which had become the administrative agent for the Commission, to be placed in an item pool from which the field review was to be con- structed. The field review was administered to 1,240 indi- viduals in July 1974, 712 in October 1974, and 2,020 in March 1975. The field review questions were closely examined after each administration and those items which performed poorly, i.e., low discrimination index and index of difficulty interpreted from point biserial correlation 30 coefficients, were revised or excluded from the item pool of approximately 600 items. The field reviews administered in July and October 1975 had 3,982 individuals participating and are the focus in this study. At this juncture definitive information regarding the July and October field review and the participants will be discussed prior to addressing the reliability and validity of the field review. One of the essential characteristics of a test according to the Standards: For Educational and Psycho- loqical Tests is that "data gathered during the process of develOping a test before it is in final form should be clearly distinguished from data pertaining to the test in final form" (American Psychological Association, 1974, p. 11). The field review scores used in this study are ones that should be considered as part of the development phase of the examination. Despite this short-coming these data should provide a basis for future studies and provide at least some indication as to the relationship between the field review scores and demographic information. This fact is substantiated, in part, by the administrative agent of the Commission. In personal communications with Dr. Mary Lunz, Director, Evaluation Division of Natresources Incor- porated, she indicated that, from her perspective, the July Field Review performed better than any of the other field review examinations. It was her feeling that the poor test items had been eliminated from the test item pool and that, 31 overall, the field review functioned in accordance with the Commission standards. On the other hand, the October field review contained many new items which had low discrimination indexes and indexes of difficulty and she felt that many items would have to be rewritten or elimi- nated from the pool prior to Certification by Examination which began in April 1976. Obviously all attempts have been made to meet the standard as explicated above. The July field review contained 150 multiple-choice items on essentially two parallel forms and the October review contained 120 multiple-choice questions on three essentially parallel forms. Table 3.0 reflects the sub- tests which made up both field reviews and the number of items comprising each sub-test is presented. In the writing of the questions each writer was to indicate the areas to which they felt a question applied, e.g., counseling theory and counseling methods. Because a question could apply to more than one sub-test area there is considerable overlapping of questions which explains the large number of items per sub-test when in fact there are only 150 or 120 items in the entire examination. A computer program developed by Natresources which has the capability of combining items but still providing a singular score is used in scoring the examinations. Another essential characteristic in discussing an assessment instrument such as the field review is that "the pOpulation upon which the psychometric prOperties of a test 32 Table 3.0--Ju1y and October Field Review Sub-test Categories and Number of Items in Each by Test Form. July October Sub-test Form Form Form Form Form I II I II III Child 21 19 7 8 -- Adult 92 94 54 74 75 Aged 11 13 -- -- 7 General 13 11 -- -- -_ Physical Disability 50 50 36 33 33 Deviants 22 18 9 -- -- Emotional Disorder 13 18 15 11 19 Mental Retardation 14 16 -- 12 11 Deaf 10 15 -- 10 14 Blind 11 9 10 -— 10 Neurologically Impaired -- -- -- 15 -- Other -- -— 14 13 14 Medical and Psycho-social Aspects of Disability 25 26 18 22 24 Occupational Information 20 l7 14 19 14 Counseling Theory 16 15 12 15 22 Counseling Methods 16 16 18 15 19 Community Organization and Resources 16 20 -- -- -- Personal Vocational Adjustment 25 22 16 14 17 Evaluation and Assessment 17 13 11 11 9 Research Utilization 11 ll 12 -- 10 Rehabilitation Planning 22 20 12 14 13 33 Table 3.0-—Continued. July October Sub-test Form Form Form Form Form I II I II III Case Management 22 21 19 13 -- Information Dissemination 19 22 9 -- 6 Vocational Counseling l7 l6 -- 21 ll Personality and Adjustment Counseling 16 24 20 23 35 Group Counseling 12 12 12 -- 14 Job Development and Placement 12 10 15 14 9 Staff Development -- -- 6 -- -- Vocational and Psychological Assessment 15 10 -- 15 16 Recall l9 17 12 15 23 Interpretation Skills 27 29 -- 22 26 Problem Solving 104 104 84 73 61 Judgment -- -- 10 10 10 Total 150 150 120 120 120 34 were determined and for which normative data are available should be clearly and prominently described (Standards: Fer Educational and Psychological Tests, p. 21). For this reason a typical demographic profile of certification candidates in July and October is presented in Figure 3.0. Reliability. Mitchell defines reliability as "the extent to which a test is consistent in measuring whatever it does measure; dependability, stability, trustworthiness, relative freedom from errors of measurement. Reliability is usually expressed by some form of reliability coeffi- cient or by the standard error of measurement derived from it" (p. 6). A full treatment of measurement theory on reliability is beyond the sc0pe of this study. The basic concepts of this subject can be found in Mehrens and Lehmann (1973). For those interested in a more theoretical treatise on reliability Magnusson (1967) or Gulliksen (1950) should be consulted. In most instances, and in this one, it was not feasible to obtain more than a single measure of the individual's performance on the examination but it remains possible to obtain reliability estimates from a single set of test data. The method used in obtaining the reliability of the field review was the split-half method. This method is generally considered as a measure of the internal consis- tency of a single instrument. The technique assumes that 35 Figure 3.0. Typical Demographic Profile of Certification 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. Candidates in July and October 1975. Male (64.8%)--married (65%)--probab1y lst born (45%) No physical defect (82.4%) Who come from either a rural (28.8%), suburban (33.4%) or urban locale (37.4%) 62% of their mothers are homemakers 56% of their fathers and 62% of their mothers have completed at least a high school education Their undergraduate major in either Psychology (30%), Sociology (16%), Social Science (10%), or Education (16%) and 61% have an undergraduate G.P.A. of 3.0 or below. 72% majored in rehabilitation counseling or counseling and guidance in graduate school 38% received no group supervision and 32% received no individual supervision in practicum For those that did have a practicum--56% used audio tape and 34% used video tape for supervision The majority of them earn between $9,000 and $17,000 per year Their work setting pOpulation density is urban (63%) They generally like (91%) and are satisfied (87%) with their jobs and have worked for only one organization in the past five years They have either taken a class in a university (24%) or attended a workshop or institute (52%) in the last year They probably read either Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin (77%) or Journal of Rehabilitation (88%) 56% have attended state meetings, 28% attended regional meetings and 18% attended national meetings in the last year 36 Figure 3.0. Continued. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 27% of them have 25 or more books in their personal library that are applicable to their jobs 46% of them work in a rehabilitation agency providing rehabilitation services (counseling) The primary funding source is state/federal VR agency 83% have been rehabilitation counselors for one to eight years and 88% have up to eight years experience as a rehabilitation counselor in a DVR setting 48% of them put in between one and four hours per month into in-service training activities and approxi- mately one-half feel that the in-service does help them in performing their jobs 28% feel that their supervisors help them with job related problems Almost all of their clients make $8,000 or less per year and 73% of their clients have not completed high school 37 the variance of the two halves are equal, and that errors of measurement are due to content sampling only, not stability over time. Appendix C contains the scoring analysis of both the July and October field reviews. Form I and II of the July field review had reliability coefficients of .8346 and .8286 respectively. In October the coefficients were: .8590, .8204, and .8042 on Forms I, II, and III. The reliability coefficients for each sub-test are also reported but because our interest is in the total test score these data are of minimal concern. As for the interpretation of these coefficients, Mehrens and Lehmann (1973) point out, "although there is no universal agreement, it is generally accepted that stan- dardized tests used to assist in making decisions about individuals should have coefficients of at least .85" (p. 122). The field review is such an instrument in that it is to be used to make decisions as to whether or not an individual is to be certified as a rehabilitation counselor. Guilford (1956) points out that "all internal consistency formulas that depend upon a single administration of a test, probably underestimate the reliability of a test" (p. 455). With this thought in mind it appears that a statement can be safely made that both the July and October field reviews are reliable measurement instruments. The Standards: For Educational and Psychological Tests (1974) point out that "reliability coefficients have 38 limited practical value for test users. The standard error of measurement ordinarily is more useful; it has greater stability across populations since it is relatively indepen— dent of range of talent, and it may be used to identify limits that have a defined probability of including the true score" (p. 50). The standard error of measurement is also provided in Appendix C. Since the field review is utilized for decisions relevant to certification of rehabilitation counselors this value should be consulted when making these decisions. Validity. According to Mitchell, validity is the extent to which a test does the job for which it is used. This definition is more satisfactory than the traditional "extent to which a test measures what it is supposed to measure," since the validity of a test is alway specific to the purpose for which the test is used. The term validity, then, has different connotations for various types of tests and, thus, a different kind of validity evidence is apprOpriate for each. The type of validity to be considered in this study is criterion-related validity. With this form of validity the measures are examined to determine the extent to which scores on one measure are in agreement with (concurrent validity) or predict (predictive validity) the criterion measure. The specific focus is on the concurrent validity of the field review scores and the variables that make up the demographic questionnaire. Generally speaking in concurrent validity, no significant time intervals elapse between administration of the test being validated and the 39 criterion measure, this is a procedural distinction as com- pared to predictive validity when the criterion data is collected at a later date. Such validity might be evidenced by the correlations between scores on a test and criterion measures which are valid but are less objective. Statements regarding concurrent validity generally indicate the extent to which one measure may be used to estimate an individual's present standing on the criterion. Mehrens and Lehmann (1973) state that one of the hardest tasks in a study of criterion- related validity is to obtain adequate criterion data. . . . Criterion measures, like all other measures, must have certain characteristics if they are to be considered adequate. First of all they should be relevant. That is, the criterion measure— ment should actually reflect the important aspects of the conceptual criterion. There is no point in obtaining a criterion measure that really does not reflect the criterion. The degree of relevance of the criterion measure is a value judgment, and not everyone will agree on any specific case. . . . . . . A second desired characteristic of a criterion is that it be reliable . . . the reliability of the criterion affects criterion-related validity every bit as much as the reliability of the predictor. A third characteristic of the criterion measure is that it be free from bias or contamination (Brogden & Taylor, 1950). Criterion contamination occurs when the criterion score is influenced by the know- ledge of the predictor score. (p. 127-27) Each of the aforementioned factors will be dealt with in turn as related to the field review. First of all the relevancy, which is based not only on the definitions provided by the Commission as to what is relevant for a certified rehabilitation counselor to know but also the qualifications of the writers that formulated the field review questions. Not everyone would agree with this 4O judgment but both the Commissioners and the writers have considerable knowledge and expertise in the field of rehabilitation and in the writing and construction of test items. In addition, all item writers underwent a two day workshOp conducted by Natresources, Incorporated to deve10p skill in item writing. For these reasons there is little doubt that the criterion measure, for the field review, is relevant. Reliability was discussed at length previously consequently all one need to remember is that the reli- ability coefficients for the field review were within acceptable limits for this type of examination. The final characteristic of a criterion measure to be considered is that it is free of bias or contamination. The construction of the criterion instrument was explained previously and the writers were unaware that a study of this nature was to be conducted. Consequently criterion contamination could not occur because predictor variables had not been con- structed at that point in time in which the field review was written. The preceding facts support the notion that the field review fulfills the required characteristics, as proposed by Mehrens and Lehmann (1973), for a criterion measure to be considered adequate. Probably the most frequent procedure used in reporting validity is the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient. Appendix D is a series of tables which 41 reflect the correlation coefficients (r) for each of the demographic variables as related to the field review scores. The number of cases, means and standard deviations are also reported for each variable. Because the length (number of questions) varied between July and October separate coefficients are reported for each group. The values found by combining the July and October data are also presented but only for examination purposes because a correlation coefficient may be high or low for either July or October and when the two are combined the values become somewhat distorted. Prior to examining these validity data the results of comparisons between the July and October populations applying for certification are presented to indicate any difference between these two groups could contribute to whatever differences occur in this study. Table 3.1 presents only those variables on which significant differences were found between July and October testings. The number of cases, means, standard-deviations and standard error of the mean are reported. The SPSS program tests the equality of population variances to determine the appropriate t-test values to be considered. When a significant p. value is found in the F-test, separate variance estimate t-tests are apprOpriate. On the other hand, when non-significant differences are found in the pOpulation variance, pooled variance estimate t-tests are appropriate. 42 moo. oo.ooo mo.~ ooo. Hoo ~o.~ moo. mo.H MMMH MMMHM mmwwum “MM oo o moo. oo.ooo mm.~ omo. omo o~.~ ooo. oH.o wwwu mmwnm ”MMMHM WWW om o ooo. oo.-om oo.m- ooo. oomm oH.N1 mom. oo.o mmmu ”Wm” mwmmuo “WW“ no a ooo. N~.~mmm mo.m- ooo. ooom om.m- ooo. oo.o mmwn mmmnm mmwmuw Mmmw oo o ooo. Ho.ooom oo.~ ooo. oomm om.~ moo. oo.o WWW” mwmnm Mfiwmuw WWW“ on o ooo. om.om~m mm.m ooo. Hoom mm.m ooo. Ho.o “Mm” MMMH ”WNW” MMMM om o ooo. no.momm em.~ ooo. Noon mm.~ moo. oo.o wwmn WWW” mwmmuw WWW“ mm o ooo. oo.mo~m H~.m ooo. moon o~.m oo.m oo.o men WNW” mwmmuo WWW“ on o ooo. oo.eoom mo.m ooo. ooom oo.m moo. mo.o mmmn ”MMHM mmmmnw mmmw oo o ooo. om.oo~m on.” omo. moon om.~ ooo. Ho.o WWW“ ”MM” Mmmmnw mmmw oo o ooo. om.omo~ oo.~1 ooo. ooom oo.~1 oo.~ oo.o WWW” WWW” ”WWW” ”WWW oo o ooo. oo.eoe No.~ moo. ooo oo.~ mom. Ho.o WWW” MMMHM mmwmnw MMM m o moo. oo.momm oo.~ moo. ooom oo.~ oom. mo.o wwwn ”mm” mmmmn “mm“ H o .noum up msam> .noum up msHm> .noum msam> uouum coaumo>wo com: momou Homuum u Homuu~ u Homunm m puwocmum osmocmum mumgflumm ”UNEHUMW oocmflum> mumuomom OOCTHHM> UOHOOQ .moanmflum> manoeuvoewn Honouoo pom >H56 somzumm momxama< umou1u11.H.m manme 43 In Table 3.1 the table labels are Q. 1, 3, 14, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 38, 40, 43, 58, and 61 and refer to those specific questions in the demographic questionnaire. Because the questions have distinct categories for respon- ses, in most cases, and because mean scores are being exam- ined, the interpretations are somewhat ambiguous. Those that are interpretable suggest the following results: there were more married people in the July group than in October, fewer of them used audio tapes in practicum supervision and more of them had had formal training in the past calendar year. From the July group a larger number of individuals had attended State Meetings. The July group read Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, Journal of Rehabilitation, and the Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling_more often. The July group had more experience as counselors in D.V.R. settings and the organization they worked for were primarily funded by State/Federal Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies. The clients of the October group were slightly more educated. The Supervisors in the July group supervised more counselors and the July group had more client cases closed in the last year than the October group. On Question 51 of the demographic questionnaire the October group rated their training higher in the following areas: Blind-Deaf, Case Management, Group Work, Job Reten- tion, On-site-evaluations, Post-employment Services, 44 Psycholoqical Test Administration, Recreation and Technical writing. The remaining 44 areas were found to be similar. Question 52 results revealed that the July group had used the following aSpects of their training less than the October group: Behavior Disorders, Disadvantaged, Employability Planning and Vocational Diagnostic Inter- viewing whereas the October group utilized Management Training and OrthOpedically Handicapped Training less often. The October group, on question 53, responded more frequently for more training in Accounting, Legislation affecting Rehabilitation, Sexual Dysfunction, and Time Management whereas the July group responded more frequently for additional Management Training. Question 54 analysis revealed the following dif- ference: the October group spent a larger percentage of their time in personal counseling and would want to spend even more time in this area. In assessing the areas that they felt competent to work in, the October group indicated "sometimes" or "more often" in all areas except contact with other agencies. The October group, on question 55, rated "being in the right place at the right time" higher than the July group regarding its importance in being promoted. With these differences in mind an examination of the validity data reveal that in July, of the 67 possible predictor variables there were 37 which were significant 45 at the .05 level. The remaining 30 variables revealed a non-significant relationship. October data revealed a total of 45 variables which were significant at the .05 level. At this point the inclination might be to state that there are a significant number of variables that could be utilized to indicate that criterion validity exists. From a purely statistical perspective this is a true state- ment but other factors should be considered prior to making this affirmation. A close examination of the correlation coefficients revealed that the highest correlation in either July or October was -.1672 for the number of years as a counselor, as related to field review scores. In this singular instance if one applies the coefficient of determination one finds that only slightly over 2 percent of the variance is accounted for by this variable. The majority of the coefficients are less than .10 which indicated from a practical perspective that there is very little relation- ship between the field review scores and the demographic questions. To assume that there is ng_relationship between the field review scores and demographic questions would be in error. The standard error of r when the population Y'is assumed to be zero is a .022 which means that the obtained correlation -.1672 is considerably larger than the standard error. Very rarely could this degree of correlation occur 46 by random sampling in a population where the two variables are actually uncorrelated thus one must way that almost certainly there is some correlation. Closer examination of all variables revealed that there were twelve common variables (Table 3.2) in July and October where the correlation coefficients were consider- ably larger than their standard errors. Table 3.2.