5. v1.3»
.«3:‘

r . .
I 35559.

p...

K

 

 

THF'VS

arm

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCHOOL COUNSELOR
SELF EFFICACY SCALE

presented by

Nancy Bodenhorn

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Counselor Education

 

 

Ema/ﬁrm

Major‘srofessor

Date May 11, 2001

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

601 W.m15

DEVELOPMENT OF THE
SCHOOL COUNSELOR SELF-EFFICACY SCALE

By

Nancy Bodenhorn

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education

2001

ABSTRACT

DEVELOPMENT OF THE
SCHOOL COUNSELOR SELF-EFFICACY SCALE

By

Nancy Bodenhom

Self-efﬁcacy, deﬁned as people’s judgments of their capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required to attain designated types
of performances, is theoretically a mediating factor of behavior. Strong levels of
self-efﬁcacy are positively correlated with persistence, goal setting, and
negatively correlated with anxiety. Assessing self-efﬁcacy can be an important
research link to examine questions of performance. The purpose of this study
was to develop and validate a scale designed to assess the self-efﬁcacy of
school counselors in their role as defined by the American School Counseling
Association (ASCA) national Standards. To this end, an initial list of items was
developed from current literature and distributed to a panel of experts. The
scale was re-written incorporating the feedback from the panel. This scale was
mailed to attendees of the ASCA national conference. After initial analysis, a
shorter scale was sent, with a validity instrument, to students in master’s level

counseling programs around the country.

Factor and item analyses were conducted. resulting in a ﬁnal version of
the scale which includes twenty-ﬁve items and four factors. Adequate validity
and reliability data were collected.

School counseling self-efﬁcacy was found to be higher among those who
had received training in implementing the national standards, among those with
more experience, among those who reported having teaching experience, and
among students in programs preparing for school counseling when compared to
those preparing for mental health counseling.

No signiﬁcant relationship was found be' 'een the self-efﬁcacy scores and
a social desirability scale, nor between self-efﬁcacy scores and a general self-
concept scale. Signiﬁcant negative relationships were found between the self-
efﬁcacy scale and anxiety, and signiﬁcant positive, moderate relationships were
found between this self-efﬁcacy scale and a scale assessing individual
counseling self-efﬁcacy.

This study provides initial validity and reliability data for a school
counseling self-efﬁcacy scale. This study demonstrates sufﬁcient support for the

continued use of the scale, with recognition that further analysis is warranted.

Copyright by
Nancy Bodenhom
2001

Dedicated with love to my parents, my husband, my step-children,
and my past and future students.
Mom and dad - you are my theoretical framework. All that I am is
grounded in you.
Jeff - you are my methodology. My day to day life revolves around you.
Paul, Jenny, my past and future students - you are my implications. Your
futures reﬂect the importance of my work.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

As with any major accomplishment, this study, and indeed my entire
process of doctoral study, was not completed independently. l have been
blessed in my life to ﬁnd many nurturers and supporters.

From the moment of our ﬁrst meeting, I recognized that Robbie Steward
would be an ally, friend, supporter, and colleague. She took her role as advisor
beyond any limited expectations and provided me with a combination of personal
and professional support, as well as a role model. The other members of my
committee; Alﬁee Breland, Jean Baker, and Joanne Keith, were also
instrumental in their suggestions and guidance throughout my research.

The ﬂexibility, patience, and support of my principal and co-workers
allowed me to continue working as a school counselor while I pursued this goal.
I will always appreciate your good will.

This study could not have been completed without the support of the
larger community of Counselor Educators in this country. Every request for help
was met with encouragement and positive response. I am honored to be joining
this sisterhood of collegiality.

Three groups of people helped me keep my sanity and my perspective
during this process. Thank you to my dissertation group (your turns will come!),

my tennis playing friends, and my book club.

vi

Most importantly, I want to thank my family for encouraging me to fulﬁll my
dreams, for supporting me both emotionally and ﬁnancially, and for the patience

to put up with my occasional ﬁts of frenzy.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. xiv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
Nature of the problem ........................................................................... 1
Purpose of the study ............................................................................. 4
Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 5
Limitations ............................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 10
School Counseling role - historic ......................................................... 10
School Counseling role - current ......................................................... 14
Self - efﬁcacy theory ............................................................................ 17
Effect of self - efﬁcacy on behavior ...................................................... 20
Self - efﬁcacy assessment ................................................................... 23
Applicability of self—efﬁcacy theory to diverse populations .................. 26
Self-efﬁcacy in an environment of change ........................................... 30
Scale development process ................................................................. 31
Purpose of study - the need for a school counseling self-efﬁcacy scale. 35
Potential uses ....................................................................................... 37
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 39
Phase 1 - Scale design ........................................................................ 39
Phase 2 - Pilot study ............................................................................ 4O
Validation study .................................................................................... 40
Participants ....................................................................................... 41
Factor Analysis ................................................................................. 42
Construct Validity .............................................................................. 43
Measures for construct validity - STAI .............................................. 44
Measures for construct validity - COSE ............................................ 44
Measures for construct validity - SDS ............................................... 45
Measures for construct validity - T808: 2 ......................................... 45
Measures for validity - external ......................................................... 46
Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 46

viii

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS .................................................................................................. 48
Scale design .......................................................................................... 48
Pilot study .............................................................................................. 51

Item response omissions .................................................................. 52
Reliability ........................................................................................... 55
Group Differences .............................................................................. 56
External Validity ................................................................................. 59
Validity Studies ...................................................................................... 61
Item Analysis ...................................................................................... 62
Preliminary factor analysis ............................................................. 63

item Analysis Using the Reliability Procedure ................................ 67
Grouping 1 item analysis ............................................................ 69
Grouping 2 item analysis ............................................................ 75
Grouping 3 item analysis ............................................................ 80
Grouping 4 item analysis ............................................................ 87
Grouping 5 item analysis ............................................................ 90
Grouping 6 item analysis ............................................................ 90
Grouping 7 item analysis ............................................................ 94

Factor analysis ........................................................................... 95
Grouping 8 item analysis ............................................................ 97

Group Differences ................................................................................. 100
School level and setting .................................................................... 100
University program ............................................................................ 101
Utilizing national standards ............................................................... 102
Training in implementation of national standards ............................. 102
Gender and Race/ethnicity ............................................................... 103
Work experience ............................................................................... 107
Education preparation ....................................................................... 109
Relationship to other developed scales ................................................ 110
Social Desirability Scale .................................................................... 110
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale ......................................................... 1 11
Counseling Self-Efﬁcacy Scale ......................................................... 114
State - Trait Anxiety Inventory ........................................................... 116
Experience related to self - efﬁcacy ...................................................... 118

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................ 124
Sub-scale assumptions ......................................................................... 124
Original hypotheses regarding results .................................................. 127
Additional ﬁndings ................................................................................. 137
Limitations ............................................................................................. 138
Implications for future research ............................................................. 143
Implications for practitioners .................................................................. 145
Conclusions ........................................................................................... 146

APPENDICES

A: American School Counselor Association national standards ............. 149
8: School Counselor Self-Efﬁcacy Scale ................................................ 158
C: Consent forms .................................................................................... 170
D: Demographic forms ............................................................................ 176
E: Scales used in validation studies ....................................................... 180
F: Correlation table from pilot study responses ...................................... 183
G: Factor analysis results ....................................................................... 191
H: Results of factor analysis limited to ﬁve factors ................................. 200
I: Results of item analysis: grouping 6 ................................................... 206
J: Factor analysis with ﬁnal 25 items ...................................................... 209
K: Reliability analysis for ﬁnal 25 item scale and for
each of the sub-scales ..................................................................... 213
L: Regression results analyzing experience and self-efﬁcacy ................. 219
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................... 238

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Items deleted from scale after pilot study .............................................. 53
2. School Counselor Demographics .......................................................... 60

3. Correlations of items in Grouping 1 Environment Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ....................................................................... 69

4. Correlations of items in Grouping 1 Personal Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ....................................................................... 71

5. Correlations of items in Grouping 1 Collaboration Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ...................................................................... 72

6. Correlations of items in Grouping 1 Career and Multicultural
Sub-scales with its own sub-scale after removing focal
item (bold) and with other sub-scales ............................................. 74

7. Correlations of items in Grouping 2 Personal Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ...................................................................... 75

8. Correlations of items in Grouping 2 Environment Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ...................................................................... 77

9. Correlations of items in Grouping 2 Collaboration and Career
Sub-scales with its own sub-scale after removing focal item
(bold) and with other sub-scales ..................................................... 78

10. Correlations of items in Grouping 2 Multicultural Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale alter removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ...................................................................... 79

11. Correlations of items in Grouping 3 Personal Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ...................................................................... 80

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

. Correlations of items in Grouping 3 Environment Suboscale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ..................................................................... 81

. Correlations of items in Grouping 3 Collaboration and
Career/Academic Sub-scales with its own sub-scale
after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales ........... 83

. Correlations of items in Grouping 3 Multicultural Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ..................................................................... 84

. Correlations of items in Grouping 4 Personal Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ..................................................................... 86

. Correlations of items in Grouping 4 Environmental Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ..................................................................... 88

. Correlations of items in Grouping 4 Collaboration and
Career/Academic Sub-scales with its own sub-scale
after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales ........... 89

. Correlations of items in Grouping 7 Personal Sub-scale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ..................................................................... 93

. Correlations of items in Grouping 7 Environment Subcscale
with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and
with other sub-scales ..................................................................... 94

. Correlations of items in Grouping 7 Collaboration and
Career/Academic Sub-scales with its own sub-scale
after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales ........... 96

. Correlations of items in Grouping 8 Personal and Environment
Sub-scales with its own sub-scale after removing focal item
(bold) and with other sub-scales ................................................... 98

. Correlations of items in Grouping 8 Collaboration and

Career/Academic Sub-scales with its own sub-scale
after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales ......... 99

xii

23. Group difference results - no differences .......................................... 101

24. Race/ethnicity and gender by program enrollment ........................... 104
25. Group difference results - mixed results ............................................ 107
26. Group difference results - signiﬁcant differences .............................. 110
27. Correlations between the SCSE total and sub-scale scores

and other scales .......................................................................... 112
28. STAI Norms ...................................................................................... 116

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Effect of years of experience on total SCSE scale ............................. 119

2. Effect of years of experience (<5) on total SCSE scale ...................... 120
3. Effect of years of experience (<5) on personal development sub-scale 120
4. Effect of years of experience on impact school environment sub-scale 121
5. Effect of years of experience on Collaboration sub-scale ................... 122
6. Effect of years of experience (<5) on Collaboration sub-scale . ........... 122
7. Effect of years of experience on career and academic sub-scale ........ 123

xiv

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Nature of the problem

Self-efﬁcacy has been shown to be an important aspect to successful
teaching, counseling, and coping with change. Self-efﬁcacy assessment has
been a helpful addition to literature linking personal attributes with career
performance. Currently, no validated self-efﬁcacy scale exists for the role of
school counseling. The knowledge base and research potential are scarce for
how self-efﬁcacy affects professional school counselors both in their training and
in their performance. The purpose of this study is to develop and validate a self-
efﬁcacy scale for school counseling as the profession is currently deﬁned.

The profession of school counseling is currently in ﬂux. The profession
has a history of changing identity and lack of deﬁnition (Gysbers and
Henderson, 1994). The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) has
recently developed National Standards for School Counseling Programs
(Campbell & Dahir, 1997). School counseling has never been as thoroughly or
as comprehensively deﬁned as it is in the ASCA national standards. The
standards describe skills and knowledge which students will possess as a result
of a comprehensive, developmental school counseling program. While many
school counselors have participated in many of the activities described within
the National Standards, the totality of the position may seem intimidating. In

order to be fully implemented, both current school counselors and counselor

educators need to adopt these standards. The process of encouraging and
ensuring that a group of people adopt a change, particularly one seen as
intimidating, is a difﬁcult one (Marris, 1974; Tyack & Cuban, 1995).

Another force of inﬂuence on the role of the school counselor is an
independent agency, the Educational Trust. One branch of the Educational
Trust is designed with the task of transforming school counseling. The
Educational Trust focuses on the counselor being an advocate for educational
success and equity for all students. It is currently working through a grant fund
with six universities on redesigning the educational preparation of school
counselors (www.edtrust.org). The image of school counseling is similar for both
the National Standards and the Educational Trust. These two forces are not at
odds with each other, but they are presented by varied political and social
agendas.

According to Bandura’s Social Cognitive theory (1977a, 1977b, 1986,
1995), self-efﬁcacy is an important aspect to career performance and
preparation. Self-efﬁcacy involves a generative capability in which essential
cognitive, social, and behavioral skills must be organized into integrated courses
of action to serve countless goals (Larson & Daniels, 1998). Self efﬁcacy,
deﬁned as beliefs about one’s own ability to successfully perform a given
behavior, has shown positive relationship to work adjustment, job satisfaction,
and stress reduction (Lent & Hackett, 1987). Furthermore, those with high self-

efﬁcacy beliefs set higher goals for themselves and exhibit stronger commitment,

motivation, perseverance, and resiliency toward achieving those goals (Bandura,
1995)

An individual possesses a level of self-efﬁcacy for any activity in which he
or she participates. Assessment and research regarding career self-efﬁcacy
have focused on speciﬁcally deﬁned areas of activities needed to be successful
in the various careers being studied. Speciﬁcally, counseling self-efﬁcacy
beliefs are the primary causal component of effective counseling behavior
(Larson 8. Daniels, 1998). Teaching self-efﬁcacy has also been shown to be a
determinant of effective teaching behavior and results (Bandura, 1995).

Throughout peoples’ careers work adjustment, stress reduction
capabilities, goal setting, and perseverance are important factors in their ability
to continue or establish their success. In a time of transition, these aspects may
help determine whether a new role is adopted. According to Bandura (1995):

Efﬁcacy beliefs determine the goals people set for themselves, how
much effort they expend, how long they persevere in the face of
difﬁculties, and their resilience to failures. When faced with obstacles
and failures, people who distrust their capabilities slacken their efforts
or give up quickly. Those who have a strong belief in their

capabilities exert greater effort when they fail to master the challenge.
Strong perseverance contributes to performance accomplishments

(9-8)-
lndividuals in the process of change are more than likely to experience
some difﬁculties and failures. If the movement to a new role for school
counselors is to succeed, the people involved in that change will be more
successful if they have strong self-efﬁcacy beliefs. Those with weak self-efﬁcacy

are more likely to shy away from difﬁcult tasks and/or give up quickly (Bandura,

1995). In this situation, giving up would result in the continuation of the status

quo of school counseling rather than the desired developmental change.

Purpose of the Study

Currently, no self-efﬁcacy scales for school counseling as described
within the new National Standards exist. The purpose of this study is to develop
a valid and reliable instrument to measure self-efﬁcacy of school counselors
designed around the professional expectations as established by the ASCA
national standards. This scale could then be [:3 ed in a variety of ways to
improve and impact the profession of school counseling as well as to increase
the understanding of self-efﬁcacy.

The profession of school counseling is currently shifting, expanding, and
deﬁning the role of the school counselor in a more comprehensive way
(Campbell & Dahir, 1997). This is an optimal time to study the change itself, the
effect that the change has on the professionals involved as well as the students
and the school, and the role that self-efﬁcacy plays in how or whether
professionals adopt these changes. The development of a reliable and valid
instrument to evaluate school counselor’s level of self-efﬁcacy in their ability to
perform occupational roles as deﬁned by the American School Counselor
Association National Standards is a needed step to help analyze the impact of
the standards.

Counselor educators will be able to use it in ways to beneﬁt the education

of school counselors. How effective are certain courses or experiences in terms

of resultant changes in self-efﬁcacy? Does self-efﬁcacy affect whether or how
counselors implement the national standards? Do varying levels of school
counseling self-efﬁcacy impact the performance in a way that results in different
effects on the students in the school? Research using the new scale can further
inform us on the nature of how people adapt to transitions, choose whether to be
involved in transitions, and on the impact self-efﬁcacy has on the transformation.
Assuming that the National Standards remain as the operational expectations of
school counseling, the newly developed scale can be widely used in research

regarding this profession over an expanded period of time.

Hypotheses
Self-efﬁcacy is linked to a variety of other measurable attributes. Direct,

successful experience is positively correlated with levels of self-efﬁcacy. Anxiety
is negatively correlated with levels of self-efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1986). Self-efﬁcacy
is related to general self-concept, but is domain speciﬁc (Lent & Hackett, 1987;
Maddux, 1995). Based on these attributes of self-efﬁcacy, the following
hypotheses are posed regarding a new scale for school counseling self-efﬁcacy.
0 Group 1 (students in the Educational Trust grant programs) will have higher

mean scores (higher self-efﬁcacy) than Group 2 (students in school

counselor programs), which will have higher mean scores than Group 3

(students in programs in counseling other than school counseling). The

preparation in these programs reﬂects commensurate levels of awareness of

and experience in school counseling consistent with the standards.

Already practicing school counselors will have higher school counseling self-
efﬁcacy scores than current students. Since experience contributes most
effectively to self-efﬁcacy development, those who have more experience will
have higher self-efﬁcacy scores.

Those participants reporting that they have received training in
implementation and use of the national standards will have higher self-
efﬁcacy scores than those who are aware of the standards, who will have
higher self-efﬁcacy scores than those who report they are unaware of the
national standards.

The State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) will be negatively correlated with
self-efﬁcacy scores according to the theory that anxiety negatively inﬂuences
self-efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1995).

The Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE) will be moderately
correlated with self-efﬁcacy scores due to its limited focus on individual
counseﬁng.

The Tennessee Self- Concept Scale (TSCS:2) will be highly correlated with
self-efﬁcacy scores. Although self-concept is a more global measure than
career speciﬁc self-efﬁcacy, the two constructs are related.

The Social Desirability Scale (808) will be negatively or minimally correlated
with self-efﬁcacy scores. Since self-efﬁcacy scales rely on self report, and
the ‘positive' rating is self-evident, social desirability is an issue for all self-

efﬁcacy scales.

. Among practitioners:

. Years of experience will be correlated minimally to moderately with
self-efﬁcacy scores. Since the national standards represent a shift in
the role and responsibility of a school counselor, those with more
experience in other, previous roles of a school counselor might not
have signiﬁcantly higher scores than those with less experience.

. Membership in the American School Counselor Association (ASCA)
will be moderately correlated with self-efﬁcacy scores. These
counselors are more up to date with current practices and movements
in the ﬁeld, and aware of the implementation of the National
Standards.

. Elementary counselors will have higher self-efﬁcacy scores than high
school counselors on the new instrument. As school counseling is
currently practiced, elementary counselors are performing more
preventive, developmental and classroom based counseling than are
high school counselors (Coll 8. Freeman, 1997). Their role is more
similar to the role as deﬁned by the National Standards than is the
frequently currently practiced role of the high school counselor.

Assuming that each of these hypotheses are conﬁrmed through the correlation
and validation studies, the school counseling self-efﬁcacy scale can be

considered a valid evaluation tool for this population.

Limitations

The possibility exists that there will be selection bias for the university
programs included in the study, both from the student’s perspective and the
selection bias of the university program in admission. Since the goal of an
educational program is to graduate students with skills and self-efﬁcacy in the
area of certiﬁcation, the graduate program would naturally look for qualities
which would predict this in their admission criteria. Acceptance into national
standard compliant school counseling programs might be determined by
different selection criteria than either other counseling programs or than school
counseling programs of a few decades‘ago. For example, national standard
compliant school counseling programs might evaluate positively an individual
who had exhibited skills in social advocacy and program evaluation
development; whereas other programs might not include that experience or skill
in their evaluation. Similarly, an individual with strengths in these areas may
select a school counseling program rather than another area of counseling. This
could be a confound to the validity correlation but is not inconsistent with the
ﬁndings. If the profession is indeed moving toward the direction of national
standards, then the selection into the profession may shift as well.

A limitation to the external validity is inherent in the fact that the profession is
changing, or at least trying to change. Individuals who chose ten or twenty
years ago to become school counselors might not choose to enter it in the
imminent conception of the position. Since the scale is being developed with

hopefully long-tenn potential use, and since the population of professional

school counselors might look signiﬁcantly different in ten years, the external
validity might be short lived. The scale should be revalidated in ﬁve or ten
years as the population of school counselors changes.

Another limitation could be the tenure of the ASCA national standards. If the
role of the school counselor is redeﬁned differently, then the skills required for
the position will also change. This would in turn affect the areas of self-efﬁcacy

salience.

Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This literature review will focus on a number of different areas that guide
this study. First, since the scale to be developed is speciﬁc to the school
counseling profession, the historic and current constructions of this profession
are presented. Then the theoretical framework of social cognitive theory and the
underpinnings of self-efﬁcacy theory are examined. The application of self-
efﬁcacy theory in terms of behavior, assessme: . ., and generality are also
examined. Finally, the literature review addresses the process of scale
development. This leads to the conclusion of the literature review which outlines

again the purpose and use of the self-efficacy scale for school counselors.

School Counseling role - historic

School guidance emerged as a profession in American high schools in
the early 1900’s as a result of the Industrial Revolution and the decline of
apprenticeships into trades. Speciﬁcally, Frank Parsons saw the role of
Vocational Guidance as one of helping students choose a profession and
manage the transition of school to work. He saw the profession as solving
problems of vocational choice in a careful, scientiﬁc way, with regard for each
person’s aptitudes, ambitions, resources, and limitations (Gysbers and

Henderson, 1994; Schmidt, 1993).

10

These vocational counselors were originally teachers who had an hour or
two of the day set aside for these duties. Occupational demands were the focus
for the Vocational Education and Vocational Guidance programs until the
1920’s. When the Cardinal Principles of Education position paper was published
in 1917, the emphasis changed to include Educational and Civic Guidance as
well as Vocational. The focus of the Cardinal Principles was “social efﬁciency,
the broad socialization of youth for work, family life, good health, citizenship,
ethical character, and worthy use of leisure” (Tyack and Cuban, 1995, p.51). As
a result of this initiative, Vocational Guidance lost its focus. During the 1920’s,
guidance programs shifted their attention to personal, educational and
statistically measured aspects of individuals. This paralleled the growth of
intelligence testing in the schools. Vocational socialization problems were
reinterpreted as educational and psychological problems of personal adjustment,
which reﬂected the societal expectation of the new industrialization and ﬁtting
into one system (Gysbers and Henderson, 1994).

In 1928 the ﬁrst cumulative record card was utilized, which was designed
primarily as a guidanw tool to formalize information about a student’s progress
(Gysbers and Henderson, 1994). This also paralleled the normalization of the
Carnegie Unit as the measure of progress through school. The Carnegie system
awards a credit for each class and counts the number of credits in particular
academic departments required for graduation. Since the use of the Carnegie
Unit served to departmentalize teachers and encouraged a narrowing focus

within the classroom, the “whole child’s” experience was not seen by individual

11

teachers. During this time, schools were also increasing in size, as they
continued to do throughout this century (Tyack and Cuban, 1995), which made it
more difﬁcult for teachers to develop personal relationships with their students.

In the 1930’s, personal counseling dominated the professional practice
and theory. Counselors saw an increase in personal problems involving hostility
to authority, sexual relationships, unfortunate home situations, and ﬁnancial
stringency. Guidance became an all inclusive term including adjustment to all
aspects of society. Vocational guidance was a sub-category. Tension existed in
the schools and within the profession regarding roles. Some advocates believed
that teachers should take a guidance role through a homeroom situation, others
believed that guidance could not be separated from education itself and all
teachers should focus on individuals, others believed that professionals were
needed, but were unsure of the specific needs or focus (Gysbers and
Henderson, 1994).