--Common Significant Correlation Coefficients.* Variable July October Sex .15 .14 Fathers' Education .09 .08 Mothers' Education .12 .10 Undergraduate GPA .11 .11 Individual Supervision .09 .12 Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin -.09 -.10 Counselor Education and Supervision -.14 -.15 Counseling Psychologist -.11 -.09 Social Case Work -.14 -.15 Books in Personal Library .13 .16 Years Experience as a Counselor -.08 -.09 Cases Closed -.10 -.14 *p = <.05 These data suggested that from a statistical perspective there were in fact twelve significant variables on which validity could be based. Obviously this is not near the potential number that might have been possible but then 47 again one, two, or twelve are more significant than finding no basis for criterion validity. One of the research questions presented in Chapter I was: can an additive combination of predictor variables, e.g., training, academic and in-service, and professional activities, be identified to predict certification field review scores? To respond to this question the predictive validity of the demographic questionnaire and field review were examined. In this study the data were collected con- currently and the prime concern was that of concurrent validity as was previously discussed; another concern of this study was the usefulness of the demographic variables in predicting field review performance or vice versa. Such information would have significant impact on the training and professional activities of individuals preparing to become certified rehabilitation counselors. Multiple regression analysis was the statistical technique used to answer the prediction question in this study. Computer programs allow this type of analysis to be conducted in a number of ways although there is no preferred technique recommended by statisticians (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973; Tatsuoka, 1969). The multiple regression technique used was a for- ward (stepwise) analysis. In this process "independent variables are entered only if they meet certain statistical criteria." In this case a significance level of .05 was selected for a variable to be included. "The order of 48 inclusion is determined by the respective contribution of each variable to explain variance (Nie, Hull et a1., 1975, p. 345). The intent, therefore, is to identify the best possible combination of variables upon which to base the prediction. A forward (step-wise) analysis was calculated on the last three-fourths of each group and the stability of the regression weights (B) examined using standard regres- sion analysis, on the first one-fourth of each group, using the significant variables found in the forward solution. This method involved examining the regression weights obtained in the regression analysis of the first one-fourth of each sample to determine if they fell within the 95 per- cent confidence interval generated in the step-wise analysis. In other words, a check was made to see whether the weights given to the several variables in the step-wise equation were more or less similar to the corresponding weights in the other equation (Tatsouka, 1969). A "double cross-validation" could have been conducted but was not for the following reasons: (1) the sample size was of such magnitude that there was little doubt that the regression weights obtained were stable, and (2) the Multiple R's were so small that there was really no need to double cross- validate. The findings of these analysis for July and October will be presented and comparisons drawn to examine the commonalities of each group. 49 Table 3.3 is a summary of the forward (step-wise) multiple regression analysis of the last three—fourths of the July pOpulation. The analysis identified 13 variables which would be significant in predicting field review scores. In all cases, the following interpretations refer to averages found for the group in question. The variables with the negative regression weights (B) include four journals, Counselor Education and Supervision, Social Casework, Counseling Psychologist, and Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. The fifth negative regression weight had to do with the number of cases closed by the individual during the last year. Interpretively this suggests that if an individual does not read these journals and closes fewer cases that their score on the field review would be higher. The positive regression weights are somewhat more difficult to interpret but the following interpretation is prOposed; if an individual is female and married, with a mother who had an education above the average, who has a higher than average number of books in their personal library related to their profession, read the Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling and had audio tape super- vision in practicum, had a higher salary, and had clients with above average income then the individual would also be expected to score higher on the field review. The Multiple R of .36751 is interpreted as follows: with the best linear combination of independent variables (the thirteen found) if an individual's raw scores were multiplied by the raw 50 omomm.ooo . Homoom.mm ommmmo.om mommomm.o omomoo.om ezaemzoo mooomom.m . moooomoo. Hooomoo.m ommommoo. omaommo.o oemqemaz moomoom.o . «Hommmmo. mommomm.~ ommoommm. ommmoooo. zoquo Honmomooommm.u . omommmom.n mommmoo.m1 Homomooo. mwmmooo.m1 mmmmoqo mmooooo.o . mmoooomm. Hoomomo.m mmmmmoom. omommmm.~ meoH924 mmmoooo.m . mmomoomo. oooomoo.m omoommom. mmommoo.o omoo oomomoom.u . moooomo.m1 ommooom.m1 ommmmmmm. omommom.ow mom mooooom.o . momooomm. mommmoo.~ Hoommoom. mmaommoo. pummeoz mmmmmoo.ou . Hmomomm.ou oommmmm.mn mommommm. mommmmm.m1 summoo mooomoo.m . ommooomm. oommoo~.m ommmomoo. oooooom.o wmqmoo oooomom.ou . Noommoo.o1 Hoommmm.mu momooomm. mommomo.m1 Mm3m¢o0m ommmmmo.m . monommm.m oomoomo.o homommmm. omomomm.m xmm oooooomm. . momoommm. mommooo.o ooomoovo. mmommomo. msoom momoooo.on . omommoo.m1 ooomomo.m1 mommmoo.o mmoommo.m1 momomoo Hm>uoucH monopomcoo eon o.mo e m nouum new m monmoum> mam>umusH mucomecoo can mucowoommoou «.mumeeom mammamcd coommmummm mamwuasz >H5n11.m.m magma 51 .mo.vm moanmflum> HH<« hmvmm.ma mommo. mmmoo. momma. Hmhmm. Hmo. mvomw.v «Amamcz ma mmmhm.ma ammoo. vaoo. maama. mammm. Hmo. vahm.m EUZHAU NH oamao.ma onemo.1 movoo. Hooma. Nmmmm. mmo. VMhmm.v mmmmoqo Ha ochmv.va voowo. Homoo. mmmma. moomm. 0H0. ovmam.o meoHaod 0H mmmmm.ma mmmmo. nomoo. Hmoaa. mmavm. moo. omoam.h ammo m Hmvvo.ma mmmmo.1 ommoo. vmoaa. Nommm. moo. oommm.o mom m oowom.ha amoaa. Havoc. mmvoa. bommm. voo. mommm.m ommmaoz h mvmmo.ma @hvva.1 vamoo. mmnmo. hmaam. Hoo. mmaam.oa Bummou o omamo.0m hoawo. mmoao. mammo. mmomm. Hoo. maomo.aa Mmamou m mavom.am mvmva.1 NmoHo. omhho. oamhm. ooo. mmmhm.ma MdSmeOm v amahm.m~ momma. mmmao. hoaoo. marvm. ooo. hamom.ha xmm m mmomo.vm mmoma. Nomao. mmmvo. bomam. ooo. mhmmo.om mMOOm N Hmmmn.mm whmoH.1 amomo. Hmomo. vhmoa. ooo. Hmmm5.mm mDQOou H m m mmcmno mumswm m mocmo o>OEmm Ho wanmoum> commusm Homum>o momsom mumsgm m m monouonz nomoomom umucm 0» m mmum manna humfiesm .Umsswuc0011.m.m OHQMB 52 regression weights and added together one would obtain a predicted score on the test for the individual and if a correlation were calculated between the predicted score and the score the individual actually received the correlation would be .36751 thus one is able to predict somewhat with this series of variables but with a coefficient this low one is not predicting a significant amount. The R2 Change column reflects the actual amount of variance accounted for by each variable as it is added to the regression equation. The R2 column indicates the amount of cumulative variance accounted for by each variable in the equation. The R2 for all thirteen variables is .13507 which means that this combination of variables reduced errors in prediction of July field review scores by 13.5 percent. The regression weights (B) for the first one-fourth of the July data were then examined to determine if the values fell within the confidence intervals established in the step-wise analysis (Table 3.4). Nine of the thirteen variables were found to be within the confidence intervals consequently assurance is provided that these nine variables are relevant in prediction of the entire July population. Sex (Male/Female) was one of the four variables which fell outside of the confidence interval established. A closer examination of the data revealed that this variable is a stronger predictor (R2 Change - .04446) than was originally estimated. Counselor's salary is another variable which did not fall into the established confidence intervals. 53 moooo.moo . Nmoomo.oo oeooom.om mmmmmoo.m oooomm.mo szoemzoo Hommoom.m . oooommm.~1 oomoooom. moomoom.o oooomooo. esmmoo oooommo.o . momoooo.o1 oomoomom. Hmmmoooo. monommmm. wmqmoo mommmmo.o . Homoomm.m mmooooo.o ooomomo.o momoooo.o xmm mmmmooo.m . mmmomooo.- oomomoo.o oooomooo. ooooooo.o omao oomoomm.o . emomoooo. mmmomom.m omooooem. oooooooo. msoom Houmoomoommo. . mooommm.e1 mmomooo.o1 ommooom.o moooomo.m1 xmemaoOm omoooooo. . oomoomo.mu momooom.o1 oeooooo.o ommmomo.ou mom oeomoooo. . oommoom.on moommmmo.n oooomoom. mooomooo.u zoquo mmmomomo. . oommoooo.u moommoo.o1 oomommom. ommoomom.u mammooo ooomooo.m . mokmooom.1 momoomm.o moomooo.o moooomo.~ «amqemoz moooooo.o . Homomomo.1 omooooo.o omooomo. ooomomom. ommmaoz mommmom.o . moooooo.ou oommoomo. oooomoo.o ommomom.o meoHooa mooommo.m . ommomoo.m1 ommmmomo.n omooomo.o omooomo.o1 monomoo om>uoucH moaooomcoo eon o.mo e m uouum new m monmoum> mam>umucH oocovwmcou can mucwfloflmmmoo .>umEEsm mflmuamsd sonmoumom cowumpflam> mmouu >Hdh11.v.m magma 54 ooooo.1 omooo. oomoo. oooom. omo. omooo. esmmoo ommmo. moooo. ommoo. ooomm. moo. oommm. smqmoo mooom. ooooo. moooo. oommm. ooo. ooomm.oo xmm mmooo. momoo. moooo. mmoom. mom. mmmoo.o omen ommmo. mmomo. ooooo. moomm. ooo. oomom.o msoom moooo.1 ooooo. ooooo. Hanan. mmo. ommoo.m MagmaoOm mmooo.1 ooooo. ooooo. oooom. MNH. omoom.m mom commo.1 mmooo. mammo. momma. moo. ooomm. zoquo mommo.1 ammoo. ommmo. oomoo. mmm. moomo.o mmmmoqo omomo. moooo. moomo. ooomo. moo. moomm.m «qwemOEmm HO Umnmucm Homum>o momsom mumsgm m m monouosz nouocmom umucm on m H mmum magma mugsm .nmscouooo11.o.m magma 55 There appear to be two reasons which might account for this occurrence. First, the standard error of B was larger in the analysis of the stability of the regression weights (B) consequently the weight (B) may in actuality be large enough to fall within the confidence intervals. Secondly, an examination of the inter-item correlations revealed strong relationships between counselor's salary and the Counseling Psychologist journal (.21370) and client income (.19057) in the equation; consequently the problem of multicollinearity may exist. When multicollinearity exists estimates of the regression coefficients from sample to sample fluctuate markedly which may have occurred in this case (Nie, Hull et a1., 1975). Multicollinearity may also account for Client Income and the Counseling Psychologist not falling within the established confidence intervals. A third possible explanation for the regression weights being lower on these three variables is that because the sample was not a random one that in fact there was a change in the sample which accounts for the lower regression weights. If a random sample had been drawn there is a possibility that the original weights obtained might have been more accurate in predicting the weights for the entire population. Table 3.5 is a summary of the forward (step-wise) multiple regression analysis of the last three-fourths of the October pOpulation. The analysis identified 17 variables which would be significant in predicting field 56 oooomm.oe . mooomm.oo mommmo.om mooooo~.o omomoo.ok azaemzoo Ho1mmoommomm.1 . oooooom.~1 momoooo.o1 ommooooo. ooomoom.ou asmmoo Honmooooooom.u . mmomoooo.1 momemmm.m1 ammooooo. omoommo~.1 commaom Hoooomoo. . ooomomoo. oooommo.~ mmoooooo. ooooomoo. mmmzommm oooooeo~.1 . omoomom.o1 ommmooo.m1 ooomooom. omooooo.ou ammzomm ommmmom.m . oommmmom. oomommo.~ omoooooo. oomoooo.~ oaoHooa mooomom.o1 . oomoomo.mn oommooo.m1 omooomoo. ooooomm.~1 meomoo> ooomooo.o . koooooom. omomooo.m mooomoom. omomooo.o ommmsqo oo1moooeoo~o.- . ooooommo.u oommmoo.~1 ooumoooomooo. ooooooom.u mammoqo mokoooom.n . oomoomo.o1 oommomo.mu ommmommm. Noooomo.ou nzaomo oooommo.m . ooooooo.o ooommom.m mooooooo. mommomm.~ ozmeazom ammooooo.1 . omoomoo.on moemomm.ou ooooooom. mmmoooo.o1 mam>mmzH ooooomo.m . ooommoo.o oomeooo.m ooommoom. mmmeomm.m moses oomooooo.n . oooooooo.- moommom.m1 Noommomo. mmooomoo.u oom>mms ooooooo.o1 . ooomooo.ou oooooom.m1 momooooo. omomoom.~1 momomoo onooooo.m . omoommm.o moomooo.o moeoomoo. oooomoo.~ xmm monommoo. . oommomoo. ooooooo.m omoooooo. Homoomoo. msoom oooomoo.~1 . ooooooo.m1 ooomomm.mu oooooooo. mmmoooo.ou xmzmaoom om>uouoo mooooomcoo sum o.mo a m gonna new m monmoum> mHm>umucH mocmoomcoo cam mucmwofimwmou «.mhmEEdm mwm>HMC¢ coflmmoummm mamfluasz Honouooll.m.m manna 57 .mo.vAH moafldwum> dads NNHmh.oH mmmoo.1 mmNoo. vamha. ommaw. mvo. 000mm.m Bummou ha oomNm.hH omhoo.1 hamoo. thhH. vomav. vNo. vava.m mmmaam pa ewth.mH vbwmo. waoo. mmmoa. Hmaav. moo. mmmmm.o mmmszmm ma vaNo.oa Homho.1 HNvoo. bwaH. mmmov. moo. Nmomh.p ammzomm oa morem.ma Hmmvo. mhvoo. ooama. Nmaov. moo. pmmom.h mBOHood ma mmamh.0N OVNmo.1 Hmvoo. memH. Nmmmm. boo. mammm.h meomaH> NH ommom.HN hmomo. thoo. hmama. mvmmm. moo. ObNmo.m ammquo HA Nmmmo.MN omoma.1 bmmoo. mmmva. mONmm. moo. mMth.m mummoqo 0H bvwmv.vN Nmovo.1 monoo. mmova. woven. Hoo. mowaa.da N2¢QMO m mmwhm.mm mvmbo. moooo. ommma. Hammm. Noo. vovvv.m uzmeszum m mmoma.mN meHH.1 bNmoo. mNhNH. thmm. Noo. mNmon.m mam>mmzH n NNmmo.Hm moaNH. hmmoo. mmONH. thvm. ooo. momma.ma mason o mmmmN.qm bvmma.1 momao. HvNHH. bNmmm. ooo. N¢MNM.HN oom>mm> m bwmmm.mm mmoma.1 mtho. mammo. vhmam. ooo. omth.NN momomou w HmmbN.Hv momma. thNo. mommo. thmN. ooo. moomN.mm xmm m mmomN.vw omooa. ooamo. HNamo. owth. ooo. mmono.me mMoom N vhmmv.av mONbH.1 HmmNo. HomNo. mONhH. ooo. vhmmv.aw Mmzmduom H m m omcmcu mumsvm m mosmo m>0Emm Ho manmfium> cwuousm Hamum>o onEHm mumswm m m mamwuasz 1wwflsmflm Hmucm on m moum wanna humeesw oflOflF—HHCOUII . m o m OHQMH. 58 review scores. The variables with negative regression weights (B) include: (1) three journals, Counselor Educa- tion and Supervision, Counseling Psychologist, and Social Casework, (2) the number of years as a counselor in a Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) setting, (3) the extent to which their total current in-service training program helped them in performing their job, (4) the number of counseling organizations they have been employed by in the last five years, (5) the number of cases closed by the individual in the last year, (6) the use of video tape in practicum supervision, (7) attendance at a regional professional meeting, and (8) whether their father had a blue-collar or white-collar occupation. Interpretively this means that if an individual does not read these journals, has spent minimal time as a counselor in a DVR setting, feels that their in-service training program is rarely helpful, have worked for only a few organizations in the last five years, closes fewer cases, did not have video tape supervision in practicum, did not attend a regional professional meeting and if their father had a white collar occupation, that their score on the field review would be higher. For the positive regression weights the following interpretation, based on averages for the variables, is proposed; if an individual is female, has a higher than average number of books in their personal library related to their profession, had a social science undergraduate major, has had recent training in a workshop 59 or university, has a higher than average number of hours of in-service training per month, had audio tape supervision in practicum and has clients that have an above average educational background, then the individuals score on the field review would be higher. The Multiple R is inter- preted as follows: with the best linear combination of independent variables (the 17 identified) if an individual's raw scores were multiplied by the raw regression weights (B) and added tOgether one would obtain a predicted score on the test for the individual and if a correlation were calculated between the predicted score and the score for the individual actually received the correlation would be .41850. The R2 Change column is interpreted the same as in the July data. The R2 for all 17 variables is .17514 which means that this combination of variables reduces the error in prediction of the field review scores by 17.5 percent. For the October data (Table 3.6) the regression weights (B) were also examined to determine if the values fell within the confidence intervals established in the step-wise analysis. Nine of the seventeen variables were within the confidence intervals; consequently one has some assurance that these nine variables are relevant in predic- tion for the entire October pOpulation. Three of the remaining eight variables, Social Casework journal, years as a counselor in a DVR setting, and audio tape supervision appear to be stronger predictors than originally estimated. The remaining five variables, Cognseling Psychologist 60 vvomhm.bh . mmmnom.b© Hhmomm.mm mmmmovm.m mmmth.Nb BZ mmmmmmmm.l . vaNmNN.m1 mammmmm.m1 mwmwfivN.H Nommmhh.ml memOU vmmomvab. . omommwmm.1 hmmvmmmm. mmbmmmmm. mmwwovma. mmeHmmm mHmmme.H . mmhmmmmm. Hoombah.m hmvvmomm. mmmvmmvm. mxoom vamommmm. . ommammm.vl omhmmom.al mmmmmmm.a hmmmm©H.N1 mDQOOO Honmmmvmammm. . ww0hN>N®.I mnoenoo.a1 hoovmmha. Ohhmmmm~.1 mummoqo mmmdomo.® . vNthvN.H avoaomm.m omomvHN.H mowvmmm.m xmm HOImoomvmmmm. . mNmmmvv.Nl mommomm.a1 HMVMhmvo. mahombH.H1 NZfiwmo mmOOONo.H . m0m00hv.al monaommm.l mhhhmmmm. mOHHmmNN.I Dmmquo meaovm.a . mmhmmvv.al ommoavva.l Nommvaw. Helmmvmmmmmm.l BWMEUmm mvmommm.m . vmmvmmm.al Hmmmmmvo. Noovoam.a ommommhm. mzmeezum HmmHomv.m . ®MNBVMO.H1 mmobhoo.a HmoommH.H MNHFOMN.H MHSGD hemmmmmm. . hvmoowhm.l oomoavmo. OONNmOHN. mamomFMH. mmm9¢m mmomomv.b . mmaovon.~ Hommmma.m momhomw.a Haomhom.¢ mBOHQD4 Hmmmmama. . mrmvmvm.a1 hQN®NOh.HI whommmom. hmommmmm.l hqm>mmZH hmmmmmmfl.l . haomamm.al vamaam.Nl mmmmhmmm. Hmmmmmmm.l OUM>mm> mmNmfimH.H . ooovmmm.ml mmvahN.H1 OHHhvmo.H omthHH.NI xmzmdoom HmbumucH mocwvwmcoo 80m o.mm B m HOHHm new m OHQMNHM> mHm>HousH oosmcflmcou mam mucofl0flmmmou .humsfism mommamsfl cowmmmnmmm Gowumuflam> mmouu Honou0011.o.m manna 61 mvmvo.1 mmmoo. mvona. HmNHv. omo. ommmo.m meomoH> movwa.1 Nmmoo. omvoa. mmmov. oNo. Hmbwm.v ewmmou Ammoo.1 mmooo. mmvma. mommm. mmm. mmmwm. mmmszmm omNmH. oomNo. mmvma. mammm. ooo. wONNm.ma mxoom HmNoH.1 bmmoo. oomNH. mammm. mad. mNva.N mamomou hwaH.1 mNmao. NHONH. mmovm. moa. thmm.N mummoqu omvma. aamao. hmooa. Hmon. moo. moavm.m xmm ommoo.1 mmmoo. ohmmo. mmth. moo. mvhmm.m NzMmzH mmmma.1 NNmmo. mevo. mmNNN. NHo. hmhom.o oom>mm> vaoH.m mNhoa.1 omHHo. omaao. mNhoa. vON. vthm.H MmszOOm h 11.x mocmnu mumswm m mocmo o>osmm no woumucm Hamum>o onEHm mumswm m m mamfluasz uwmwcmflm noucm on m H moum manna >uwaasm .oesaauaoouu.o.m magma 62 journal, Fathers' occupation, Regional professional meeting attendance, client years of education, and recent training contribute a minimal amount to the total R2; consequently multicollinearity may exist between these variables thus the estimates of the regression coefficients fluctuate from sample to sample. Another possible explanation for the failure to obtain similar regression weights (B) is, again, that the sample, which was not a random one, may have actually changed thus establishing false estimates in the original regression analysis. Ferguson (1966) points out that if two variables have a fairly high correlation with the criterion and low correlations with each other, both measure different aspects of the criterion and both will contribute substantially to prediction. If two variables have a high correlation with each other, they are measures of much the same thing, and the inclusion of both, instead of either one or the other, will contribute little to the prediction achieved (p. 402). The problem of minimal contribution of variables due to multicollinearity appears to exist in both the July and October regression analysis. This problem is faced by all researchers utilizing multiple regression analysis and it can affect attempts to check the stability of regression weights (B). In examining both the July and October regression analysis the following seven variables (Table 3.7) are noted to be common to both groups. 63 Table 3.7.-—Common Variables and Regression Weights in Regression Analysis. July October Social Casework -3.0273205 -4.l449338 Counselor Education and Supervision -3.0386953 -2.5905028 Books in Personal Library .6372802 .6729934 Sex 3.9915027 2.6137906 Closures of Cases - .3000883 - .2608867 Counseling Psychologist -2.8528519 -l.2615700 Audio Tape Supervision 2.2985051 2.0689280 These variables which are common to both groups provide a stable but small relationship between field review scores and demographic questions which should hold for individuals seeking certification in the future. Of interest at this point is the fact that six of the seven common variables found in the regression analysis were also common factors when concurrent validity was discussed. The failure to find similar regression weights (B) on all variables suggested that in order to determine the best combination of variables for prediction that a forward (step-wise) regression analysis be calculated on the total populations of both July and October. By comparing the two total groups and extracting the common variables and their regression weights the best combination of variables 64 should be established. Table 3.8 depicts the results of these analyses. Table 3.8.--Common Variables and Regression Weights in Regression Analysis for Total Groups. July October Sex 4.0425772 2.4925511 Social Casework -3.3070307 -3.8373819 Books in Personal Library .6747398 .6559818 Counselor Education and Supervision -2.7048720 -2.4153188 Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin -2.8101812 -1.4846328 Undergraduate G.P.A. .4292511 .3344882 Counseling Psychologist -2.09l3130 -1.5214585 Audio Tape Supervision 2.0305117 2.7605060 Closures of Cases - .2206703 - .24503167 An examination of Table 3.8 reveals that the seven variables reported in Table 3.7 are included but two addi- tional variables, undergraduate grade point average, and Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, were also identified. In the July analysis the Multiple R (.36621) and R2 (.13411) were somewhat smaller than in the original analy- sis. The october group had an increased Multiple R (.42414) and R2 (.17990). These analyses suggest that the best linear combina- tion of variables that are common to both groups which should hold for comparison purposes for individuals seeking certification in the future are those contained in Table 3.8. 65 In concluding this section on validity it should be ‘pointed out that the case for validity is not strong. The correlation coefficients found were statistically signifi- cant but from a practical perspective their usefulness remains to be seen. The regression analysis with the minimal amount of variance accounted for by each variable also requires future testing to determine its significance. There does appear, however, to be two reasons to consider these instruments as valid. First, the basis for criterion validity has been established as a result of these anlayses, despite the weaknesses found. A second basis for validity is slightly more complex because if one accepts the fact that the instruments have face validity then by definition one must assume that the Commission and the writers of all the questions have created a "valid measure of that and only that universe of individual behavior patterns for which the items constitute a represen- tative sample." Mosier (1947) states that "if one is prepared to infer such a universe and consider that universe rather than one defined in any other way, such a concept of, validity by definition, may be useful" (Mehrens and Ebel, 1967, p. 202). Hypotheses Based on the research questions proposed in Chapter I the following hypotheses were investigated in this study. 66 There is a difference in the number of professional activities (State, Regional, and National Meetings) engaged in between individuals in different areas of specialization. There is a direct relationship between field review scores and years of experience as a coun- selor. There is a difference between individuals' daily working activity and what they would like it to be. There is a direct relationship between counselor's perceived training adequacies and their knowledge, in specific areas, as indicated by their perfor- mance on the field review sub-tests. There is a direct relationship between field review scores and the number of hours of practicum supervision. Individuals with Master's degrees in Rehabilitation Counseling will score significantly higher on the \field review than individuals with Master's degrees in other fields. There is a difference in the field review scores of individuals with different areas of specialization in their current job. Individuals who rate their current in-service training programs as very helpful to them in per- forming their job will score higher on the field 67 review than those who feel the program is rarely helpful. 9. There is a combination of demographic variables that can be used to predict field review scores. Statistical Analysis There were a variety of analyses utilized in this study. Cross-tabulations were used to examine preliminarily the more complex variables such as, area of specialization and meetings attended because there were nine and eight sub-categories, reSpectively, for these two variables. Because of the non—linear relationship between variables (nominal data) a chi-square analysis was used to test for significant differences. In examining relationships between variables the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was used. In some instances, to further examine relationships a one- way analysis of variance was utilized. The techniques used for prediction was a forward (step-wise) mutliple regression analysis which was discussed at length previously. The computer programs used for these analyses were all part of the "Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)" and the analyses were computed at Michigan State University on the CDC 6500 computer. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Introductory Stetement The focus of this chapter is on the relationship and differences in counselor performance on the field review. Four different types of analyses were conducted and are reported in this chapter. The most significant factor to keep in mind in this chapter is that since the number of subjects is large, significance (differences and relationships) from a statis- tical perspective, can be found easily. Results of Analyses This section is organized around each of the nine hypotheses in Chapter III. Each hypothesis is restated and summary cross-tabulations, chi—square, and/or one-way analysis of variance tables are presented for each variable of concern to that hypothesis. Hypothesis 1: There is a difference in the number of professional activities (State, Regional, and National Meetings) engaged in between individuals' different areas of specialization. 68 69 Each of the Tables to be discussed for Hypothesis 1 relate the individuals' area of practice (Q. 35 of the demographic questionnaire) to attendance at State, Regional, and National Meetings. The most frequently attended State meeting is the National Rehabilitation Association (NRA) and the largest group attending are those involved in direct services to clients (counseling), but on a percen- tage basis supervisors at one of the three levels attend more meetings; that is, 40.3 percent of the administrators, 31.0 percent of the supervisors of services at the top agency level and 31.8 percent of the supervisors of services at the middle agency level attend State Meetings as compared to 26.1 percent of the counselors (Appendix E). The data related to Regional Meetings reflected only slightly lower percentages for each of the four groups (Appendix E). National Meetings attendance tables (Appendix E) reveal that even still a smaller percentage attend. With an 8 row by 10 column array accurate statistical interpretation presents a problem. However, chi—square values are reported for each group and reveal that there are signifi- cant differences. The most notable finding is that 44.3 percent of all groups do not attend State Meetings, 72.6 percent do not attend Regional Meetings, and an overwhelming 82.0 percent do not attend National Meetings. To examine these data more closely the number of categories was collapsed. On one dimension, supervisors at all levels were combined and counselors with varying 70 specializations were combined. On the other dimension, meetings were collapsed to examine attendance and non- attendance. The results of the chi-square analysis are all significant and reveal that in all cases supervisors attend more meetings, of all three types, than do the counselors (Tables 4.0-4.2). These data support hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2: There is a relationship between field review scores and years of experience as a counselor. The relationship between field review scores and years of experience as a counselor was examined and revealed a negative relationship. Appendix D contains correlation coefficients on these variables as follows: -.0803 for July, -.0940 for October, and a -.0412 when the data for both groups are combined. This result is contrary to what would be expected based on the Commission's premise that the field review is a practice—based examination that puts a premium on the application of knowledge in managing clients. In an attempt to clarify the nature of the rela- tionship a one-way analysis of variance was calculated (Table 4.3). The negative relationship is due to the fact that in both July and October the group scoring the lowest were the individuals with the most years experience. Also adding to this negative relationship was the fact that the next two lowest scoring groups were also at the high end of 71 Table 4.0.-—Chi-Square Analysis-~July. Area of Practice (Q 35) by State, Regional,and National Meetings Attended. State Meetings Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 l 0 174 292 466 37.3 62.7 27.0 24.4 28.8 10.1 16.9 Practice 1 540 723 1263 42.8 57.2 73.0 75.6 71.2 31.2 41.8 Column 714 1015 1729 Total 41.3 58.7 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 3.89891 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = .0483 Regional Meetings Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 l 0 320 146 466 68.7 31.3 26.9 25.5 30.5 18.5 8.4 Practice 1 933 332 1265 73.8 26.2 73.1 74.5 69.5 53.9 19.2 Column 1253 478 1731 Total 72.4 27.6 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 4.15528 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance .0415 72 Table 4.0.--Continued. National Meetings Count Row Pct Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 348 118 74.7 25.3 24.9 35.3 20.1 6.8 Practice 1 1047 216 82.9 17.1 75.1 64.7 60.6 12.5 Column 1395 334 Total 80.7 19.3 Corrected Chi Square = Significance = .0002 Row Total 466 27.0 1263 73.0 1729 100.0 14.23374 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 73 Table 4.1.--Chi-Square Analysis--October. Area of Practice (Q 35) by State, Regional, and National Meetings Attended. State Meetings Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 l 0 238 360 598 39.8 60.2 26.6 22.6 30.0 10.6 16.0 Practice 1 813 840 1653 49.2 50.8 73.4 77.4 70.0 36.1 37.3 Column 1051 1200 2251 Total 46.7 53.3 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 15.16127 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = .0001 Regional Meetings Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 403 194 597 67.5- 32.5 26.5 24.5 31.7 17.9 8.6 Practice 1 1239 418 1657 74.8 25.2 73.5 75.5 68.3 55.0 18.5 Column 1642 612 2254 Total 72.8 27.2 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 11.36096 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = .0008 Table 4.l.--Continued. National Meetings Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 l 0 455 143 598 76.1 23.9 26.5 24.3 37.1 20.2 6.3 Practice 1 1414 242 1656 85.4 14.6 73.5 75.7 62.9 62.7 10.7 Column 1869 385 2254 Total 82.9 17.1 100.0 Corrected Chi Square 26.17406 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance .0000 Table 4.2.--Chi-Square Analysis--July and October. Combined Area of Practice (Q 35) by State, Regional, and National Meetings Attended. State Meetings Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 l 0 412 652 1064 38.7 61.3 26.7 23.3 29.4 10.4 16.4 Practice 1 1353 1563 2916 46.4 53.6 76.7 70.6 34.0 39.3 Column 1765 2215 3980 Total 44.3 55.7 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 18.30763 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = .0000 Regional Meetings Count Row Pct Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 723 340 1063 68.0 32.0 26.7 25.0 31.2 18.1 8.5 Practice 1 2172 750 2922 74.3 25.7 73.3 75.0 68.8 54.5 18.8 Column 2895 1090 3985 Total 72.6 27.4 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 15.33931 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = .0001 76 Table 4.2.--Continued. National Meetings Count Row Pct Col Pct Tot Pct 0 l 0 803 261 75.5 24.5 24.6 36.3 20.2 6.6 Practice 1 2461 458 84.3 15.7 75.4 63.7 61.8 11.5 Column 3264 719 Total 81.9 18.1 Corrected Chi Square = Significance = .0000 Row Total 1064 26.7 2919 73.3 3983 100.0 40.59434 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 77 Table 4.3.--One-Way ANOVA--July and October-—Total Score by Years of Experience July Years Standard Standard Experience Count Mean Deviation Error Less than 1 6 107.000 18.5257 7.5631 1 - 2 121 109.0248 11.7036 1.0640 3 - 4 249 107.7631 13.2685 .8409 5 - 6 284 109.7394 10.7238 .6363 7 - 8 240 106.6375 13.9121 .8980 9 - 10 196 107.4745 11.5849 .8275 ll - 12 127 106.9685 13.3369 1.1835 13 - 14 59 106.3729 11.1028 1.4455 15 - 16 92 105.8261 14.1348 1.4737 17 or More 128 105.5156 13.5554 1.1981 Total 1502 107.5859 12.6615 .3267 Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio Between Groups 2 2764.5650 307.1739 l.927* Within Groups 1492 237865.855? 159.4275 Total 1501 240630.4208 Table 4.3.--Continued. 78 October Years Standard Standard Experience Count Mean Deviation Error Less than 1 8 75.8750 9.5236 3.3671 1 - 2 176 78.8011 12.4032 .9349 3 - 4 319 78.9279 11.6882 .6544 5 - 6 401 77.2594 12.5135 .6249 7 - 8 294 77.4456 11.7207 .6836 9 - 10 222 75.9775 11.5196 .7731 ll - 12 145 76.4690 11.7604 .9766 13 - 14 99 75.4040 12.2282 1.2290 15 - 16 108 75.6574 11.5695 1.1133 17 or More 158 75.2722 11.8669 .9441 Total 1930 77.1440 11.9879 .2729 Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio Between Groups 9 3003.5857 333.7317 .013* Within Groups 1920 274214.3708 142.8200 Total 1929 277217.9596 *p<.05 79 the experience range. The F-ratio in this analysis was significant but subsequent Tukey post-hoc analysis were uanble to detect a significant difference between groups. The hypothesis of a relationship existing is affirmed but in a direction contray to what might be expected. Hypothesis 3: There is a difference between individuals' daily working activity and what they would like it to be. Individuals taking the field review and responding to the question regarding the percentage of time they spent in Specific areas in their daily work activity versus the amount of time they would like to Spend on a given activity provided responses ranging from zero percent to 99 percent of the time. For analysis purposes this variable was dichotomized into two groups, those spending no time or desiring to spend no time on a given activity and those that spend some time or desire to spend some percentage of their time in a given activity. In the area of personal counseling the findings are that 15.2 percent of the individuals are not doing this in their daily activity and would prefer not to be doing it. Combining both July and October the findings are that 68.5 percent were doing what they desired in this area while 13.1 percent are counseling and prefer not to and 3.2 are not counseling enough of their time and would like to be doing more (Table 4.4). 80 Table 4.4.--Personal Counseling: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity. July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 O 266 47 313 85.0 15.0 20.7 52.3 4.7 17.6 3.1 Present 1 243 955 1198 20.3 79.7 79.3 47.7 95.3 16.1 63.2 Column 509 1002 1511 Total 33.7 66.3 Corrected Chi Square = 462.14958 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 273 65 338 80.8 19.2 16.6 55.0 4.2 13.4 3.2 Present 1 223 1472 1695 13.2 86.8 83.4 45.0 95.8 11.0 72.4 Column 496 1537 2033 Total 24.4 75.6 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 6 Significance 0 94.77615 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 81 Table 4.4.--Continued. July—October Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 539 112 82.8 17.2 53.6 4.4 15.2 3.2 Present 1 466 2427 16.1 83.9 46.4 95.6 13.1 68.5 Column 1005 2539 Total 28.4 71.6 Corrected Chi Square = Significance = Row Total 651 18.4 2893 81.6 3544 100.0 1160.00939 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 0 82 On the question of contact with other agencies, only 1.9 percent would like to be spending more of their time doing this while 64.4 percent are doing what they prefer (Table 4.6). In all other areas, vocational counseling (Table 4.5), case finding (Table 4.7), job development (Table 4.8), job placement (Table 4.9), administrative work (Table 4.10), research and evaluation (Table 4.11), proqram development (Table 4.12), Paper work (Table 4.13), and working with the multiple handicapped (Table 4.14), if one examines the diagonals (0,0)(1,1) of the chi-square analyses they reveal that those individuals seeking certification in both July and October are doing essentially what they desire to do. To further clarify this hypothesis a t-test was calculated to determine if there was a significant differ- ence in the mean percentage of time individuals spent in the thirteen specific areas versus the mean percentage of time they desired to spend in a given activity. Table 4.15 depicts the results of these analyses. The first factor to be noted in this table is that there is a statistically significant difference between current and desired percentages of time on all variables except working with the multiple handicapped. The increases and decreases between the two amounts of time on all of the variables are minimal with the exception of Paper Work were in both July and October the individuals responding would prefer a reduction in this activity by approximately 16 83 Table 4.5.--Vocationa1 Counseling: Preferred Work Activity. Work Activity vs. July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct O l 0 352 42 394 89.3 10.7 26.1 62.0 4.5 23.3 2.8 Present 1 216 901 1117 19.3 80.7 73.9 38.0 95.5 14.3 59.6 Column 568 943 1511 Total 37.6 62.4 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 605.40975 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 342 71 413 82.8 17.2 20.3 57.4 4.9 16.8 3.5 Present 1 254 1366 1620 15.7 84.3 79.7 42.6 95.1 12.5 67.2 Column 596 1437 2033 Total 29.3 70.7 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = Significance = 0 712.46059 with 1 Deg ree of Freedom. 84 Table 4.5.--Continued. July-October Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 694 113 86.0 14.0 59.6 4.7 19.6 3.2 Present 1 470 2267 17.2 82.8 40.4 95.3 13.3 64.0 Column 1164 2380 Total 32.8 67.2 Corrected Chi Square = 1335.35577 with 1 Degree of Freedom. = 0 Significance Row Total 807 22.8 2737 77.2 3544 100.0 85 Table 4.6.-—Contact with Other Agencies: vs. Preferred WOrk Activity. Work Activity July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 194 31 225 86.2 13.8 14.9 34.0 3.3 12.8 2.1 Present 1 376 910 1286 29.2 70.8 85.1 66.0 96.7 24.9 60.2 Column 570 941 1511 Total 37.7 62.3 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 262.26751 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 225 37 262 85.9 14.1 12.9 36.2 2.6 11.1 1.8 Present 1 397 1374 1771 22.4 77.6 87.1 63.8 97.4 19.5 67.6 Column 622 1411 2033 Total 30.6 69.4 100.0 Corrected Chi Square Significance 0 429.88479 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 86 Table 4.6.--Continued. July-October Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 o 419 68 86.0 14.0 35.2 2.9 11.8 1.9 Present 1 773 2284 25.3 74.7 64.8 97.1 21.8 64.4 Column 1192 2352 Total 33.6 66.4 Corrected Chi Square = 6 Significance = 0 Row Total 487 13.7 3057 86.3 3544 100.0 91.83756 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 87 Table 4.7.