In the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, two events impacted guidance
programs. One was the creation in most states of a Guidance Supervisor
position within the state Department of Education, which served to politically
legitimize the profession. The other event was the publication of Carl Rogers’
theory of counseling, which made the practice of personal counseling much
more accessible to everyone. In the 1940’s, federal funding became available to
support school guidance. Expectations of training were formalized and

normalized (Gysbers and Henderson, 1994).

12

In the 1950’s, the language changed to that of Pupil Personnel Services.
This umbrella included guidance, health, psychological services, school social
work, and attendance. This movement introduced using consultation with
students, parents, staff and teachers (Gysbers and Henderson, 1994).
Concurrently, however, the National Defense Education Act of 1958 created
increased funds and emphasis on increasing college attendance. The result of
this societal push was to limit school counseling services to those students who
planned to attend college and to those with personal problems (Campbell 8
Dahir, 1997; Schmidt, 1993).

In the 1960’s, elementary schools also began utilizing school counselors.
They deﬁned their role very differently than the high schools. Their emphasis
was on group guidance, developing Ieaming climates, and a developmental
model of student growth. This impacted the practice of guidance at all levels
and by the 1970’s, developmental guidance was the utilized grammar (Gysbers
and Henderson, 1994).

Developmental guidance was easier to quantify and measure during this
decade when the efﬁcacy of programs was being questioned. Guidance
programs were developed with speciﬁc goals and outcomes deﬁned. Programs
could be evaluated in terms of completing a curriculum of developmental steps
with all students in a classroom. One of the primary outcomes expected was
decision making, which included decisions about vocational choices. Thus
vocational guidance, renamed Career Development, was retained as a major

piece of these programs (Gysbers and Henderson, 1994).

13

The 1980’s witnessed the birth of Comprehensive Guidance Programs.
Comprehensive guidance programs balance guidance instruction and
counseling as equally important components. The focus is on serving all
students, on achieving outcomes through activities and processes, on
professional identity, on a systematic assistance to support students toward
desired competencies, and on a team approach of consultation. The movement
advocated and produced a developmental sequencing of social, career and
personal/emotional tasks and activities for counselors to utilize with students in a
classroom setting throughout their elementary and secondary schooling
(Gysbers & Henderson, 1994).

Throughout the history of school counseling, there has been a very weak
sense of identity and little to no accountability or career deﬁnition. The
counselor herself (or himself) has been considered the school counseling
program, which would then change with the arrival of a new counselor.
Elementary school counselors performed more direct services to students both
individually and through classroom and group guidance than did high school
counselors, who were frequently called on to perform quasi-administrative

functions (Coll & Freeman, 1997).

School Counseling role - current
Most recently, in 1997, the American School Counseling Association
(ASCA) published National standards (Appendix A) (Campbell & Dahir, 1997).

This paralleled other professional associations in education following President

14

Bush and all ﬁfty governor’s call for standards in 1989. The National Standards
are structured as statements of what students should know and be able to do as
a result of school counseling programs. The standards formalize an expected
role of the school counselor as an advocate both for individual students and for
change within the system for transformations which will support student
development.

Within the current context of school counseling, the following deﬁnition is
utilized by the ASCA Governing Board.

Counseling is a process of helping people by assisting them in
making decisions and changing behavior. School counselors work
with all students, school staff, families, and members of the
community as an integral part of the educational program. School
counseling programs promote school success through a focus on
academic achievement, prevention and intervention activities,
advocacy and social/emotional and career development. (Campbell
& Dahir, 1997, p. 8).

Current school counseling programs are expected to be proactive,
developmental, systematic, accountable, and integral to the educational
process. The national standards are written with three areas of development
deﬁned: academic, career and personal/social. While the standards focus on
the results expected to be gained from the student perspective, they do not
define how these results will be gained. Components of delivery methods
include individual counseling, small group counseling, consultation,

coordination, case management, guidance curriculum, and program evaluation

and development (Campbell & Dahir, 1997).

15

The national standards integrate the historical roots of school guidance
which have focused on each of these areas during the existence of the
profession. They formalize the expectations of the profession and place them
squarely in the midst of the holistic education of our school children.

School counseling has moved from strictly vocational concerns to
educational concerns to comprehensive life concerns. This parallels many
educational reforms which have moved schools from providing strictly literacy
and basics to a wider variety of educational expectations (Tyack and Cuban,
1995). As these reforms have taken effect in the. schools, they affect the job
expectations of the school counselor. The average age of high school
counselors from one recent study is 43 (Coll & Freeman, 1997). Assuming that
these counselors completed their training in their twenties, the profession has
changed around them with varied levels of continuing education.

Within a profession that is experiencing change and thereby affecting
expectations, many individuals are not expected to perform the same duties for
which they were educated or trained. Speciﬁcally in terms of self-efﬁcacy, a
counselor may have had a strong sense of efﬁcacy for the job expectations of
the 1980’s, but is now expected to perform quite different functions. The
following section provides an extensive literature review addressing the

construct of self-efﬁcacy.

16

Self-efﬁcacy theory

Self-efﬁcacy is a component of social cognitive theory. According to
social cognitive theory, people have an interdependent relationship with their
surroundings. This means that people have some control over, and regulation
of, their lives, but that there are some circumstances over which they have no
control. Similarly, we inﬂuence the environment around us. Thus, we are
continually adapting and interacting in cognitive, behavioral, and emotional
modes with our environments (Bandura, 1977b). There is a relationship of
triadic reciprocal causation among aspects of environmental events, behavior,
and inner personal factors, which include cognition, emotion, and biological
aspects (Maddux, 1995).

Through this reciprocal causation, all of these areas of our lives are
affected by the others. Thus, an external environmental event such as others’
decision about whether to offer a job contract is partially a result of our own
previous behavior, cognition, emotion and biological aspects, as well as those of
the committee or individual who made the offer. In turn, one’s behavior affects
the external environment and other individuals. In addition, one’s inner personal
factors will be affected by and affect one’s behavior and one’s environment.

Within this theory, self-efﬁcacy is a mediating function of behavior. Self-
efﬁcacy is deﬁned as people’s beliefs about one’s ability to successfully perform
a given behavior. Self-efﬁcacy beliefs inﬂuence how people think, feel, motivate
themselves, and act. Self-efﬁcacy beliefs are an indication not necessarily of the

skills one possesses, but of the judgments of what one can do with the skills one

17

possesses (Bandura, 1986, 1995). In other words, with whatever skills one
possesses, the determining factor of whether the skill is used or not is whether
one believes that the use of that skill will be successful. One is more likely to act
in a way that utilizes that skill if there is a strong sense of efﬁcacy than if the
individual has a weak sense of efﬁcacy for that skill. As opposed to self-esteem,
which is a global sense of self conﬁdence and well being, self-efﬁcacy is speciﬁc
to areas of performance (Lent & Hackett, 1987; Maddux, 1995). Thus each
person has a level of mathematics self-efﬁcacy, research self-efﬁcacy,
counseling self-efﬁcacy, athletic self-efﬁcacy, etc.

Self-efﬁcacy is differentiated from outcome expectation in the following
way. Self-efﬁcacy is a judgment regarding one’s capability to execute a
behavior or group of behaviors. Outcome expectation is one’s anticipation
regarding the results that one’s behavior will achieve (Bandura, 1977a). For
example, as a tennis player, one can assume that an overhead smash will win
the point (outcome expectation), but one may not believe that one has the skill to
hit an overhead smash (self-efﬁcacy). Self-efﬁcacy beliefs account for a higher
variation of outcomes than other predictors including abilities, especially in
situations in which people believe that their environment is not out of control
(Maddux, 1995).

One Ieams or attains self-efﬁcacy from a variety of sources. The most
inﬂuential source of efﬁcacy is previous performance accomplishments. If one
experiences success in an area, then one will expect to continue experiencing

success in that area. This belief is also likely to generalize to other similar

18

situations, thereby affecting a wider and wider net of behaviors. Therefore, if
one experiences success in a mathematics class and gains a strong sense of
efﬁcacy in mathematics, and believes that physics and math are related, then
that person is also likely to at least approach physics with a strong sense of
efﬁcacy. Likewise, failures lower one’s sense of efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1977a,
1986).

Another source of efﬁcacy beliefs are vicarious experiences or modeling.
As an individual watches another handle a situation, two results are possible.
The person recognizes that the situation can be handled. The person also
develops ideas about how he or she can perform the requested tasks. The
sense of efﬁcacy derived from watching another person successfully perform a
behavior does not result in as strong a sense of efﬁcacy as that derived from
direct experiences (Bandura, 1977a, 1986). Modeling has been used quite
successfully in counseling phobic clients, whereby a client who sees another
person handling a fearful situation gains the conﬁdence to believe that helshe
will also be able to handle the situation (Bandura, 1977a). Modeling is also the
basis for peer resistance training, whereby teenagers are shown skills of how to
handle various situations involving peer pressure. The students practice the
skills in the safe classroom environment. Presumably, this improves their sense
of efﬁcacy in resisting peer pressure in real-life situations they face outside of
the classroom .

Verbal persuasion is a third source of efﬁcacy beliefs. Persuasion is most

effective when coupled with performance success, so those attempting to use

19

verbal persuasion to strengthen efﬁcacy are most successful if they can also
monitor the level of challenge attempted so that mastery is achieved (Bandura,
1977a, 1986).

Emotional arousal is the fourth source of self-efﬁcacy beliefs. When one
approaches a task with which one is very comfortable, the personal anxiety level
is likely to be very low. When one approaches a challenging or threatening task,
the anxiety level is high. People rely partly on their assessment of their anxiety
level to judge their level of efﬁcacy in facing situations (Bandura, 1977a, 1986).

Self-efﬁcacy is not considered to be a static element. As environments
and experiences change, so does one’s sense of self-efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1977a,
1986). Each experience of success and failure, whether real or perceived,
affects one's sense of self-efﬁcacy. Each individual one meets and compares
oneself to affects one’s sense of self-efﬁcacy. These interactions sustain the
interdependency between the individual and the environment, which is a basis of

the social cognitive theory.

Effect of self-efﬁcacy on behavior
Self-efﬁcacy has a direct effect on persistence. Not only does self-
efﬁcacy affect the willingness to enter a situation, it affects both the level of effort
initially expended as well as the persistence of effort when faced with obstacles.
Those with weak self-efﬁcacy are more likely to give up in the face of obstacles
(Bandura, 1977a, 1995; Hackett & Betz, 1981). Those who maintain their efforts

in a challenging task and persist in the face of obstacles do so as a result of an

20

already strong sense of efﬁcacy. When this persistence results in further
success, this in turn increases their self-efﬁcacy, thereby continuing the
interaction effect between person and environment.

Goal setting is also affected by self-efﬁcacy in much the same way as
persistence. One is more likely to set higher goals for oneself if the level of
efﬁcacy is high. If one has a low sense of efﬁcacy in regards to a certain task or
behavior, then one is not likely to set a high goal or expect much of one’s
performance. Thus, people with low self-efﬁcacy set lower personal standards.
Even if they reach their goals, the goals may not have been set for as high a
level of performance as the person was capable (Bandura, 1986; Maddux,
1995).

Related to goal setting is career choice. People tend to choose careers in
which they anticipate achieving success, or for which they have a strong sense
of efﬁcacy. Efﬁcacy beliefs seem to affect career choices in two ways. Gender
differences are evident in both self-efﬁcacy and in career choices. Females
generally report higher levels of self-efﬁcacy in areas which are traditionally
considered female oriented or female dominated, including domestic and care-
giving activities. Males generally attain higher levels of self-efﬁcacy in areas
which are traditionally considered male oriented or male dominated, including
mathematics, physical tasks, and problem-solving. This mirrors the career
choices that are dominated by one gender over the other, with many health care
and educational roles dominated by women while engineering, construction and

politics remain male dominated (Hackett, 1995; Lent & Hackett, 1987).

21

Perceived self-efﬁcacy has been found to be a mediator in selection of
career choice when evaluating measured abilities and interests. Self-efﬁcacy is
believed to affect the development of other important inﬂuences of career choice
such as values and goals. This is again a cyclical phenomenon through which
efﬁcacy beliefs, interests, goals, and performance interact with one another
(Hackett, 1995; Lent & Hackett, 1987).

Efﬁcacy beliefs are a mediating factor of behavior through both cognition
and emotions. The already mentioned areas of goal setting and persistence
affect our behavior. Those with a strong sense of self-efﬁcacy in problem
solving maintain their effectiveness in the face of dilemmas through their
persistence in creating positive solutions. These individuals are also likely to
maintain a low level of anxiety and depression, which in turn affect the level of
behavioral response to problematic situations. These reactions can turn into
self-fulﬁlling prophecies or self-perpetuating interactions with the environment.
Predictably, people will also avoid activities that are associated with increased
anxiety and depression levels (Maddux, 1995).

Students of teachers who have a high sense of teaching self-efﬁcacy
exhibit more successful academic achievement than students with the same
entering ability assigned to teachers with a lower sense of teaching self-efﬁcacy.
A school staff’s collective sense of efﬁcacy predicts the level of academic
achievement when the effects of student characteristics, prior level of

achievement, and staff experience level are factored out (Bandura, 1995).

22

These same results would predictably hold for school counselors as well, at
least within the realm of classroom guidance which uses a teaching model.

Similar to teaching, counseling self-efﬁcacy has been researched in
regards to performance. As outlined in a later section on assessment of self-
efﬁcacy, the most widely used counseling self-efﬁcacy scales are speciﬁc to
individual counseling and career counseling. There is some evidence that
counseling self-efﬁcacy is positively related to performance as rated by
supervisors, although the correlation is minimal and has been documented only
in a few studies (Larson 8 Daniels, 1998). No studies have been conducted
using client perception of the counseling process related to counseling self-
efﬁcacy. No studies have been conducted that follow a counselor and client
ever a number of sessions to be able to evaluate the generative capacity
involved in self-efﬁcacy. Counselor self-efﬁcacy is a new area for theory and
research, and while the theoretical constructs seem to ﬁt, there are no deﬁnitive
studies at this time on how counseling self-efﬁcacy affects counselor

performance.

Self-efﬁcacy - assessment
Assessing self-efﬁcacy has shown to be more predictive when designed
to evaluate a speciﬁc domain of functioning (Hackett, 1995). Validated self-
efﬁcacy scales exist for counseling in individual settings (Larson et al., 1992); for
career counseling (O’Brien, Heppner, Flores 8 Bikes, 1997); for counselor

trainees (Melchert, Hays, Wiljanen 8 Kolocek, 1996); and for teachers (Gibson 8

23

Dembo, 1984). While each of these shares some relevancy to school
counseling, none of them include the variability and speciﬁcity of the school
counselor role.

Among the current assessments of self-efﬁcacy, only one has been
developed directly geared to school counseling. The Counselor Self-efﬁcacy
Scale (088) (Sutton 8 Fall, 1995) was modiﬁed from a teacher efﬁcacy scale
and used in one study of school counselors conducted by the developers. The
scale was reviewed and a pilot study conducted, but no reliability or validity data
was reported. This scale was developed prior to the initiation of the National
Standards and does not necessarily reﬂect school counseling comprehensively.
The 088 also used items to represent both efﬁcacy expectancy and outcome
expectancy, which is not the Intent of the proposed scale, which will focus only
on self-efﬁcacy. Concerns have also been raised as to the construct validity, as
the statements included in the scale include rationales for outcomes (Larson 8
Daniels, 1998).

Efﬁcacy and performance need to be analyzed separately, according to
Bandura’s theory (Bandura, 1977a, 1986). Efﬁcacy will presumably affect
performance, as was outlined earlier, but assessment should be separated.
Many other contextual factors can affect performance as well as self-efﬁcacy,
therefore, the assessment scales developed do not include performance
assessment. Uses of the self-efﬁcacy scale, as indicated in a following section

would include studies relating self-efﬁcacy to performance.

24

Self-efﬁcacy and its assessment are more concerned with the generative
capacity to utilize basic skills in order to produce a result or solution than with
the particular micro-skills used to generate that result (Bandura, 1986). In other
words, using an example from the Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE),
an efﬁcacy statement is: “I feel conﬁdent regarding my abilities to deal with crisis
situations which may arise during the counseling sessions - e.g. suicide,
alcoholism, abuse, etc.” (Larson et al, 1992, p.111). This statement assumes
and combines a variety of skills and knowledge including legal and ethical
issues, consultation skills, assessment skills, as well as personal counseling
skills. Assessment of each of those individual skills is not as indicative of
counseling self-efﬁcacy as the generative product of combining the skills to
handle an emergency.

Efﬁcacy needs to assess three dimensions of self-efﬁcacy, namely the
magnitude, generality and strength. Magnitude refers to the level of perceived
difﬁculty of the task. The tasks involved in any performance area can be
considered simple, moderately difﬁcult, or complex. An adequate assessment
tool should include some tasks from all levels. Generality refers to how
speciﬁcally limited the task is perceived to be. Tasks can be seen as being
speciﬁc to a particular domain of functioning or as being more broad in the areas
of function. Strength refers to the relative intensity of the efﬁcacy belief. Weak
expectations or beliefs are more easily extinguished than strong expectations
(Bandura, 1977a, 1986).

25

Scales developed to assess self-efﬁcacy need to incorporate the three
dimensions of self-efﬁcacy, the generative properties of utilizing skills within the
domain, and be speciﬁc to the domain involved in the assessment. The current
scales used to assess self—efﬁcacy are either not speciﬁc to the career
expectations of school counseling, or are not thoroughly validated. Calls for
future research in the area of self-efﬁcacy include improving the psychometric
properties of self-efﬁcacy scales and looking at the assessment of self-efﬁcacy
in the realm of work adjustment rather than just career selection (Hackett 8 Betz,

1 995).

Applicability of self-efﬁcacy theory to diverse populations

In the theoretical application of self-efﬁcacy to career choice, ‘person
inputs’ (predisposition, gender, race/ethnicity, health) directly affect Ieaming
experiences which directly affect self-efﬁcacy (Lent, Brown, 8 Hackett, 1996).
Research has shown that there are signiﬁcant differences between the genders
in areas of self-efﬁcacy. These have been shown to stem from external barriers,
lack of role-models and access to varied experiences, and potentially limited
externally expressed persuasion (Hackett 8 Betz, 1981). The same reasons for
these gender differences might affect ethnic minorities as well, but not enough
research has been conducted to prove or disprove the existence of any
differences. Career development, opportunities, and expectations may be
different for ethnic minorities than they are for the ethnic majority population.

People who have experienced discrimination and systemic bias may have

26

learned a sense of doubt regarding their self-efﬁcacy due to these experiences
(Brown, 1995).

From the limited research conducted which includes and/or analyzes self-
efﬁcacy in ethnic minority populations, there is no evidence to disprove its
applicability. Some evidence exists that there are additional issues which may
moderate self-efﬁcacy within various ethnic and racial groups in this country.

A review of ﬁve articles describing the methodology of developing self-
efﬁcacy scales resulted in only one ﬁnding in which the ethnicity of the subjects
was analyzed for differences. The other four articles either did not include
information about ethnic background or included the demographic information
but did not indicate that any analysis was conducted to check for group
differences. In the one article that did conduct this analysis, it was indicated in
only one of four sections of analysis. According to the validation of the
Counseling Self-estimate inventory, the sample was 83% white and 14% Asian.
An independent ttest for the total score revealed no signiﬁcant differences
between the two groups (Larson et al., 1992).

Zane, Sue, Hu, and Kwon (1991) found no difference in self-efﬁcacy of
assertiveness between Asian-Americans and Anglo-Americans when given
scenarios dealing with acquaintances or intimates. There were differences when
dealing with strangers, however. Their conclusion was that the theory was valid
across both groups, but there is cultural Ieaming about assertiveness with
strangers which entered into the situation. The authors made no claim as to the

generalizability of this study to other ethnic groups.

27

Lauver and Jones (1991) studied a group of American Indian, White and
Hispanic students. White students as a group had stronger self-efﬁcacy scores
than the other groups, and American Indians had the lowest. Their results
showed some variation among the groups regarding the factors associated with
the strength of self-efﬁcacy, such as gender, socio-economic status and life
experiences. Each group showed similar results for females feeling more
efﬁcacious about entering predominantly male occupations than males report
about entering predominantly female occupations.

Arbona (1990) concluded a literature review on Hispanic career
counseling research with the statement that “Hispanic students generally want to
work in demanding jobs, but they are less optimistic than their Anglo peers about
gaining access to those jobs” (p.311). Although she does not speak directly to
self-efﬁcacy, the optimism of success is consistent with the construct of self-
efﬁcacy.

Rotberg, Brown, and Ware (1987) hypothesized that race would be a
factor in predicting career self-efﬁcacy expectations in their study of Anglo and
African American community college students. This was not supported in their
results, which found no differences. Their study only included seven African
American males in the study of 152 students, which is a weakness of their study.

Clearly, more research needs to be conducted on the applicability of self-
efﬁcacy to diverse populations, especially when these populations experience
life differently in regards to the sources of self-efﬁcacy. The current research

also has not been synthesized to speak to the differences that one would expect

28

to ﬁnd at various levels of education. Some of the studies have been conducted
in high schools, some at college levels, and some among professionals. One
would expect to ﬁnd stronger self-efﬁcacy among people who have overcome
systemic educational barriers and achieved in situations of adversity. One of the
calls for future research includes more attention to the interaction of ethnicity
and career self-efﬁcacy (Hackett 8 Betz, 1995).

None of the studies or literature on self-efﬁcacy include an analysis or a
theoretical framework that would predict a differentiating effect based on sexual
orientation. While results show gender differences in some areas of self-
efﬁcacy, most notably mathematics and mathematics oriented careers (Betz 8
Hackett, 1981; Hackett, 1995), this has not been replicated with sexual
orientation.

Since the current research shows no clear indication that self-efﬁcacy will
prove to be invalid for ethnic minority populations, this study will proceed with
the assumption that it is applicable, but each analysis will include a (test for
group differences. Because gender differences have shown up in some areas of
self-efﬁcacy and because school counseling tends to be a female dominated
profession, gender will also be analyzed for group difference. Since there is no
theoretical basis for predicting that sexual orientation will be a differentiating

factor, this information will not be asked for or analyzed.

29

Self-efﬁcacy in an environment of change

The current environment in school counseling involves change. The
American School Counseling Association is attempting to implement these new
standards which will change the career expectations of school counselors. This
involves changing the process of educating school counselors, of evaluating and
hiring school counselors, as well as changing the practice of school counseling.
Self-efﬁcacy within an environment of change and adaptation deserves and has
received a special examination.

People are most likely to select situations that allow them to display their
competencies and hide their weaknesses (Maddux 8 Lewis, 1995). When given
an option to change or not, many people may be tempted to continue doing what
they already believe they do well rather than adopting a new change. This
decision of whether to adopt a change can be inﬂuenced by both the outcome
expectancies of the change as well as one’s efﬁcacy regarding coping with
change and with the new activities (Bandura, 1995). In other words, speciﬁc to
this situation, school counselors are being asked to adopt a change. Whether
they choose to do so will be dependent on a number of issues. These include
whether they believe that the adopted national standards will make a difference
to the students with whom they work, whether they believe they can change
themselves and the environment of the school to allow for the adoption, and
whether they believe they can perform the tasks asked of in the national
standards. The stronger each of these beliefs are, the more likely they are to

adopt the change.