--Case Finding: Work Activity. Work Activity vs. Preferred July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct O l 0 867 49 916 94.7 5.3 60.7 77.3 12.6 57.4 3.2 Present 1 254 340 594 42.8 57.2 39.3 22.7 87.4 16.8 22.5 Column 1121 389 1510 Total 74.2 25.8 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 504.59197 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 1144 65 1209 94.6 5.4 59.5 78.4 11.3 56.3 3.2 Present 1 316 508 824 38.3 61.7 40.5 21.6 88.7 15.5 25.0 Column 1460 573 2033 Total 71.8 28.2 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 7 Significance 0 63.87943 with 1 Degree of Freedom.y 88 Table 4.7.--Continued. July-October Combined. Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 2011 .114 94.6 5.4 77.9 11.9 56.8 3.2 Present 1 570 848 40.2 59.8 22.1 88.1 16.1 23.9 Column 2581 962 Total 72.8 27.2 Corrected Chi Square = Significance = 0 Row Total 2125 60.0 1418 40.0 3543 100.0 1271.47069 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Table 4.8.--Job Development: Work Activity. 89 Work Activity vs. Preferred July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 767 112 879 87.3 12.7 58.2 78.5 21.0 50.8 7.4 Present 1 210 422 632 33.2 66.8 41.8 21.5 79.0 13.9 27.9 Column 977 534 1511 Total 64.7 35.3 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 467.32814 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 1011 161 1172 86.3 13.7 57.6 80.2 20.9 49.7 7.9 Present 1 250 611 861 29.0 71.0 42.4 19.8 79.1 12.3 30.1 Column 1261 772 2033 Total 62.0 38.0 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 687.78835 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance 0 Table 4.8.--Continued. 90 July-October Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 1778 273 86.7 13.3 79.4 20.9 50.2 7.7 Present 1 460 1033 30.8 69.2 20.6 79.1 13.0 29.9 Column 2238 1306 Total 63.1 36.9 Corrected Chi Square Significance 0 Row Total 2051 57.9 1493 42.1 3544 100.0 1156.94510 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Table 4.9.-—Job Placement: Work Activity. 91 Work Activity vs. Preferred July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 703 70 773 90.9 9.1 51.2 74.9 12.2 46.5 4.6 Present 1 236 502 738 32.0 68.0 48.8 25.1 87.8 15.6 33.2 Column 939 572 1511 Total 62.1 37.9 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 555.50737 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 900 110 1010 89.1 10.9 49.7 77.1 12.7 44.3 5.4 Present 1 267 756 1023 26.1 73.9 50.3 22.9 87.3 13.1 37.2 Column 1167 866 2033 Total 57.4 42.6 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 8 Significance = 0 22.61453 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Table 4.9.--Continued. 92 July-October.Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 1603 180 89.9 10.1 76.1 12.5 45.2 5.1 Present 1 503 1258 28.6 71.4 23.9 87.5 14.2 35.5 Column 2106 1438 Total 59.4 40.6 Corrected Chi Square = 1380.04792 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance 0 Total 1783 50.3 1761 49.7 3544 100.0 93 Table 4.10.--Administrative Work: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity. July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 575 49 624 92.1 7.9 41.3 64.5 7.9 38.1 3.2 Present 1 317 569 886 35.8 64.2 58.7 35.5 92.1 21.0 37.7 Column 892 618 1510 Total 59.1 40.9 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 478.86206 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 768 67 835 92.0 8.0 41.1 68.1 7.4 37.8 3.3 Present 1 360 838 1198 30.1 69.9 58.9 31.9 92.6 17.7 41.2 Column 1128 905 2033 Total 55.5 44.5 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = Significance = 0 761.45121 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 94 Total 4.10.—-Continued. July-October Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 575 49 92.1 7.9 64.5 7.9 38.1 3.2 Present 1 317 569 35.8 64.2 35.5 92.1 21.0 37.7 Column 892 618 Total 59.1 40.9 Corrected Chi Square = 478.86206 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance 0 Row Total 624 41.3 886 58.7 1510 100.0 95 Table 4.11.--Research and Evaluation: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity. July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 804 147 951 84.5 15.5 63.0 79.4 29.5 53.2 9.7 Present 1 208 351 559 37.2 62.8 37.0 20.6 70.5 13.8 23.2 Column 1012 498 1510 Total 67.0 33.0 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 354.71750 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 1065 226 1291 82.5 17.5 63.5 83.5 29.9 52.4 11.1 Present 1 211 531 742 28.4 71.6 36.5 16.5 70.1 10.4 26.1 Column 1276 757 2033 Total 62.8 37.2 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 5 Significance = 0 86.84944 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 96 Table 4.11.--Continued. July-October Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 1869 373 83.4 16.6 81.7 29.7 52.8 10.5 Present 1 419 882 32.2 67.8 18.3‘ 70.3 11.8 24.9 Column 2288 1255 Total 64.6 35.4 Corrected Chi Square = Significance = 0 Row Total 2242 63.3 1301 36.7 3543 100.0 939.64519 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 97 Table 4.12.--Program Development: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity. July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 600 145 745 80.5 19.5 49.3 72.0 21.4 39.7 9.6 Present 1 233 532 765 30.5 69.5 50.7 28.0 78.6 15.4 35.2 Column 833 677 1510 Total 55.2 44.8 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 380.69613 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 787 179 966 81.5 18.5 47.5 76.7 17.8 38.7 8.8 Present 1 239 828 1067 22.4 77.6 52.5 23.3 82.2 11.8 40.7 Column 1026 1007 2033 Total 50.5 49.5 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 7 Significance = 0 05.33496 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Table 4.12.--Continued. 98 July-October Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 1387 324 81.1 18.9 74.6 19.2 39.1 9.1 Present 1 472 1360 25.8 74.2 25.4 80.8 13.3 38.4 Column 1859 1684 Total 52.5 47.5 Row Total 1711 48.3 1832 51.7 3543 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 1082.62894 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 99 Table 4.13.--Paper Work: Work Activity. Work Activity vs. Preferred July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 123 5 128 96.1 3.9 8.5 18.0 .6 8.1 .3 Present 1 562 820 1382 40.7 59.3 91.5 82.0 99.4 37.2 54.3 Column 685 825 1510 Total 45.4 54.6 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 142.98664 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 173 8 181 95.6 4.4 8.9 21.8 .6 8.5 .4 Present 1 619 1233 1852 33.4 66.6 91.1 78.2 99.4 30.4 60.6 Column 792 1241 2033 Total 39.0 61.0 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 265.27061 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance 0 Table 4.13.--Continued. 100 July-October Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct 0 1 0 296 13 95.8 4.2 20.0 .6 8.4 .4 Present 1 1181 2053 36.5 63.5 80.0 99.4 33.3 57.9 Column 1477 2066 Total 41.7 58.3 Corrected Chi Square = Significance = 0 Row Total 309 8.7 3234 91.3 3543 100.0 405.22390 with 1 Degree of Freedom. 101 Table 4.14.--Mu1tip1e Handicapped: Work Activity vs. Preferred Work Activity. July Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 936 46 982 95.3 4.7 65.0 84.2 11.5 62.0 3.0 Present 1 175 353 528 33.1 66.9 35.0 15.8 88.5 11.6 23.4 Column 1111 399 1510 Total 73.6 26.4 100.0 Corrected Chi Square = 679.49265 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Significance = 0 October Count Row Pct Preferred Row Col Pct Total Tot Pct 0 1 0 1216 83 1299 93.6 6.4 63.9 84.4 14.0 59.8 4.1 Present 1 225 508 733 30.7 69.3 36.1 15.6 86.0 11.1 25.0 Column 1441 591 2032 Total 70.9 29.1 100.0 Corrected Chi Square Significance 0 896.22122 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Table 4.14.--Continued. 102 July—October Combined Count Row Pct Preferred Col Pct Tot Pct O 1 0 2152 129 94.3 5.7 84.3 13.0 60.8 3.6 Present 1 400 861 31.7 68.3 15.7 87.0 11.3 24.3 Column 2552 990 Total 72.0 28.0 Corrected Chi Square = Significance = 0 Row Total 2281 64.4 1261 35.6 3542 100.0 1578.32525 with 1 Degree of Freedom. Table 4.15.--t-tests--Current Mean Percentage of 103 Desire Mean Percentage of Time. Time Spent Versus July October Current Preferred Current Preferred Personal Counseling 14.1202 18.0520* 15.9313 21.8386* V0cational Counseling 13.8488 16.1641* 14.3569 17.3040* Contact with Other Agencies 9.7664 7.7603* 9.4838 8.2086* Case Finding 3.5250 2.4291* 3.1164 2.2699* Job Development 3.2330 3.8960* 2.9361 3.8779* Job Placement 3.9318 4.5051* 3.7919 4.8155* Administrative Work 14.4912 9.3264* 14.0435 10.0881* Research & Evaluation 4.4399 4.8493* 4.2233 5.0970* Program Development 6.0196 7.3892 6.1289 7.7683* Paper Work 23.1507 6.5676* 22.5519 6.5215* Multiple Handicapped 3.6372 3.5264 3.5810 3.6911 *p<.05. 104 percent. Another interesting fact that is not revealed by the table is that both of the Current columns sum to 100 percent whereas the Preferred columns sum to 84 percent and 91 percent respectively for July and October. The most obvious question is, what do the individuals desire to do for the balance of their weekly time? This is a question which will have to go unanswered for now. The chi-square analyses and the t-tests provide statistical support for Hypothesis 3 but from a practical perspective the differences found are inconsequential and one could believe that overall counselors are doing what they desire to do most of the time. Hypothesis 4: There is a direct relationship between counselors' perceived training adequacies and their knowledge, in specific areas, as indicated by their performance on the field review sub-tests. There were ten specific areas that were examined in relation to this hypothesis. Field review sub-tests in the area of blind, deaf, group counseling, counseling theory, research and evaluation, job development and place- ment, neurologically impaired, mental retardation, community organization and resources and case management were paired with subjects' ratings of their training in these areas. Table 4.16 depicts the correlations found. Five statistically significant relationships were found in July and six in October. This significance is due, in part, to the large number of subjects involved. From a practical 105 Table 4.16.--Correlations Between Ratings of Training and Field Review Sub-test Performance. July October Blind -.02 .01 Deaf .05* .06* Group Counseling -.05 .01 Research and Evaluation .13 .16* Job Development and Placement -.04 -.06* Neurologically Impaired -- .08* Mental Retardation .03 .02 Community Organization and Resources .05 -.01 Case Management -.05* -.05* Counseling Theory .06* .14* *p=.05 or meaningful perspective the relationships would appear to be significant. There is research and statistical evidence (Guilford, 1956; Borg & Gall, 1971) to suggest that the correlations must be higher than those presented to be of any practical significance. Borg and Gall (1971), for example, do not discuss, at any length, correlations as are found in these results. For correlations in the range of .20 to .35 they feel that: Correlations at this level show a very slight rela- tionship between variables, although this relation- ship may be statistically significant. A correlation of .20 indicates that only 4 percent of the variance in the two measures that have been correlated is common to both. Correlations in this range may have limited meaning in exploratory research where relationships are being sought using crude measures. Correlations, at this level, however, are of no value in either individual or group prediction. (p. 359) 106 Given these facts and the correlations found this hypothesis is rejected. There is no practical or meaning- ful evidence to support the notion of a relationship between ratings of training and field review sub-test performance. Hypothesis 5: There is a direct relationship between field review scores and the number of hours of practicum supervision. The degree of relationship between these two vari- ables was examined from two perspectives, individual and group supervision. In July individual practicum supervision correlated with field review scores .0867, and in October at .1209. In examining group supervision the correlations were .0110 for July and .1037 for October. Three of the four coefficients were statistically significant but as was previously mentioned the degree of relationship is minimal thus rendering it inconsequential. To further clarify the relationships a one-way analysis of variance was calculated. Tukey post-hoc analysis revealed no significant difference between groups in July for individual supervision; however, in October a significant difference was found in that individuals with no individual supervision scored significantly lower than those individuals with between 12 and 20 hours of super- vision and those with 36 or more hours (Table 4.17). For group supervision again in July no significant differences were found in the post-hoc analysis. In October, however, 107 Table 4.17.--One-Way ANOVA--Fie1d Review Scores by Hours of Individual Supervision--Ju1y and October. July Group Standard Standard (Hrs) Count Mean Deviation Error 0 492 106.5752 12.4647 .5620 1-3 101 106.8317 13.0239 1.2959 4-7 108 106.7685 14.5837 1.4033 8-11 127 107.2756 12.2239 1.0847 12-15 122 108.5820 13.0167 1.1785 16-20 110 106.1636 13.7036 1.7036 21-25 43 107.3023 10.7228 1.6352 26-30 39 109.7692 12.4910 2.0002 31-35 36 108.6111 14.1830 2.3638 36-> 333 109.4925 11.7167 .6421 Total 1511 107.5917 Ungrouped Data 12.6492 .3254 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 9 2425.6170 269.5130 1.691 .087 Within Groups 1501 239179.4379 159.3467 Total 1510 241605.0549 108 Table 4.17.--Continued. October Group Standard Standard (Hrs) Count Mean Deviation Error 0 621 75.1111 12.4757 .5006 1-3 132 76.7576 13.5810 1.1821 4-7 158 76.8038 12.6509 1.0064 8—11 155 "77.2968 10.2318 .8218 12-15 162 78.7593 10.4577 .8216 16-20 125 79.1040 12.0435 1.0772 21-25 50 77.3600 12.1366 1.7164 26-30 57 77.1228 11.3831 1.5077 31-35 62 75.8548 15.5593 1.9760 36-> 415 79.3711 10.4882 .5148 Total 1937 77.1582 Ungrouped Data 11.9823 .2723 —7- Analysis—of Variance ‘_ Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 9 5674.4593 630.4955 4.462 .000 Within Groups 1927 272286.3079 141.3006 Total 1936 277960.7672 109 differences were found between those individuals having no group supervision and those having from 21-25 hours of supervision in practicum (Table 4.18). The hypothesis of a relationship between field review scores and number of hours of practicum supervision is not supported. Differences found in the ANOVA for October were significant but not in a linear form as was hypothesized. Hypothesis 6: Individuals with Master's degrees in Rehabilitation Counseling will score higher on the field review than individuals with Master's degrees in other fields. Table 4.19 presents the analysis of variance summary which compared Master's degrees in rehabilitation counseling with all other M.A. majors and indicates support for Hypothesis 6. However, subsequent Tukey post-hoc anlayses were unable to detect where the differences actually existed. Hypothesis 7: There is a difference in the field review scores of individuals with different areas of specialization in their current job. Table 4.20 reveals that in July individuals in Counselor Education scored significantly higher than those in Disability Determination. In October, Counselor Educators again scored the highest but Supervisors of Services at the top and middle agency level were in the same range according to the Tukey post-hoc analysis. This 110 Table 4.18.--One-Way ANOVA-—Fie1d Review Scores by Hours of Group Supervision--July and October. July Group Standard Standard (Hrs) Count Mean Deviation Error 0 590 107.7932 12.0942 .4979 1-3 88 106.6477 13.4840 1.4374 4—7 91 107.1648 14.0200 1.4697 8-11 95 105.3579 13.9314 1.4293 12-15 106 109.9906 12.1604 1.1811 16-20 81 105.9630 12.9706 1.4412 21-25 43 107.1163 16.3579 2.4946 26-30 70 105.5143 14.8994 1.7808 31-35 45 107.5556 _11.3429 1.6909 36-> 302 108.4536 11.6058 .6678 Total 1511 107.5917 Ungrouped Data 12.6492 .3254 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 9 1954.0976 217.1220 .202 Within Groups 1501 239650.9574 159.6609 Total 1510 241605.0549 111 Table 4.18.--Continued. October Group Standard Standard (Hrs) Count Mean Deviation Error 0 744 75.9059 12.0029 .4400 1-3 112 76.3304 12.5643 1.1872 4-7 115 76.2348 12.7226 1.1864 8-11 120 76.5333 12.6677 1.1564 12-15 128 78.5234 10.6490 .9412 16-20 111 76.5676 12.2693 1.1741 21-25 64 81.1094 9.6447 1.2056 26-30 79 77.4684 12.9068 1.4521 31-35 52 80.1154 11.9059 1.6511 36-> 412 78.7456 11.5007 .5666 Total 1937 77.1528 Ungrouped Data 11.9823 .2723 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 9 4167.9154 463.1017 3.259 .001 Within Groups 1927 273792.8518 142.0824 Total 1936 277960.7672 112 Table 4.19.--One-Way ANOVA--Fie1d Review Scores by Graduate Major. July Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error Rehabilitation 725 108.9379 12.1192 .4501 Other 678 106.4897 12.8563 .4937 Total 1403 107.7548 Ungrouped Data 12.5363 .3347 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 1 2100.0204 2100.0204 13.481 .000 Within Groups 1401 218235.6346 155.7713 Total 1402 220335.6550 113 Table 4.19.--Continued. October Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error Rehabilitation 955 78.5026 11.2460 .3639 Other 876 76.3459 12.1753 .4114 Total 1831 77.4708 Ungrouped Data 11.7461 .2745 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 1 2125.2481 2125.2481 15.526 .000 Within Groups 1829 250362.938? 136.8851 Total 1830 252488.1868 114 Table 4.20.--One-Way ANOVA--Fie1d Review Scores by Area of Specialization in Practice. July Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error Administrators 115 107.4957 11.4726 1.0698 Supervisor (Top) 61 111.3115 9.2205 1.1806 Supervisor (Middle) 238 107.9118 13.4370 .8710 Counselor 861 107.2125 12.6804 .4321 Staff Development 30 111.4000 10.7434 1.9615 Counselor Educators 41 112.9488 12.8315 2.0039 Client Evalation 67 106.5821 13.9698 1.7067 Disability Determination 24 100.9167 15.2627 3.1155 Job Development 21 103.4762 12.0980 2.6400 Other 53 108.5660 10.3227 1.4179 Total 1511 107.5917 Ungrouped Data 12.6492 .3254 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 9 3786.4823 420.7203 2.655 .000 Within Groups 1501 237818.5726 158.4401 Total 1510 241605.0549 115 Table 4.20.--Continued. October Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error Administrators 161 76.5776 12.6237 .9949 Supervisor (TOp) 73 76.5616 10.8089 1.2651 Supervisor (Middle) 279 77.3405 12.1075 .7249 Counselor 1111 77.3843 11.6332 .3490 Staff Development 33 75.9697 13.2441 2.3055 Counselor Educators 54 79.8889 12.5423 1.7068 Client Evaluation 77 76.4545 11.1610 1.2719 Disability Determination 21 74.3810 14.1438 3.0864 Job Development 29 69.4828 19.2810 3.5804 Other 100 77.7800 11.3828 1.1383 Total 1938 77.1584 Ungrouped Data 11.9817 .2722 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 9 2542.8283 282.5365 1.977 .039 Within Groups 1928 275535.5396 142.9126 Total 1937 278078.3679 116 group did, however, score significantly higher than those in Job Development and Placement. As a result of these analyses support is provided for Hypothesis 7. Hypothesis 8: Individuals who rate their current in-service training programs as very helpful to them in performing their jobs will score higher on the field review than those who feel the program is rarely helpful. Table 4.21 reveals no significant differences between the groups, for July, however, those individuals indicating that their current in-service training was rarely helpful scored higher, on the average, than any other group. Similar results were found for October. Also, in October significant differences were found but in completely the Opposite direction of what had been hypothesized. In other words, those who felt their current in-service program was almost always helpful scored significantly lower than those individuals indicating that it was rarely helpful. Given these results Hypothesis 8 is rejected. Hypothesis 9: There is a combination of demographic variables that can be used to predict field review scores. This hypothesis was dealt with at length in Chap- ter III. Briefly, thirteen predictor variables were found for July while seventeen were found for October. The multiple regression analysis only accounts for 13.5 percent 117 Table 4.21.-—One-Way ANOVA--Fie1d Review Scores by Helpful— ness In-service Training. July Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error Rarely 164 108.0183 11.0128 .8660 Sometimes 547 107.9159 12.9220 .5525 Frequently 342 107.9357 12.8111 .6927 Generally 242 106.3140 12.7576 .8201 Almost Always 172 106.7907 12.6737 .9664 Total 1467 107.5358 Ungrouped Data 12.6401 .3300 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 4 628.6123 157.1531 .984 .415 Within Groups 1462 233596.2589 159.7786 Total 1456 234224.3712 Table 4.21.--Continued. 118 October Standard Standard Group Count Mean Deviation Error Rarely 242 78.8264 11.1996 .7199 Sometimes 626 78.2428 11.1799 .4468 Frequently 442 76.8145 12.2210 .5813 Generally 337 76.8516 12.0709 .6575 Almost Always 233 74.0773 12.9579 .8489 Total 1880 77.2165 Ungrouped Data 11.8941 .2743 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Squares F Ratio F Prob. Between Groups 4 3699.1071 924.7768 6.615 .000 Within Groups 1875 262123.7818 139.7994 Total 1879 265822.8888 119 c>f the variance in the July pOpulation and 17.5 percent ‘fOr the October population. These findings plus the fact that cross validation within the July and October popula- tions was not completely successful suggests that the demoqraphic variables are of minimal significance in pre- dicting field review performance. Summary of Results There was a significant difference in meeting attendance of all three types between supervisors and counselors. That is, supervisors attend more State, Regional, and National Meetings than do counselors. Minimal relationships were found between field review scores and years experiences as a counselor, counselors' perceived training inadequacies and sub-test performance, and field review scores and hours of practicum supervision. On a percentage of time basis, counselors are engaged in the activities in which they desire to be involved. Individuals with Master's degrees in Rehabilitation Counseling generally score higher on the field review than individuals with M.A.‘s in all other fields combined. Counselor Educators score significantly higher on the field review than any other group. 120 Error in predicting field review scores through the use of demographic variables can only be reduced by approximately 14 percent according to the multiple regression analysis. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Introductory Statement This research was primarily focused on two basic questions. In general, these questions could be restated as: 1. Can the validity of the field review be established with concurrent measures of biographical variables? 2. How do professional activities (attendance at professional meetings and journal reading) and training (academic and in-service) relate to performance on the certification examination? The research findings and implications that relate to these general questions will be discussed separately. Results and Implications Regarding the validity of the Field Review The demographic questionnaire has provided a wealth of information to describe certification applicants. The differences in the July and October populations were minimal indicating that the 3,982 individuals were a homogeneous group. 121 122 The attempt to establish concurrent validity for the field review met with only minimal success. Only twelve variables were identified for the entire population and although the relationship between the field review performance and these twelve variables were statistically significant, from a practical perspective the degree of relationship was minimal. There appear to be a number of possible explana- tions for the lack of validity found in this study. First, because the individuals seeking certification have different areas of specialization in their current job the question arises as whether or not the field review is more valid for one group than another? The ANOVA results in Table 4.20 suggested that this may be true and that the field review failed to be heterogeneous enough to accurately assess various specialty areas in the field of rehabilitation. Second, and possibly the most serious factor to consider is whether or not a paper and pencil examination such as the field review is a valid measure of a successful coun— selor. Optimally, a number of methods should be utilized, such as ratings by supervisors, case closure rates and the sustention of benefits for clients served, to mention a few. A second factor to be considered is that indivi- duals, because of the knowledge that they did not have to obtain a specific score to be certified, randomly responded to the field review thus providing an inaccurate 123 index of their ability as measured by the field review. Examination of the split-half reliabilities suggests that this is not true unless the subjects took painstaking efforts to distort systematically on all questions on the field review. A final factor to consider is that the field review requires skills other than the ability to apply knowledge from the field of rehabilitation to managing clients. In July, for example, Counselor Educators and Staff Development personnel had the highest average scores and again in October, Counselor Educators had the highest average scores. This suggests that knowledge of isolated bits of information rather than the application of this knowledge may be a factor in field review performance. The Effect of Professional Activities and Training on Field Review Performance In establishing the standards for eligibility for certification, during the grandpersoning period, the Commission required that applicants be members of a profes- sional organization. Implicit in this requirement is that by virtue of being a member individuals will be subjected to professional journals and meetings of the organization. The results of this study show that very few applicants attended professional meetings and in one case it was found that attendance at Regional meetings had a negative relationship to field review performance. It was also found that reading certain journals, Social Casework, Counseling Psychologist, and Counselor Education and 124 Supervision, also had a negative effect or were negatively related to the field review. One must conclude from this that the field review contains a unique body of knowledge which is not affected by experience and knowledge gained from professional meetings and publications. Recall that within the demoqraphic questionnaire there were a series of questions related to academic training. Question 51 requested that the individual rate their training in 54 areas. These ratings were averaged to obtain an overall rating of the respondents' training. A new variable was thus created called "average" which was correlated with field review scores to determine the relationship between ratings of training and field review scores. It was found that in July the correlation was -.0445 and in October -.0627. In part, then it appears that ratings in the specified areas of academic training are not related to field review performance. With in-service training it was found that those who indicated that their current in-service training was rarely helpful to them in performing their job scored the highest. The most logical explanation for this is that if they already know the material being presented in the in-service training that this training is rarely helpful to them. In summary, it appears that professional activities may have a negative effect on field review performance. One explanation for this phenomena might be that the knowledge obtained at professional meetings and through 125 professional publications may be so specific that it has little effect on a broad range of skills. Another factor might be that the specific skills are so advanced over current practices that their value is clouded by a lack of familiarity by others in the profession. The lack of relationship between training (academic and in-service) to field review scores may be accounted for by three factors: (1) inaccurate percpetions in rating of training by participants, (2) the Specific areas queried in the questionnaire have no relationship to the skills necessary to score satisfactorily on the field review, and (3) the questions within the field review are homogeneous thus discrimination between individuals was not accomplished. The implications of these findings pose rather serious questions as related to Rehabilitation Counseling Education programs and the mandate for in-service/continu- ing education. If it does not matter that a counselor feels he/she was trained poorly in a given subject area and if in-service training rarely helps in job performance and that both of these factors are either non-related or negatively related to performance on the field review which is to certify individuals as Rehabilitation Counselors and provide them with credibility and stature in the profes- sion then what is their value? These results would suggest that neither the quality or quantity of current forms of training (academic and in-service) has an impact on whether or not an individual is certified as a 126 Rehabilitation Counselor and that new and innovative curri- culums and in-service programs are necessary to take the individual beyond the point they are in knowledge of the field of rehabilitation. Because the validity of the field review is in question these results are suspect. Further research on the field review examination with a close inspection of individual questions seems appropriate prior to harsh judgments that these results suggest. Limitations of the Research The most obvious limitation of this research is that all individuals taking part in the certification process did so on a voluntary basis. Furthermore, they were all aware that their performance on the field review and compliance (or lack of compliance) in responding to the field demographic questionnaire would not affect their being certified. This supports the notion, as was pre- viously mentioned, that the population in the study was homogeneous consequently the results may not generalize to others seeking certification as rehabilitation counselors. Furthermore, most of the analyses of data were conducted on groups, that included supervisors, counselor educators, etc. and not on rehabilitation counselors alone. Implications for Future Research It is obvious that research in this area must con- tinue. With Certification by Examination having begun in April 1976 the data pool upon which this study was 127 conducted can be added to which may help in clarifying the lack of relationships found in this research. In addition to this an examination of the questions in the field review must be undertaken to insure that in future certification examinations low intercorrelations among items exist so that the validity of the examination is increased. The entire training issue should also be examined in future research with Specific recommendations being made to academic institutions and State and Regional offices based on the certification applicants' needs as specified in the demographic questionnaire. Additional criterion measures should be developed to assess certification applicants so that a variety of factors can be evaluated in determining the competency and level of performance of a counselor. A study such as this would also provide for an additional basis for the validity of the field review. The question of whether or not the field review is in fact practice based also needs to be assessed so that practice based validity, if in fact it exists, can be established. Conclusions The primary goal of this research has been to clarify and identify relationships between individual characteristics of applicants for certification as rehabilitation counselors and their performance on a practice based field examination. 128 The accomplishment of this goal has led to specific findings that: (1) supervisors attend more State, Regional, and National meetings than do counselors, (2) years of experience as a counselor has a minimal relationship to field review examination scores, (3) generally, counselors are engaged in the activities they desire for the percen- tage of time per week that they desire with one notable exception, that being paper work, (4) individuals with Master's degrees in Rehabilitation Counseling generally score higher on the field review than individuals with M.A.‘s in all other fields combined, (5) counselor educa- tors score significantly higher on the field review than any other group, and (6) error in predicting field review scores through the use of demographic variables can only be reduced by approximately 14 percent through the use of multiple regression analysis. The idea of certification of rehabilitation coun- selors appears to be a viable one. The efforts of the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification continue to provide input in the field of rehabilitation counseling and the efforts are leading to standardization of qualifications of rehabilitation counseling profes- sionals. The certification of counselors by the Commission is providing the general public with a criterion upon which to evaluate the qualifications of the individuals to pro- vide services. 129 The results of this study provide a definitive picture of rehabilitation counselor characteristics and they should have an impact on the field of rehabilitation-- the educational and professional organizations and the counselors upon which this study was based. APPENDICES APPENDIX A STANDARDS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTIFICATION APPENDIX A STANDARDS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTIFICATION Certification Philosophy and Conclusions C. D. Carnes Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling Spring 1972 1. Despite serious practical difficulties and questions regarding internal readiness, increasing external forces require that rehabilitation counseling deve10p professional standards and related certification proce- dures. Positively, it is felt that a minimum consensus now exists sufficient to justify standards and consequently stabilize the field along with assisting in future profes- sional growth. Negatively, several state legislative efforts are under way with minimal professional consulta- tion, many fragmented efforts to develop standards are on- going with little coordination, and "deprofessionalization" threatens under the impact of increasing pressures for more services to more peOple. 2. The intent is not to certify that any individual is suitable for employment or attempt to impose personnel requirements upon any agency, but to establish a national professional scale regarding which any interested group, agency, or individual may use as a measure. However, it would be hoped that voluntary c00peration by a majority of rehabilitation counselors would, over time, exercise an increasing influence on the field and ultimately guide legislation, personnel practices and training prOgrams. 3. Considering the realities of the field today, any national certification prOgram must be broad-based ' professionally and involve representatives from several related and apprOpriate groups or areas. Management of 130 131 committee work activity suggests that broader circles of involved groups should expand only as concrete provisions are formulated thus providing a reality based feed-back capacity. Therefore, college educators, agency adminis— trators, and federal officials should ultimately be solicited for reactions but only during the final stages of preparation. 4. Contemporary professional standards and certi- fication for rehabilitation counseling clearly imply a structure of levels and alternative routes to the tradi- tional academic model. It would be desirable that alternatives be equivalent to, not lesser than, optimum educational preparation but the value of experience and the use of examination (possibly unorthodox in character) must be taken into account. 5. During the development process a long range view toward the requirements of national accrediting groups which accredit specific professional certifying organizations must be taken to insure maximum acceptibility at that point in time when, and if, this type of stature and recognition is desirable. This implies that individuals knowledgeable upon this subject should be involved at the earliest stages of preparation. 6. Professional rehabilitation counselor certifi- cation may be established by: a. Graduation with a master's degree from an accredited rehabilitation counseling training program, the completion of which insures minimum content acquisition as specified below and two years of subsequent certified experience in rehabilitation case work. b. Attainment of a master's degree in a related behavioral science (e.g., psychology, sociology, counseling and guidance, social work, etc.) along with three years of experience in rehabilitation case work and competency in the content areas specified below. c. Attainment of a master's degree equivalency level by one of the following: (1) Graduation with a bachelor's degree in rehabili- tation along with four years of satisfactory experience in rehabilitation case work and competency in the content areas Specified below. 7. Professional rehabilitation counselor certifi- cation requires demonstrated competency in each of the following content areas: (a) Rehabilitation philosophy, history and struc- ture. (b) Medical aspects of disability. (c) Psycho-social aspects of handicapping conditions. (d) Occupational information and the world of work as related to disability 132 and rehabilitation. (e) Counseling theory and techniques as related to disability and rehabilitation. (f) Community organization and resources. (g) Supervised practicum in rehabilitation counseling (an extended period of basic skill development under a qualified instructor). (h) The psychology of personal adjustment as related to disability and rehabilitation. (1) Evaluation and assessment. (j) Independent study (the ability to utilize research findings and professional publications). It will be noted that this standard for the certi- fied rehabilitation counselor agrees substantially with the ARCA position but provides for equivalent routes to certification beyond the traditional college model. This formulation does tie all content areas more closely to disability and rehabilitation as a differential field, and concerns itself more directly with issues related to skill and knowledge attainment than training needs and methods. Thus, the extent of total agreement is somewhat obscured by the differing emphases, styles and purposes. A careful reading will disclose that the same content areas consti- tute the heart of both drafts if a direct application to rehabilitation practice is envisioned. 133 Standards and Criteria for Rehabilitation Counselor Certification Adopted By The National Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification December 1973 Professional rehabilitation counselor certification may be established by: (1) Graduation with a master's degree from an accredited rehabilitation counseling training program, which includes a supervised internship, the completion of which insures minimum content acquisition as specified, and one year of acceptable experience* in rehabilitation counseling. (2) Attainment of master's degree in rehabilitation counseling not including a supervised internship; or a master's degree in a related areas (as defined by the Commission) along with two years experience in rehabilita- tion counseling and competence in the content areas specified below. (3) Attainment of a master's degree equivalency level by one of the following: A. Graduation with a bachelor's degree in rehabilitation along with four years of acceptable experi- ence in rehabilitation counseling and competence in the content area specified below. B. Graduation with a bachelor's degree along with five years of acceptable experience in rehabilitation counseling and competence in the content areas specified below. Professional rehabilitation counselor certification requires demonstrated competence in the following content areas: a. Rehabilitation philosoPhy, history, and structure b. Medical aspects of disability c. Psycho-social aspects of handicapped conditions d. Occupational information and the world of work e. Counseling theory and techniques f. Community organization and resources 9. Placement processes and job development 134 h. The psychology of personal and vocational adjustment 1. Evaluation and assessment j. The ability to utilize research findings and professional publications "Grandfathering" those members who meet the above criteria will be carried out by July, 1975, according to the time schedule established by the National Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification. After that date all persons who qualify for certification will be required to pass a certification examination. Membership in ARCA, NRCA and/or an allied professional association, will be a prerequisite for "grandfathering." For those not meeting the above criteria, an applicant who deems himself qualified to be a rehabilita- tion counselor and has five years experience or its equivalent, may apply to the National Commission and at the discretion of the Credential's Committee, may take the examination to be "grandfathered." During the "grandfathering" period, all applicants meeting the criteria of the Commission will be required to take the certification examination, but will not be required to achieve a minimum specified score. *Agceptable experience in rehabilitation counseling is defined as: fuil-time employment acceptable to the Commission, in the use of rehabilitive counseling tech- niques: vocational evaluation; psychological assessment; social, medical, vocational psychiatric information; and rehabilitative methods in an agency (public or private), hospital or clinic, in which the applicant is under profes- sional supervision, and has employed such methods and measures. By 1977, acceptable experience will require supervision by a person certified in rehabilitation counseling by the National Commission Rehabilitation Counseling Certification. 