30

In studies involving personal health issues and change, including
smoking, alcohol and drug use reduction, those programs that included both
information and a mastery model of efﬁcacious behavior showed superior results
to those that included information only (Bandura, 1995). In another study of a
changing environment which did not involve choice, East Germans were studied
during the process of the collapse of the Eastern system and their subsequent
migration to West Germany. In this situation, general coping self-efﬁcacy was
studied. Those with strong coping self-efﬁcacy experienced greater
psychological and physical well-being, lower anxiety, and better health
(Jerusalem 8 Mittag, 1995).

Since strong self-efﬁcacy results in persistence, this will also affect
behavior in a changing environment. Persistence in implementing a new
program is necessary in order for the change to occur. If the school counselor
does not have a strong sense of self-efﬁcacy both of outcome expectancy and
the implementation of the national standards program, the change is not likely to

be implemented.

Scale development process
Five steps are needed for scale development, according to Spector, 1992.
These steps are: Deﬁne the construct to be measured; design the preliminary
scale; pilot test the scale; item analysis; and validate the scale.
Construct deﬁnition in the case of this scale is the ASCA national

standards. The scale is conceptualized as one which will look at the role of the

31

school counselor as described by the national standards, so this work has
essentially been completed.

Scale design entails deciding on format as well as writing an initial
version of the scale. The standard format for self-efﬁcacy scales is an
agreement response choice in reaction to statements of ability in various
behaviors expected to be performed (Larson 8 Daniels, 1998; Larson, et al.,
1992). The items themselves are derived from a variety of sources. Literature
reviews and the process of deﬁning the construct can divine many of the items
(Clark 8 Watson, 1998; Davvis, 1987; Larson, et al., 1992; Melchert, et al., 1996;
O’Brien, et al., 1997; Spector, 1992). Consultation with a panel of experts to
originate and/or critique the items as well as to judge the content-validity of the
items can also be used (Dawis, 1987; Larson, et al., 1992; Lynn, 1986; O’Brien,
et al., 1997; Standards for educational and psychological testing, 1985). The
items created at this stage are more numerous than one would expect to ﬁnd in
the ﬁnal scale, but are written to be inclusive of as wide a variety of
characteristics as possible (Clark 8 Watson, 1998).

A pilot study is then conducted, on which an item analysis is performed.
The pilot study participants should be as close as possible to the target
population for which the scale is developed (Spector, 1992). Pilot study
participants are given the opportunity to react to the scale not only by indicating
their responses but by responding in written form to the clarity, wording, and
comprehensiveness (O’Brien, et al., 1997). Item analysis is conducted to

identify any sub-scales, to determine which items are more discriminatory than

32

others, and to determine internal consistency. The item analysis is used as a
determination of which items to retain and which should not be retained.
(Spector, 1992). A Cronbach alpha score for internal consistency is frequently
used at this stage, but this practice has been brought into question especially
when examining multidimensional behaviors (Cortina, 1993). The “attenuation
paradox’ points out that “increasing internal consistency of a test beyond a
certain point will not enhance its construct validity and, in fact, may occur at the
expense of validity” (Clark 8 Watson, 1998, p. 232). A scale with a high internal
consistency may be limited to those items that are similar to each other or that
are redundant in nature. Furthermore, an item that does not show internal
consistency with other items may be a valid item that is reﬂective of a different
behavior than the other items. Omitting that item might undermine the validity of
the scale to the comprehensiveness of the initially deﬁned construct to be
measured, again especially a multidimensional construct such as school
counseling. Clark and Watson (1998) point out that the goal of scale
construction is to maximize validity rather than reliability. Factor analysis can
also be performed at this stage, which can optimize the validity of the scale as it
is being developed (Comrey, 1988; Cortina, 1993). The ﬁnal items for the scale
are determined after results from the pilot study have been analyzed and
critiques from respondents have been clariﬁed.

The next step is validation. Construct validity is of primary concern in this
phase of development. Construct validity refers to the question of whether the

scale is actually measuring what it is purported to measure. This can be

33

determined by examining the correlations of scores on different scales that
measure similar and different constructs, as well as comparing different
identiﬁable groups’ results. External validation is established by comparing the
demographic information of the participants with the demographic information of
the larger target population (Dawis, 1987; Standards for educational and
psychological testing, 1985). Reliability is established through a procedure of
re-testing a population, or giving the test to people twice with a time gap in
between (Dawis, 1987; Spector, 1992).

Speciﬁc to this study, a re-examination of the hypotheses regarding
validity studies is in order. Those participants who have received varying levels
of education regarding the expectations of school counselors according to the
national standards will be examined in two different ways. Students from the
Educational Trust group (group 1) will be compared to students in school
counseling programs (group 2), as well as to students prepared in counseling for
other contexts (group 3). Construct validity in this study will be supported if
indeed those students in group 1 have a higher level of self-efﬁcacy than group
2, and if group 2 has higher self-efﬁcacy than group 3. Additionally, both
participants and students will indicate whether they have received training
speciﬁc to the standards (group A), whether they are aware of the standards
(group B), or whether they are not aware of the standards (group C). Again,
construct validity will be supported if group A has higher self—efﬁcacy scores

than group B and if group B is higher than group C.

Additional construct validity studies will be conducted to compare the
school counseling self-efﬁcacy scores with the most widely used counseling self-
eflicacy scale. This will indicate whether school counseling is a different
construct than individual counseling. Years of experience as a school counselor
will be correlated with the scores as well. These scores are expected to
correlate positively, but not strongly due to the shift in the professional deﬁnition
of school counseling. Related to this, elementary school counselors are
expected to have higher self-efﬁcacy scores since their current role is more
similar to the expectations outlined by the national standards.

Other validity studies are more related to the general theory of self-
efﬁcacy than to the speciﬁcs of school counseling self-efﬁcacy. Scores will be
correlated between the self-efﬁcacy scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory,
the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and the Social Desirability Scale.
Theoretically, the anxiety level will be lower with higher self-efﬁcacy scores, the
self-concept will correlate highly with self-efﬁcacy scores, and the social

desirability scores will correlate negatively.

Purpose of study - the need for a school counseling self-efﬁcacy scale
The purpose of this study is to develop a measure which will help answer
the question: “To what extent are school counselors conﬁdent in their ability to
perform occupational roles as deﬁned by the American School Counselor

Association National Standards?“.

35

There are many advantages of evaluating self-efﬁcacy rather than actual
performance. One advantage is that the standards are written in general terms
which allow for counselors in different school environments to utilize different
strategies to accomplish the same goal. In other words, an elementary school
counselor and a high school counselor would be expected to utilize very
different approaches and skills to work with students on the attitudes of
respecting others because of the students’ age and developmental differences.
The emphasis of an urban counselor and a rural counselor might be different
when working with students on safety and survival skills. The speciﬁcs of these
programs need to be different for each level and to a lesser extent to type of
school. Self-efﬁcacy, rather than identifying how an individual would achieve
their results, measures the individual’s conﬁdence that helshe can achieve the
results. For example, the statement would be: “Change situations in which an
individual or group treats others in a disrespectful or harassing manner”, rather
than skill based “I can lead a small group on the issue of having a positive
attitude toward self as a unique and worthy person“. For these reasons, looking
at self-efﬁcacy rather than actual performance allows for more global
comparisons.

The role and career expectations of a school counselor are unique in
comparison to other specialties of counseling. Current validated scales are
speciﬁc to individual and career counseling, and while these are both important
aspects to the school counselor's role, they are not inclusive. A new scale is

needed which will include all of the various expectations of school counseling.

36

Since we are seemingly in the midst of a change in the deﬁnition and role
of the school counselor, having a self-efﬁcacy scale at this time would help in
many ways to track the change, which could add to the literature about school
counseling and about career self-efﬁcacy theory. Future research directions
have been called for in increased psychometric properties of self—efﬁcacy scales,
more attention to the role of self-efﬁcacy in career adjustment, and an increased
focus on the role of interventions in affecting career self-efﬁcacy. The proposed
scale, and its timing in the transformation process of school counseling, will help

to satisfy these needed research areas.

Potential uses

A self efﬁcacy scale developed for school counselors could be used
within the realm of counseling psychology and counselor education in a number
of ways.

This scale could be used as a post-measure for counselor trainees, or as
an avenue in mid-training to direct course work to areas of relative weakness. If
used as a post-measure, this could help both the individual trainees as well as
faculty evaluating their program. It could be used for team building exercises for
school staffs with more than one school counselor to identify areas of strength.
It could be used as an avenue for identifying needs for continuing education for
current counselors in the ﬁeld who are experiencing their profession change
around them. It might also increase a sense of conﬁdence in this situation.

Since self-efﬁcacy is theoretically assumed to mediate the relationship between

37

ability and performance (Larson et al., 1992), it could be used in conjunction with
other measures to understand the success of some counselors compared with
the difﬁculties experienced by others. It could also be used to track the
inﬂuence of the standards document on a long term basis to identify aspects of
its implementation.

In short, in view of what we know about career self-efﬁcacy impacting
performance and choice, and in light of the continuing questions we have about
the impact of, assessment of, and impact of self-efﬁcacy especially in regards to
continued career development, this is an opportune juncture to establish a

validated assessment tool for a career in the midst of a transformation.

38

‘n .Illil‘i‘z'l '.

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

Phase 1 - Scale design

The methodology for developing a scale to evaluate School Counseling Self-
Efﬁcacy was as follows. This methodology followed guidelines as recommended
by Specter (1992). An initial scale was developed using the document of
National Standards for School Counseling (Campbell 8 Dahir, 1997), a review of
career expectations within school counseling as described through the Council
for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)
which is the recognized accrediting body for masters level counseling programs,
and a review of counseling self-efﬁcacy scales. These initial items were
reviewed by a panel of experts in the ﬁeld of school counseling and school
counseling education.

The panel consisted of twelve individuals who all have been school
counselors and continued within the profession both through pursuing
doctorates, holding ofﬁces within the professional organizations of American
School Counseling Association (ASCA), Association for Counselor Education
and Supervision (ACES), CACREP, and teaching and/or conducting research.
One of the panelists was one of the authors of the ASCA standards documents,
another was a program director for the Education Trust’s ofﬁce of Transforming
School Counseling. They were asked: to examine the items to evaluate the

relevancy, content validity, and inclusiveness of the items as they relate to the

39

National Standards; to eliminate any items considered unnecessary; to revise
any confusing items; and to provide additional feedback regarding the structure,

wording, and format of the scale items. (O’Brien et al., 1997).

Phase 2 - Pilot study

A pilot study and item analysis were conducted on the initial set of items
developed through the expert panel. Item analysis was used to differentiate
items that form an internally consistent scale from those that do not. A sample
size of 5 respondents per item is required for factor analysis up to 300
participants (Tinsley 8 Tinsley, 1987). The pilot sample was recent participants
in the ASCA conference, presumably abreast of the latest school counseling
innovations. The results of this preliminary item analysis, as well as feedback

from the pilot study participants, resulted in expansion of, elimination of items.

Validation study

It is important to establish the reliability and validity of newly developed
measures. The fact that many self-efﬁcacy instruments lack these substantiating
evaluations has been identiﬁed as a problem (Larson 8 Daniels, 1998; Larson et
al., 1992; Osipow, 1991). For the purpose of this study, internal consistency,
construct validity and external validity were examined. The participants in this
study were students, so test-retest results would not be expected to be stable
since students would be exposed to vicarious Ieaming, modeling, and mastery

experiences during the time between test and re-test (Bandura, 1995). Test-

40

retest reliability will need to be established through further studies with

established, practicing school counselors.

m

Participants in the study were second or ﬁnal year Master’s students in
counseling programs. These were recruited from three sources. Group One
were students from the six programs supported by the Educational Trust, an
organization designed to reorient the structure of school counseling with ideals
consistent with those of the ASCA national standards. Group Two were students
from school counseling programs. Access to these students was gained through
professors who attended regional Counselor Educator conferences during the
fall of 2000. Group Three were students from these same university programs in
master’s counseling programs not oriented to school counseling (i.e. community,
marriage, addictions, or rehabilitation counseling). Since the three groups were
receiving different levels of training in various counseling skills, using and
comparing the results from all three groups helped establish discriminant
validity.

Contact was initially made through the program director or major
professor, who was asked for permission to offer the opportunity to the students
(see Appendix C). The students were asked to complete the developed scale
and one or more of the other inventories to be used for validity purposes.
Additional demographic questions reﬂected the participants age, gender,

ethnicity, awareness of and exposure to the national standards, and years of

41

teaching or other work experience (see Appendix D). This information was also
used to help establish construct and external validity.

For an adequate power analysis of group differences, at least 64 participants
in each group was needed to ﬁnd a medium group difference, and 26
participants in each group was needed to ﬁnd a large group difference (Cohen,
1992). Assuming a response rate of 64%, which was the mean response rate
among mail surveys studied (Weathers, Furlong, 8 Solorzano, 1993), in order to
receive at least sixty four responses at least one hundred surveys needed to be

sent out to each of the three groups to be analyzed.

Factor Analysis

All of the participant’s responses were analyzed for internal consistency,
identifying a Cronbach alpha score. All responses were analyzed for signiﬁcant
gender or racial differences. Also, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted.
Through this analysis, any irrelevant or redundant items were eliminated from
the scale, and items were identiﬁed as loading on to a particular factor or sub-
scale of the self-efﬁcacy construct. The categories of Academic, Career,
Personal/Social, and Advocacy were expected, and the exploratory nature of the
analysis was expected to either conﬁrm this theory or warrant explanation
(T insley 8 Tinsley, 1987). A Cronbach alpha score was also identiﬁed for each

factor as it relates to the total.

42

Construct Validity

Construct Validity “concerns how well the variables chosen to represent a
hypothetical construct actually capture the essence of the hypothetical construct“
(Heppner, Kivlighan 8 Wampold, 1999, p. 58). To identify the construct validity
of the self-efﬁcacy scale, two primary methods were used. One was to correlate
scores with already existing measures of similar constructs, the other was to
examine differences in mean scores of differently prepared groups. The scales
chosen for correlation studies were: Social Desirability Scale (Appendix E),
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory, and
Tennessee Self-concept Scale. The last three scales are copyrighted and while
permission was received to use the scales, permission was not granted to
publish the scales as part of this paper. These scales were chosen based on
their reliability and validity support as well as their use as validation scales in
many of the currently used counseling self-efﬁcacy scales (Larson 8 Daniels,
1998; Larson et al., 1992; O’Brien et al., 1997).

For a power analysis of medium group differences between the newly
constructed scale and these scales, 64 participants completing each of these
instruments was desired. For a power analysis of large group differences, 26
participants was needed. While 64 participants was sought, analysis was

conducted with 26 when necessary.

43

Measures for construct validity - STAI.

According to Bandura’s theory, self-efﬁcacy reduces anxiety and avoidant
behavior (Bandura, 1995). Therefore, the anxiety level should be negatively
correlated with the level of self-efﬁcacy. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(STAI) (Spielberger, 1983) is widely used as an evaluation of anxiety level
(Larson 8 Daniels, 1998). It consists of forty 4—point Likert items, with 20 items
each measuring state anxiety and trait anxiety. State anxiety is considered a
transitory condition of perceived tension, and trait anxiety a relatively stable
condition of anxiety proneness. The test-retest reliability scores for the State
anxiety section are low (.16 - .62), but this is not considered problematic due to
the expected ﬂuctuation in this general category of anxiety. The reliability
scores on the Trait anxiety section are higher (.65 - .86). The median alpha
coefﬁcient is .90. Validity was established with correlation to other anxiety
measures (Spielberger, 1983). It is considered to be an excellent choice for
measurement of anxiety with the only concern being that it is easy to fake scores

(Buros, 1978).

Measures for construct validity - COSE.
The Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE) (Larson et al, 1992) is a 37

item scale with sub-scales of micro-skills, process, understanding the impact of
values, dealing with difﬁcult clients, and exhibiting multicultural competencies.
All of these skills are surveyed within the context of individual counseling.

lntemal validity was found to range from .65 - .93 for the total score and the sub-

44

scales. Test-retest reliability ranged from .68 - .87. Validity was reported by
demonstrating that the COSE exhibited a positive correlation with counselor
performance as measured by a Behavioral Rating Scale as well as positive
correlation with years of experience and semesters of supervision. Validity was
also demonstrated through negative correlation with the aforementioned State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory, and an increase after completion of a course in
counseling skills (Larson et al, 1992). The COSE has been used in 43% of the
studies on counseling self-efﬁcacy since it has been developed (Larson 8

Daniels, 1998).

Measures for constﬂct mitt! -§_ID_S
The Social Desirability Scale (808) (Crowne 8 Marlowe, 1960) measures
one’s attempt to describe oneself in favorable terms as a way to achieve
approval from others. lntemal consistency and test-retest reliability are reported
at .88 (Crowne 8 Marlowe, 1960). Because self-efﬁcacy scales ask people to
report a conﬁdence level which leaves little to no doubt which direction is
socially desirable, it is important to verify that respondents are not just answering

the inventory questions in the socially desirable way.

Measures for construct validity - TSCS:2.
The Tennessee Self Concept Scale, second edition (TSCS:2) (Fitts 8

Warren, 1996) is a measure of general self conﬁdence. It consists of eighty two

5-point Likert items. Eight of the items contribute to the Self-Criticism sub-scale,

45

which represent defensiveness and social desirability. Test-retest reliability has
been established at .62 - .82 and the alpha coefﬁcient is .80 (Fitts 8 Warren,
1996). The ﬁrst version of the T808 has been positively correlated with other
self-concept scales and measures (Larson et al., 1992). There should be a
positive correlation between general self-concept and school counseling self-
efﬁcacy. Theoretically, these relate and build upon one another, but the domain-
speciﬁcity of the self-efﬁcacy scale should not be directly correlated to the more

general construct of self concept.

Measures for validity - External

External validity refers to the generalizability of a scale to the larger
population (Heppner et al., 1999). To show external validity, one must show that
the sample used in the veriﬁcation process is representative of the sample for
which the measure is intended. To this end, the descriptive questions asked of
the respondents (i.e. years of experience, age, gender, ethnicity) were analyzed

and compared to statistics about the general population of school counselors.

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics for the sample population were compared to the
population of school counselors as described through research surveys in the
past ten years. The range, mean and percentages of groupings weree
determined and compared to establish the external validity of the sample

population. T-tests were conducted on the various groups, and any group

46

differences were identiﬁed and related to theoretical or previously researched
concepts.

Correlation studies were conducted between ratings on the school
counselor self-efﬁcacy scale and the four other scales for construct validity.

Factor analysis was used to examine the lntemal structure of the scale.
Factor analysis helped identify sub-scales through identifying factor loading.
Item analysis also identiﬁed items that indicated discriminant and convergent
validity within the sub-scales. A combination of factor and item analysis,
together with theoretical determinations, led to ﬁltering the scale to 25 items.

Internal consistency was established by identifying a Cronbach alpha
score for the whole scale as well as for identiﬁed sub-scales. This analysis was
based on correlations of items on a single scale, or comparing each individual
score with the average score. lnteritem correlations were also determined as
an alternate form of internal consistency based on the recent critiques of
coefﬁcient alpha as an index of internal consistency for multidimensional
behaviors (Clark 8 Watson, 1998; Cortina, 1993).

Construct validity across educational background was determined by
conducting t-tests for group differences among those students in the Educational
Trust programs, students in other programs preparing school counselors, and
students in programs preparing counselors for other settings. Construct validity
across awareness background was determined by conducting t—tests for group
differences among students who indicated training in and use of the national

standards and awareness of the standards.

47

Chapter 4

RESULTS

The results chapter is presented in chronological progression, which
started with scale design, analysis of data returned through the pilot study with
conference attendees, factor and item analyses of data returned from master's
students which resulted in a 25 item scale. This scale and identiﬁed sub-scales
were then evaluated for validity through relationships with other scales and
group differences among the surveyed populations.

Scale Design

The scale design process involved initial writing of items using concepts
from the documents of ASCA National Standards, CACREP accreditation
standards, Education Trust, and research on the role of school counselors.
These initial items were circulated to experts in the ﬁeld, and the items were re-
evaluated and re-written based on the feedback received.

Five of the 12 professionals who were asked and verbally agreed to
respond to the initial items developed for the scale actually responded. Two of
the individuals met face-to-face with the author to provide feedback, one
responded in writing as well as a telephone call, and two responded in writing.

Panelists were asked to indicate ‘how important (1-5) is it for an individual
to have the indicated skill or ability to be successful as a school counselor

utilizing the national standards’. All but three items received at least one rating

48

of ‘Very important (4)' or “Extremely important (5)’. These items were: “I know
what to look for in an individual student’s cumulative ﬁle to identify patterns of
achievement and behavior that contribute to school success”; “I usually leave
project or presentation preparation to the last minute“; and “I can help a student
or group of students to increase their personal pride in their accomplishments“.
These three items were deleted. As well as feedback on the items included in
the initial survey, two panelists provided input on issues they believed should be
added. These included dealing with suicide and school crises, taking a
preventive approach to problems, leadership, family interventions, school-wide
assessment of academic and environmental issues, and agency consultation.
Items were added to the scale to reﬂect these issues (see appendix 8 (Draft 2)
items 12, 44-51).

The feedback was most critical in the area of wording. In the original
version, (see appendix B, draft 1) following the format for the Counseling Self-
Estimate Inventory (Larson et al., 1992), each item was a statement beginning
with a variation of “I am conﬁdent...“ with the indicators ranging through seven
degrees of agreement and disagreement. This format presented a number of
problems, as indicated through the feedback provided. Experts’ feedback
suggested that the scale was excessively wordy and tiresome because of the
continuing, overuse of the stem. It was also somewhat confusing because, in
order to avoid tedium, variations were introduced (‘I believe I am capable’; ’I
believe I have the skills to’; ‘I understand how to’) which then brought to question

whether each of these statements were actually comparable. Most importantly, it

49‘

was pointed out that the wording did not consistently ﬁt Bandura’s deﬁnition of
self-efﬁcacy. Levels of agreement may or may not be equivalent to levels of
conﬁdence.

In reaction to this feedback, the author re-examined the formats of various
self-efﬁcacy scales and decided that the format used in the Career Counseling
Self-Efﬁcacy Scale (O’Brien et al., 1997) is a more appropriate format. In this
format, each item is a statement of an action to be performed (i.e. Establish
rapport with a student for individual counseling). Respondents are asked to
‘indicate your conﬁdence in your current ability to perform each activity’ and the
indicators (1-5) range from ‘not conﬁdent’ to ‘highly conﬁdent’. Each item is
more compact, the scale is more precise and theoretically accurate, and the
responses indicate a level of conﬁdence (see appendix 8, draft 2).

This alternate format does not allow for some items to be ‘reverse coded’.
Many scales are written with approximately half of the items written in a negative
direction (i.e. “I have difﬁculty recognizing situations that impact student
learning” as opposed to “I am conﬁdent that I can recognize situations that
impact student leaming'). The advantage of reverse coding is to ensure that a
respondent does not enter into a ‘response set’ and just answer every question
with the same response down the column, thereby possibly losing the
individuality of responses. If respondents enter into a response set, they might
consistently respond with the same indicator without really considering each
item individually (Sudman 8 Bradbum, 1982). In the case of this scale, a

respondent might feel generally conﬁdent about his or her role and respond with

50

5’s (highly conﬁdent) to all items. This might represent a high level of
conﬁdence to each item individually, or it could signify that the respondent
entered a response set and simply circled all the 5’s. With some items
negatively worded, the “conﬁdent” response is opposite to the positively worded
items, so to respond in a ‘conﬁdent’ direction some of the responses are 1’s and
some are 5’s. f

The author agreed with the feedback provided, decided that the
advantages of the alternative format were desirable enough to overcome the
disadvantage, and reformatted the scale, taking care to retain the skills indicated
within each item during the rewriting process. The scale as shown in appendix B
labeled Draft 2 reﬂects this revision.

Pilot Study

The school counselor self-efﬁcacy (SCSE) scale was sent to a variety of
practicing school counselors. The results of this study provided some
preliminary validity data as well as an indication of problematic items which were
accordingly deleted.

The list of attendees from the 2000 ASCA national conference, provided
for all attendees, was used for the pilot study. The list consisted of names,
postal and e-mail addresses of participants who had registered early enough to
be included in the published roster. An additional, late participant list was
requested from ASCA, but no response was received from this request. For this
study, the desired participants were practicing school counselors in the United

States. Postal addresses or e-mail addresses which indicated that the

51

participant lived overseas, or was afﬁliated with a university, were deleted. The
resulting list included 582 names. Letters were sent on August 11, 2000 to each
of these 582 individuals with the survey, a consent form (see appendix C), and a
demographic form (see appendix D). A short note of regret that the mailing
coincided with the opening of school, and therefore a busy time for most school
counselors was also included. For those participants who had e—mail addresses
in the roster, a preliminary notiﬁcation was sent on August 4 alerting the
respondent that the survey was being prepared, and a reminder e-mail was sent
on August 25, two weeks after the mailing.

A total of 239 surveys were returned, for a return rate of 41%. Six of the
returned surveys were not completed and included notes of explanation that the
respondent was either retired or not working as a school counselor anymore.
Three of the respondents had skipped one or two pages of the survey. These
respondents were sent another copy of the page(s) omitted, and two of them
returned those completed pages. An additional seven respondents did not
respond to at least three of the items, Which was considered unusable for
analysis. Therefore, 225 of the surveys were returned in usable form and were

used for the analysis, resulting in a usable return rate of 38.7%.

Item response omissions

Returned surveys with omitted individual questions were analyzed. The
reason for a respondent to omit a question is unclear, but the most likely
reasons would be either ambiguous wording or the respondent’s belief that the

statement was not relevant to theirjob (Fowler, 1995). Items with many

52

omissions were deemed to be undesirable, regardless of the reason. Four items

were deleted from the survey because they were omitted by eight or more

respondents (see table 1 -items # 20, 21, 31, 33). There were twelve additional

items which had been omitted by between two and ﬁve respondents. These

items were charted with the code numbers of the respondents. Through this

process, the seven respondents who did not answer three or more items were

identiﬁed and the respondents were deleted from the analysis (Fowler, 1995).

Number

4

20

21
29

31

32

33

TABLE 1
Items deleted from scale after pilot study
Item

Identify and initiate models for changing situations which defeat and
frustrate students in my school.

Ensure that all students in my school have equal access to quality
academic programs.

Foster integration of student interests, achievements, and values in
career and college planning.

Promote optimization of student choices in the educational system.
Earn the conﬁdence and respect of the students, staff and parents.

Encourage all students that post-secondary education can be part of
their future.

Facilitate student selection and achievement of concrete goals towards
academic, career and personal development.

Comprehend the college admission and ﬁnancial aid process as they
relate to my student population.

53

After these individuals were deleted, four items still had at least two
omissions. The author examined the demographic information for the
respondents to look for patterns among those who omitted each item. Three of
these items (table 1; items 4, 5, 32) were deleted when no pattern or consistency
was found. One of the items (#39: Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual
orientation in an age appropriate manner with students) was retained in the
survey when the author discovered the pattern that the four individuals who
omitted the item were all white women in their mid-forties/early ﬁfties who work
at suburban elementary schools. The author believed that the item wording was
understandable, and hypothesized that the inclusion of sexual orientation was
an issue that respondents in the described pattern might respond to with
trepidation or negativity. Research literature on survey development provided
no guidelines for this process.

An additional item (table 1; 29) was deleted from the survey because the
responses were not discriminatory. Non-discriminatory items present little
information compared to others items and should be avoided (Fowler, 1995;
Larson et al., 1992). All of the responses to this item were either 4 or 5, and the
standard deviation was .5033. Item #9 (Establish rapport with a student for
individual counseling) had an even smaller standard deviation (.4133) but was
retained. Other items referred to alternate methods of school counseling
delivery, namely small and large group meetings, and the author did not want to
present only the group methodologies without the individual methodology being

included. This decision was also not based on speciﬁc literature guidelines.

54

A total of eight items were deleted based on omissions from the pilot
study (see table 1). The second round of surveys distributed for validity studies

contained 43 items.

SEEM

Reliability statistics were run using SPSS on the remaining 43 items. The
coefﬁcient alpha for the survey was .9494. The mean of all the items was
4.2080, with the range of scores from 1 - 5, and a range of means from 3.500 -
4.8505. Responses were on a scale of 1 - 5 (1 :not conﬁdent; 2=slightly
conﬁdent; 3=moderately conﬁdent; 4=generally conﬁdent; 5=highly conﬁdent).
These scores are predictably high since the respondents are all active
professionals in the ﬁeld.

A correlation matrix was produced and analyzed (see Appendix F). All
items were correlated positively. The vast majority of items correlated between
.2 and .6. Those indicating correlations below .2 were not considered
problematic. For example, the two items “Analyze data to identify patterns of
achievement and behavior that contribute to school success (SCS3)" and
“Function successfully as a small group leader (SCS10)' were two of the lowest
correlated items (.0438). These two items are indeed extremely different in their
function, but are both important to the professional expectations of school
counseling. A few items correlated above .6. These items were retained and

reanalyzed alter the second round of responses.

55

W

Statistical tests examined the presence of group differences among the
respondents. Total scores were used for these analyses, calculated by adding
each item response. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests.

The result of t-test analyses indicated no signiﬁcant difference between
the total scores of those who work in elementary (30%; n=67) and in secondary
schools (32%; n=71) (t=1.878; p=.382). This is important since one of the goals
for the survey is to be used in both settings.

Eighty percent (n=180) of the respondents indicated that they utilized the
national standards in their role as a school counselor. Additional t-test analyses
resulted in a signiﬁcant difference (t=3.506; p=.001) between those who
indicated they used the standards and those who did not. Those who used the
standards had higher total scores than those who did not. This is important since
the survey was developed with the national standards as the basis of practice.
Furthermore, a signiﬁcant difference (t=4.993; p=.000) was found between those
who indicated they had received training in implementing the national standards
(43%; n=97) and those who had not received training (56%; n=126). Those who
reported training had higher total scores than those who did not report training.

Eighty percent (n=180) of the respondents were female, and eighty eight
percent (n=198) were Caucasian. Seven percent identiﬁed themselves as
African American (n=16), two percent (n=4) as Hispanic, and one respondent

(.4%) identiﬁed as Asian American. There were no signiﬁcant differences in

56

score totals either between gender groups (t=1.173; p=.242) or between
Caucasians and non-Caucasians (t=-.141; p=.888).

Three questions on the demographic form asked about years of
experience. The wording of these questions was: “The total number of years

that l have been employed as a teacher is..._ . Similar questions asked about
years of experience “as a school counselor at any level including the years at
the current level indicated is..._“; and “years of experience in a counseling
ﬁeld other than school counseling”. Twenty-two percent of the respondents
(n=50) responded in a way which made it clear these years of experience were
not exclusive. These respondents had less than twenty years in their lives in
which they were not teachers, school counselors, or counselors in other settings.
As an example, one respondent indicated she had worked as a school counselor
for 25 years, as a teacher for 27 years, as a counselor in a non-school setting for
22 years, and that her age was 49. Assuming that she had not started working
as a teacher prior to the age of 20, she has been working a maximum of 29
years, so the positions that she reported must have been simultaneous. The
questions had purposely been worded to ask neither about full-time employment
nor about paid employment. This wording was based on recognition that the
majority of respondents would be women who might be offended if part-time,
volunteer, or at-home experiences were automatically discounted. It is possible

that some of the years of experience included two or three part-time positions. It

is also possible that some respondents included years as a school counselor

57

within the years indicated as teachers. Therefore, analysis using the reported
number of years of experience needs to be evaluated with speculation.

Most of the respondents in this study were practicing school counselors.
Eighty seven percent (n=193) of the respondents were school counselors for at
least three years. A signiﬁcant difference (t=3.114; p=.002) was found between
those who have been school counselors for less than three years and those who
have at least three years of experience. Those with more than three years of
experience had higher total scores than those with less than three years of
experience. This is important because of the theoretical basis of self-efﬁcacy -
that experience is a fundamental contributor to self-efﬁcacy.

At least twenty percent of the respondents did not have experience as a
classroom teacher. They clearly responded zero to the question of years of
experience as a teacher. From t-test analysis of group differences for the total
scores, there was a signiﬁcant difference (t=3.207; p=.002) between those who
indicated no teaching experience and those who did indicate teaching
experience. Those with teaching experience had higher total scores than those
with no teaching experience. This is important because one issue within the ﬁeld
of school counseling on a national level is whether teaching should be required
prior to entering the ﬁeld of school counseling. Increasing numbers of states are
dropping teaching as a requirement for school counseling licensure.

To summarize the ﬁndings from this section, signiﬁcant group differences
were found among the following groups which might indicate that these aspects

are related to levels of self-efﬁcacy: utilizing the national standards; receiving

58

training in implementing the national standards; more than three years of
experience as a school counselor", and teaching experience. No signiﬁcant
differences were found when examining the following groups: those who work in
elementary schools compared to those who work in high schools; gender; race

when examined as a group of white and non-white

External Validig

Initial analysis of the responses included an examination of external
validity. ASCA, CACREP, the Michigan state board of education, and the
National Board of Certiﬁed Counselors, which provides individual certiﬁcation for
school counselors, were contacted with questions regarding the demographics
of school counselors. All agencies denied keeping track of their membership or
certiﬁcation lists with information about gender, age or race. Alternatively, six
studies from professional journals conducted within the past ﬁfteen years with
relatively large numbers of school counselors were used to compare the
demographics from this study. The results are compiled in table 2.

Comparison is complicated by the fact that the demographic information
provided varied within each of the studies used. The numbers were comparable
with the exception that the current study included a higher percent of females
than the other studies (82.2% in the current study versus 75, 66, 62, and 51% in

the other studies).

59

TABLE 2

School Counselor Demgraghics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Caucasian African- Hispanic, Female Average Average
American Asian age years as
and other school
counselor
Study 1 87.7 % 7.3 % 5 % 66 % 48.1 13.8
Study 2 46 % 46 12
Study 3 90% elem 87% elem 42 elem 6.1 elem
93% sec. 76% mid 44 mid 9.0 mid
61% h.s. 45 h.s. 12.3 h.s.
Study 4 62 % 42 7.3
Study 5 75 % mid
50% in
31-50
Study 6 51% 90% 61%>10
>35
Pilot 88 % 7.1 % 4.3 % 80.4 % 47.7 11.9
study 93% elem
73% mid
74% h.s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Study 1 = Miller, T.K., (1998). N= 916, nation-wide, high school level only.
Study 2 = Ritchie, M.H., 8 Partin, R.L., (1994). N=149, 14% elementary, 32%
middle, 52% high; 49% suburban, 22% urban, 29% rural; Ohio only.
Study 3= Coll, K.M., 8 Freeman, B., (1997). N= 1510, nation-wide, all levels.
Study 4= Morse, C.L., 8 Russell, T. (1988). N= 130, Paciﬁc Northwest,
elementary only, half urban, half rural.
Study 5= Kameen, M.C., Robinson, E.H., Rotter, JG (1985). N= 193, southern
states, elementary and middle.
Study 6= Fox, R.W., Rawls, T., and Folger, W., (1993). N= 121, Michigan only,
61% rural, 28% suburban, 11% urban

60

 

..|). II .. Ill. .i

 

Ill . ililli..l-ltr!.lll.l-k

Validity Studies

Contact was made at four regional Counselor Education conferences with
a variety of Counselor Educators who were asked to distribute the survey and a
validity scale to their students. All six Education Trust grant schools agreed to
participate, as well as sixteen other programs. The SCSE (appendix 8, draft 3
with 43 items), a consent form (appendix C), a demographic form (appendix D)
and one of the validity scales was sent to 326 students via a professor or
program director in December 2000. Professors were provided the option of
completing the surveys during class time or git-mg the students the surveys and
return envelopes to complete on their own time. Half of the surveys were
completed in December, at the end of the semester in which the students
completed practicum (100 hours in a counseling setting, at least 40 hours of
direct service, individual and group supervision, usually completed in the ﬁrst
semester of the second year in a two year program). The other half of the
surveys were completed in January, at the beginning of the semester in which
the students completed internship (600 hours, usually a full time experience).
The semester of internship immediately follows practicum, so the experience
level was similar through December and January.

Additional mental health counseling students were recruited at the
national American Counseling Association conference in March, 2001. Prior to
the conference, only 22 mental health counselors had responded to the surveys,
which was not large enough for analysis. These late additions were also

students completing their internship. The additional ﬁve respondents gleaned

61

through this recruitment were included in the comparison of mental health
counseling students and school counseling students.

From the original 326 surveys sent to university programs, 137 students
responded, for a response rate of 42%. All of the returns were usable. All
individual items were completed by all of the respondents.

Analysis was completed in two parts. Item and factor analyses were
conducted after 121 student responses were returned, which allowed for these
analyses to be completed with 339 total respondents, including the 218 from the
pilot study of professional school counselors. Analyses to determine group
differences and relationships to validated measures were completed with 363

responses, which included 24 that arrived after the item analysis was completed.

Item Analysis

Item analysis involves a process of analyzing a variety of input to
determine the best possible combination of items to include in a scale. The
process is described by Green, Salkind 8 Akey (1997) as follows:

We conduct item analyses to decide which items to include or exclude
from a scale. The objective of item analysis is to select a set of items
that yield a summed score that is more strongly related to the
construct of interest than any other possible set of items. Item
analysis is problematic because we cannot relate our items to a direct
measure of a construct to make our item selections. Instead, we use
a poor representation of the construct, the sum of items, and make
decisions about items based on their relationship to this total score.
Given the problems inherent in item analysis, researchers should
select items to include on their scale based not only on the
correlations between item scores and total scores, but also on their
knowledge about the items and how they rationally and theoretically
relate to the constructs. (p.367)

62

Since item analysis depended on examining relationships between
individual items and groups of items which represent a construct via a sum of
those items, a factor analysis was completed to statistically determine the

constructs.

Preliminagy factor analysis

An exploratory factor analysis was run using SPSS using all 339
respondents and the 43 items remaining in the scale (see appendix G).
Principle Component Analysis extraction method was used and rotated using
Varimax with Kaiser normalization. The results of this analysis showed eight
factors. The factors consisted of 9,7,7,6,4,4,3, and 3 items. Eigenvalues ranged
from 16.455 to 1.074; speciﬁcally 16.455, 2.579, 1.660, 1.529, 1.489, 1.187,
1.137, and 1.074. Larger eigenvalues indicate stronger discrimination. The
default on SPSS lists only eigenvalues above 1.0. Although this is a common
practice in factor analysis, the number is somewhat arbitrary (Floyd 8 Widaman,
1995; Gorsuch, 1997; Streiner, 1994).

An alternate approach to determine the number of factors involves an
examination of the scree plot (appendix G). This involves visually looking for a
point at which the slope approaches zero as an indication of signiﬁcant factors
(Floyd 8 Widaman, 1995; Streiner, 1994). Based on the fact that the last four
factors included only three or four items, an examination of the scree plot, the
comparatively low eigenvalues of the last three factors, and the author’s
determination that the last three factors did not have as cohesive a theoretical

base as the other factors, the author decided to do a second factor analysis

63

which forced the items into ﬁve factors (Gorsuch, 1997; Streiner, 1994) These

results are included in appendix H.

The resulting ﬁve factors were conﬁgured in the following way. Factor I

(labeled Personal Development) consisted of the following twelve items, listed in

descending order of factor loading, indicated in parenthesis for each item.

Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills. (.736)

Teach students to use effective communication skills with peers, faculty,
employers, family, etc. (.705)

Change situations in which an individual or group treats others in a
disrespectful or harassing manner. (.684)

Guide students in techniques to cope with peer pressure. (.678)

Function successfully as a small group leader. (.613)

Ensure a safe environment for all students in my school. (.573)

Incorporate students’ developmental stages in establishing and conducting
the school counseling program. (.532)

Teach, develop, and/or support students’ coping mechanisms for dealing with
crises in their lives - e.g. peer suicide, parent’s death, abuse, etc. (.531)
Adjust my communication style appropriately to the age and developmental
levels of various students. (.512)

Help students identify and attain attitudes, behaviors and skills which lead to
successful Ieaming. (.493)

Help teachers improve their effectiveness with students. (.439)

Evaluate commercially prepared material designed for school counseling to
establish their relevance to my school population. (.435)

Factor ll, (labeled Impact on School Environment) consisted of the

following nine items, listed in descending order of factor loading.

Develop school improvement plans based on interpreting school-wide
assessment results. (.733)

Lead school-wide initiatives which focus on ensuring a positive learning
environment. (.676)

Identify aptitude, achievement, interest, values and personality appraisal
resources appropriate for speciﬁed situations and populations. (.652)
Promote the use of counseling and guidance activities by the total school
community to enhance a positive school climate. (.642)

Select and implement applicable strategies to assess school-wide issues.
(.640)

Implement a preventive approach to student problems. (.568)

Develop measurable outcomes for a school counseling program which would
demonstrate accountability. (.493)

Analyze data to identify patterns of achievement and behavior that contribute
to school success. (.490)

Consult with external community agencies which provide support services for
our students. (.397)

Factor Ill (labeled Collaboration) consisted of the following eight items,

listed in descending order of factor loading.

65

Consult and collaborate with teachers, staff, administrators and parents to
promote student success. (.660)

Recognize situations that impact (both negatively and positively) student
Ieaming and achievement. (.642)

Speak in front of large groups such as faculty or parent meetings. (.619)
Conduct interventions with parents, guardians, and families in order to
resolve problems that impact students’ effectiveness and success. (.555)
Effectively deliver suitable portions of the school counseling program through
large group meetings such as in classrooms. (.555)

Advocate for integration of student academic, career, and personal
development into the mission of the school. (.534)

Advocate for myself as a professional school counselor and articulate the
purposes and goals of school counseling. (.512)

Communicate in writing with staff, parents, and the external community.
(.369)

Factor IV (labeled Career and Academic Development) consisted of the

following seven items, listed in descending order of factor loading.

0 Implement a program which enables all students to make informed career

choices. (.803)

. Deliver age-appropriate programs through which students acquire the skills

needed to investigate the world of work. (.736)

. Foster understanding of the relationship between learning and work. (.702)

66

. Teach students to apply problem-solving skills toward their academic, personal
and career success. (.587)
. Teach students how to apply time and task management skills. (.496)
. Offer appropriate explanations to students, parents and teachers of how
Ieaming styles affect school performance. (.482)
. Use technology designed to support student success and progress through the
educational process. (.444)
Factor V (labeled Multicultural) consisted of the following ﬁve items.
0 Understand the viewpoints and experiences at students and parents who are
from a different cultural background than myself. (.766)
. Counsel effectively with students and families from different social/economic
statuses. (.759)
. Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual orientation in an age appropriate
manner with students. (.505)
. I can ﬁnd some way of connecting and communicating with any student in my
school. (.496)
0 Provide resources and guidance to school populations in times of crises.
(.434)

Item Analysis Using the Reliability Procedure

For this procedure, new ‘sum’ variables were created which represent the
sum of the items included in each factor. Speciﬁcally, a Multicultural-total

variable is created, in which the scores of each of the ﬁve items included within

67

the Multicultural factor were summed. This process is completed with each of
the ﬁve sub-scales. Each new variable was then compared with each item
included within the sub-scale. This indicated convergent validity, or how each
item correlated with the sum of the other items within its sub-scale. This was
conducted using SPSS reliability analysis to compute a corrected item-total
correlation.

Each item was also compared to each of the new ‘sum' variables in which
it was not included. Speciﬁcally, each individual item in the Personal
Development sub-scale was correlated with the School Environment-total, with
the Collaboration-total, with the Career and Academic Development-total, and
with the Multicultural-total. This indicates discriminant validity, from which one
can see whether the item was related in a similar way to any of the other sub-
scales other than to the one in which it was included. These analyses were
conducted using SPSS bivariate correlation.

A table was constructed showing the results of each of these analyses.
After each grouping of items was analyzed, decisions were made to drop or
move some items based on the results and consideration of theoretical
constructs. The ‘sum’ variables were then reconﬁgured and re-analyzed using
the bivariate correlation process (Green, Salkind, 8 Akey, 1995). For the

purposes of this study, eight iterations were analyzed.

68

TABLE 3

Correlations of items in Grouping 1 Environment Sub-scale with its own sub-

scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

ITEM AND ITEM NUMBER

PER

ENV

CO

CAR

MU

 

46. Develop school improvement plans based
on interpreting school-wide assessment
results.

.52

.76

.49

.55

.47

 

49. Lead school-wide initiatives which focus on
ensuring a positive learning environment.

.61

.74

.51

.51

.46

 

44. Select and implement applicable strategies
to assess school-wide issues.

.55

.73

.52

.55

.50

 

45. Promote the use of counseling and
guidance activities by the total school
community to enhance a positive school
climate.

.60

.51

.44

.46

 

47. Identify aptitude, achievement, interest,
values and personality appraisal resources
appropriate for Speciﬁed situations and
populations.

.45

.41

.52

.41

 

48. Implement a preventive approach to
studentjroblems.

.71

.70

.51

.50

.57

 

7. Develop measurable outcomes for a school
counseling program which would demonstrate
accountability.

.42

.57

.49

.52

.30

 

3. Analyze data to identify patterns of
achievement and behavior that contribute to
school success.

.38

.53

.45

.45

.23

 

 

50. Consult with external community agencies
which provide support services for our
students.

 

.59

 

.55

 

 

.42

 

 

Note: Per = Personal Development sub-scale items
Env = Impact on School Environment sub-scale items

Co = Collaboration sub-scale items
Car = Career/Academic sub-scale items
Mu = Multicultural sub-scale items

Grouping 1 item analysis

Problem areas in the ﬁrst analysis conducted were evident for items 48,

50, 3, and 47 among those included in the Environment sub-scale in grouping 1

69

 

(see table 3). Item 48 (preventive approach) correlated highly to both the
Personal sub-scale total (.71) and its own Environment sub-scale (.70). This
item was retained in the Environment sub-scale since the correlations change as
other items are deleted, and theoretically ﬁt with both sub-scales. Item 50
(agency consultation) correlated at a higher level with Multicultural (.6), Personal
(.59), and Collaboration (.56) than to its own sub-scale (.55). This item was
moved to the Multicultural sub-scale since this was the highest correlation, and
theoretically included a variety of constructs.

Item 3 (analyze data) was comparatively low in its correlations with each
sub-scale (Personal at .38; Environmental at .53; Collaboration and Career each
at .45; and Multicultural at .23). Item 47 (special assessments) showed similar
low correlations. Since comparisons for both of these items showed lower
discriminant and convergent validity than most of the other items, these items
were dropped from the scale.