135 ADDENDUM DECEMBER 1973 STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR REHABILITATION COUNSELOR CERTIFICATION The Commission recognizes membership in the following pro- fessional organizations or their affiliated state chapters: APA, divisions 17 or 22; APGA, divisions ACES, AMEG, ARCA, ASCA, NECA, NVGA, also any state Personnel & Guidance Association affiliation with ARCA, NRA, divisions NRCA, ASPED, NADE, VEWAA: (NOTE: NRA alone is not sufficient) New York State Rehabilitation Counseling Association-- (NYSRCA) National Association of Social Workers (NASW) American Occupational Therapy (AOTA). Puerto RiCO”A.C.EoRo; CoYoToEoRoIo 136 Standard and Criteria for Rehabilitation Counselor Certification July, 1975 To be eligible to participate in the Certification Examina- tion, a candidate must meet one of the following require- ments of EDUCATION combined with EXPERIENCE: l. A Master's degree in Rehabilitation Counseling from a rehabilitation counselor training prOgram, PLUS a supervised internship, PLUS one year of acceptable experience as defined below.1 OR 2. A Master's degree in Rehabilitation Counseling WITHOUT a supervised internship, PLUS two years of acceptable experience as defined below.1 OR 3. A Master's degree in a related area2 PLUS two years of acceptable experience as def1ned below.1 OR 4. A Master's degree in an unrelated area2 PLUS five years of acceptable experience as defined below.1 OR 5. A Bachelor's degree in Rehabilitation PLUS four years of acceptable experience as defined below.1 OR 6. A Bachelor's degree in any other area PLUS five years of acceptable experience as defined below.1 1Acceptable experience in rehabilitation counseling is defined as: full-time employment acceptable to the Commissioniin the use of rehabilitative counseling tech- niques; vocational evaluation; psychological assessment; social, medical, vocational psychiatric information; and rehabilitative methods in an agency (public or private), hospital or clinic, in which the applicant is under profes— sional supervision, and has employed such methods and measures. Effective January 1, 1977, experience submitted as meeting requirements must include at least one year under the supervision of a Certified Rehabilitation Counselor. 137 2The relatedness of a Master's degree to a Master's degree in Rehabilitation Counseling shall be determined by the Commission on the basis of the candidate's transcript. 138 Code of Ethics A rehabilitation counselor has a commitment to the effective functioning of all human beings; his emphasis is on facilitating the functioning or refunctioning of those persons who are at some disadvantage in the struggle to achieve viable goals. While fulfilling this commitment he interacts with many pe0p1e, programs, institutions, demands, and concepts, and in many different types of relationships. In his endeavors he seeks to enhance the welfare of his clients and of all others whose welfare his professional roles and activities will affect. He recognizes that both action and inaction can be facilitating or debilitating and he accepts the responsibility for his action and inaction. O The primary obligation of the rehabilitation counselor is to his client. In all his relationships he will protect the client's welfare and will diligently seek to assist the client towards his goal. 0 The rehabilitation counselor recognizes that the client's family is typically a very important factor in the client's rehabilitation. He will strive to enlist the understanding and involvement of the family as a positive resource in promoting the client's rehabilitation plan and in enhancing his continued effective functioning. 0 The rehabilitation counselor is obligated to protect the client-employer relationship by adequately apprising the latter of the client's capabilities and limitations. He will not partiCipate in placing a client in a position that will result in damaging the interests and welfare of either or both the employer and the client. 0 The rehabilitation counselor will relate to his col- leagues in the profession so as to facilitate their ongoing technical effectiveness as professional persons. 9 Typically, the implementation of a rehabilitation plan for a client is a multi-disciplinary effort. The rehabili- tation counselor will conduct himself in his interdisci- plinary relationship in such a way as to facilitate the contribution of all the specialists involved for maximum benefit of the client and to bring credit to his own profession. ‘ The rehabilitation counselor will be loyal to the agency that employs him and to the administrators and supervisors who supervise him. He will refrain from speaking, writing, or acting in such a way as to bring discredit on his agency. 139 ‘ The rehabilitation counselor will regard his professional status as imposing on him the obligation to relate to the community (the public) at levels of responsibility and morality that are higher than are required for persons not classified as "professional." He will use his specialized knowledge, his special abilities, and his leadership posi- tion to promote understanding and the general welfare of handicapped persons in the community, and to promote acceptance of the viable concepts of rehabilitation and of rehabilitation counseling. 0 In his relationships with other programs, agencies and institutions that will participate in the rehabilitation plan of the client, the rehabilitation counselor will follow procedures and insist on arrangements that will foster maximum mutual facilitation and effectiveness of services for the benefit of the client. 0 The rehabilitation counselor is obligated to keep his technical competency at such a level that his clients receive the benefit of the highest quality of services the profession is capable of offering. 0 The rehabilitation counselor is obligated to assist in the efforts to expand the knowledge needed to serve handi- capped persons with increasing effectiveness. APPENDIX B DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE DIRECTIONS FOR COMPLETION COMMISSION ON REHABILITATION COUNSELOR CERTIFICATION DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SIGNATURE APPLICATION ID # R4524=s=ponses you are being requested to give are expected to provide a foundation from which a meaningful competency examination can be developed. This implies that there is a long road ahead in the development of an examination which will truly measure competency, and one which will be fair to the many different types of counselors who elect to participate in certification. Certification has as its primary impetus the provision of assurance that pro- £423 =Ezsionals engaged in rehabilitation counseling will meet acceptable standards 0 f quality in practice. For this reason the inquiry about your academic train- ing is rather extensive. This is requested for two reasons, (1) to develop iJIrL-—service programs that will hOpefully rectify deficiencies felt by the rehab- : litation counselor, and (2) to influence future curriculum offerings in rehab- ‘i~Il.1tation counselor education programs so that deficiencies can be reduced. 'I3lbuus the information you provide both in response to the questions in the Field ‘§Lnly to link the characteristics of sets of people to sets of responses on the examination. The demographic data on rehabilitation counselors, supervisors and counselor educators, as well as on your work milieu and certain perceptions held, will also have relevance for future research in rehabilitation counseling, counselor education programs and in-service training. We will put this infor- mation to use in answering questions such as the following: ' 1. What preportion of the persons taking this examination are in each rehabilitation subspecialty? 2. Do the field review questions sample adequately from the content and experience base of rehabilitation counselors? 3. What is the background, experience and education that rehabili- tation counselors have? 4. Do rehabilitation counselors in different settings respond the same way to questions? You can see from this that there is additional information we might seek. We hope that you will help provide a data base. The information will also be valuable after the grandfathering period is over, for the reasons mentioned above, so that we may then construct the best examination possible. We appreciate your c00peration in providing the necessary information for what we all consider a worthy cause. 140 141 COMMISSION ON REHABILITATION COUNSELOR CERTIFICATION 520 North Michigan Avenue Suite 1504 Chicago. Illinois 60611 (312) 644-4329 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE PC) I'- the October Field Review, the Demographic Questionnaire has been considerably lengthened. Please read these instructions carefully and follow them precisely. A I 1. participants should complete the Questionnaire before beginning the Field Review. ALL PARTICIPANTS ANSWER QUESTIONS I through 55 SUPERVISORS ANSWER QUESTIONS I through 6H COUNSELOR EDUCATORS ANSWER QUESTIONS I through 55 AND PAGE 9 The following pattern for recording answers to questions should be followed: Questions I through 50 on the purple answer sheet; Questions 56 through 64 on the purple answer sheet; Questions 5i through 55 and Page 9 on the Questionnaire form. Each participant should use one purple answer sheet and the #2 pencil provided for the Field Review. The questions may have varying numbers of reSponses. You should indicate the appropriate box no matter how many responses are available. Please print your LAST NAME in the space marked ”Your Last Name”, and below it blacken the corresponding letters. Your first name and middle initial should also be completed. Fill in your application identification number using the last four boxes under the section entitled “Student Number” and below it blacken the corresponding numbers. EXAMPLES: Daniel C McAlees. PhD . Chalfman AICA and NRCA Harold Rubin. Vice Chairman ARCA Florence R. Curnult. Secretary Tveaswer NRCA I Jol4l e l M914 a 1910:.(01 I‘ to: 'lt]:.l;t1)llr13 rzzc2zt:'lc2::.‘c2) 113111313101 zncqazdtmc u: tthnkaJ-btl’n 'J}!C63§i.l(6)€l,* (14:7).Ivc73'lx‘73 (McBrP. 182181183 {0102'0‘016CON 'lxctx:ic13.lit11 71x2tlix2z..'- :a:c3:.;;vc3:'3lc3:l :AKCITA‘CI’CII t5:5xgx$x5:53 thxexlnofluutfiz :7 :73: 7x73: ,'x'71 with-8‘81”“: 019:... :9): 1i :9; Anne D Crumplon naca Grace Dram NANWRW George Ebva NRCA James R Engelkes. Ph D. cnct much-«9221192 Frederick Fa'y'. Ph D. consulate 1' larry Fember'. Ph 0. cont Mane Femgold ARCA Carl E Hansen. Ph D ARCA Claude Myer csava Michael Oliveno naca Daniel Srnith an! Paincu Whalen ARCA 142 5L In the box marked “Month/Day“ indicate the month and day on which the Questionnaire is being completed and below it blacken the corresponding numbers. ‘5. Indicate your sex in the appropriate space. ‘27. Indicate your name and identification number on the first page of the Demographic Questionnaire. The number of responses varies with each question. If “OTHER” is the selected response, mark the appropriate space on the answer sheet and then on the Questionnaire fill in the space behind “SPECIFY”. 153. If some questions do not exactly fit your current life/work situation, please select the answer that is CLOSEST to your present situation. 1:). Questions l6 and I7 refer to the TOTAL number of hours of supervision you received during Graduate School. In the event that you were not supervised or did not have a Practicum, mark “NONE” (ReSponse #l) on the answer sheet. 1. Question 50 has a total of IA possible responses. In the event that your response is ll through IA, mark it in the Questionnaire booklet rather than on the answer sheet. 12. Questions SI, 52 and 53 are answered on the Questionnaire. Question SI: place a check mark under the appropriate column; Question 52: place a check mark after the areas in which you have NEVER worked; Question 53: place a check mark after all areas in which you feel you need more training. )3. Question SA asks that you check the areas that you feel competent to work in. All ll items should be checked either YES, SOMETIMES, or NO. Also fill in the apprOpriate percentages which should add to l00%. I . ' I FEEL COMPETENT To : “A"PLE- ' WORK IN THIS AREA PERCENTAGE OF TIME (CHECK ONE) I WOULD PREFER TO PERCENT OF TIME SPEND ,N EACH 0,: PER WEEK YES SOMETIMES N0 THE AREAS. PERSONA-L COUNSELING 20% x 40% VOCATIONAL COUNSELING 10% x 20" CONTACT WITH OTHER AGENCIES 57‘ X 57' CASE FINDING 10% " JOB DEVELOPMENT x 108 PLACEMENT 15% X 10% ADMINISTRATIVE WORK RESEARCH AND EVALUATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 10% X 107‘ PAPER WORK 30% x 5% # x 10% I MULTIPLE HANDICAPPED - ——--——————-' 143 ‘I 16 . Question 55 asks for a ranking using 1 through 5, so each numeral should be used only once. EXAMPLE: Being In the right place at the right time 2 Conforming and playing politics ._JL__ Engaging In further training __l__. Producing 26 Closures 3 Having an M.A. Degree in Rehabilitation Counseling ‘ S . Page 9 Counselor Educators ONLY respond to the questions by placing a check mark in the appropriate columns. . 1| (3. Students or Counselor Educators should answer the Questionnaire based upon responsibilities from previous employment where applicable. BEFORE YOU TURN IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, PLEASE EXAMINE IT AND THE ANSWER SHEET TO INSURE THAT BOTH HAVE BEEN ANSWERED COMPLETELY AND ACCURATELY. 144 MAME: APPLICATION I.D. NUMBER l- ) MARITAL STATUS: 1.) SINGLE, Z.IMARRIED, 3.) SEPARATED OR DIVORCED, 4.)WIDOWED 2- HAVE YOU HAD, OR 00 YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, ANY PHYSICAL DEFECT? 1.) YES, 2.INO 3- IF YOU RESPONDED YES TO QUESTION 2 INDICATE THE DIFFICULTY YOU HAVE OR HAD: 1.) DEAF, 2.IBL|ND, 3.)DEAF-BLIND, 4.)CEREBRAL PALSY, 5.)CARDIOVASCULAR DIFFICULTY, 6.INEURO-MUSCULAR DISABILITY, 7.)ALCOHOLISM, 8.)0RTHOPEDICALLY HANDICAPPED, 9.) PSYCHOLOGICAL, 10.) OTHER -- SPECIFY 4- INDICATE YOUR POSITION IN ORDER OF BIRTH; 1.) isI, 2.) 2nd, 3.I3l‘d, 4.)4Ih, 5.I5th CHILD OR MORE. 5. IN WHAT LOCALE DID YOU SPEND MOST OF YOUR FORMATIVE YEARS ? 1.) RURAL: FARM, SMALL COMMUNITY (LESS THAN 5,000), 2.) SUBURBAN: OUTER CITY I5,000-50,000l 3.) URBAN: CITY (50,000 AND MORE). 6. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PRESENT SALARY RANGE: 1.) LESS THAN $6,000, 2.) $6,II)0 - 8,999, 3.) $9,000 - 12,999, 4.) $13,000 - 16,999, 5.) $17,000- 19,999, 6.) OVER $20,000 7. FATHER'S EDUCATION 1.) GRADE SCHOOL, 2.) SOME HIGH SCHOOL, 3.ICOMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL, 4.) SOME COLLEGE, 5.) COMPLETED COLLEGE, 6.) POST GRADUATE 8. MOTHER'S EDUCATION 1.) GRADE SCHOOL, 2.) SOME HIGH SCHOOL, 3.) COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL, 4.) SOME COLLEGE, 5.) COMPLETED COLLEGE, 6.) POST GRADUATE 9. PLEASE INDICATE THE PRIMARY OCCUPATION OF YOUR FATHER: l.) PROFESSIONAL, 2.) TECHNICAL :' MANAGERIAL, 3.) CLERICAL&SALES, 4.) FARMING, FISHERY, FORESTR: AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS, 5.) MANUFACTURING, 6.)MACHINE TRADES, 7.) BENCH WORK, 8.) CONSTRUCTION, 9.) MISCELLA"IEOI'S IINCLUDES HOME MAKER). 145 -2- l 0. PLEASE INDICATE THE PRIMARY OCCUPATION OF YOUR MOTHER l.) 4.) '7.) PROFESSIONAL, 2.) TECHNICALIMANAGERIAL, 3.) CLERICAL& SALES FARMING, FISHERY, FORESTRY AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS, 5.) MANUFACTURING, 6.) MACHINE TRADES, BENCH WORK, 8.) CONSTRUCTION, 9.) MISCELLANEOUS IINCLUDES HOME MAKER I. 1 l. UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR: 1.) 6.) PSYCHOLOGY, 2.) SOCIOLOGY, 3.) SOCIAL SCIENCE, 4.) BIOLOGY, 5.) BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ENGLISH, 7.) PRE-MED, 8.) EDUCATION, 9.) OTHER -SPECIFY 12. WHAT WAS YOUR UNDERGRADUATE GRADE POINT AVERAGE (BASED ON A 4- POINT SCALE) ? l.) 6.) 2.00:2.20, 2.) 2.21-2.4), 3.) 2.41-2.60, 4.) 2.61 -2.80, 5.) 2.81 -3.(ll 3.01 -3.20, 7.) 3.21-3.40, 8.) 3.41 -3.60, 9.) 3.61-3.80, 10.) 3.81 -4.00 13. MAJOR FIELD IN GRADUATE SCHOOL (M.A. LEVEL) 1.) 5.) 9. v 14. - 17 . 14. 15. I6. REHABILITATION COUNSELING, 2.) COUNSELING&GUIDANCE, 3.) CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 4.) COUNSELING PSYCH. EDUCATIONAL PSYCH. 6.) SOCIAL WORK, 7.) HUMAN ECOLOGY, 8.) SPECIAL EDUCATION, OTHER - SPECIFY IF YOU WERE INVOLVED IN A SUPERVISED PRACTICUM EXPERIENCE IN GRADUATE SCHOOL- WERE AUDIO TAPES USED IN SUPERVISION ? 1.) YES, 2.) NO WERE VIDEO TAPES USED IN SUPERVISION ? 1.) YES, 2.) NO NUMBER OF HOURS OF M SUPERVISION IN PRACTICUM: l.) NONE, 2.) H03, 3.) 4107, 4.) 81011, 5.))21015, 6.) 161020, 7.)21I025, 8.)?610 30, 9.) 31 to 35, 10.) 36 OR MORE. . NUMBER OF HOURS OF INDIVIDUA—L SUPERVISION IN PRACTICUM: l.) NONE, 2.) 1103, 3.) 4107, 4.) 81011, 5.) 121015, 6.) 161020, 7.) 2110 25, 8.) 26IO 30, 9. 31I035, 10.) 36 OR MORE. 18. WHAT FORMAL TRAINING HAVE YOU TAKEN IN THE PAST CALENDAR YEAR ? l.) 4.) NONE, 2.) CLASS WORK IN A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY, 3.) WORKSHOPS OR INSTITUTES, CORRESPONDENCE COURSE WORK, 5.) OTHER - SPECIFY 146 -3- 19. -21. WHICH PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS DID YOU ATTEND DURING THE LAST YEAR ? 33. 34. 35. 19. STATE: 1.) NONE, 2.) APGA, 3.) ARCA, 4.) NRA, 5.) NRCA, 6.) APA, 7.) NASW, 8.)OTHER -SPECIFY 20. REGIONAL:1.IINONE, 2.) APGA, 3.) ARCA, 4.) NRA, 5.) NRCA, 6.)APA, 7.) NASW, 8.)OTHER~SPECIFY 21. NATIONAL;1.) NONE, 2.) APGA, 3.) ARCA, 4.) NRA, 5.) NRCA, 6.) APA, 7.) NASW, 8.)OTHER-SPECIFY 32. INDICATE THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOU READ THE FOLLOWING JOURNALS: 22. REHABILITATION COUNSELING BULLETIN 1.) N0 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 23. JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION 1.) NO 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 24. JOURNAL OF APPLIED REHABILITATION COUNSELING 1.) NO 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 25. REHABILITATION RECORD 1.) NO 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 26. PERSONNEL AND GUIDANCE JOURNAL 1.) NO 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 27. COUNSELOR EDUCATION AND SUPERVISION 1.) NO 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 28. JOURNAL OF COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGY 1.) NO 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 29. COUNSELING PSYCHOLOGIST 1.) NO 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 30. SOCIAL CASE WORK 1.) N0 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 31. OTHER - SPECIFY 1.) N0 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS 32. OTHER - SPECIFY 1.) NO 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) ALWAYS HOW MANY BOOKS, WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO YOUR JOB, DO YOU HAVE IN YOUR PERSONAL LIBRARY ? l.) NONE, 2.) 1103, 3.) 410 6, 4.) 7109, 5.) 101012, 6.) Bio 15, 7.) 161018, 8.) 1910 21, 9.) 22 to 24, 10.) 25 OR MORE -SPECIFY HOW MANY COUNSELING ORGANIZATIONS HAVE YOU WORKED FOR IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ? 1.) ONE, 2.) TWO, 3.) THREE, 4.) FOUR, 5. FIVE OR MORE-SPECIFY. AREA OF SPECIALIZATION IN PRACTICE. PLEASE INDICATE ONE CATEGORY WHICH BEST REPRESENTS YOUR WORK OR THE MAJORITY OF YOUR FUNCTIONS. 1.) ADMINISTRATION, 2.) SUPERVISION OF SERVICES AT TOP AGENCY LEVEL, 3.) SUPERVISION OF SERVICES AT MIDDLE AGENCY LEVEL, 4.) REHABILITATION SERVICES FOR CLIENTS (COUNSELING), 5.) STAFF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES, 6.) REHABILITATION EDUCATION, 7.) CLIENT EVALUATION, 8.) DISABILITY DETERMINATION IOASI 'SSII, 9.) JOB DEVELOPMENT AND PLACEMENT, 10.) OTHER: EXPLAIN 39. 41. 43. 147 -4- YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN ALL TYPES OF COUNSELING OR PERSONNEL WORK : 1.) LESS THAN 1., 2.) 110 2, 3.) 310 4, 4.) 510 6, 5.) 7 to 8, 6.) 9 to 10, 7.) ll 10 12, 8.) 13 IO 14, 9.) 1510 16, 10.) 17 OR MORE - SPECIFY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A REHABILITATION COUNSELOR: 1.) LESS THAN 1., 2.) Ito 2, 3.) 310 4, 4.) Bio 6, 5.) 710 8, 6.) 91010, 7.) ll 10 12, 8.) 13 to 14, 9.) 15 IO 16, 10.) 17 OR MORE - SPECIFY- YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS A REHABILITATION COUNSELOR IN A D.V.R. SETTING: 1.) LESS THAN 1., 2.) 