Table 4, representing the correlations for items in the Personal sub-scale,
indicated problems for items 10, 23, 28, 38, and 19. Item 38 (teacher
effectiveness) was correlated almost as highly with Collaborate (.62) and
Environment (.65) as it was to its own sub-scale (.68). Based on this result as
well as the author’s determination that, theoretically, working with teachers is
more strongly aligned with impacting the school environment than with personal
student development, this item was moved to the Environmental sub-scale.

Compared to the other items, item 19 (evaluate material), item 10 (small

group leader), item 23 (safe environment), and item 28 (adjust communication)

70

did not exhibit as strong a convergent validity as the other items, exhibited by

lower correlation scores with their own sub-scale (.56, .59, .62, and .55

respectively). These items were dropped from the scale, leaving seven items in

the Personal development sub-scale.

TABLE 4

Correlations of items in Grouping 1 Personal Sub-scale with its own sub-scale
after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

ITEMS

PER

ENV

CO

CAR

MU

 

22. Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills

.49

44

.38

.40

 

25. Teach students to use effective
communication skills with peers, faculty,
employers, family etc.

.72

.51

.53

.5

.49

 

24. Change situations in which an individual or
group treats others in a disrespectful or
harassing manner.

.45

.48

.38

.47

 

27. Guide students in techniques to cope with
peer pressure.

.51

.46

.51

 

10. Function successfully as a small group
leader

.38

.49

.35

.42

 

23. Ensure a safe environment for all students
in my school.

.62

.43

.46

.4

.43

 

35. Teach, develop, and/or support students’
coping mechanisms for dealing with crises In
their lives - e.g. suicide, death, abuse, etc.

.7

.58

.59

.39

 

30. Incorporate students’ developmental
stages in establishing and conducting the
school counseling program.

.51

.53

.46

.47

 

43. Help students identify and attain attitudes,
behaviors and skills which lead to successful
learning.

.63

.53

.55

 

28. Adjust my communication style
appropriately to the age and developmental
levels of various students.

.37

.43

.37

.40

 

38. Help teachers improve their effectiveness
with students.

.65

.62

.57

 

 

19. Evaluate commercially prepared material
designed for school counseling to establish
their relevance to my school Emulation.

 

 

 

.50

 

.47

 

.32

 

71

 

TABLE 5

Correlations of items in Grouping 1 Collaboration Sub-scale with its own sub-
scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

PER ENV CO CAR MU

 

8. Consult and collaborate with teachers, staff, .60 .47 .69 .42 .40
administrators and parents to promote student

 

 

success.

2. Recognize situations that impact (both .48 .47 .6 .38 .39
negatively and positively) student Ieaming and .
achievement.

12. Conduct interventions with parents, .63 .54 .63 .46 .56

guardians, and families in order to resolve
problems that impact students’ effectiveness
and success.

 

40. Speak in front of large groups such as .41 .43 .58 .38 .37
faculty or parent meetings.

 

11. Effectively deliver suitable portions of the .57 .42 .6 .45 .31
school counseling program through large
ioup meetings such as in classrooms.

 

1. Advocate for integration of student .52 .5 .61 .52 .4
academic, career, and personal development
into the mission of the school.

 

6. Advocate for myself as a professional .46 .47 .57 .52 .36
school counselor and articulate the purposes
and gals of school counseling.

 

29. Communicate in writing with staff, parents, .35 .39 .38 .38 .33
and the external community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Examining the table indicating the correlations for items in the
Collaboration sub-scale (see table .5), problems were evident for items 12, 11, 6
and 29. Item 12 (family interventions) correlated with the Personal sub-scale at
the same level as its own Collaboration sub-scale (.63). Theoretically, family
intervention is a collaborative effort to provide a more productive environment for

personal growth, so this item arguably bridged both constructs. Since the

72

conﬁgurations change in new iterations, the item was retained in this sub-scale
for the next grouping. Item 11 (large group delivery) correlated almost as highly
(.57) with the Personal sub-scale as it did with its own Collaboration sub-scale
(.6). Theoretically, this item aligned with collaboration since the reference was
to working with groups of people, so this item was retained in the collaboration
sub-scale. Items 6 (self-advocate) and 29 (writing) exhibited comparatively low
convergent validity within their sub-scale (.57 and .38 respectively) and were
theoretically not consistent with the sub-scale. They also exhibited relatively low
discriminant validity. They were drOpped from the scale.

Examining table 6, indicating the correlations for items in the Career and
academic development sub-scale, problems were evident for item 41. Item 41
(using technology) exhibited both low convergent validity (.39 correlation with its
own sub-scale) and low discriminant validity (.25, .39, .34, and .28 with other
scales). Theoretically, although using technology is an important and necessary
piece to the function of a school counselor, it did not ﬁt in with the sub-scales,
and was dropped from the scale.

The same table (table 6) also indicated the correlations for items in the
Multicultural sub-scale. Problems were evident for items 51, 39 and 34. Item 51
(crisis management) correlated at a stronger level to the Personal sub-scale
(.62) , the Environment sub-scale (.61), and the Collaboration sub-scale (.58)
than to its own sub-scale (.55). The item exhibited relatively strong correlation

with the Career sub-scale as well (.43).

73

TABLE 6

Correlations of items in Grouping 1 Career and Multicultural Sub-scales with its
own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

PER

ENV

CO

CAR

MU

 

17. Implement a program which enables all
students to make informed career decisions.

.34

.49

.42

.28

 

16. Deliver age-appropriate programs through
which students acquire the skills needed to
investigate the world of work.

.45

.52

.47

.33

 

14. Foster understanding of the relationship
between learninwd work.

.51

.52

.72

.42

 

18. Teach students to apply problem-solving
skills toward their academic, personal and
career success.

.64

.51

.54

.67

.41

 

13. Teach students how to apply time and task
managgment skills.

.58

.51

.55

.62

.42

 

15. Offer appropriate explanations to students,
parents and teachers of how Ieaming styles
affect school performance.

.49

.49

.54

.36

 

41. Use technology designed to support
student success and progress through the
educational process.

.25

.39

.39

.28

 

PER

ENV

CO

CAR

MU

 

36. Counsel effectively with students and
families from different social/economic
statuses.

.43

.43

.35

.67

 

37. Understand the viewpoints and
experiences of students and parents who are
from a different cultural background than
myself.

.42

.32

.32

 

51. Provide resources and guidance to school
populations in times of crises.

.62

.61

.58

.43

 

39. Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual
orientation in an age appropriate manner with
students.

.49

.43

.43

a

 

 

34. I can ﬁnd some way of connecting and
communicatianith any student in my school.

 

 

 

.36

 

.31

 

.47

 

Because of the low discriminant validity as evidenced by relatively similar

correlation ﬁgures, item 51 was dropped from the scale. Items 39 and 34 both

74

 

indicated low discriminant and convergent validity, but were retained in this sub-
scale based on theoretical consistency.

TABLE 7

Correlations of items in Grouping 2 Personal Sub-scale with its own sub-scale
after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

 

 

ITEMS PER ENV CO CAR MU
22. Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills .67 .5 .44 .40 .41
25. Teach students to use effective .73 .54 .52 .5 .49

communication skills with peers, faculty,
employers, family, etc.

 

24. Change situations in which an individual .66 .48 .49 .39 .45
or group treats others in a disrespectful or
harassing manner.

 

27. Guide students in techniques to cope .68 .52 .5 .47 .51
with peer pressure.

 

35. Teach, develop, and/or support students’ » .68 .56 .59 .41 .61
coping mechanisms for dealing with crises in
their lives - e.g., peer suicide, parent’s death,
abuse, etc.

 

30. Incorporate students’ developmental .61 .52 .52 .48 .48
stages in establishing and conducting the
school counselipq progam.

 

 

43. Help students identify and attain .63 .66 .57 .53 .55
attitudes, behaviors and skills which lead to
successful learnini

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grouping 2 item analysis

The subsequent groupings, reconﬁgured after changes and deletions
made from grouping 1 analysis, represented in Groupings 2 tables were
analyzed with the following results.

Among the seven items included in the Personal sub-scale (see table 7),
only item 43 exhibited concern. Item 43 (successful Ieaming) correlated at a

stronger level (.66) to the Environment sub-scale than to its own sub-scale (.63).

75

 

Theoretically, this item bridged both sub-scales. The item was moved to the
environment sub-scale for the next grouping.

Examining the Environmental sub-scale of grouping 2 (see table 8), items
38 and 48 exhibited some problems. Item 38 (teacher effectiveness), which had
been moved from the Personal sub-scale to the Environment sub-scale based
on theory and item analysis results of grouping 1, correlated at a slightly
stronger level to the Personal sub-scale (.67) than to the Environment sub-scale
(.65). Because of the slight difference and the author's belief that this item was
theoretically consistent with the environment sub-scale, it was retained in this
sub-scale for the next grouping. Item 48 (preventive approach) was also
correlated slightly stronger to the Personal sub-scale (.71) than to the
Environment sub-scale (.69). Theoretically, this item bridges both sub-scales

and was moved to the personal sub-scale for the next grouping.

76

TABLE 8

Correlations of items in Grouping 2 Environmental Sub-scale with its own sub-

scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PER ENV CO CAR MU
46. Develop school improvement plans .50 .75 .47 .53 .48
based on interpreting school-wide
assessment results.
49. Lead school-wide initiatives which focus .6 .76 .47 .5 .48
on ensuring a positive learninggnvironmnt.
44. Select and implement applicable .53 .72 .5 .53 .50
strategies to assess school-wide issues.
45. Promote the use of counseling and .6 .71 .49 .44 .47
guidance activities by the total school
community to enhance a positive school
climate.
38. Help teachers improve their effectiveness .67 .65 .62 .53 .56
with students.
48. Implement a preventive approach to .71 .69 .5 .49 .57
student problems.
7. Develop measurable outcomes for a .41 .55 .40 .52 .29

school counseling program which would
demonstrate accountability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Items in italics are listed in a different sub-scale than in the previous

analysis.

The six items in the Collaboration sub-scale in grouping 2 (see table 9)

exhibited one problem area. Item 12 (family interventions) again correlated at

the same level with the Personal sub-scale (.63) as with its own sub-scale,

similar to the results from grouping 1. Because the item theoretically ﬁt better in

the collaboration sub-scale, it was retained for the next grouping.

The six items in the Career/Academic sub-scale in grouping 2 (see table

9) all showed higher correlations with their own sub-scale than with the others,

indicating adequate discriminant and convergent validity.

77

 

TABLE 9

Correlations of items in Grouping 2 Collaboration and Career Sub-scales with its
own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

PER

ENV

CO

CAR

MU

 

8. Consult and collaborate with teachers,
staff, administrators and parents to promote
student success.

.57

.48

.43

.4

 

2. Recognize situation that impact (both
negatively and positively) student Ieaming
and achievement.

.47

.45

.38

 

12. Conduct interventions with parents,
guardians, and families in order to resolve
problems that impact students’ effectiveness
and success.

.63

.52

.63

.46

 

40. Speak in front of large groups such as
faculty or parent meetings.

.38

.45

.57

.37

.35

 

11. Effectively deliver suitable portions of the
school counseling program through large
ﬂoup meetings such as in classrooms.

.53

.43

.46

.31

 

1. Advocate for integration of student
academic, career, and personal development
into the mission of the school.

.48

.38

 

PER

ENV

CO

CAR

MU

 

17. Implement a program which enables all
students to make informed career decisions.

.46

.38

.29

 

16. Deliver age-appropriate programs
through which students acquire the skills
needed to investigate the world of work.

.41

.51

.43

.71

.33

 

14. Foster understanding of the relationship
between learning and work.

.47

.51

.49

.74

.42

 

18. Teach students to apply problem-solving
skills toward their academic, personal and
career success.

.52

.52

.42

 

13. Teach students how to apply time and
task management skills.

.57

.50

.53

.63

 

15. Offer appropriate explanations to
students, parents and teachers of how
. Ieaming styles affect school performance.

 

 

.43

 

.49

 

.41

 

 

.35

 

78

 

The ﬁve items in the Multicultural sub-scale (see table 10) exhibited
problems with items 39, 34, and 50. Item 39 (sexuality) correlated at the same
level (.48) with the Personal sub-scale as with its own sub-scale, and at similar
levels with the other sub-scales; environment (.45), collaboration (.42) and
career (.4), indicating low discriminant validity. Item 34 (ﬁnd way to connect)
correlated higher with the Personal sub-scale (.49) than with its own sub-scale
(.44). Both of these items were retained for further examination.

TABLE 10

Correlations of items in Grouping 2 Multicultural Sub-scale with its own sub-
scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

PER ENV CO CAR MU

 

 

36. Counsel effectively with students and .55 .44 .4 .35 .67
families from different social/economic

statuses.

37. Understand the viewpoints and .43 .35 .28 .31 .56

experiences of students and parents who are
from a different cultural background than
myself.

 

39. Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual .48 .45 .42 .4 .48
orientation in an age appropriate manner
with students.

 

34. I can ﬁnd some way of connecting and .49 .36 .34 .31 .44
communicating with any student in my
school.

 

 

50. Consult with external community .59 .57 .52 .42 .49
agencies which provide support services for
our students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 50 (agency consultation) correlated at a stronger level with the
Personal sub-scale (.59), the Environment sub-scale (.57) and the Collaboration

sub-scale (.52) than with its own sub-scale (.49). Theoretically, this item was

.79'

 

more consistent with the personal or collaboration sub-scale than with the
multicultural sub-scale since agency consultation can include a variety of
support services. Based on the sub-scale correlation results as well as theory,
this item was moved to the personal sub-scale for the next grouping.

TABLE 11

Correlations of items in Grouping 3 Personal Sub-scale with its own sub-scale
after removing focpl item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

ITEMS PER ENV CO CAR MU

 

 

22. Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills .68 .49 .44 .40 .34
25. Teach students to use effective 7 .53 .52 .5 .47
communication skills with peers, faculty,
employers, family, etc.

 

24. Change situations in which an individual .66 .46 .49 .39 .43
or group treats others in a disrespectful or
harassing manner.

 

27. Guide students in techniques to cope with .66 .52 .48 .47 .48
peer pressure.

 

35. Teach, develop, and/or support students’ .73 .55 .59 .41 .55
coping mechanisms for dealing with crises in
their lives - e.g., peer suicide, parent’s death,
abuse, etc.

 

30. Incorporate students’ developmental .61 .52 .52 .48 .43
stages in establishing and conducting the
school counseling program.

 

48. Implement a preventive approach to .72 .7 .5 .49 .5
student problems.

 

 

50. Consult with external community agencies .6 .56 .52 .42 .49
which provide support services for our
students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grouping 3 item analysis

The personal sub-scale in grouping 3 consisted of eight items (see table
11). Item 48 (preventive approach) correlated at (.72) with its own sub-scale and

at (.70) with the Environment sub-scale from which it was just moved. Based on

80

 

these results as well as the author’s determination that item 48 was more
general in its wording and intent than most of the other items, and therefore was
not as theoretically consistent with action performance, the item was dropped
from the scale.

Examining table 12, indicating the correlations for items in the
Environment sub-scale for grouping 3, problems were evident for items 43 and
38.

TABLE 12

Correlations of items in Grouping 3 Environmental Sub-scale with its own sub-
scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

PER ENV CO CAR MU

 

43. Help students identify and attain attitudes, .66 .64 .57 .53 .51
behaviors and skills which lead to successful
Ieaming.

 

46. Develop school improvement plans based .54 .74 .47 .53 .41
on interpreting school-wide assessment
results.

 

49. Lead school-wide initiatives which focus .62 .76 .47 .5 .41
on ensuringa positive learning environment.

 

 

44. Select and implement applicable .54 .73 .5 .53 .45
strategies to assess school-wide issues.
45. Promote the use of counseling and .62 .70 .49 .44 .4

guidance activities by the total school
community to enhance a positive school
climate.

 

38. Help teachers improve their effectiveness .66 .66 .62 .53 .52
with students.

 

 

7. Develop measurable outcomes for a school .43 .54 .40 .52 .25
counseling program which would demonstrate
accountability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Item 43 (successful Ieaming), which had been moved from the personal

sub-scale to the environment sub-scale based on the previous grouping results,

81

 

showed a slightly stronger correlation with the personal sub-scale (.66) than with
the environment sub-scale (.64). This can happen as the sub-scales are
redeﬁned and reconﬁgured in each iteration of the item analysis process (Green,
Salkind, 8 Akey, 1995). Since the difference was a slight one, and theoretically
the item coincided with the environment sub-scale, it was retained with this sub-
scale for the next grouping. Item 38 (teacher effectiveness), which had also
been moved between the personal sub-scale and the environment sub-scale,
correlated equally strongly with both sub-scales (.66). This item was also
retained in this sub-scale on theoretical grounds.

Examining the table indicating the correlations for items in the
Collaboration sub-scale (see table 13), a problem was evident for item 12. Item
12 (family interventions) again correlated strongly with both its own sub-scale
(.63) as well as with the personal sub-scale (.64). The author made the same
decision as in the last grouping which showed similar results - to retain this item
in this sub-scale on theoretical grounds, while recognizing that the item does
bridge both sub-scales.

The six items in the Career and Academic sub-scale in grouping 3 ( see
table 13) again all showed higher correlations with their own sub-scale,

indicating adequate discriminant and convergent validity.

82

TABLE 13

Correlations of items in Grouping 3 Collaboration and Career/Academic Sub-
scales with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and with

other sub-scales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

students, parents and teachers of how
, Ieaming styles affect school performance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PER ENV CO CAR MU

8. Consult and collaborate with teachers, .56 .49 .68 .43 .35
staff, administrators and parents to promote

student success.

2. Recognize situation that impact (both .46 .46 .58 .38 .35
negatively and positively) student Ieaming

and achievement.

12. Conduct interventions with parents, .64 .53 .63 .46 .51
guardians, and families in order to resolve

problems that impact students’ effectiveness

and success.

40. Speak in front of large groups such as .39 .46 .57 .37 .29
faculty or parent meetﬂs.

11. Effectively deliver suitable portions of the .51 .45 .60 .46 .25
school counseling program through large
rioup meetirgs such as in classrooms.

1. Advocate for integration of student .49 .48 .6 .5 .34
academic, career, and personal development

into the mission of the school.

PER ENV CO CAR MU

17. Implement a program which enables all .31 .47 .38 .68 .25
students to make informed career decisions.

16. Deliver age-appropriate programs through .42 .51 .43 .71 .29
which students acquire the skills needed to

investigate the world of work.

14. Foster understanding of the relationship .46 .52 .49 .74 .4
between learnigq and work.

18. Teach students to apply problem-solving .62 .53 .52 .68 .39
skills toward their academic, personal and

career success.

13. Teach students how to apply time and .56 .51 .53 .63 .39
task mamemnt skills.

15. Offer appropriate explanations to .42 .49 .41 .54 .34

 

83

 

TABLE 14

Correlations of items in Grouping 3 Multicultural Sub-scale with its own sub-
scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

PER ENV CO CAR MU

 

 

36. Counsel effectively with students and .57 .44 .4 .35 .63
families from different social/economic

statuses.

37. Understand the viewpoints and .44 .35 .28 .31 .59

experiences of students and parents who are
from a different cultural background than
myself.

 

39. Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual .49 .46 .42 .4 .42
orientation in an age appropriate manner with
students.

 

 

34. I can ﬁnd some way of connecting and .48 .36 .34 .31 .46
communicating with any student in my school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grouping 3 incorporated four items in the Multicultural sub-scale (see
table 14). These were: (36) Counsel effectively with students and families from
different social/economic statuses; (37) Understand the viewpoints and
experiences of students and parents who are from a different cultural
background from myself; (39) Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual orientation
in an age appropriate manner with students; and (34) I can ﬁnd some way of
connecting and communicating with any student in my school. An examination
of the correlations of these items both within their sub-scale and with the other
sub-scales exhibited many problem areas.

Item 34 (way to connect) correlated at a slightly stronger level (.48) with
the personal sub-scale than with the multicultural sub-scale (.46). This item was

a more general statement of skill and ability than the others. Based on Hackett’s

 

(1995) recommendation that self-efﬁcacy assessment be designed to evaluate
speciﬁc domains of functioning, this item was dropped from the scale.

Items 36 and 37 correlated most strongly with the multicultural sub-scale
(.63 and .59 respectively) and at lower levels with the other sub-scales (range
.28 - .57) indicating that these two items might be measuring a different
construct than the other sub-scales are. Their second highest correlation was
with the personal sub-scale (.57 for item 36, and .44 for item 37). Item 39
(sexuality) however, showed very low discriminant validity with this grouping of
items. Item 39 correlated at a .49 level with the personal sub-scale, at a .46
level with the environment sub-scale, at a .42 with the collaboration level, at a .4
with the career sub-scale, and a .42 with its own sub-scale.

At this point the author made a determination to integrate the remaining
three items from the Multicultural sub-scale into the Personal sub-scale. This
decision was based on the following reasoning.

Each sub-scale should statistically be composed of a minimum of four
items (Green, Salkind 8 Akey, 1997). Since this sub-scale included only three
items at this point, its statistical power is lost. For the remaining three items, one
item (39) was correlated more strongly with the personal sub-scale, and the
other two (36 and 37) were secondarily correlated to the personal sub-scale, so
if the items belonged in another sub-scale, the choice would be the personal
sub-scale. Thedretically, counseling with a multicultural population is an ability
that would be expected as part of working with individuals in any school

population. The ability to relate with multicultural students and families, and to

85

discuss issues relating to culture, ethnicity, and life-style should be an inherently
included part of the ability to counsel individuals and promote personal
development, (Ponterotto, Cases, Suzuki, 8 Alexander, 1995) which is the
construct of the Personal development sub-scale. Therefore, these three items
were moved to the personal sub-scale and the separate Multicultural sub-scale
was dropped for the subsequent grouping analysis.

TABLE 15

Correlations of items in Grouping 4 Personal sub-scale with its own sub-scale
after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

 

 

ITEMS PER ENV CO CAR
22. Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills .61 .48 .44 .40
25. Teach students to use effective .67 .53 .52 .5

communication skills with peers, faculty,
employers, family, etc.

 

24. Change situations in which an individual or .64 .45 .49 .39
group treats others in a disrespectful or
harassigg manner.

 

27. Guide students in techniques to cope with .65 .51 .5 47
eer pressure.

 

35. Teach, develop, and/or support students’ .74 .55 .59 .41
coping mechanisms for dealing with crises in
their lives - e.g., peer suicide, parent’s death,
abuse, etc.

 

30. Incorporate students’ developmental stages .62 .53 .52 .48
in establishing and conducting the school
counseling program.

 

50. Consult with external community agencies .61 .56 .52 .42
which provide support services for our students.

 

36. Counsel effectively with students and .63 .42 .4 .35
families from diﬂ'erent social/economic statuses.

 

37. Understand the viewpoints and experiences .49 .33 .28 .31
of students and parents who are from a diﬂ‘erent
cultural background than myself.

 

 

39. Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual .51 .43 .42 .4
orientation in an age appropriate manner with
students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

Grouping 4 item analysis

The item analysis results from grouping 4 reﬂected the remaining four
sub-scales being used: personal development; impact on school environment,
collaboration, and career/academic development.

The personal development sub-scale included ten items, and all exhibited
adequate convergent and discriminant validity with higher correlations to their
own sub-scale than to any of the others (see table 15).

Examining the table indicating the correlations for items in the grouping 4
Environment sub-scale (see table 16), problems were evident for items 43 and
38. Item 43 (successful Ieaming) which has been moved between the personal
sub-scale and the environment sub-scale indicated a slightly stronger correlation
with the personal sub-scale (.65) than with the environment sub-scale (.63), and
relatively strong correlations with collaboration (.57) and career (.53), showing
low discriminant validity. This item was dropped from the scale for subsequent
analysis. Item 38 (teacher effectiveness) also exhibited low discriminant validity
(.66, .66, .62 and .53) but since this item is unique in that it deals with working
with teachers, which bridges many of the sub-scale constructs, the author

decided to retain the item for further analysis.

87

TABLE 16

Correlations of items in Grouping 4 Environmental sub-scale with its own sub-
scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

PER ENV CO CAR

 

3. Analyze data to identify paltems of .33 .51 .46 .43
achievement and behavior that contribute to
school success.

 

43. Help students identify and attain attitudes, .65 .63 .57 .53
behaviors and skills which lead to successful
learning.

 

46. Develop school improvement plans based .53 .75 .47 .53
on interpreting school-wide assessment results.

 

49. Lead school-wide initiatives which focus on .57 .75 .47 .5
ensuring a positive learning environment.

 

44. Select and implement applicable strategies .55 .74 .5 .53
to assess school-wide issues.

 

45. Promote the use of counseling and guidance .58 .68 .49 .44
activities by the total school community to
enhance a positive school climate.

 

38. Help teachers improve their effectiveness .66 .66 .62 .53
with students.

 

 

7. Develop measurable outcomes for a school .40 .56 .40 .52
counseling program which would demonstrate
accountability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Examining the table indicating the correlations for items in the
Collaboration sub-scale for grouping 4 (see table 17), a problem was evident for
item 12. item 12 (family interventions) has shown statistical co-Iinearity with
both the collaboration and the personal sub-scales, which is consistent
theoretically as indicated earlier. In this iteration, the item correlated at a
stronger level (.66) with the personal sub-scale than with the collaboration sub-

scale (.63). The author decided to retain the item in the collaboration sub-scale

88

for the next grouping for theoretical reasons, to be further examined as the other
sub-scales change.

TABLE 17

Correlations of items in Grouping 4 Collaboration and Career/Academic sub-
scales with own slﬂ-scale after removing focal item (bold) and with others

 

PER ENV CO CAR

 

8. Consult and collaborate with teachers, staff, .54 .50 .68 .43
administrators and parents to promote student

 

 

success.

2. Recognize situation that impact (both .47 .5 .58 .38
negatively and positively) student Ieaming and

achievement.

12. Conduct interventions with parents, .66 .54 .63 .46

guardians, and families in order to resolve
problems that impact students’ effectiveness
and success.

 

40. Speak in front of large groups such as .38 .45 .57 .37
faculty or parent meetings.

 

11. Effectively deliver suitable portions of the .47 .46 .60 .46
school counseling program through large group
meetings such as in classrooms.

 

1. Advocate for integration of student academic, .48 .51 .6 .5
career, and personal development into the
mission of the school.

 

PER ENV CO CAR

 

17. Implement a program which enables all .31 .48 .38 .68
students to make informed career decisions.

 

16. Deliver age-appropriate programs through .40 .52 .43 .71
which students acquire the skills needed to
investigate the world of work.

 

14. Foster understanding of the relationship .47 .52 .49 .74
between learning and work.

 

18. Teach students to apply problem-solving .6 .53 .52 .68
skills toward their academic, personal and
career success.

 

13. Teach students how to apply time and task .56 .53 .53 .63
management skills.

 

 

15. Offer appropriate explanations to students, .42 .51 .41 .54
parents and teachers of how Ieaming styles
affect school performance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

89

The six items in the Career and Academic sub-scale for grouping 4
indicated adequate discriminant and convergent validity (see table 17).

Grouping 5 item analysis

The only change between grouping 4 and grouping 5 was dropping item
43 (successful Ieaming) from the environment sub-scale. The results were very
similar. The problem with item 12 (family interventions) remained, showing a
stronger correlation with the personal sub-scale (.66) than with the collaboration
sub-scale (.63). This item was moved to the personal sub-scale as the only
change from grouping 5 to grouping 6.

Grouping 6 item analysis

Grouping 6 consisted of eleven items in the personal sub-scale, seven
items in the environment sub-scale, ﬁve items in the collaboration sub-scale, and
six items in the career/academic sub-scale, totaling 29 items. Each of the items
appeared to be placed appropriately within the four sub-scales, with each item
exhibiting adequate convergent validity with its own sub-scale and adequate
discriminant validity with the other sub-scales (see Appendix H).

At this point, the author re-examined the correlation table (appendix F) to
look for individual items with high correlations. The vast majority of items
correlated between the .3 -.6 level. Therefore, items with correlations above .6
were examined for potential co-linearity. With highly correlated items, the

additional information gained by including both items needs to be balanced with

90

the length of the scale as well as a determination of theoretical differences
among the items.

Within the items included in the personal development sub-scale, items
25 and 24 showed a high level of inter-correlation (.63). The author determined
that Item 25 (teach students to use effective communication skills) was a more
general statement and skill than item 24 (change situations in which an
individual or group treats others in a disrespectful or harassing manner). Item
25 also correlated highly (.63) with item 27 (guide students in techniques to cope
with peer pressure). Since item 25 correlated highly with each of these two
items, which in turn did not have a high correlation between them, the author
dropped item 25 from the scale and retained items 24 and 27.

Still in the personal development sub-scale, items 36 and 37 were
similarly highly correlated (.66). Item 36 referred to counseling with students
and families from different social/economic statuses, while item 37 referred to
understanding viewpoints and experiences of students and parents from
different cultural background. These items were similar in the conﬁguration of
working with people who are different in some way from the counselor, but the
impact of social/economic issues can be quite different from the impact of
cultural issues, so the author decided to retain boﬂ'I items.

Item 35 (teach, develop and/or support students’ coping mechanisms for
dealing with crises in their lives - e.g. peer suicide, parent’s death, abuse, etc.)
was highly correlated (.61) with item 12 (conduct interventions with parents,

guardians, and families in order to resolve problems that impact students'

91

effectiveness and success). Although the items referred to similar situations,
namely students facing traumatic situations, the competence and skills needed
to work directly with the student (item 35) and with the family (item 12) were
theoretically very distinct. Therefore, both items were retained in the scale.

In the environment sub-scale, item 46 (develop school improvement plans
based on interpreting school-wide assessment results) was highly correlated
(.69) with item 44 (select and implement applicable strategies to assess school-
wide issues) and was also highly correlated (.62) with item 49 (lead school-wide
initiatives which focus on ensuring a positive Ieaming environment). Items 44
and 49 were not as highly correlated (.57). The author decided to drop item 46
and retain the other two items to maximize the amount of information gained.

Also in the environment sub-scale, items 49 (lead school-wide initiatives
which focus on ensuring a positive learning environment) and item 45 (promote
the use of counseling and guidance activities by the total school community to
enhance a positive school climate) showed a high level of correlation (.67).
Positive Ieaming environments and positive school climates are certainly
related, but the author decided to retain the items because the national
standards maintain a separation of the academic counseling and the
personal/social counseling, and because the wording of the school counselor
being a leader does not appear in any other item.

Item 38 (help teachers improve their effectiveness with students) has
remained a problem throughout the item analysis process because it bridges

both the personal development sub-scale and the environment sub-scale, and

92

has been equally highly correlated with each of these two sub-scales in the last
three groupings. In grouping 6, it again exhibited a higher correlation with the
personal sub-scale (.67) than with the environment sub-scale. Because this item
did not show discriminant validity, it was dropped from the scale.

TABLE 18

Correlations of items in Grouping 7 Personal sub-scale with its own sub-scale
after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

ITEMS PER ENV CO CAR

 

22. Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills .59 .47 .41 .43

 

24. Change situations in which an individual or .61 .43 .45 .42
group treats others in a disrespectful or
harassingmanner.

 

27. Guide students in techniques to cope with .63 .47 .46 .51
peer pressure.

 

35. Teach, develop, and/or support students’ .76 .53 .53 .46
coping mechanisms for dealing with crises in
their lives - e.g., peer suicide, parent’s death,
abuse, etc.

 

30. Incorporate students’ developmental .61 .51 .51 .52
stages in establishing and conducting the
school counseling program.

 

50. Consult with external community agencies .63 .52 .48 .44
which provide support services for our

 

 

students.

36. Counsel effectively with students and .64 .36 .34 .37
families from different social/economic

statuses.

37. Understand the viewpoints and .49 .28 .24 .31

experiences of students and parents who are
from a different cultural background than

 

 

 

myself.

39. Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual .53 .38 .39 .42
orientation in an age appropriate manner with

students.

12. Conduct interventions with parents, .66 .49 .62 .49

guardians, and families in order to resolve
problems that impact students’ effectiveness
and success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

93

Grouping 7 item analysis

The personal development sub-scale in this iteration consisted of ten
items which exhibited adequate discriminant and convergent validity (see table
18). The only potential problematic item was item 12 (family interventions),
which has consistently been a bridge item showing high correlation with both the
personal sub-scale and the collaboration sub-scale.

TABLE 19

Correlations of items in Grouping 7 Environment sub-scale with its own sub-
scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

 

ITEM PER ENV CO CAR

 

3. Analyze data to identify patterns of .34 .49 .46 .43
achievement and behavior that contribute to
school success.

 

49. Lead school-wide initiatives which focus on .56 .69 .46 .50
ensuring a positive learnigg environment.

 

44. Select and implement applicable strategies .55 .68 .48 .52
to assess school-wide issues.

 

45. Promote the use of counseling and .57 .63 .47 .45
guidance activities by the total school
community to enhance a positive school
climate.

 

 

7. Develop measurable outcomes for a school .42 .57 .38 .50
counseling program which would demonstrate
accountability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The environment sub-scale consisted of ﬁve items and exhibited
satisfactory discriminant and convergent validity (see table 19). Item 3 (analyze
data) exhibited both the lowest discriminant and convergent validity, indicated by

a comparatively low correlation with its own subcscale (.49) and a similar

correlation with the collaboration sub-scale (.46) and the career sub-scale (.43).
The item had been dropped from the scale, but was theorized to add a
potentially important dimension to the Environment sub-scale, so was returned
to the sub-scale for further analysis. The author hypothesized that the term
‘analyze data’ is off-putting to many who enter the counseling ﬁeld to work with
people rather than numbers, and that many people in the counseling ﬁeld would
identify their strengths within the realm of working with people rather than
working with numbers. Although the profession is moving in a direction to
encourage school counselors to make more use of data (Campbell 8 Dahir,
1997) this is a slow and difﬁcult process. The item was retained in deference to
this transition.

The Collaboration and the Career/Academic sub-scales each consisted of
ﬁve items. They both exhibited satisfactory discriminant and convergent validity
(see table 20).

Factor analysis

A factor analysis was conducted using SPSS Principal Component with
Varimax rotation using the remaining 25 items (see appendix J). This analysis
again resulted in ﬁve factors, consistent with the initial ﬁve.

The last factor, similar to the original Multicultural factor, consisted of the
items relating to social/economic status, different cultures, and sexuality. These
three items were strongly correlated, but as indicated earlier, theoretically were

consistent with counseling toward personal development. Three items are not

95

enough to deﬁne one factor, and the author determined to retain them within the
personal development sub-scale.

TABLE 20

Correlations of items in Grouping 7 Collaboration and Career/Academic sub-
scales with its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-

scales

 

PER ENV CO CAR

 

8. Consult and collaborate with teachers, staff, .57 .48 .64 .47
administrators and parents to promote student

 

 

success.

2. Recognize situation that impact (both .48 .49 .56 .39
negatively and positively) student Ieaming and

achievement.

40. Speak in front of large groups such as .41 .41 .55 .36

faculty or parent meetings.

 

11. Effectively deliver suitable portions of the .49 .44 .58 .49
school counseling program through large
_g;oup meetings such as in classrooms.
1. Advocate for integration of student .49 .50 .60 .50
academic, career, and personal development
into the mission of the school.

 

 

PER ENV CO CAR
16. Deliver age-appropriate programs through .40 .52 .43 .60
which students acquire the skills needed to
investigate the world of work.

14. Foster understanding of the relationship .47 .49 .47 .74
between learning and work.
18. Teach students to apply problem-solving .59 .51 .51 .67
skills toward their academic, personal and
career success.

13. Teach students how to apply time and task .56 .50 .49
management skills.
15. Offer appropriate explanations to students, .43 .50 .39 .58
parents and teachers of how Ieaming styles
affect school performance.

 

 

 

 

'2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

Items 12 (family interventions) and 3 (data analysis) were both placed
within the Collaboration factor, rather than the Personal sub-scale as was
indicated for item 12 in the item analysis procedure, and the Environment sub-
scale as was indicated for item 3. These results were not entirely surprising
since those two items caused the most confusion during the item analysis and
were moved between sub-scales during the item analysis process.

Item 12 (family interventions), as noted earlier, bridged the constructs
because the method was collaboration but the goal was personal development
for the student involved. Since the action used to achieve a goal is theoretically
more consistent with self-efﬁcacy, the author determined that this item should be
moved to the collaboration sub-scale. This item and its placement deserve
further analysis as the scale achieves wider use.

Item 3 (data analysis) was retained in the environment sub-scale. As
noted earlier, data analysis is not theoretically consistent with the idea that many
people hold of the counseling ﬁeld, and is a relatively new competence within
the ﬁeld. This item and its placement also deserve further analysis as the scale
achieves wider use.

Grouping 8 item analysis

The item analysis for the ﬁnal iteration which was used for the remaining

validity and group difference studies are reﬂected in tables 21 and 22.

97

TABLE 21

Correlations of items in Grouping 8 Personal and Environment sub-scales with
its own sub-scale after removing focal item (bold) and with other sub-scales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ITEMS PER ENV CO CAR
22. Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills .60 .47 .44 .43
24. Change situations in which an individual or .60 .43 .49 .42
group treats others in a disrespectful or harassing
manner.
27. Guide students in techniques to cope with .62 .47 .5 .51
peer pressure.
35. Teach, develop, and/or support students’ .74 .53 .59 .46
coping mechanisms for dealing with crises in their
lives - e.g., peer suicide, parent’s death, abuse,
etc.
30. Incorporate students’ developmental stages in .62 .51 .53 .52
establishing and conducting the school
counseling promam.
50. Consult with external community agencies .62 .52 .52 .44
which provide support services for our students.
36. Counsel effectively with students and families .63 .36 .40 .37
from different social/economic statuses.
37. Understand the viewpoints and experiences of .49 .28 .28 .31
students and parents who are from a different
cultural background than myself.
39. Discuss issues of sexualityand sexual .52 .38 .42 .42
orientation in an age appropriate manner with
students.

PER ENV CO CAR
3. Analyze data to identify patterns of .32 .49 .46 .43
achievement and behavior that contribute to
school success.
49. Lead school-wide initiatives which focus on .57 .69 .47 .50
ensuringa positive learning environment.
44. Select and implement applicable strategies to .55 .68 .50 .52
assess school-wide issues.
45. Promote the use of counseling and guidance .57 .63 .49 .45
activities by the total school community to
enhance a positive school climate.
7. Develop measurable outcomes for a school .41 .57 .41 .50

counseling program which would demonstrate
accountability.

 

 

 

 

 

98

 

TABLE 22

Correlations of items in Grouping 8 Collaboration and Career/Academic sub-
scales with own sub-scale alter removing focal item (bold) and with others

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PER ENV CO CAR
8. Consult and collaborate with teachers, staff, .55 .48 .68 .47
administrators and parents to promote student
success.
2. Recognize situation that impact (both .46 .49 .58 .39
negatively and positively) student learning and
achievement.
40. Speak in front of large groups such as faculty .38 .41 .57 .36
or parent meetings.
11. Effectively deliver suitable portions of the .47 .44 .60 .49
school counseling program through large group
meetings such as in classrooms.
1. Advocate for integration of student academic, .47 .50 .60 .50
career, and personal development into the
mission of the school.
12. Conduct interventions with parents, guardians, .66 .50 .63 .49
and families in order to resolve problems that
impact students’ effectiveness and success.

PER ENV CO CAR
16. Deliver age-appropriate programs through .40 .52 .43 .60
which students acquire the skills needed to
investigate the world of work.
14. Foster understanding of the relationship .47 .49 .49 .74
between Ieaming and work.
18. Teach students to apply problem-solving skills .59 .51 .52 .67
toward their academic, personal and career
success.
13. Teach students how to apply time and task .55 .50 .53 .64
management skills.
15. Offer appropriate explanations to students, .43 .50 .41 .58

parents and teachers of how Ieaming styles affect
school performance.

 

 

 

 

 

Reliability analyses were conducted on the resulting scale (see appendix

K). The total scale coefﬁcient alpha was .9350. The coefﬁcient alpha for the

99

 

items in the Personal development sub-scale was .8664. The coefﬁcient alpha
for the items in the Impact school Environment sub-scale was .8178. The
coefﬁcient alpha for the items in the Collaboration sub-scale was .8295. The
coefﬁcient alpha for the items in the Career and Academic development sub-
scale was .8398. Results showed that deleting any of the items included in each

sub-scale would not increase the corresponding coefﬁcient alpha.

Group differences

Statistical tests examined the presence of any group differences among
the respondents. These t—tests differed from those examined earlier in that the
respondents now included the master’s student group as well as the
practitioners, and the self-efﬁcacy scores used in this analysis were total scores
for the twenty ﬁve items remaining in the scale. An alpha level of .05 was used
for all statistical tests. Groups were analyzed according to the hypotheses
developed as well as literature regarding self-efﬁcacy and the profession of
schoolcounseﬁng.

There were no signiﬁcant differences found for school type, school
setting, or for students in the Education Trust supported programs compared to
other school counseling programs. Results from this section are summarized in

table 23.

School level and setting

Respondents working in elementary schools (n=91, M=106.65, SD=14.41)

showed no signiﬁcant difference (t=.288; p=.773) from those working in high

100

schools (n=96, M=106.04, SD=14.34), nor from those working in middle schools
(n=74, M=104.30, SD=14.26) (t=1.047; p=.297). Results were similar for each of
the sub-scales within the total scale.

Respondents working in rural schools (n=80, M=107.39, SD=12.18)
showed no signiﬁcant difference (t=.66; p=.511) from those working in urban
schools (n=88, M=105.99, SD=15.04). Those working in urban schools also
showed no signiﬁcant difference (t=-.378; p=.706) from those working in
suburban schools (n=132, M=105.20, SD=15.37). Results were similar for each

of the sub-scales within the total scale.

University program

Students from the university programs supported by the Education Trust
grant (n=56, M=99.35, SD=15.62) exhibited no signiﬁcant difference ‘(t=.199;
p=.842) from the students enrolled in school counseling programs (n=60,

M=101.17, SD=14.30). Results were similar for each of the sub-scales within the

 

 

 

 

 

total scale.
TABLE 23

Group Difference Results - no differences
Group Differences compared (n) Expected Actual P value
Elementary (91) vs. High school yes no .773
experience (96)
Rural (80) vs. Urban ( 88) vs. Suburban no no .511 I .706
(132)
Education Trust (56) vs. School yes no .842
CounseiLng(60)

 

 

 

 

 

101

Mixed results were found in examining group differences both between
those indicating they do and do not utilize the national standards in their role of
school counselor, between those who had and had not received training in
utilizing the national standards, race and gender. Results from this section are

summarized in Table 25.

Utilizing national standards

Forty two respondents indicated that they did not utilize the national
standards in their role as a school counselor. Their total scores (M=103.12,
SD=11.58) did not differ signiﬁcantly (t=1.643; p=.101) from those who did
indicate that they utilize the standards (n=288, M=106.81, SD=13.88). Results
were similar for the Personal Development sub-scale and the Collaboration sub-
scale. There were signiﬁcant differences for the other two sub-scales, however.
Speciﬁcally, for the items included on the Impact School Environment sub-scale,
those who utilize the standards (M=19.20, SD=3.40) exhibited a signiﬁcantly
higher mean (t=2.946; p=.003) than those who do not utilize the national
standards (M=17.48, SD=4.35). For the items included on the Career and
Academic sub-scale, those who utilize the standards (M=20.27, SD=3.14)
exhibited a signiﬁcantly higher mean (t=2.852; p=.005) than those who do not
utilize the standards (M=18.81, SD=2.84).

Training in implementation of national standards

About half of the respondents reported that they have received training in

utilizing the national standards. Those who received training (n=168) exhibited

102

signiﬁcantly higher total scores (M=108.63, SD=13.49) than those who did not
receive such training (n=164, M=104.15, SD=13.38) (t=3.041; p=.003). Similar
results were found for the Impact on School Environment, Collaboration, and
Career and Academic sub-scales. However, no signiﬁcant difference was found
for the Personal Development sub-scale. Those who received training in
implementing the national standards (M=37.65, SD=5.19) were not signiﬁcantly
different (t=1.016; p=.310) on the Personal Development sub-scale items from

those who had not received training (M=37.08, SD=5.13).

Gender and Race/ethnicity

Females displayed higher self-efﬁcacy scores on the total scale and the
Personal development sub-scale, while no gender differences were found on the
three other sub-scales. Speciﬁcally, females (n=290, M=106.31, SD=14.06)
exhibited signiﬁcantly higher (t=2.596; p=.010) total scores than the males in the
study (n=66, M=101.17, SD=16.42). Mean scores on the Personal Development
sub-scale were signiﬁcantly higher (t=3.414; p=.001) for the females (M=37.56,
SD=5.20) than for the males (M=35.06, SD=6.03). Mean scores on the Impact
School Environment sub-scale displayed no signiﬁcant difference (t=1.029;
p=.304) for the females and the males (M=18.87, SD=5.20 and M=18.35,
SD=6.03 respectively). Mean scores on the Collaboration sub-scale exhibited
no signiﬁcant difference (t=1.797; p=.073) for the females and the males
(M=25.62, SD=3.74 and M=24.68, SD=4.16 respectively). Mean scores on the

Career and Academic sub-scale exhibited no signiﬁcant difference (t=1.802;

103

p=.072) for the females and males (M=20.02, SD=3.22 and M=19.20, SD=3.82

respectively).

The racial diversity among the current student population was higher than

that of the currently practicing school counselors in this study, especially among

the students in the Education Trust supported programs. Females were still the

predominant gender among the students, as they were among the established

professionals (see table 24).

TABLE 24

Race/ethnicig and gender by pmgram enrollment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

already Education School Other Total
RACE/ETHNICITY practicipg Trust Counsel Counsel
Caucasian (n) 199 36 45 15 295
% in column 88.4% 64.3% 81.8% 68.2% 82.4%
African American (n) 16 8 6 30
% in column 7.1% 14.3% 10.9% 8.4%
Asian-American (n) 1 3 1 3 8
% in column .4% 5.4% 1.8% 13.6% 2.2%
Hispanic (n) 5 6 3 1 15
% in column 2.2% 10.7% 5.5% 4.5% 4.2%
Bi-racial (n) 1 2 3
% in column 1.8% 9.1% .8%
Other (n) 4 2 1 7
% in column 1.8% 3.6 4.5% 2.0%
GENDER
Female (n) 182 47 45 17 291
% in column 80.9% 83.9% 81.8% 77.3% 81.3%
Male (n) 43 9 10 5 67
% in column 19.1% 16.1% 18.2% 22.7% 18.7%
TOTAL 225 56 55 22 358

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: seven respondents did not provide this demographic information

 

Due to the relatively low numbers of non-white students, statistical
differences were examined by comparing the Caucasian group (n=296,

M=106.17, SD=13.88) to a combination of those self-identifying as African-

104

American, Asian-American, Hispanic, Bi-racial, and other (n=61, M=101.15,
SD=17.42).