1102, 3.) 310 4, 4.) 510 6, 5.) 710 8, 6.) 91010, 7.) ll 10 12, 8.) 13 to 14, 9.) 1510 16, 10.) 17 OR MORE - SPECIFY HOW MANY CLIENTS HAVE BEEN CLOSED REHABILITATED BY YOU DURING THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30,I975 ? l.) DOES NOT APPLY, 2.) 11010, 3.) 111015, 4.) I610 20, 5.) 21 to 25, 6.) 2610 30, 7.) 31 to 35, 8.) 3610 40, 9.) 4110 45, 10.) 46 OR MORE - SPECIFY WHAT IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF FUNDING IN YOUR ORGANIZATION ? l.) STATE/FEDERAL VR. AGENCY, 2.) FEDERAL PUBLIC AGENCY, 3.) STATE PUBLIC AGENCY, 4.) REGIONAL IMULTl-STATE) PUBLIC AGENCY, 5.) COUNTY I OR MULTI-COUNTY ) PUBLIC AGENCY, 6.) MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AGENCY, 7.) PRIVATE AGENCY WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION DENSITY OF YOUR WORK SETTING ? 1.) RURAL: FARM, SMALL COMMUNITY I LESS THAN 5,(X)0 I, 2.) SUBURBAN ; OUTER CITY I 5,000 - 50,000) 3.) URBAN: CITY I 50,000 AND MORE I. PLEASE INDICATE THE APPROXIMATE ANNUAL INCOME OF THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS. 1.) LESS THAN $1,000, 2.) $1,IXJO 10 2,999, 3.) 9.00010 4,999, 4.) 35.00010 7,999, 5.) $8,000 to 10,999, 6.) 311.0(1) OR MORE. PLEASE INDICATE THE NUMBER OF YEARS OF EDUCATION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CLIENTS. 1.) 8 YEARS; COMPLETED GRADE SCHOOL, 2.) 10 YEARS; COMPLETED 2 YEARS OF HIGH SCHOOL, 3.) 12 YEARS: COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL, 4.) 14 YEARS; COMPLETED 2 YEARS OF COLLEGE. 5.) 16 YEARS; COMPLETED UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE, -6, 16+ YEARS; COMPLETED MORE THAN UNDERGRADUATE. 148 -5- 44. WHAT IS THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF YOUR EMPLOYMENT? 47. 49. 50. 1.) NORTHEAST ICT, ME, MA, NH, NY, RI, VT), 2.) MIDATLANTIC ( DE, DC, KY, MD, NJ, NC, PA, wv ) 3.) SOUTHEAST IAL, FL, GA, MS, SC, TN) 4.) MIDWEST I IL, IN, MI, 0H, WI ) 5.) SOUTHWEST IAz, AR, LA, NM, 0K, TX) 6.) PLAIN STATES I IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, N0, SD) 7.) MOUNTAIN STATES ((30, ID, MT, Nv, UT, WY) 8.) PACIFIC ICA, OR, WA) 9.) CANADA, PUERTO RICO, AK, HI 10.) OTHER-SPECIFY ON THE AVERAGE, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY HOURS EACH MONTH 00 YOU PUT INTO INSERVICE TRAINING ACTIVITIES ? 1.) NONE, 2.) 1102, 3.) 310 4, 4.) 510 6, 5.) 710 8, 6.) 91010, 7.) 111012, 8.) 131014, 9.) 151016, 10.) 17 OR MORE. SPECIFY DESCRIBE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE TOTAL CURRENT INSERVICE TRAINING PROGRAM HELPS YOU IN PERFORMING YOUR JOB: 1.) RARELY, 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) FREQUENTLY, 4.) GENERALLY, 5.) ALMOST ALWAYS TO WHAT EXTENT DOES YOUR SUPERVISOR HELP YOU WITH JOB-RELATED PROBLEMS 7 1.) RARELY, 2.) SOMETIMES, 3.) FREQUENTLY, 4.) GENERALLY, 5.) ALMOST ALWAYS WHICH OF THESE STATEMENTS COMES NEAREST TO EXPRESSING THE WAY YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR JOB ? 1.) I LIKE IT, 2.) I AM INDIFFERENT TO IT, 3.) I DISLIKE IT HOW MUCH OF THE TIME 00 YOU FEEL SATISFIED WITH YOUR JOB ? 1.) NEVER, 2.) SELDOM, 3.) OCCASIONALLY, 4.) ABOUT HALF OF THE TIME, 5.) A GOOD DEAL OF THE TIME, 6.) MOST OF THE TIME, 7.) ALL OF THE TIME WHAT IS YOUR LOCAL EMPLOYMENT SETTING (MARK ONLY ONE) 1.) REHABILITATION FACILITY, 2.) REHABILITATION AGENCY, 3.) MENTAL HEALTH CENTER 4.) MENTAL RETARDATION CENTER, 5.) DRUG ABUSE CENTER, 6.) PENAL INSTITUTION 0R COURTS, 7.) PUBLIC SCHOOL SETTING, 8.) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 9.) GENERAL HOSPITAL, MEDICAL CENTER. 10.) PRIVATE MEDICAL CENTER OR CLINIC, 11.) SOCIAL WELFARE AGENCY, 12.) PRIVATE PRACTICE, 13.) BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY, 14.) OTHER - SPECIFY 149 -6- 51.*INDICATE: 1.) NOT AT ALL, 2.) POORLY, 3.) ADEQUATELY, 4.) VERY WELL, 5.) EXCELLENT 52. - 53./ICHECK THE APPROPRIATE COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION. 51.* HOW WELL DID YOUR TRAINING PREPARE YOU FOR WORK AS A REHABILITATION COUNSELOR. 52.4 CHECK THOSE AREAS WHICH YOU HAVE NEVER USED IN ANY JOB. 53.)? CHECK THOSE AREAS FOR WHICH YOU FEEL YOU NEED MORE TRAINING. 1. 2. 3. 4. / R0 GROUP WORN MODIFICA OBJECT LEGISLATION I , T Y I YCH. ADJ. TO BLIC RELATION I 55. 150 -7- WITH RESPECT TO YOUR DAILY WORKING ACTIVITY, PLEASE INDICATE THE PERCENTAGE OF TIME DURING ONE 40 HOUR WEEK YOU SPEND WORKING IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS. (ROUND OFF EACH AREA TO THE NEAREST "TEN" AND INDICATE ONLY THOSE IN WHICH YOU REGULARLY WORK ---- PERCENTAGE MUST ADD TO 100% I. I FEEL COMPETENT TO WORK IN THIS AREA PERCENTAGE OF TIME PERCENT OF TIME “EC" ONE) :ng1);ng EXCLUDED PER WEEK YES SOMETIMES NO THE AREAS, PERSONAL COUNSELING VOCATIONAL COUNSELING CONTACT WITH OTHER AGENCIES CASE FINDING JOB DEVELOPMENT JOB PLACEMENT ADMINISTRATIVE WORK RESEARCH AND EVALUATION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PA PER WORK MULTIPLE HANDICAPPED IN BEING PROMOTEDIOR GETTING A PAY INCREASE) IN YOUR AGENCY, HOW WOULD YOU RANK THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ("1" EQUALS MOST IMPORTANT ..... "5" EQUALS LEAST IMPORTANT). __ BEING IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME _____CONFORMING AND PLAYING POLITICS _____ENGAG)NG IN FURTHER TRAINING PRODUCING 26 CLOSURES HAVING AN M.A. DEGREE IN REHABILITATION COUNSELING QUESTIONS 515-64 FOR SUPERVISORS ONLY 55. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE CURRENT INSERVICE TRAINING PROGRAM FOR SUPERVISORS HELPS YOU IN PERFORMING YOUR JOB 7 1.) NO INSERVICE TRAINING PROGRAM OFFERED BY THE AGENCY FOR SUPERVISORS, 2.) ALMOST ALWAYS, 3.) GENERALLY, 4.) FREQUENTLY, 5.) SOMETIMES, 6.) RARELY 57. 61. 62. 63. 151 -8- HOW MANY YEARS HAVE YOU WORKED AS A SUPERVISOR IN A STATE REHABILITATION AGENCY ? 1.) LESS THAN 1, 2.)110 3, 3.) 410 6, 4.) 710 9, 5.) 101012, 6.) 131015 7.) 161018, 8.) 1910 21, 9.) 2210 24, 10.) MORE THAN 24 - SPECIFY HOW MANY COUNSELORS DO YOU SUPERVISE ? 1.) NONE, 2.) 1 10 3, 3.) 410 6, 4.) 7 10 9, 5.) 1010 12, 6.) 13 10 15, 7.) 16 10 18, 8.) 19 10 21, 9.) 22 10 24, 10.) MORE THAN 24 - SPECIFY ON THE AVERAGE, IN AN ORDINARY MONTH, HOW MANY MEETINGS DOES EACH COUNSELOR HAVE WITH YOU FOR HELP WITH JOB-RELATED PROBLEMS ? l.) NONE, 2.) 1 10 2, 3.) 3 10 4, 4.) 510 6, 5.) MORE THAN 7 - SPECIFY ON THE AVERAGE, TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK YOUR CONSULTATION WITH YOUR COUNSELORS IS OF MAJOR HELP IN THEIR SOLVING JOB-RELATED PROBLEMS ? 1.) I DO NOT CONSULT WITH COUNSELORS, 2.) RARELY, 3.) SOMETIMES, 4.) FREQUENTLY, 5.) GENERALLY, 6.) ALMOST ALWAYS HOW MANY CLIENTS HAVE BEEN CLOSED REHABILITATED BY YOUR OFFICE DURING THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1975 ? ' 1.) 1 10 49, 2.) 50 10 99, 3.) III) 10 149, 4.) 150 10 199, 5.) 200 10 249, 6.) 250 10 300, 7.) 301 10 349, 8.) 34910 449, 9.) 450 10 550, 10.) 550 OR MORE - SPECIFY- HOW MANY RESOURCE PEOPLE HAVE YOU USED FOR THE INSERVICE TRAINING OF YOUR COUNSELORS DURING THE PAST YEAR ? 1.) NONE, 2.) 1102, 3.) 310 4, 4.) 510 6, 5.) 710 8, 6.) 91010, 7.) 1110 12, 8.) 131014, 9.) 151016, 10.) 17 OR MORE - SPECIFY WHAT INSERVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS ARE AVAILABLE TO COUNSELORS IN YOUR OFFICE ? 1.) NONE, 2.) CLASS WORK INA COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY, 3.) WORKSHOPS OR INSTITUTES, 4.) CORRESPONDENCE COURSES, 5.) OTHER - SPECIFY DO YOU HAVE AN OFFICE LIBRARY THAT IS AVAILABLE TO COUNSELORS ? 1.) YES, 2.) NO APPENDIX C RELIABILITY ANALYSES--JULY AND OCTOBER FIELD REVIEW 152 0500.0 0000.0 0500.0- 0000.0 000.0 00.00 000.00 00 00000 5500.0 0000.0 0005.0- 0500.0 005.0 00.05 000.0 00 000000 0000.0 0050.0 0005.0- 0050.0 000.0 00.05 000.00 50 00>0 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0- 0000.0 000.0 00.05 000.50 00 00>000 0000.0 0000.0 0500.0- 0050.0 000.0 00.05 000.00 00 2200 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0- 0000.0 000.0 50.05 000.00 00 0002.0 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0- 0050.0 000.0 00.00 000.00 00 0000-0 0000.0 0050.0 0005.0- 0000.0 000.0 00.50 000.00 00 020000 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0- 0000.0 000.0 00.05 500.50 00 000002 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0- 0000.0 000.0 00.05 000.0 00 02000 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0- 000.0 000.0 00.00 000.0 00 0000 0000.0 5000.0 0005.0- 0000.0 000.0 00.55 050.00 00 000202 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0- 0000.0 000.0 00.05 000.0 00 0.0020 0000.0 0000.0 0050.0- 0500.0 000.0 00.05 000.00 00 200>00 0500.0 0500.0 0000.0- 0050.0 050.0 05.05 000.00 00 000000 0050.0 0550.0- 5000.0- 0000.0 000.0 00.00 050.0 00 00200 0000.0 0000.0 5050.0- 5000.0 000.0 00.00 000.5 00 0000 0005.0 0000.0 0000.0- 0550.0 000.0 00.05 000.50 00 00000 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0- 0000.0 000.0 00.05 000.00 00 00000 ON m l M mHmOHHDM mmwc3mxm C602 Hum SOHumw>8 0.0mm: Hum 33 mEmfiH MO umwB 00000000000 00000000 00000000 0000000 0002 000202 III 0000000000 00000 300>00 00000 .0.0.0.0 00000000 00000-000 “mam u pownnsm no 000852 .0 0.80-0500 0000 153 00000.00000 .mvvmma 00009 mmh0.o nv0om.mmvmm .mavama 00300: 0000.0 mmmmm.0m ommo.m0 00000.00mm .m00 05000 ovmm.o mvnvo.w Hamo.0 mmmmm.mmm .mmw .>0©:H mm can m m mumsvm :00: mmumsvm «0 85m mo mousom 00000000000 0000 mumm.o 0000.0 0000.0- mmmv.o 000.00 Ho.mn omo.moa 000 gases hmmh.o moma.0 0000.0: 0000.0 Hom.m mm.0> 000.00 000 >0momm mhmv.o nmom.o 0000.0- 0000.0 000.0 mm.v> 000.00 hm mmmazH hmav.o 0000.0 omvv.o- vvmo.o mom.~ mm.mm Nm0.ma 00 Addomm mamm.o 0000.0 mmmh.01 mmmo.o mvm.0 m0.hh mum.HH 00 mm «000.0 mvm~.o 00mm.o- 0000.0 0mm.0 00.00 hmo.m NH >mamon mvv~.o ommo.on mmmm.o- 0000.0 000.0 00.00 00m.m NH macaw momm.o hhwm.o Hmmv.o- 0000.0 mmo.~ 00.00 000.00 00 mammmm Namv.o bmm0.o 0000.0- vomo.o mmm.m 00.00 000.00 00 qmooo> 0000.0 momm.o 0000.01 0000.0 HmN.m 00.00 000.00 00 mHomzH 0000.0 0000.0| momm.01 hvmo.o 000.0 0m.mb «00.00 mm Uzmmao on m I M m0mou05M mmoczmxm c002 00m 000u00>0o 0002 How 30m 05000 no #008 00000000000 00000000 00000000 0000000 0002 000002 00050000000 0 EHOhI|>050II000>002¢ 00000-05m 154 moflumflumum ummav 53% BBQ .o.o.m.o mfimfimé Smomunsm .N Euomnuwasn mmmm.o nqm>.o maho.ou vamo.o mom.~ mo.vn mmm.va om mammm Honm.o nmma.on mmmm.o- ammo.o omp.a v~.vn noa.m Ha mummmm Hmmm.o unam.o oovm.on ammo.o 0mm.a mm.~> mom.m ma q¢>m mmmv.o oovm.o vvmp.ou mnmo.o omm.~ om.Hn mm>.ma mm uo>mmm «mmm.o mmom.o omno.ou mmno.o vm~.~ ~m.mh vo~.¢a ON 2200 vvmm.o Hoom.o maom.on nvoo.o omm.H om.vn mmm.aa ma mamzuo mamm.o nomm.o Hmam.o- mmoo.o ooo.m mm.m> omm.oa ma mmmano mmvv.o momH.ou mmmv.o- mmmo.o mom.~ om.nm onv.aa ha mzHooo mmov.o mmvm.o momm.ou ommo.o mum.~ oo.oo nam.na om mm¢omz onoo.on mnmo.o vmwv.on mmvo.o mqm.H na.vo m>>.m m aqum Homm.o vanm.o omvm.ou ammo.o mvm.H He.>o HHH.0H ma mmo omvo.o mmflm.a mmmm.ou HHnH.o vnm.v mm.on mov.mm om mHawmm onem.o momm.o mqnm.ou homo.o mvm.a um.m> «mo.m HH qmzmu Hmmm.o moma.ou mmnm.on «moo.o v~m.a mm.no mmn.m ma omwm Hmon.o Hmmm.~ vaH.Hu nnnm.o ¢no.m ma.mn mmn.ho um Hanna mamm.o mmnv.o «mmv.ou omno.o mam.~ om.on mmm.ma ma aquu om m I M mflmouusm mmwc3mxm cam: Hum coaumw>mo :mmz Mom 3mm mEmuH no ume wuflHflQMMHmm oumccmum vumncmum usmoumm cams amassz Amvm u muownndm mo umnEsz 155 mmmvm.ovhmm .mvbmma Hmuoa omna.o nammm.>0ham .mmnmmfi :Hnuflz «ano.m mvmon.mma Hmom.am mvvoa.mmam .mva mamuH ommm.o mommm.m whoo.a pamam.omm .v¢m .>H0:H Wm 65 m .m mHMSUW dam: mwhmgw m0 5m .mD 00HDOm aufiaflnmflamm uaom mmmm.o hhmm.m. mamm.au mmmv.o mmm.~a mm.Hn Hmv.noa omH A4909 whmn.o omom.~ hvmm.aa nmam.o o>H.m om.mn Hmm.on qoa >nmomm oomm.o vomm.o mnvm.on mvmo.o ovu.m om.vo ~m>.ma mm mmmazH Namv.o voma.oa mmmm.ou mmno.o mm~.~ vm.mn mo¢.~a ha qq4omm ommm.o bHHH.o mmom.ou oamo.o mmv.H vo.mm vam.m oa mm mvnm.o ommm.oa HvHv.oa mmmo.0 man.a mo.mn mo~.n oa >momon ommm.o nmmu.o oamm.on mmmo.o mvm.a Hm.on nmv.m NH mpomu mmmm.o mmmH.H mvmh.o- homo.o hom.~ mn.mn mmm.na vm umummm mmmv.o o¢mm.o nmmn.ou mvno.o mna.m ma.mn mmo.ma ma amooo> mmmv.o mmmm.a mamm.ou mmmo.o omm.m hm.on www.ma mm mHamzH vaH.o ~nna.o comm.on mono.o mvo.~ mm.~o Hom.ma Hm ozmmmo ON m l M mHmOUHHOH mmwQwam cameo Hum COMUMflkwa gmz How 3% meuH HO Ume. wufiafinmflamm unaccmum uumwcmum unmoumm cam: umnaaz Acmscwucoov N Euomnlhashlnmfimwamc¢ manomtnsm 156 mmov.o mmmo.o mvam.on poso.o ooa.m m~.nm vrm.o NH msomu momm.o ovmo.H namm.ou mmoa.o mom.~ mo.mo mam.ma om qmommm momm.o mmho.on om¢v.on mmmo.o hmo.a om.mm omn.m m mHomzH Hmmm.o mmma.~ mmhm.on mmmo.o Hem.~ mm.vm man.~a ma uzmmao mmov.o mmmm.o mman.ou mnno.o HNH.~ va.no m~5.m ma mdmmm mmvv.o nmmv.o mmmm.os Hano.o mmm.a va.ao 0mm.h NH mummmm mmov.o mmmm.a cemo.a mvoo.o vh>.H mm.mh mma.m Ha q<>m mamm.o mmmo.~ mamm.ou ~mno.0 sha.m H~.mm mmo.aa ma oo>mmm moam.o ommm.o mmvm.ou ammo.o mmo.m -.mm omm.HH ma memznu mqw¢.o oom¢.o Hamm.ou mono.o NHH.~ om.mo omo.h NH mmmauo mmmm.o ommmé mmhhdn mmmod ommé mwém 031m VA 93000 mumm.o ~mvm.o oam¢.ou ammo.o -v.m mo.mm omm.HH ma mm.mm mmm.m m 2¢H>ma momm.o nmmm.~ onmm.a- nmqa.o mmo.v mm.mo hHH.¢~ mm mHawmm namn.o pmaq.w noao.au moq~.o mph.o mm.mm chm.mv em 94:94 nvm~.o nmmo.o nmmv.on mmvo.o Hmm.u no.eo 5mm.v 5 aqu0 ON m I M mHmouhfiM mmwc30xw Emmi Hum COflUMHKVQQ £602 NOW 3mm mEmuH MO ummB auwafinmflamm oumncmum cumocmum unmoumm cum: “onszz ll Ammb I muommndm mo Hmnfisz mofiumflumuw ummev .H Euomnuumnouoo 335m 33m .o.o.m.u 3..“me Enumngsm 157 mmomh.momom .mmmom annoy omma.o mammm.mmmoa .omhmm cflnpwz mmmo.v omwwo.vma mmov.vm Hommm.momm .mHH mEmuH ommm.o moomo.h vomm.a Namvm.mhm .vmh .>flvcH mm cam m m mumswm cam: mmumswm mo 85m ma mousow auflaflnmfiamm uxom Nmmm.o mmhm.v NBH@.HI mmmv.o vvv.~H No.09 mon.mh oma A4909 mmvm.o momm.a mmmr.0I meo.o omv.a mm.oo mmo.o 0H Bzzwon mmam.o wmvm.m momv.HI ovmm.o sna.m ma.mm mmm.hm vm >qmomm mmmm.o mamo.o Hmmm.0I mmno.o mao.m mm.mm mo~.m Va mmMBzH hmov.o Nvmo.o humo.OI «Aho.o 0mm.a vm.mo mmm.w NH AA¢Umm mmmm.o vaua.o owom.OI Havo.o mvm.a ma.mm Hmm.m o mmdam Hmmm.o mmho.a avah.0I moho.o vmo.m mo.~o mmm.m ma >mam0h om m I M mamouusm mmmc3wxm com: Hum GOHuMw>m0 cam: now 3mm mEmuH mo umma mafiawnmflamm numwcmum cumccmum unmouwm cmmz Hwnesz Amwscflucouv a EuomunumnouooIIwam>Hmc« manomunsm 158 mmsm.o ovom.o mooo.ou mmHH.o mmm.m mm.vo «mm.¢a mm amummm ommm.o oomq.o omvm.on whoa.o mom.~ mm.mo oav.ma Hm amuuo> memo.o Haom.o omnm.ou mbmo.o nmm.a mm.mm mmn.n ma ozmmmu Foam.o bumm.o mmmv.ou empo.o mom.a v0.00 mmm.m «a mo mov.h Ha qc>m oq~¢.o mmmv.o mmoo.on mamo.o mma.m mv.no mvv.m wa oo>mmm mmma.o mnmm.m Hunm.on omoo.o man.a ~m.a> omm.m ma 2200 HHHv.o mmoH.o ohbv.ou nomo.o mua.~ mv.mo «Hm.m ma memzuo mamm.o maom.o ammo.ou Hamo.o vmv.~ mv.mo mmm.m ma mmmauo nvmv.o mmmm.o owom.os hflmo.o Hn¢.~ mm.mo moa.ma ma mZHouo oomm.o mmma.o mnmv.ou mmmo.o mvo.m oo.oo mam.ma mm mm¢amz vafl.o Hmao.o mnwv.ou oaoo.o mvo.H mv.Ho mooo.> ma nonmeo mmmm.o o~m~.ou nmmm.on somo.o mna.m hm.om omw.m ma omomz momm.o mmmm.o ommm.ou ammo.o om¢.a oo.ao oma.o OH mama mnom.o ommH.H HHHn.on ammo.o oon.H mm.H> mmo.m NH q¢ezmz Hwnm.o v-o.o mnmo.ou vmoo.o mvm.a m>.om nvm.n Ha A.sozm Hemm.o comm.o ammo.os mova.o nvm.m mv.mo omm.~m mm mHawmm mvmn.o How».a mono.on vmom.o mm~.n mm.mo mmm.mv vh aqaa< pmma.o ammo.ou mom~.ou vvmo.o mov.a m¢.mm m>o.v m qumu om M I M mfimOUMSM mmwcsmxm cum: Hum :ofiumfl>ma cam: now 3mm mEGUH mo umma mafiaflnmflamm cumvcmum numncmum unmoumm cum: umnasz Roms u muomflnsm mo umnasz moflumflumum ummev .m EMOMIIquouoO zmfi>mm mamflm .o.u.m.o mammamq< mamomunsm vmaov.®®mmfl .mHHhm Hmuoa 159 bmma.o mommm.haooa .mhmom cw£9w3 moon.v oavm>.mma ommm.mm Nvmom.mmhm .mHH mEmUH womm.o vooom.m mmmo.a vvmmm.mwn .vmh .>HU:H mm cam M m mumswm cam: mmumswm mo Edm mo mohaom xufiaflnmflamm axon oo~m.o omma.m vvma.HI mmav.o @MH.HH vm.mo mmH.mh omH gases mwma.o mmom.0I mmmO.OI smoo.o mmw.a ha.mv ham.v OH Bzzwob mmmh.o ovmm.~ mumo.HI voom.o mao.h ms.ho omv.mv mm >Am0mm fimmv.o mmow.o hamm.0I vwmo.o Nmm.m ma.>m mmh.vH mm mmmazH vmmm.o mmmH.o mumm.0I oumo.o oom.m ma.nm muo.oa ma Addomm mwmm.o mmmm.o hmmv.oa mmno.o Hmm.H hm.mo O¢m.m ma mm400> mmmm.o vmmm.o mmmb.0I mmho.o vmm.H Hm.v> vnv.oa va >mamon om m I M mflmouHSM mmwcswxm cam: Hum cowuma>mo cam: now 3mm mEmuH mo umma muwflwnmflflmm cumccmum cumucmum unwouwm cam: umnasz Acmscfiucouv m EuomIIquouooIImflmMHmcé mamomnnsm 160 ommm.o mnva.o hawm.ou mono.o mmo.~ 05.00 nvm.m «H gnome ohmm.o mmvo.o hmom.0I omqa.o Hom.m mo.mm mon.ma mm gummmm «moa.o mmvm.on movo.on maqo.o amo.a mo.om nmo.m o mHomzH mom~.o mam~.on 0fi¢m.on whoo.o mmn.a mm.vm duo.” ma mammm mqnv.o ommm.ou mmoa.ou mano.o mom.H mv.mm mwm.m OH mummmm voom.o momn.o ~mm>.oc oomo.o mmv.a Hm.mu oao.o m q¢>m onom.o vmma.a mnao.os mome.o vma.m ~>.oo ~mm.oa pa oo>mmm mmov.o nmom.o mvmm.ou mmmo.o mmm.~ mm.mm an.NH ma mamzuo «mum.o mv©~.0- omoa.o HmHH.o oma.m ma.mm mma.~a mm mmmeno mnmv.o onmo.ou mvHv.ou mhho.o moo.m oo.vo mmo.m «a mzHouo chmm.o ooma.o mmhm.oa Hooa.o Hmo.~ mm.mm oo~.ma vm mmaom: vovm.o ammo.ou vaH.o- mnno.o Hmo.~ nn.ao mvo.m «H nonmeo omam.o mmoo.o mmn~.o- vmoo.o mmo.a mm.mm mmm.m 0H oqum Homa.o mvm~.on mmvo.o mono.o pom.a hm.~v o~o.o @H ammo momm.o mmoH.on mmvm.ou memo.o mo>.H mo.mo mmfl.n Ha qwo saw: how 3mm mEmuH mo ummB auflaflnmwamm wumccmum cumcamum unmoumm cam: amnesz “How I muuwmnsm mo amnesz mowumflumum umwav .m EHOMIIumnouoo 3mfl>mm namflm .u.u.m.u mfim>Hmc< manomInsm 161 oaamm.mmoom maavm Hmuoe voma.o mvmom.ommma .oommm :flnuflz Hom>.v hammo.hma momm.mm mmmho.mmmm .mHH mEmUH avom.o Nomoa.m mmhm.o mamam.omo .oon .>fl©:H mm new m m mumsvm cum: mmumsvm mo 55m mo mousom muHHHanHmm uaom mvom.o nmmH.H vmam.0I omov.o mom.oa mm.oo Hmo.mn oma Adeoa vmmo.o HomN.OI 0mmo.o Humo.o Ham.a mH.mm mam.m 0H Bzzwoh vsno.o maom.a 0mmo.HI Hamm.o mmm.m mm.mm aon.ov Hm >Amomm mmmm.o osmo.0I bth.0I mama.o amv.m mm.mm hma.ma om mmmazH momm.o MHhO.OI Hemo.OI vwaa.o mmo.m no.0m mmm.ma mm Aqmomm momv.o mmha.a Hmmm.OI mmwo.o mma.m mm.mh mmo.aa ma mmdoo> mowm.o mmvo.o hmmv.OI Homo.o mmm.H ov.mo Hmm.m m >momon om m I M mflmouusM mmmGBmxm cam: Hum :oflumw>wo 2mm: Hum 3mm mEmuH mo umwa .>uflaflnmfiamm cumwcmum cumvcmum unmoumm cam: umnssz Awwscwucouv m EMOMIIanouoOIImHm>Hm2< mamomInsm APPENDIX D CORRELATION ANALYSIS DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES BY FIELD REVIEW SCORES APPENDIX D CORRELATION ANALYSIS DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES BY FIELD REVIEW SCORES Standard Cases Mean Deviation r Total Score 1511 107.5917 12.6492 1938 77.1584 11.9817 3449 90.4912 19.4623 Qemographic Variables Sex 1498 .3391 .4736 .1518* July 1935 .3401 .4738 .1412* October 3433 .3396 .4737 .0912* Total Marital 1511 .6618 .4732 .0270 July Status 1938 .6517 .4766 .0270 October 3449 .6561 .4751 .0065 Total Physical 1511 .1701 .3758 .0698* July Defect 1938 .1842 .3878 .0493* October 3449 .1780 .3826 .0510* Total Birth 1501 1.0300 1.2585 .0753* July Position 1916 1.0235 1.2453 .1058* October 3417 1.0263 1.2510 .0559* Total Formative 1509 1.0557 .8149 .0163 July Years 1929 1.0949 .8069 .0728* October 3438 1.0782 .8105 .0105 Total Counselors‘ 1505 2.8651 .0838 .0614* July Salary 1932 2.8623 1.0124 .0138 October 3437 2.8635 .9999 .0231 Total Fathers' 1501 1.8961 1.6132 .0912* July Education 1925 1.9444 1.6299 .0814* October 3426 1.9232 1.6225 .0427* Total .Mothers' 1502 1.9075 1.3457 .1167* July JEducation 1929 1.9554 1.3861 .1010* October 3431 1.9344 1.3686 .0545* Total 162 163 Correlation Analysis--Continued Demographic Standard Variables Cases Mean Deviation r Fathers' 1511 1.3170 2.2436 -.0043 July Occupation 1938 1.4334 2.3591 -.0098 October 3449 1.3824 2.3096 -.0241 Total Mothers' 1511 5.3077 3.4561 -.0524* July Occupation 1938 5.3153 3.4480 -.0509* October 3449 5.3120 3.4510 -.0334* Total Undergrad. 1511 .5586 .4967 .0384 July Major 1938 .5650 .4959 .1114* October 3449 .5622 .4962 .0444* Total Undergrad. 1499 4.1067 2.1778 .1093* July G.P.A. 1920 4.0818 2.2404 .1208* October 3419 4.0927 2.2129 .0771* Total Graduate 1511 .5513 .4975 .0786* July Major 1938 .5480 .4978 .0616* October 3449 .5494 .4976 .0462* Total Audio Tape 1511 .7737 .4186 .0677* July Supervision 1938 .7224 .4479 .0696* October 3449 .7449 .4360 .0885* Total Video Tape 1511 .5579 .4968 -.0282 July Supervision 1938 .5088 .5001 -.0818* October 3449 .5303 .4360 .0016 Total Group 1511 3.4480 3.5329 .0110 July Supervision 1937 3.5261 3.6126 .1037* October 3448 3.4919 3.5993 .0307* Total Individual 1511 3.6744 3.5204 .0867* July Supervision 1937 3.6737 3.5143 .1209* October 3448 3.6740 3.5164 .0666* Total Recent 1511 .8088 .3995 .0180 July Training 1936 .7872 .4094 .0714* October 3447 .7932 .4051 .0428* Total State 1508 1.0073 .9234 .0100 July Meetings 1933 .9131 .9212 -.0253 October 3441 .9544 .9232 .0335* Total Regional 1510 .4748 .8118 -.0605* July Meetings 1937 .4419 .7740 -.0677* October 3447 .4563 .7908 -.0246 Total 164 Correlation Analysis—-Continued Demographic Standard Variables Cases Mean Deviation r National 1508 .2633 . 5933 .0153 July Meetings 1936 .2531 .5911 .0059 October 3444 .2575 .5920 .0130 Total Rehab. 1511 1.0715 .6781 -.O928* July Counsel. 1936 .9959 .6977 -.0976* October Bulletin 3447 1.0290 .6901 -.0178 Total Journal 1509 1.2876 .6397 .0217 July of Rehab. 