Signiﬁcant differences were found for the total scores, the Impact School
Environment sub-scale and the Collaboration sub-scales. Speciﬁcally, the
results for the total scores displayed a signiﬁcant difference (t=2.457; p=.015)
with the Caucasian group displaying a higher mean (M=106.17, SD=13.88) than
the non-white group (M=101.15, SD=17.42). On the Impact School Environment
sub-scale, the Caucasian group exhibited signiﬁcantly higher (t=2.075; p=.039)
mean scores (M=18.95, SD=3.60) than the non-white group (M=17.18,
SD=4.09). On the Collaboration sub-scale, the Caucasian group exhibited
signiﬁcantly higher (t=2.837; p=.005) mean scores (M=25.69, SD=3.64) than the
non-white group (M=24.18, SD=4.45). On the Personal development and the
Career and Academic sub-scales, no signiﬁcant differences were found. Mean
scores on the Personal development sub-scale displayed no signiﬁcant
difference (t=1.938; p=.053) between the Caucasian group (M=37.33, SD=5.09)
and the non-white group (M=35.85, SD=6.82). Likewise on the Career and
Academic sub-scale, no signiﬁcant difference (t=1.239; p=.216) was found
between the Caucasian group (M=19.96, SD=3.26) and the non-white group
(M=19.38, SD=3.73).

Because the representation of non-whites among the student group was
higher than among the already practicing group (see table 24), and the self-
efﬁcacy scores for the already practicing counselors are higher than for those

who are still students, an additional analysis was completed to evaluate the

105

presence of group differences according to race. A ﬁlter was applied to the
SPSS ﬁle so that only students in school counseling programs (including both
Educational Trust and other school counseling programs) were included in the
analysis. This analysis represents 81 Caucasian school counseling students
and 30 non-white school counseling students. Results from these groups
indicated no signiﬁcant difference (t=.658; p=.512) between the Caucasian
group (M=100.83, SD=13.91) and the non-white group (M=98.70, SD=18.04) on
the total score. Similar results were found for each of the sub-scales.

With this same set of respondents, namely school counseling masters
students, no differences were found for gender. On the total scale, females
(n=92, M=100.64, SD=15.48) displayed no signiﬁcant difference (t=.596; p=.552)
from males (n=19, M=98.37, SD=13.20).

The difference between these two sets of results might be due to a variety
of reasons including; situations in the schools in which school counselors work,
increased awareness and sensitivity in the university programs, changing times
and environments reﬂected in the younger ages and experiences of students, or
the statistical power of fewer participants in the analysis. Only a large group
difference can be detected with the number of participants used in the analysis,
whereas a medium group difference can be detected with the original number.
Theoretically, there are also complications with combining the non-white group,
as various racial and ethnic minority groups differ in their experiences and

acculturation.

106‘

TABLE 25

Group difference results - Mixed results

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Differences compared pi) Expected Actual P value
Utilize national standards (288) vs. Not
utilize (42)
total scale yes no .101
Personal 8 Collaboration yes no
Environment 8 Career/Academic yes yes .003 l .005
Training in implementation (168) vs. Not
(164) yes yes .003
Personal development sub-scale no no .310
Gender (f=290; m=66)
all respondents
total scale (females higher) no yes .010
Personal development sub-scale yes yes .001
other sub-scales no no .304/.073I.072
school counseliryg students (#92; m=19) no no .552
Race (white (296) vs. non-white (61))
all respondents
total, environment and collaboration no yes .015/.039/.005
personal and career/academic no no .053 I .216
school counseling students (white=81;
non-white=30) no no .512

 

Signiﬁcant group differences were found between those who had worked

as a school counselor for three or more years and those with less experience,

for those who reported that they had or had not been teachers, for students and

for practitioners, and for those students enrolled in counseling programs

preparing for school counseling compared to mental health settings. The results

from this section are summarized in table 26.

Work experience

Participants who had worked as a school counselor at the same level

(elementary, middle or high) for three or more years (n=187, M=110.06,

107

 

SD=11.62) exhibited signiﬁcantly higher (t=6.192; p=.000) total scores than
those participants who had worked as a school counselor at the same level for
less than three years (n=150, M=100.97, SD=15.31). Similar results were found
for each of the four sub-scales. Likewise, participants who had worked at any
level as a school counselor for three or more years (n=197, M=110.18,
SD=11.55) exhibited signiﬁcantly higher (t=7.490; p=.000) total scores than
those participants who had worked as a school counselor at any level for less
than three years (n=160, M=99.32, SD=15.81). Similar results were found for
each of the four suboscales.

Those participants who indicated that they had worked as a teacher for
one or more years displayed signiﬁcantly higher self-efﬁcacy scores than those
who had no teaching experience. Speciﬁcally, the 236 individuals who reported
teaching experience (M=107.31, SD=14.24) displayed signiﬁcantly higher
(t=3.665; p=.000) total scores than the 121 individuals without teaching
experience (M=101.41, SD=14.68). Similar results were found with each of the
four sub-scales.

Participants from the pilot study, who were in attendance at the national
ASCA conference, exhibited higher scores than participants from the validity
studies, who were all master’s level students. Participants from the pilot study
(n=226, M=109.06, SD=12.60) exhibited signiﬁcantly higher (t=6.591; p=.000)
total scores than participants recruited from master's programs (n=137,
M=99.21, SD=15.60). Similar results were evident for each of the four sub-

scales.

108

Education preparation

Students preparing to counsel in mental health settings displayed
signiﬁcantly lower scores than those students preparing to counsel in school
settings. Master’s programs vary in the number of separate courses they offer
to students in school counseling. Many programs educate their students in
similar courses except for a few unique courses, so the major difference in
preparation is the practicum and internship site experience. Those enrolled in
mental health counseling programs displayed total scores (n=27, M=91.57,
SD=16.95) signiﬁcantly (t=2.725; p=.008) lower than those enrolled in school
counseling programs (n=60, M=101.17, SD=14.30). Similar results were found
for the sub-scales of Impact School Environment, Collaboration, and Career and
Academic. No signiﬁcant difference was found on the Personal Development
sub-scale. The mean scores for students preparing for school counseling
(M=35.20, SD=5.60) were not signiﬁcantly different (t=.566; p=.573) from the
mean scores for students preparing to counsel in mental health settings
(M=34.44, SD=6.10) on the items included in the Personal Development sub-

scale.

109

TABLE 26

Group difference results - signiﬁcant differences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Differences compared (n) Expected Actual P value

School counselor experience three or more

years (187) vs. less than three (150) yes yes .000

Prior work experience as a teacher (236) vs.

no teaching experience (121) yes yes .000

Practitioners (226) vs. students (137) yes yes .000

School Counseling (60)vs. Mental Health (27) yes yes .008
exception: Personal development no no .573

 

Relationship to other developed scales
Social Desirability Scale

Thirty respondents completed both the School Counselor Self-Efﬁcacy
Scale and the Social Desirability Scale (808). The SDS was designed with
statements for which high scores indicate that the respondent is probably
answering in a way that produces a positive social image, but is not likely to be
true (i.e. ‘I like to gossip at times’ (reverse coded), and ‘My table manners at
home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant”) (Crowne 8 Marlowe, 1960).
Since self-efﬁcacy scales are asking respondents to report on the strength of
conﬁdence in their own ability, there is a potential for respondents to answer in a
direction that makes them look good. Examining correlations between the SDS
scores and self-efﬁcacy scores is one way to examine whether this is in fact
happening.

The thirty respondents who completed both of the scales were all

master's students. Twenty-six (87%) were enrolled in school counseling

110

programs, while four (13%) were enrolled in mental health counseling programs.
Twenty-ﬁve (83%) were female, four (13%) were male and one did not report
gender. Twenty (67%) were Caucasian, nine (30%) were non-white, and one did
not respond to this question. The respondents’ age range was 23 - 52
(M=32.72, SD=8.47). While none have been school counselors, seven reported
at least one year of experience counseling in a setting other than school (range
1-11 years, M=4.64 years, SD=3.35), and sixteen reported at least one year of
experience as a teacher (range 1 - 23 years, M=8.07 years, SD=6.52).

In the scale development study for the SDS, the mean score for the 39
college undergraduate subjects was 13.72 (SD=5.78) (Crowne 8 Marlowe,
1960). In a follow-up study including 608 college undergraduate subjects, the
mean score was 15.00 (SD=5.91) (Reynolds, 1982). Participants in this study
displayed a mean score of 15.80 (SD=5.67), indicating a very slight but not
signiﬁcant elevation of social desirability scores from these reported populations.

As can be seen in table 27, the self-efﬁcacy scores and the SDS scores
showed little to no correlation, indicating that the participants in the study were
not answering the items in ‘faking positive' direction. Although the correlation
with the career sub-scale (.367) was signiﬁcant (.046), the correlation is

moderate.

Tennessee Self-Concept Scale

Twenty nine respondents completed both the school counselor self-
efﬁcacy scale and the Tennessee Self-Concept scale (TSCS). The TSCS is

made up of items designed to evaluate the general self-concept of individuals,

111

and is constructed with additional sub-scales indicating self-criticism and ‘faking

good’.

TABLE 27

Correlations between the SCSE total and sub-scale scores and other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

scales
SCSE SCSE SCSE SCSE SCSE
total Personal Environ Collab Career
(SDS) correlation .202 .013 .191 .215 .367“
signiﬁcance .285 .947 .312 .254 .046
TSCS
total self-concept correlation .138 .180 -.005 .130 .104
signiﬁcance .476 .35 .979 .501 .590
self-criticism correlation -.040 .035 -.092 -.175 -.049
signiﬁcance .836 .857 .637 .364 .801
faking good correlation .430“ .367“ .308 .541 ““ .217
signiﬁcance .020 .050 .105 .002 .257
COSE
Total COSE correlation .517“ .487” .529“ .418“ .433”
signiﬁcance .000 .001 .000 .004 .004
Microskills correlation .355“ .351 “ .386“ .298 .234
signiﬁcance .021 .023 .012 .055 . 135
Process correlation .440” .358“ .479“ .334“ .456”
signiﬁcance .004 .020 .001 .031 .002
Difﬁcult Client correlation .494” .439“ .532” .428“ .395”
signiﬁcance .001 .004 .000 .005 .010
Cultural Comp. Correlation .550” .589“ .482“ .433“ .439“
significance .000 .000 .001 .004 .004
Values correlation .193 .261 .090 .144 .153
iigniﬁcance .220 .094 .572 .364 .333
STAI
State correlation -.397“ -.222 -.385“ -.51 1““ -.274
signiﬁcance .015 .186 .019 .001 .101
Trait correlation -.309 -.240 -.284 -.396“ -.136
signiﬁcance ..059 .148 .084 .014 .417

 

Note: “p<.05 *“p<.01

The 29 masters students who completed both scales (SCSE and TSCS)

included 28 (97%) enrolled in school counseling programs and one enrolled in

112

 

mental health counseling. Twenty ﬁve (86%) were female, and four (14%) were
male. Twenty two (76%) were Caucasian, while seven (24%) were non-white.
Eleven had been employed as teachers for at least one year (range 2 - 17 years,
M=7.36, SD=5.28) and 13 had been employed as counselors outside of a school
setting for at least one year (range 1 - 10 years, M=3.62, SD=5.28). Participants
age range was 23 -43 (M=29.9, SD=6.18).

Three scores on the TSCS were used for comparison; the total score, the
self-criticism score indicating defensiveness, and the faking-good score
indicating social desirability. The TSCS has been standardized on a sample of
1,396 individuals resulting in the following mean scores. The mean score on the
Total self-concept scale is 49.2 (SD=10.0). The mean score on the self-criticism
scale is 50.6 (SD=10.1). The mean score on the faking-good scale is 49.7
(SD=10.0). Two different sub-groups of this population are relevant to the
current study. For the sub-group of participants aged 19-90 (n=786), the total
mean is 53.1 (SD=9.6), the self-criticism scale mean is 47.4 (SD=9.4) and the
faking—good scale mean is 50.0 (SD=9.6). For the sub-group of participants who
are college graduates (n=659), the total mean is 51.5 (SD=10.5), the self-
criticism scale mean is 51.1 (SD=9.9) and the faking-good scale mean is 49.9
(SD=9.7) (Fitts, W.H., 8 Warren, W. L., 1996). For the 29 respondents involved
in the current study, the total mean is 49.14 (SD=6.12); the self-criticism scale
mean is 46.10 (SD=7.32) and the faking-good scale mean is 51.48 (SD=6.44).

These results are not signiﬁcantly different from the standardized population.

113

As can be seen in table 27, there was no signiﬁcant correlation between
the total self-concept score and the school counseling self-efﬁcacy scale, nor
between the self-criticism scale and the self-efﬁcacy scale. There were
signiﬁcant, moderate correlations between the faking good scale and the
Personal development sub-scale (.367, p=.050), the Collaboration sub-scale

(.541, p=.002), and the total school counselor self-efﬁcacy scale (.430, p=.020).

Counseling Self-Efﬁcapy Scale

Forty two respondents completed both the Counseling Self-efﬁcacy scale
(COSE) and the school counseling self-efﬁcacy scale. The COSE was
developed as an assessment tool for self-efﬁcacy of behaviors involved in
counseling clients, focusing primarily on individual counseling. Scores are
provided on the total scale as well as on sub-scales representing microskills,
process, difﬁcult client behaviors, cultural competence, and awareness of
values.

The 42 masters students who completed both scales included 28 who
were enrolled in school counseling programs and 14 who were enrolled in
mental health counseling programs. Thirty (71.4%) were female and ten (23.8%)
were male, with two not providing that information. Twenty seven (64.3%) were
Caucasian, 13 (30.9%) were non-white, two did not provide that information.
Their ages ranged from 24 - 51 (M=31.8, SD=7.67). Sixteen (43%) indicated
they had worked as a teacher for at least one year (range 2 - 23 years, M=7.06

years, SD=5.07). Twelve (28.6%) indicated they had worked as a counselor in a

114

setting other than a school for two years (n=6), three years (n=4) or six years
(n=2).

The COSE was developed with counselors of various levels of experience
and training. Mean scores are reported only on the total scores, not the sub-
scales. (Larson et al., 1992). The relevant groups comparable to the sample in
the current study are as follows. Participants with Master’s degrees in
Counseling Psychology (n=52) mean score on the total COSE scale was 141.35
(SD=14.08). Participants with no experience (n=213) mean score on the total
COSE scale was 121.70 (SD=18.87), while participants with two to eight years of
experience (n=45) mean score on the total COSE scale was 145.76 (SD=14.75).
Participants with one to three semesters of supervision (n=43) mean score on
the total COSE was 141.77 (SD= 13.56) (Larson et al., 1992). Among the 42
participants in the current study, the mean score on the total COSE was 149.55
(SD=19.71). This is slightly elevated when compared to the participants in the
COSE development study.

As seen in table 27, participants who reported higher counseling self-
efﬁcacy scores on the COSE total also reported higher self-efﬁcacy scores on
the SCSE total scale (correlation .517). Similarly, moderate correlations
(between .3 -.5) were found between the SCSE personal development sub-scale
and the COSE microskills, process, and difﬁcult client sub-scales; between the
SCSE impact school environment sub-scale and the COSE microskills, process,
and cultural competence sub-scales; between the SCSE collaboration sub-scale

and the COSE process, difﬁcult client, and cultural competence sub-scales; and

115

between the SCSE career and academic sub-scale and the COSE process,
difﬁcult client, and cultural competence sub-scales. Strong correlations (above
.5) were found between the SCSE personal development sub-scale and the
COSE cultural competence sub-scale, and between the SCSE impact school
environment sub-scale and the COSE difﬁcult client sub-scale.

State-Trait Anxiety Inyentorv

Thirty eight participants completed both the State—Trait Anxiety Inventory
(STAI) and the School Counseling Self-Efﬁcacy (SCSE) scale. The STAI is
made up of feeling statements ranging from levels of calm to levels of tension, to
which the respondents indicate how often they feel both generally (trait) and in a
speciﬁc situation (state) (Spielberger, 1983). in this study, participants were
asked to indicate how they feel ‘as they enter the counseling ofﬁce in which they
work’ for the state section. Students enrolled in mental health counseling
programs were excluded from this part of the study because levels of school
counseling self-efﬁcacy would not be relevant to their anxiety level upon entering
a mental health counseling ofﬁce.

Of the 38 students who completed both forms, one individual did not
provide any demographic information. Thirty (78.9%) were female, six (15.8)
were male. Twenty nine (76.3%) were Caucasian, seven (23.7%) were non-
white. Ages ranged from 23 - 48 (M=31.13, SD=7.31). Twenty seven (71.1%)
did not report any employment as a teacher. Of the ten who did have teaching
experience, the years of experience ranged from 2 - 18 years (M=7.8, SD=4.30).

Twenty eight (73.7%) did not report any years of employment as a counselor in

116

another setting. Of the nine who did have counsleing experience, the years of

experience ranged from 2 - 15 years (M=7.33, SD=5.41).

 

 

 

 

TABLE 28
STAI norms
Working Adult Working Adult College College Student
Males Females Student Males Females
S-Anxiety
Mean 35.72 35.20 36.47 38.76
SD 10.40 10.61 10.02 11.95
T-Anxiety
Mean 34.89 34.79 38.30 40.40
SD 9.19 9.22 9.18 10.15

 

 

 

 

 

The STAI manual (Spielberger, 1983) reports two separate sets of
relevant norms, as indicated in table 28.

For the 38 participants in this study, the State Anxiety levels were slightly
lower than those in the groups reported above (M=31.68, SD=7.50), as were the
Trait anxiety levels (M=33.18, SD=7.54). As seen in table 27, the total scale
scores and the Impact school Environment and Collaboration sub-scales showed
signiﬁcant negative correlations with the State anxiety levels, indicating that as
the self—efﬁcacy increases, the anxiety level decreases. Other sub-scales did
not show signiﬁcant correlations with the anxiety levels, although all correlations
were negative. Further study with larger numbers are needed to explore the
question of whether school counseling self-efﬁcacy affects anxiety levels in the

areas of Personal and Career/Academic development.

117

 

Experience related to self-efﬁcagy

Since self-efﬁcacy theoretically should increase with experience, two
linear regression models were conducted, one with all of the pilot study
respondents (n=213) and one with the pilot study respondents who indicated a
range of one to ﬁve years of experience (n=59). The student participants were
not included as they all had zero years of experience and it has already been
established that their self-efﬁcacy scores are signiﬁcantly lower than those with
experience. Five years of experience was used for analysis both because this
represents the time that the national standards I“ave been instituted, and
because the Ieaming curve in a new career is highest during these years. SPSS
results are included in appendix L, signiﬁcant results and graphs are included in
this section.

Total scores were found to increase slightly with years of experience. For
the entire pilot study population, the correlation between the years as a school
counselor and the total self-efﬁcacy score was .176, t(211) = 2.593, p=.010.
Approximately three percent of the variance of the self-efﬁcacy score was

accounted for by its linear relationship with years of experience (see Figure 1).

118

Figure 1

 

 

 

 

Effect of years of experience
on total SCSE scale
40
E D 8 a n8 no a a: no
N o O on o o a
e 20‘ 0 a :90 8 :DO 0 D on
g n P a a on on P can :0 a: no: a a
i 10' 3 ° 0 a gagslizgoaag no: 2
0 one u gonna 8 can BPPuu o a on g o
5 .. . 0:. =2... .. ":3 . I
so 70 so 90 100 110 120
TOTAL

For the population which included only those who had been school
counselors for ﬁve years, the correlation between the years as a school
counselor and the total self-efﬁcacy score was .253, t(57) = 1.974, p=.053.
Approximately six percent of the variance of the self-efﬁcacy score was
accounted for by its linear relationship with years of experience (see ﬁgure 2).

For the population which included those who had been school counselors
for ﬁve years, the correlation between the years of experience and the Personal
Development sub-scale score was .331, t(57) = 2.647, p=.010. Approximately
eleven percent of the variance of the personal development sub-scale score was

accounted for by its linear relationship with years of experience (see ﬁgure 3).

119

Figure 2

Effect of years of experience (<5)

on total SCSE scale
6

 

51 n nnnnnnnn one I: n

41

3.

 

ANYYEARS

 

 

 

70 ab 96 160 1io 120
TOTAL

Figure 3

Effect of years of experience (<5)

on personal development sub-scale
6

 

51

 

 

 

ANYY EARS
O

 

PERSON

120

For the entire pilot study population, the correlation between the years of
experience and the Impact School Environment sub-scale score was .156, t
(211) = 2.293, p=.023. Approximately two percent of the variance of the
environment sub-scale score was accounted for by its linear relationship with
years of experience (see ﬁgure 4).

Figure 4

Effect of years of experience on

impact school environment sub-scale

 

 

 

 

40
a 3 a:
5 30‘ . ° gs°s
g ”ﬁgs .o a:
2 201 D O 0 one I:
a .. 352 °
g a n g. °B
310‘ ° ° 0 a Enui
2 ”34°33 8°.
é OI 0: 68850338:
0 1o 20 30
ENVIRON

For the entire pilot study population, the correlation between the years of
experience and the Collaboration sub-scale score was .232, t(211) = 3.463,
p=.001. Approximately ﬁve percent of the variance of the collaboration sub-

scale score was accounted for by its linear relationship with years of experience

(see ﬁgure 5).

121

Figure 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Effect of years of experience
on Collaboration sub-scale
40
a n n 8
5 30' i . a
g 3 ° ° 5 n g 2
g 201 3 E 2 a a E
i z i i
5 8
t 3
§ 3
i , ,
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
COLLAB
Figure6
Effect of years of experience (<5)
on Collaboration sub-scale
6
5 n n n n n n n n
i
1: n n n n n n n n
i
5 o . . . . .
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
COLLAB

122

For the group of participants who had been school counselors for less
than ﬁve years, the correlation between the years of experience and the
Collaboration sub-scale score was .314, t(57) = 2.498, p=.015. Approximately
ten percent of the variance of the collaboration sub-scale score was accounted
for by its linear relationship with years of experience (see ﬁgure 6).

For the entire pilot study participant group, the correlation between the
years of experience and the Career and Academic Development sub-scale score
was .158, t(211) = 2.318, p=.021. Approximately three percent of the variance
on the Career and Academic development sub-scale score was accounted for by
its linear relationship with years of experience (see ﬁgure 7).

Figure 7

Effect of years of experience on

career and academic sub-scale

 

8 n
n 3 g
n B D
U 8 D E a
101 ° ° °
0 a O
n 8
8

~10

 

 

school counselor years any level

 

123

Chapter 5

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to develop and provide initial
validity and reliability data for a school counselor self-efﬁcacy scale. Items were
written based on national standards, accreditation requirements, publications
and research regarding the profession of school counseling. These items were
circulated to a panel of experts. The resulting scale of 51 items was sent to
participants at the most recent American Soho: Counselor Association national
conference. Responses were analyzed to determine which items were omitted
or did not provide discriminatory information. This analysis resulted in deleting
nine items. The scale with 43 remaining items was sent to a variety of master’s
level students preparing to become school counselors or mental health
counselors. Item and factor analyses were performed on the responses
received, through which the scale was ﬁltered down to 25 items in four sub-
scales. The items included in this version of the scale were then analyzed for
validity.