1935 1.2300 .6702 -.0530* October 3444 1.2552 .6575 .0211 Total Journal 1510 .7510 .7154 .0385 July of Applied 1933 .6648 .7118 .0015 October Rehab. Counsel. 3433 .7026 .7146 .0580* Total Rehab. 1510 .7510 .7154 .0358 July Record 1936 .4370 .6110 -.0302 October 3446 .4536 .6167 .0248 Total P & G 1510 .5106 .6620 -.0492* July Journal 1936 .5455 .6895 .0133 October 3446 .5302 .6777 -.0289* Total Counselor 1509 .1650 .4168 -.1392* July Education 1937 .1637 .4331 -.1547* October 3446 .1642 .4259 -.O920 Total Journal of 1510 .4503 .5903 -.0420 July Counseling 1936 .4700 .5964 -.0354 October Psychology 3446 .4614 .5937 -.0370* Total Counseling 1511 .2515 .5085 -.1087* July Psychologist 1937 .2700 .5131 -.0898* October 3448 .2619 .5111 -.0759* Total Social Case 1511 .1707 .4165 -.l365* July ‘Wbrk 1935 .1535 .3987 -.1553* October 3446 .1611 .4066 -.0760* Total Books in 1508 5.7142 2.6780 .1284* July Personal 1924 5.7396 2.6963 .1623* October Library 3432 5.7284 2.6879 .0880* Total Number of 1484 .6509 .8841 -.0027 July Organizations 1892 .6855 .9346 -.0518* October 3376 .6703 .9128 -.0336* Total 165 Correlation Analysis--Continued Demographic Standard Variables Cases Mean Deviation r Area of 1511 2.6658 1.2315 .0424* July Specializa- 1938 2.6465 1.2422 -.0364 October tion 3449 2.6550 1.2374 .0053 Total Years of 1502 4.3103 2.3412 -.0803* July Experience 1930 4.2238 2.3511 -.0940* October Counseling 3432 4.2617 2.3469 -.0412* Total Years 1504 2.9608 1.8680 -.0702* July Rehab. 1925 2.9018 1.8723 -.1208* October Counselor 3429 2.0277 1.8704 -.0496* Total Years Couns. 1459 2.1439 1.9619 -.0762* July Rehab. 1852 1.9617 2.0507 -.1672* October Setting 3311 2.0420 2.0138 -.0448* Total Cases 1498 2.8778 3.4299 -.1048* July Closed 1907 2.7357 3.4083 -.l397* October 3405 2.7982 3.4180 -.0602* Total Primary 1511 1.6373 .6647 -.0381 July Funding 1938 1.5733 .7149 -.O477* October Source 3449 1.6013 .6940 -.0081 Total Employment 1494 1.4960 .6805 .0226 July Population 1921 1.5341 .6755 -.O614* October Density 3415 1.5174 .6779 .0059 Total Annual 1461 1.9425 1.2538 .0383 July Client 1877 1.9217 1.2176 -.0294 October Income 3338 1.9308 1.2335 .0075 Total Client 1441 .9813 .8598 .0405* July Educational 1849 1.0481 .8768 .0679* October Level 3290 1.0188 .8699 .0082 Total Geographic 1507 2.8640 2.3831 .0506* July Location 1920 2.7354 2.4085 4.0144 October 3427 2.7919 2.3979 .0300* Total Monthly 1502 2.7976 2.2968 .0424* July Average 1927 2.7634 2.2256 .0271 October In-Service 3429 2.7784 2.2526 .0274 Total In-Service 1467 1.8030 1.1900 -.0416 July Help on 1880 1.8367 1.2235 -.1100* October the Job 3347 1.8219 1.2089 -.0608* Total 166 Correlation Analysis-~Continued Demographic Standard Variables Cases Mean Deviation r Supervisor 1485 1.7953 1.3322 -.0060 July Help--Job 1870 1.7711 1.3551 -.0049 October Problems 3355 1.7818 1.3449 .0035 Total Feelings 1511 1.8961 .3840 .0001 July about Job 1938 1.8947 .4042 -.0349 October 3449 1.8953 .3955 -.0110 Total Job 1506 4.2789 1.1280 -.O608* July Satisfaction 1927 4.2444 1.1218 -.0865* October 3433 4.2595 1.1245 -.0354* Total Local 1511 .7240 .4472 -.0286 July Employment 1938 .7090 .4544 -.0325 October Setting 3449 .7156 .4512 .0065 Total Dummy Variables Average 1439 2.7656 .6199 -.0455* July Rating of 1875 2.8020 .6522 -.0627 October Training 3314 2.7862 .6386 -.0566* Total Rehab. 1511 2.2091 2.2540 .0098 July Versus Other 1938 1.9149 2.1946 -.0191 October St. Meetings 3449 2.0438 2.2253 .0472* Total Rehab. 1511 1.0338 1.8864 -.0575* July Versus Other 1938 1.0088 1.9238 -.O439* October Region. Mt's. 3449 1.0197 1.9073 -.0265 Total Rehab. 1511 .6717 1.6999 .0221 July Versus Other 1938 .6078 1.6025 .0414* October National Mts. 3449 .6358 1.6459 .0354* Total Marrieds 1511 .0444 .6173 .0347 July Non-Marrieds 1938 .8906 .6075 .0337 October 3449 .9142 .6123 .0553* Total Physical 1511 .8299 .3758 .0698* July Defect 1938 .8158 .3878 .0493* October 3449 .8220 .3826 .0510* Total Father 1511 2.8915 2.6277 -.0460 July Blue Collar 1938 2.8813 2.6800 -.O463* October White Collar 3449 2.8858 2.6569 -.0276* Total 167 Correlation Analysis-~Continued Demographic Standard Variables Cases Mean Deviation r Mother 1511 5.5083 3.3144 -.0633* July Blue Collar 1938 5.4649 3.3594 -.0444* October White Collar 3449 5.4839 3.3393 -.0283* Total 8.8. 1511 3.2455 3.1526 -.0405 July Science 1938 3.1703 3.1737 -.1005 October Versus Other 3449 3.2032 3.1642 -.O372 Total MA Rehab. 1511‘ 1.7445 2.8169 -.0434* July Counsel. 1938 1.7198 2.7665 -.0766* October Versus Other 3449 1.7306 2.7883 -.0354* Total Audio 1511 .2263 .4168 -.0677* July Supervision 1938 .2776 .4479 -.0696* October Recode 3449 .2551 .4360 -.0885* Total Video 1511 .4421 .4968 .0282 July Supervision 1938 .4912 .5001 .0810* October Recode 3449 .4697 .4992 -.0016 Total Training 1511 1.4507 .9164 .0078 July None 1938 1.3767 .9193 .0587* October Versus Some 3449 1.4091 .9186 .0536* Total Funding 1511 1.1019 1.9781 .0425* July Federal-St. 1938 1.3421 2.1568 .0493* October Private 3449 1.2369 2.0835 -.0153 Total Feelings 1511 .1039 .3840 -.0001 July About Job 1938 .1053 .4042 .0349 October (Recoded) 3449 .1047 .3955 .0110 Total Area of 1511 3.0841 1.8415 -.0280 July Specialization 1938 3.1512 1.9780 -.0123 October (Recoded) 3449 3.1218 1.9194 -.0255 Total Rehab. 1511 1.8716 2.3359 .0498* July Versus Other 1938 1.8106 2.22746 .0109 October Job Settings 3449 1.8373 2.3015 .0283 Total *p =.05 APPENDIX E CROSS TABULATIONS--AREA OF PRACTICE BY STATE, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MEETINGS ATTENDED HHHH. u HozHoHHHzHHm .zoomwau to HHHOHHH H3 rHHz HHHHH.H3H u Hacscm Hrm mdMIIIII H.3 H. H.H 3.HH 3.HH H.H H.H H.H3 H: oH HoH HH HH H3~ 3H3 mm 3m HHH 2. Lou H-I--I---H----I---H------u-H-II--I--Hu-------HIII----IH--------H------I-H- H 3. H H. H H. H N. H H. H H H 3. H H.H H H H.3 H H.3 H H.H H H.H H o.~ H H H 3.HH H H.H H H H.HH H 3.H H 3.H H H.3 H 3.HH H H H 3.HH H H.H3 H 35.3 . HH m H H 3 3H H . H H 3H H a : C C . m. D d. a. H H. H H H 2 H .. H H H. H H H H 3.H H H H H.H H 3.H H 3.HH H H.H H 3.H H H.H3 H .-;, L- m .u. H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HH H H HntHHHH,HHH . HIo--IIIIHIIIIII-IHIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIH-----II-H--------H-II-IIIIHIIIIIIIIH- H H”. H H H H H H” H H.H. H H H H”. H H. H €35 H H.H H H H H H H.3 H H.HH H H H H.3 H H.Hm H :;HH:HHH:HHH5 w ~ H H w H w H w e w H w H W NH W H HHHHHHHHHH H o. H. H H . w H. H H.H H H. H H. H H.H H H H.3 H H.3 H H H.H H H.3 H 3.H H 3.3 H H.H H :5HH::H353 H 3. HH H 3. H H H H 3.H H H.HH H 3.H H H.3 H 3.H3 H .. . . H HH H 3 H HH H H H 3H H 3 HHHHHH ”H m .~ “H H WH H. .HH w N.H * ~ WH 3. w H.H . H. M. "H.H: H 33.. H HBHHHHHHSH H .H H H.H H.H m.m~ m.m w H.HH H 3.HH H . . H 3 H H 3 H 3 H 3H H H H HH H HH H m HHHHHHHHHHHHHH mIMHIIHIHHIJ--fl----w--mu::H INHIJ --MH----H--.H..---- ”INN--- W- H HHH H HHH H H... H HHH. H HHH. H HHH H HH H E. H H H H H - H H H o H HH H H H H H H H rHH:H;HHHto HHHHH -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- H--------H‘ - H H.H. H H”... H H.H. H as H HHHH . H.H. H HHH H 3.H m 3. H 3.H H «.HH H 3.3N H H. .H w ~.~ H H.H3 H 5 Hum HHHHQ:H: H HH H 3 H 3H H HHH H H3~ H HH H NH H HH3 H H :HHH3HHHHHHt : H H.H H H. H 3. H 3.H H H.3 H n. H H. H H.3 H HHHHH HHZHJ. H H.HH H H.H~ H 3.HH H H.HH H 3.HH H H.3H H H.3 H 3.3H H , .2 H 3.H H H.H H H.H H 3.HH H H.H» H 3.H H 3.H H 3.HH H HHQHH; H: HHHHHHHH H 3. H. ~. N. H.H H. H H.H H HHHHH HHHHHH H.3 H. H.H H.H H 3.3 .3H 3.H H H.3 w 3.3 * 3.w w ~.3 w ~.3 H H.HH w W.H w 3.H H H.H3 w 15H HH 3 HHHHHD m H w H H n HH wm w H o~ w H HH HHHHHHHHHHH H H. H H H H H “H. H H.H”. H H”. H H”. H H.HM H - H HH H m H H H H on H H H C------' -- ------H-----I--H--------N--------H--------H--'----- H------'-H---'--" UUHFU‘MQ H H H H m H 3 H n H H H H H H w ”on ”mm _ . . H ,. HHe . e: 0H1 -H HHIHH awe: HHH Hue: HH. :6 H HHH: H H 5 Ice H Hzaou HuHme amoaHHHe HHHHHHHH thHm >m Hmm 3v HHHHH 2H HH :H:; HHHnImmszmng 1158 1659 no: can ache» 3nd cacao u wozauuuuzonm crocwwmu no muwaowo no Ira: NrOoc333H u amazon are 34d H.H H. H.H 3.HH H.H 3.3 3.33 HHHHH HHH 3H H3H 3H 3 HH Ho 3HHH 2123cu H o. n. H. . 3.H H H H.3 H 3. .HH H H.3 H H.3 .H H H.H H H.3 H ;3_HH H m.HH * H.H w m.m w 3.H w H. 3H m H.H H H.H H 3.33 H . _ r H H H 3 HH H H H H Hm H 3 H HHH H HHHH H H H H NHH H H” H “”H H HHH W m w.H w w.m m m w m w 3.HH * m.m w 3.H w m.H3 H W H. u UL wk” H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H 3H H H H 37.5. 3.H- 3 . H “.3 w a m m m «.3 w H.HH w H w m H H.HH H HHHHHHHHHHHHH H H H H H H H H H m H H H H H 3H H H HHHHHHHHHH w H. H H. m H. w H. H 3. .H H H H H. H H.H H H.H H H.H H.HH 3.H H H H H H.H H 3.H H zzHHHHHzHH H 3.HH H H.H H H.H H H.H H H. 3H H H H H.H H 3.33 H . :3 H m HH H H w H HH H w H w H3 H H;.Ha. H H. w H H H. H H. H H. H H H. H m. H H.H H H H.H H H H.HH H H. H H. H H H.H H H.HH H H.H H . : H H.3 H H H H.H H H.H H H.HH H H.H H 3.HH H H.3H H Ha.” ; H 3 H H H H H H H HH H 3 H HH w HH w m 2HHHHHHHHJHH H H.H w H H H w 3.H H H.H H H H H.H H H.H H HHHHHHHHHH H Now“ a H a mead H ~33» u c H Nona H vomw h rauiaagu>mo Huqbn m H w H H m 3 w HH m H H W HH w H H.3 H H. H H. H H.3 H H.HH H 3.H H H.H H H.HH H HHHHHH233H-HH2HHHH H HH. H H”: H H.3 H HHH H HHH H .3. H HH, H HHHH H w H3 w m H w 33 w HHH w HH. w 33 w HHH w H :HHHHHHHHHHIH: H 3.H H H. H H. H o. H H.H H 3. H m. H H.H H HHHHH HHZHHH o. H H.H H.HH H 3.HH H .HH H.HH H.HH H H.HH H 3 w H.mH m H. w H. H 3.H H .HH w H.H w H.H H H.HH H HHHHH: HH HHHHHHHH w HH w H w H 3H w 3HH w H w HH m HHH w H Ho ZHHHHHHHHHH w m. m m. w H. m w H.H H. H m. m. H H HHHHH HHZHHH ”0 ”Na coda Wu non OHM H on mun H oak H: muuH>zum w wHHH w m H H. H H m .M w NHHH H m H H o. H w mHHH m H HH :HHHHHHHHHH m “”3 H H.HH WH H. HH H Mum H o. .H W H.H M H. .HH H WNW w H H.HH H H. H H H. H H H.3 H H. m3H H.H w. HH H H.H3 H HHHHHHHHHHHHHH H HH m H H H w M W H H3 H H H H H H m H 3 H H H w ”w“ wmw HHIH: 3HH: HHH Hum: sz HHrH HHHHH H232 meamwa hwwlhm . . . - - . - . . . .cucaHHHH HHHHHHHH.HHHHH.>H Hmn HH.HHHHHHHH H3-HHHH . . . - - . - - . . :HmHHHouanHHHHHH 1f70 cocoa nmwn 41.0. 10¢ HHHH. u HozHoHHHonm .zocmHau Ho mHHoHHH Hm xHHx H:H«:.mHH u HaanH on me . . :.H H.H H.H. H.H H.H H.:: HHHHH. mow W~ am HHH HHH“ HH HHH HmHH zzchH H H... H . H.H H H.H. H H.H. H H.H H H.H H H.H, H O C O O C O O ,HHJ_ H H HH H m H W w W HH H: H H HH H HH H a -HH; ---"---- -------- ---”---- ------'- -'---- . . w W H.H M .H m.H H H. W w. H H.H H H.H W M.H H HHH HHzHH HHH W ~.H H.H Wm H H.H m.o~ H m.H H H.H H H.:: H H_ HHHHHHHHH HHH W--mn-o H H H H H H. H H” H H H H” H MHH W , HHMH-HMHHH _ .H H H H H H H.H. H H.H. H H H H.H H H W m H W H H W H W HH W H W H W HH W H HHHHHHH,H_ ~-------- ---'---- -'--'--- -------- -'-'---- '---'-'- ---'-'-- --'-'--- - . . . H. H.H H H. H H. H H.H H W m. M M.W W W.» m H.H W H.H H HHH H nun H H”; H HHHH::HHHH H o.wH H. ~.H H.H H H.HH H H H H H H H o: H :HHHH H H~ N H ~ H H H Hm H H H m H cH H o H H. H H . . . . . H ~.~ H H H H.HH H H.H H H.H H HHH H H.HH H H.H H :HHHHHHHH W “.0 W n W m a W M. W “HHHH H H H H ~ HHH W “HHH W m HHHHHHHHHHHIHH HHH H H H .. H H“. -H z . . . . HHHHH.,.H. H H.HH H o.H H H.H H H.HH H m. M» H s. H H H. H H H HH H HZHzHoHHHHH HHnHH H H H H H H W HH W HH W H W m W--mm----W- H---"-"H--------H'------- U----'-- ---.I---' --'”-'-- -U-”---- IN H H, 1. « ... H.H H H. H H. H H.H H H mH H N H H H.H H m H HHHHHHHHHHumHHHHH W H.H: H Hun” H Mum: W mumW W fluww H H. .Hm W ”.m4 W M. mm W :HH HHHHHHHH W WHW W W HHH W Hom-u-Wn-wm---u u-mmn-u-W--mmmmuuW- H onHHHHHHmHIHH H---u--u- cumuuaun --mu-cu- -u-u--u- u--u H H HHHHH HHHHHH * mafia m “03¢ m Mood w Mama * Mom“ w mow“ w WWW“ H mmwm H xqooHd Pd mmuH>tum O O O O O H HH H H m N H w m% M HHH W m. M HH W “Hm --M- H HH HHHHHHHHHHH . . . u u HHHHH HHHHHH W m.m M amHH W Mum m MHM W M.M~ M m.“ w m.m w Wm mm M HHH HH HHHH>sz W ”HHH H m H W m H H W H; W H W H m HH unW- H H: :HHHHHHHHHH H .H u H” mu H HH~ H. W w.H W «.0 H H .HH W “.HH W H.H W H.H H W.wn m m.w H H.H H H.HH H zaHHHHHmHzHaoH H H nH H H H H H H e o H HH H H H H: H H H H oH H HHH H m m -mm-n-cHn-m--o--Hn-uunuu- moHHuHaa H H W H W m H W H H H HHH H23; H HHH HHH HHIHH squ HHH HHH: HHH HHxH H c . W meawwa humthm HHHHHHHH mH3HHHHH HHHHH Hm Hmn :H .HHHHH H H3 (HHH HHHHHHHH HHHHHHH H HHznuHHHHHHHHH ]f7l amoe- .u uuzcoHuuzuHm otoawwuu no muwawwo no 1b~3 momma-cm: u wataom ~20 I: H.o H. H. H.H H.HH H. H.H H.HH HHHHH HH H HH HHH HHH HH HH HHHH zxaHou H H. H H H H. H H. H H. H H H H. H H.H H H H.H H H H H.H H H.H H H.H H H H H.HH H H.H H H H.H H H H H.H H H.H H H.H H H H H.H H H.HH H HHHHH H H H H H H w H u - w H w H w e: W o H .HH. H H H HHH H H.H. H H H HH. H H.HH H H.HHHHHHZ... H H.H w a w n w m.H w «.HHH H H H H.H H "HHH w HHZHEHHHHHHH Hon ----'--- -----'-- ----..-- -----'-- -----'-- -‘fn---- -------- -..-.." ' H H * H H w H. . w WH : NH HHHmnHHHHH H H w H H H H HHH H Wm. H W.“ H m H Wm; H HHHHHHHHHHHHH H H H H H H H w H w H w H w HH w H >HHHHHHHHH H H H -H . H... H H H HH. H HHH H H H.H H H.H H H H H.H w H.HH H H H H.H H H.HH H ZHHHHHHHHH HH. HH HH. HH. H.H. HH. HH. H.HH H.H H.HH H.H H.H H.H H.HH H.H H H.H H H H H.H H.H H H.HH H H.H H H.H H H.HH H onHHHHHH H H H H H H w c H HH w H H H HH H H onHHHHHHHHHHH H. H. H. H H. H HHH. H HHH. H HHH H HHH H H.H. H . H H H .HH. H w H M H M H m H w H w a w H w «H w rzuzaoHHHHo HHHHH H H H H H.H. H H.H. H H H H.HH H . . . . . . . . HHH HHHHHHHH H H.H H. H H. H.H H.HH H. H H. H H.HH W HH w H w o co HHH w H H HHH H onHHHHHHHHHHH H H. H. H. H.H H.H H. H H. H H.H HHHHH HHZHHH H H.H H.HH w H.H H.HH M H.HH w H.H H H.HH H H.HH w H H... H H. H H. HHH H H.H... H H. H H... H HHH. H.HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH..H::.:H::.H H .H .HH . .3 .HH .H . H H... -H H... HHH. H... H H... H HM... H .HHHHHHHHHHHHHH H . H H : H .HH. H.. H H HH. H HHH H H m.” H m H H. H H... H H.HH H H H H. H H.H... H 22:52:22 H HH H H H H H HH H HH H H H H H HH H H H--------w-u--u--u ----..--H-u--ua--H--a---u-H-.n-o-uaH---uuuu-H---u-uu-H----u--- uoHHoHuH H H H m H H H H H H H H H H w Hon wmw . HHIHH 3HH2 HHH HHHH «Hz «HHH HHHH Hzoz H » u sou H Hzaoo HHHtHHH HHHZHHHH HHZHHHHE HHZHHHHH Hm HHH HH HHHHHHHH Ho «HHH HHHHuHHHHHHHHH 1f72 Hooa. u Hozququch .zcouuou no mu Hmo. He He xHHz :HHH~.HmH n Haqacv on xcw 3.H H. H. H.H H.HH H.H H.H H. HH HHHoH HNH HH mH no «aw mm Hm nncH :zchu H----'--'H--------H--------H'----"-H--"-"-H-"I---~--'--"-h---'-'--h' H o. H H H H. H H. H o. H H. H H. H .H H H H.HH w H H H.HH H H.H H 3.: H H.: M H.H H H.: H H H.HH H H H.H H H.H H H.HH H H. :.s H H.H: H :q H. H :H H H H H H H HH H H H H H co H o H........ -o--u---H--------H--------H---u--:-H..o-c--oH---cuu--H-----un-H- H H. H H. H H H H. H H. H H H H.- H o. H H H.H H H.H H H H H.H H H.H H H H H.u H H.H H H _;JJ:H_ 1;: H H.H H o.~ H H H H.H H H.HH H H H H.H H H.HH H H _J_;HH H 3 :3w H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H oH H H - . . - H a o o c a a a. H c H :nanntJv H H H H H H H H.H H H. H H H H.H H H.H H :DHH11H;2HHJ3 H H H H H H H H.: H H.3 H H H H.H . H.HH H H .H _ H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HH H H HHHHan. 1 I...” L. O O o O I .3 H H.H m H w H w H.H * H.HH m H.H w H.H H H.HH H :JHHmaHzpu H H H H H H H H H HH H H H H H mo H c H.HHHJ H H. H H H H. w H. w o. w H. H H. H m. H H H H.H H H H H.HH :.~ H.H H.: H H.H H H. H HHHHDQJ H H.H H H H H.H H H.H H H.HH H H.H H H.H H H.c: H : H: H o H H H N H N H HN H H H m H HH H m ngH:HHHHm<:H; H H m H m H H.H W H. w H H H; M J. H o 0.. 30 .. .1... .HH m o H H n u o w .— 0 Im ON a LHMHLJJuDHD 1*. kn * MON- .I*. W W N. H #0.“ .IM 6003 WJZHJIWWTDDJIOHHZJHJJ H H.H: H m.oH H.HH H H.HH o. .m: H H.:H H H.H: H H.HH H , - Lar-nmJ.L_+ H H.3 H. H H. H H.H H a. HH H H.H H o.H H H.HH H H ..HHH n w Hm m a s w m: HHH w HH :N W :HHH » H :JHHHHHHHHHIH: H H. . H H. H H. H H.~ H H. H H. H H.HH H J - 2.2; H H.:H w m.o H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H H.HH H HHMHHH-HHmHH- I I O I 0:“ H 9. H NON H GONN H NJfiaH H . s. w “Hm w m w m M m H w m: w H H H W 3HH W H Ha :HHHHHHH.J ----..-- -'--'--- -'-'--'- -'------ ---"--- --------b'------' '------- - m H. w H. w H. w H. W H. H H. H H. H H.H H HHHHH HH 2H3: H x. _ m: H 3 H E H K. H n. H HHH H 3. H W w H w m H H H H m H HH w m w 3 w Hm w H H; ZJHHHHHHHDH H H. H H. H H. H H. H H.H H H. H H. H H”: H H H.HH w H.HH H H.H H H.H H H.HH H H.: H HHHH H :.o H m H.H H.H H o. H H.H H HHH. H w. w m H W meo W H :aHHHHHHHzHgam H H H H H m H : H H H H H H H H. . w ”w“ on ruxHa 3HH: «H: mgr; ¢;z qun< HHH, Hes. H Hog zoo H Hzacu HHmrowa aHaHHHHH nnzHHuH; HHHJHHH: gH 3: HHHHuzz; Hg Ha ._,H. I O O O I O v... ..H n...— .!Iu;; m... I o.m: w m.mn H H.mm w o.Hm w N.H: m m.om w m.on H o.He M 23H muquzu m.n H n. H :. H N.m H ¢.OH H o.H H J.H H o.HH H 3 z . on H H H OH H cHH H Ha~ H Nu H Hm W mmHH W m ; HH HHJH. :H o. . H. o. .N H w n. H E: H :3. :38... mHHH a. oH H nnaH N.mH n. mH H o.aH H n.NH H 0.:H H ugooH; Hq mmuH>mmm H... H m. H H H H... H m: H H H H.. H.H. H N 5.2.2:.33 N. H H. H H. N.. H H. H . H N. H o.N H HH>HH H:;.:: N.: H =.aN H H.H H ¢.N H :.m H m.MH H 3.H H m.n H ¢3. H: n..H>;.a Dom H WIN h Nod H ROM. H m..&# H do” H N." m HOMQ > L3 H_DH1H\.H.J.J1 o H 4 H N H o H nN H m H o H HoH H H s o. H H. H H. H :. H c.H H o. H N. H w.: H m. . w... . . w... . H... . .E W m... . 3... W . . . .t . . . . H: :x m 3 .1 .m w n w m m HH * m. m H H H H .HH H c _ HH H H H.. flu H o H m H : H m H N H H H a W ”mm www _ 1H3 Ema. I.. a HH .:. ,H1 1 .1 H 2 HH HHH 1-; «JH OH “H: H Hon xom . H Hzaou Huurowa omozuHHq mquHmu: quoHuum >m an wv uuHHuc2. H4 :er ouxHa;ag rum pHug H >43n- anHnngxu 1K74 a u wozHHHHHHHHH HH.HHH HM..HHHHHHH.HH HHHHHHH H.H H H. H H H H H.H H H.H H H.H H H H H.: H H.HH H HHHHHHHHHH :H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H NH H H HHHHHH H H. H H H ~. H H. H H. H H H H.H H H. H H.H H HHH: H H H HHHH H HHH... H .HHHHH H H H HHHH H HHH: H 22:38 mm H H H H H H H H H H H H H H~ H HH H H HHHHHHHHHHHIH: H H. w H H H. H H H N. H H H H. H H.H H H HHH. H H H H.HH H H H H.H H H H H H.H. H h 0 C 0 mm m H w H w H w H W H w H w H w HH w HHHHHHHHHHH HHHHH w H.H H H. H H. H H. w H.H H H. H H.H H H.H: H HHHHHstouumHHHHHH H HHH. H HHH. H H.H. H HHH. H H.H. H HHH. H H.HH H H.HH H HHH m HH H H HH H HH H H; HH HHH H H H.HHHHEHHHHHHH.HHH H H. -Wu-H. - unmu----w------u-w-.mu---uw-H -o--- W--wummuu . HHHHH HHHHHH H.HH m "HMH H H.HH H. H w MHMH H m. ”H :nHH H m.m H mum“ w HHHHH: HH HHHHHHHH HHH H o w m a. H H w HH w H H H HH~ W H Ho HHHHHHHHHHH m o. * WH WH ”H m H.H H HHHHH HHZHHH H... H H.HH. H “H.H... H WHH H WHH. H HM.“ H WW H .3 H H.HH? H H.H:MHHHMWHHHHHHMHHHM HH H H H H H N H H H H H H H H H H: H H H. H HHHH H H.HH.~ H HH. H HHHH H HHHH H H: H HHH. H HHH... H HHH H H w H w H w H m w H H H H HH H H ZHHHHHHHHZHHHH H----c-n-w-u----uu u-----nuH-..--n--H--u-----H-.u---caH----u-u-H--------H-------- HHHHHHHH H o H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HHH HHH nmcH HHIHH 3HH: HHH HHH: HHH HHHH HHHH Hzoz W ”Wu ”an H Hzaou HHHtHHz HHHZHHHH HHZHHHHE HHZHHHHZ >H HHH HH HHHHHHHH Ho HHHH >HHHuHHHHHHHHH 1375 acou- u wozcouuuzcum .zoowwau no mumaouh no Ibuz «powwoaue n HOHZCV ~10 34m H.H H. H.H H. H.H H. H.H H.HH HHHHH H HH H H H HH H H~ H HHH H H H HH H HHHH H zHHHoH H H. H H H H. H H H H. H H. H w. H H.H H H H.HH H H H H.HH H H H H.H H H.HH H H.H H H.H H H H.H H H H H.H H H H H.H H o. H 3.: H H.HH H H H H H H H H H H HH H H H m H HH H o HHzHH H o u c H a u o H “com a m u “H“ » ”HMC w him H.H:wHJHH 0...: H a w a w m ~ m H H w H w H H H.H W H HHHHHHHsdHHH HHH H :2.: H H H H H H H H H H... H H H H H HHH. H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HH H H HHHHHHHHHH M-umuc---wonmoo---w--mu--u-w--mu----w--mu-u--w--m-----w--mu--o-w--wumu- m- H H.» H H H H.HH H H.H H H. H H H H.H H H.H H HHHHHHHHHH H H.H H H H H.H H H.H H H.H H H H H.H H H.HH H . L H n H H H H H H H H H H H H H HH H H HHHHHH H -HH----H--H-----H--HH----H-.HH----H--..HH----H--.H....----H--H..----H--..HH.H.---H- w mu" m u w Mn“ w Mum w m.w~ H manH H Mum" w Mum: W HHHHHHHHH ZHHHHHHHHHHIHH H H H H HH H w u.» w m w m w u.H w “.4 H H H H. .H w m.“ w HHHHHHHHHH w m.H w a w m w w.~ w «.HH w w w w.~ w MMHH W HHZHHHHHHHHH HHHHH w--wuw---wouwuunnuw--wuu---w--uu----w--mum---w--w----ow--muwn-om--muwm--w- HHHHHHHHHH:HHHHHHH H .HH .HH .H~ H H.HH H H.HH H .HH H.HH H HHH HHHHHHHH H HHH H H. H H. H H. H H.HH H H H H.HH H H.HH H H H-----'-- ----..-- '-'---'- --'----- --'----- --'----' -----'-' ----"--H- w HHH w H w m”. “MHN w MHNH ”HHH "HHH H Mnmw w HHHHH HHHHHH H m.~ w u w H. w H. H * H.H m H. w H.H H H.HH H HHHHH: HH HHHHHHHH » H w H ~ . H w HH HHH N HH ZHHHHHHHHHH H H... H H H H H... H H... H H H .. H H.H H . . . . H.H H H. H Ho H HH HHH H m.H m m H m.» w «.H H m.H H w w %.H w mmnH H H H% waHHHwMHHHM H - - ~-------| -‘I----- ----..-- -----'-- -------- ---'-'-' -------'H'------- ' H m. H H. w H. w H. w H. H w H H H. H H.H H H ”MH H H.HH H.m~ H.mH .m« H H “.HH W ».wH H O o O I O D «H.H: 7 m HH w a w m w m w WH w m m HH H HHH w H 2 HH HHHHZHHHH H----o.--H-----u-cH------uuH--uu--u-H--------H--o-----H------u-H--------H------n- HHHHHHHH H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HHH HHH muIbD Ema: dad mum: at: duzq