The validity discussion is organized around the assumptions and
hypotheses presented in the introductory chapter.

Sub-scale assumptions

The original assumption was that the scale would consist of four sub-

scales or factors representing Academic, Career, Personal development and

Advocacy. The actual sub-scales found in the scale were: Academic / Career,

124

Personal, Impact school environment, and Collaboration. There are a number of
reasons contributing to this difference.

While writing items, the author included and incorporated different levels
of competencies which reﬂect levels of skill integration (Bandura, 1986; Larson
et al., 1992). For example, “Speaking in front of large groups such as faculty or
parent meetings“ refers to one competence: public speaking. Other items, for
example, “Offering appropriate explanations to students, parents and teachers of
how learning styles affect school performance“, incorporates a variety of skills.
In this case, the skills include: understanding Ieaming differences,
understanding the different concerns that students, parents and teachers have,
and altering communications to deliver information to different audiences. While
the different levels of skill involvement were intentionally included and
theoretically appropriate, interpreting results is more complex.

Some items incorporated three areas of the standards directly into the
item (i.e. “Teach students to apply problem-solving skills toward their academic,
personal, and career success“). A response of 4 (on a scale of 1-5) might mean
a consistent level of conﬁdence across the three areas, or it might mean a
higher level of conﬁdence on two areas and a lower level on one. The role of a
school counselor involves impacting all three areas, and problem solving is
mentioned within each of the three areas in the national standards document.
Including all three areas in one statement, however, complicates the factor
analysis as well. This same item reﬂects degrees of competency in three

speciﬁc and distinct areas: academic, career, and personal counseling.

125

Similarly, many of the items in the Collaboration and the Impact School
Environment sub-scales reﬂect a combination of impacts that the school
counselor has on the school.

One major difference between the assumption and the actual sub-scales
was that the Academic and Career items were included within one sub-scale.
Among the items deleted because they were omitted responses were many
items that dealt with academic support. Some of the omissions might have
reﬂected poorly written items, but there were some clearly worded items that
included post-secondary education (i.e. “Comprehend the college admission and
ﬁnancial aid process as they relate to my student population“, and “Foster
integration of student interests, achievements, and values in career and college
planning“) which were overwhelmingly omitted by elementary and middle-school
counselors. Had these items been retained in the scale, or if the research design
had allowed for rewriting and submission of new items, an Academic sub-scale
separated from Career might have surfaced.

The language that is used in school counseling frequently reﬂects a focus
for academic development as an avenue for the future, inclusive of career and
college. Therefore, the integration of the academic and career development into
one factor was theoretically consistent with the language of academic
maturation.

The following section discusses the results as they relate to the

hypotheses developed in the ﬁrst chapter.

126

Original hypotheses regarding results
0 Hypothesis 1: Group 1 (students in Education Trust grant programs) will have
higher mean scores (higher self-efﬁcacy) than Group 2 (students in
traditional school counselor programs), which have higher mean scores than
Group 3 (students in mental health counseling programs).

The author hypothesized that the students in the Education Trust
supported programs would have higher self-efﬁcacy scores than those students
in traditional school counseling programs, who would in turn have higher scores
than those students preparing for mental health counseling. The ﬁrst part of this
hypothesis, the difference between the Education Trust programs and the
traditional school counseling programs, was not found. The second part of this
hypothesis, the difference between the students in school counseling and mental
health counseling programs, was found.

Reasons for the lack of statistically different scores between the
Education Trust programs and the traditional programs might be that the items in
the scale may not be directly related to the Education Trust initiative, or that the )
initiative is not affecting the students in their programs in a way that differs on
the items included in the scale. The author examined the total score, the sub-
scale scores, and each individual item looking for group differences, however,
and found no signiﬁcant difference for any item. If the impact on students were
different as a result of the courses completed, some of the individual items which
were directly related to the Education Trust initiative (i.e. “Lead school-wide

initiatives which focus on ensuring a positive Ieaming environment“, and

127

“Advocate for integration of student academic, career and personal development
into the mission of the school“) would have resulted in different scores among
the groups. Since the lack of statistical difference was consistent across total,
sub-scales, and individual items, it would be difﬁcult to argue that the
preparation is having a signiﬁcantly different impact on the studentS/
Alternatively, a possible reason for this may be the avenue gffgntact for
the traditional school counseling programs. Since contacts were made with the
program directors who were in attendance at the regional Counselor Educator
conferences, these professors might be more likely than others to be aware of
current trends and philosophies regarding school counseling, which would then
be reﬂected in their classes. Conference presentations for school counselor
educators may directly impact the new role of school counselors and the
implementation of the national standards at the non-Education Trust schools.
The staff of the Education Trust, as well as the professors in the programs
supported by their grant, have been very active in presenting at national and
regional conferences. The impetus to develop the advocacy and leadership role
of the school counselor may be inﬂuencing other programs as well as the six
directly involved. The programs involved in this study may be adopting the
philosophies of the Education Trust. Further study would be needed to examine
whether all school counseling programs are being impacted In this direction as
well as the programs taught by those in attendance at the regional conferences.
Another possibility which might affect the self-efﬁcacy level similarities in

these programs is that the students in the Education Trust programs may

128

experience a disconnect between their training and their school experience. As
change agents attempt to inﬂuence changes in training, the effect is not
immediate and may often not be supported by the current school community.
This issue deserves more study as newly trained school counselors enter
potentially traditional models of expectations of what school counselors actually
do in schools.

Signiﬁcant differences were found between those in school counseling
programs and those in mental health counseling programs. Speciﬁcally, in all
sub-scales other than Personal development, school counseling trainees scored
signiﬁcantly higher than those training to counsel in mental health settings.
Although not written as part of the hypotheses since the sub-scales were not
identiﬁed at that point, the absence of a signiﬁcant group difference on the
Personal sub-scale was considered positive and theoretically consistent. The
training of all counselors, regardless of setting, involves skills and competencies
needed to work with clients toward personal development, consequently, the
self-efﬁcacy in this area should be similar.

The difference on the other three sub-scales between the group of school
counseling students and the group of mental health counseling students was
signiﬁcant. This reﬂects a large group difference since the number of mental
health students was so small (27). It was more difﬁcult than anticipated to obtain
participants from this group. The author was present at the distribution of the
scales In one situation, and the mental health counseling students verbalized

that the school counselor self-efﬁcacy scale seemed irrelevant to them. The

129

author hypothesized that mental health students at other universities might have

started completing the forms, but stopped when faced with the school counseling

scale. This hypothesis would be consistent with the fact that some non-school
counseling respondents returned the demographic form and the validity scale
without the school counselor scale.

. Hypothesis 2: Already practicing school counselors have higher school
counseling self—efﬁcacy scores than current students. Since experience
contributes most effectively to self-efﬁcacy development, those who have
more experience will have higher self-efﬁcacy scores.

A signiﬁcant group difference was found between already practicing
school counselors and students in school counseling programs. This is
theoretically consistent with self—efﬁcacy theory in which previous performance Is
the most directly related source of self-efﬁcacy.

. Hypothesis 3: Those participants reporting that they have received training in
implementation and use of the national standards will have higher self-
efﬁcacy scores than those who are aware of the standards, who will have
higher self-efﬁcacy scores than those who report they are unaware of the
national standards.

Those who reported training speciﬁc to utilizing the national standards did
exhibit signiﬁcantly higher scores than those without this speciﬁc training. Since
only 17 respondents indicated they were unaware of the national standards, the

analysis for difference between these two groups was not considered signiﬁcant.

130'

o Hypothesis 4: The State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) will correlate
negatively with self-efﬁcacy scores according to the theory that anxiety
negatively inﬂuences self-efﬁcacy (Bandura, 1995).

The total scale scores, as well as the Impact School Environment and the

Collaboration sub-scales, exhibited moderate and negative signiﬁcant

correlations with the State Anxiety levels. The other sub-scales did not exhibit

signiﬁcant correlations although they were all negative. This may be due to the
small number of respondents. A large effect was needed with the number of
respondents in this study. With more participants, a medium or small effect

might have been found (Cohen, 1992).

The fact that Collaboration correlated negatively with anxiety both at a
stronger level (.511 as opposed to .397 and .385) as well as at a lower level of
signiﬁcance (.01 level as opposed to .05 level) than the other two signiﬁcant
ﬁndings was Interesting and deserves further study. Those counselors who ﬁnd
or create situations in which they feel supported and/or part of a team may
Indeed feel less anxious about their roles. This ﬁnding has implications
regarding the importance of training in this area of competence. This also has
implications for the selection of training sites for practicum and internships.

interestingly, the Collaboration sub-scale also correlated signiﬁcantly with
the Trait anxiety scale. This could be due to error with a small number of
participants. The author speculated, alternatively, that school counselors who

work collaboratively rather than individually may indeed experience less stress

131

(anxiety) in their daily life, which would be reﬂected in the Trait anxiety scale.
This hypothesis deserves further investigation.

One possibility for the absence of a signiﬁcant correlation between
anxiety and two of the sub-scales was that the respondents for this analysis
were students still completing either their practicum or Internship. This group of
participants exhibited lower self-efﬁcacy scores than those with more
experience. Students may also exhibit higher anxiety levels regarding their roles
as school counselors, although their state anxiety scores were not elevated.
Further study with experienced practitioners would be helpful to clarify this issue.
0 Hypothesis 5: The Counseling Self-Estimate Inventory (COSE) will correlate

moderately with self-efﬁcacy scores due to its limited focus on Individual
counseling.

The SCSE scores correlated moderately and signiﬁcantly with the COSE
scores. Speciﬁcally, the highest correlations (above .5) were between the COSE
cultural competence and the SCSE Personal development sub-scales; the
COSE cultural competence sub-scale and the SCSE total; the total COSE and
the SCSE Impact school environment sub-scale; and, the COSE total and the
SCSE total. The COSE cultural competence sub-scale items are very similar to
the three items which were moved from a separate sub-scale in the SCSE into
the Personal development sub—scale, so the high correlation between these sub-
scaies was not surprising. The reason for the high correlation between the total

COSE and the impact school environment was not evident.

132

The COSE sub-scale, titled Awareness of Values, did not correlate
signiﬁcantly with the SCSE scores. This sub-scale consisted of four Items
including: “i am likely to impose my values on the client during the interview“
(reverse coded), and “I feel conﬁdent that l have resolved conﬂicts in my
personal life so that they will not interfere with my counseling abilities“. These
concerns of individual counseling are not reﬂected in the items included in the
SCSE.

The positive but moderate correlations of the COSE and SCSE sub-scale
scores were consistent with the hypothesis and with the concept that school
counseling incorporates different skills than individual counseling.

0 Hypothesis 6: The Tennessee Self- Concept Scale (T SCS:2) will correlate
highly with self-efﬁcacy scores. Although self-concept is a more global
measure than career speciﬁc self-efﬁcacy, the two constructs are related.

The results of this study did not show any signiﬁcant relationship between
the self-efﬁcacy scores and the total self-concept scores. One possible reason
for this was that the participants in this study were novices in their profession, so
while their general self-concept was positive, their self-efﬁcacy in their new
position was not as strong.

Again, the numbers of participants allowed for an analysis of a large
effect. Possibly, a medium or small effect would be found if the numbers of
participants allowed for this analysis (Cohen, 1992).

The self-criticism sub-scale from the TSCS also did not show any

signiﬁcant relationship with the self-efﬁcacy scores. The self-criticism sub-scale

133

was an indication of defensiveness consisting of eight items (i.e. “I’d rather win a
game than lose one“ and “Sometimes I put off until tomorrow what I ought to do
today“). The fact that this sub-scale did not correlate with the self-efﬁcacy scale
scores was appropriate and paralleled ﬁndings of the COSE validation process.

The faking good sub-scale from the TSCS signiﬁcantly, moderately
correlated with the SCSE total, personal development, and collaboration sub-
scales. The faking good sub-scale, consisting of seven items, is an indication of
social desirability (i.e. “I get angry sometimes“ and “Sometimes when I am not
feeling well, I am cross“). Social desirability is of concern when asking
participants to report a level of conﬁdence. Similar to the next ﬁnding, further
study is needed to evaluate actual performance in relationship to school
counseling self-efﬁcacy.

. Hypothesis 7: The Social Desirability Scale (SDS) will correlate negatively or
minimally with self-efﬁcacy scores. Since self-efﬁcacy scales rely on self
report, and the ‘positive’ rating is self-evident, social desirability is an issue
for all self-efﬁcacy scales.

The only SCSE sub-scale that correlated signiﬁcantly, moderately, and positively

with the SDS was Career/Academic development. The absence of correlation

with the SDS was appropriate. in other words, if respondents did answer the

SDS in the socially desirable direction, they did not also answer the SCSE in a

more positive direction than others did; nor did they answer the SCSE in a less

positive direction than others did. Hence, the absence of correlation was

actually more desirable than the initially hypothesized negative correlation.

134

Further study is needed relating self-efﬁcacy to actual performance as a
school counselor in order to further determine whether participants responded to
the self-efﬁcacy statements realistically.

. Hypothesis 8: Among practitioners, years of experience will correlate
minimally to moderately with self-efﬁcacy scores. Since the national
standards represented a shift in the role and responsibility of a school
counselor, those with more experience in other, previous roles of a school
counselor will not have signiﬁcantly higher scores than those with less
experience.

Regression analyses examining the relationship between self-efﬁcacy
scores and years of experience for all practitioners and for those \M'th less than
six years of experience exhibited mixed results. All relationships were positive.
In other words, those with more experience exhibited stronger levels of self-
efﬁcacy. Not all relationships were signiﬁcant, however, and the analyses
exhibited different strengths of relationships. The hypothesis indicated an
expectation of minimum to moderate relationship due to the shifting role within
the profession.

The analysis for effect of years of experience was also complicated by the
ﬁnding that years of experience needed to be evaluated with some caution since
the years of experience reported by many practitioners did not necessarily
reﬂect full-time, exclusive employment as a school counselor.

. Hypothesis 9: Among practitioners, membership in the American School

Counselor Association (ASCA) will correlate moderately and positively with

135

self-efﬁcacy scores. These counselors are more up to date with current
practices and movements in the ﬁeld, and aware of the implementation of the
National Standards.

While this analysis did show signiﬁcant group differences, the ﬁndings
must be interpreted cautiously. Among the group who were not ASCA members,
the vast majority were students, who as a group exhibited lower self-efﬁcacy
scores. Only 18 of the current practitioners were not ASCA members, which was
not enough for signiﬁcant analysis. The high percentage of participants who
were ASCA members was related to the fact that the avenue of access was
through registration for the national conference. Further study involving a larger
group including non-members and non-conference attendees might glean further
information on the impact that professional activity may afford self-efﬁcacy.

o Hypothesis 10: Among practitioners, elementary counselors have higher self-
efﬁcacy scores than high school counselors on the new instrument. As
school counseling Is currently practiced, elementary counselors are
performing more preventive, developmental and classroom based counseling
than are high school counselors (Coll 8 Freeman, 1997). Their role is more
similar to the role as deﬁned by the National Standards than is the frequently
currently practiced role of the high school counselor.

No signiﬁcant difference was found between those who work in
elementary schools and those who work in high schools. This could be a

reﬂection of the items included in the scale. Or, it could be an indication that

136

among those in attendance at the national conference, there was equal
emphasis and efﬁcacy regarding these areas of competencies.

Alternatively, it could be an indication that, at least in the areas reflected
by this scale, the roles and expectations of counselors in different types of
schools were not as different as indicated in previous research. Many of the
items deleted from the scale because they were omitted by some pilot study
respondents were omitted by more elementary counselors than high school
counselors. Those particular items, which primarily reﬂected a career and/or
college focus, may have affected this analysis if they were retained. The areas
of major difference between high school and elementary counseling may not be
reﬂected in the items included in the scale.

ideally, as the profession becomes more clearly deﬁned and seamless
between kindergarten and college, the similarities of focus at different levels will
remain constant, so the fact that no signiﬁcant difference was found could be a
positive predictor for the future of the profession.

Additional ﬁndings

The following ﬁndings were not part of the initial hypotheses developed
for validation purposes but are worthy of attention.

The group of respondents who reported any years of experience as a
teacher exhibited signiﬁcantly higher self-efﬁcacy scores than those who did not
have teaching experience. Historically, most states have required school
counselors to have teacher certiﬁcates or teaching experience. Over the past

decade, many states have removed the requirement of teacher certiﬁcation

137

(most recently the author’s own state of Michigan). Research studies exhibit
mixed results regarding the impact of previous teaching experience on school
counselor performance. School counseling self-efﬁcacy may provide an
important link for research In this area.

Respondents who indicated that they utilized the standards in their
practice exhibited higher self-efﬁcacy scores on the impact school environment
and career and academic sub-scales than those who did not utilize the
standards. The number of respondents who indicated that they were not aware
of the national standards was quite a bit smaller than those who indicated they
did not utilize the standards (17 and 42 respectively). Among the 42 who did
not utilize the standards were 25 school counselors who were aware of them, but
did not use them. This may be their individual choice or their school system’s
choice. Further research Is needed to examine how instrumental a school
counselor might be in that choice, as well as to examine the impact that
implementing the standards might have on the school counselor. One possible
implication from this ﬁnding is that implementation of the national standards may

impact some parts of the school counselor’s role more than other parts.

Limitations
Limitations of this study include aspects of the scale development process
itself, aspects of the profession of school counseling, aspects of self-efﬁcacy,
and aspects of some of the statistical procedures. Each of these will be

addressed in this section.

138

First, authors are called on to make some philosophical decisions
regarding the scale development process, both before and during the procedure
of statistical analysis. One major decision the author made during this process
was to develop a scale based on factor analysis, mm a scale consisting of a
number of sub-scales. While this is a common practice in scale development,
this automatically means that items from the initial scale that did not relate to a
group of other items were deleted from the scale. Items deleted based on factor
and item analysis may still be relevant to the role and expectations of school
counselors, but were not related to other items in the scale. One example of this
is the item addressing the use of technology to support student success and
progress through the educational process. This skill is important, at least in the
author’s mind, to successfully manage and optimize the school counselor‘s
position. However, the results of the chosen statistical procedures did not ﬁnd
sufﬁcient relationship to the sub-scales to be included in the scale. Alternative
procedures to establish the importance of the items, without looking for sub-
scales, might have resulted in different items being retained in the scale. The
advantage of designing a scale with sub-scales was that the construct to be
measured within a sub-scale included more than one item contributing to that
construct. While this was philosophically and statistically important, the author
acknowledges that there are numerous competencies important to the role of the
school counselor that are not included in the scale. One possible solution which

had not been Incorporated during the development of this scale was to include

139

some items that would not contribute to a sub-scale score but would contribute
to the total score.

Second, to a large extent, the ﬁnal result of factor and item analyses was
limited by the selection of the initial Items. in this case, many of the items
developed from the Academic Development area of the ASCA national
standards referred to college or career. These items were deleted due to non-
responsiveness from elementary counselors. Had more, or differently worded,
items been included in the beginning, an academic sub-scale distinct from the
career sub-scale might have been identiﬁed. Further development of additional
items that might represent the academic development role of the school
counselor without including a reference to career or college might add an
additional dimension to the scale.

Third, the process of item analysis was somewhat imprecise and
potentially problematic. As indicated by Green, et al. (1984), the process relied
on the author to utilize both statistics and theory to interpret the results of each
scale and sub-scale iteration. Other authors with different theoretical
orientations to the role of a school counselor might have made different
determinations of item placement or deletions in the item analysis process.
Additional validity studies and increased review by others in the ﬁeld are called
for to substantiate the process.

Fourth, the profession of school counseling presented its own set of
difﬁculties and limitations. The participants in this study were composed of a

select group of school counselors - those who were interested and able to attend

140

the national conference, and those enrolled in master's programs with
professors who attended the regional conferences. Admittedly, the participants
might not be representative of the profession in theory and practice, even though
they were in demographics. The participants, due to either their own
professional activity or the professional activity of their professors, might be
more aware of the current shift in the profession and may be representative of
the emerging role within the profession. Caution is needed in generalizing from
this very active professional group to the entire population of school counselors.
Further study inclusive of practitioners who are not as professionally active as
those In this study is also needed.

Fifth, this scale cannot be interpreted as representing all areas of
expectation within the profession of school counseling. Some of the initial items
which were dropped through the statistical procedures represented needed
abilities. The areas covered in this scale were found to be important
competencies, but the role of a school counselor can be dependent on a number
of variables affecting a school system or community. Therefore, school
counselors may be expected to develop and exhibit additional competencies as
well.

Sixth, self-efﬁcacy as a dynamic personal characteristic also presented
some challenges to the scale development process. Since the profession is
changing, and more importantly because the actual functions of a school
counselor vary so much from school to school, some of the competencies

exhibited and required in one school can be quite different from other schools.

141

Variation in self-efﬁcacy, therefore, especially because experience contributes to
self-efﬁcacy, can be seen as circular. If a competence was not yet expected of a
school counselor, self-efﬁcacy theoretically would not be as high as for a
competence already consistently expected and practiced. So, for those
competencies that were expected but not yet actualized, we would not yet know
if the self-efﬁcacy was low due to lack of experience in performing the task, lack
of role models performing or teaching the task, or other reasons. We also would
not know if some competencies were expected in the role but not actualized
because the self-efﬁcacy was low enough to affect the willingness of the
counselor to enact that competence. Further work linking actual performance,
the counselor's philosophy of school counseling, and self-efﬁcacy is needed in
order to tease out these issues.

Seventh, statistically, there were a number of aspects of the analysis
which might affect the results. Participants were collapsed into groups of
Caucasian and non-white. Theoretically and realistically, groups within the non-
white papulation do not all share common experiences, however. For example,
as was Indicated in the literature review, African-Americans may be exposed to
different levels of causes of self-efﬁcacy than are Asian-Americans. Analyses
grouping a variety of racial minority groups together need to be interpreted
cautiously because of variations between groups that would be ignored. With
larger groups of participants in future studies, the author intends to continue
analysis of potential racial and ethnic differences as they relate to self-efﬁcacy

development.

142

Eighth, another limitation related to the statistical procedures, the mean
scores for the groups included in this study were positively skewed. The
statistical analyses were potentially affected by an attenuation effect resulting
from this skew. Some of the original analyses should be conducted again after a
broader population, including practitioners who are not as professionally active
as those in this study, is obtained in order to ascertain any effect from this
positive skew.

Finally, as in any statistical procedure, potential type I and type ii error is
an additional limitation. Again, with a larger, broader population from future
studies, the assumptions of valid statistical analysis could be assumed with
greater conﬁdence.

Although there are areas which deserve further research and potential
reﬁnement, overall the SCSE seemed to provide strong enough validity and
reliability data to warrant application.

Implications for future research

The School Counselor Self-Efﬁcacy (SCSE) scale needs continued
evaluation. Preliminary validity and reliability data indicate that the scale
assesses a different construct than do already established counseling self-
efﬁcacy scales, relates to the experience level of school counselors, and reﬂects
appropriate group differences or lack thereof. Additional research is needed to
establish test-retest reliability; to establish the relationship of school counseling

self-efﬁcacy to school counselor’s actual performance; to establish the impact of

143

this performance on student outcomes; and, to obtain larger samples to
establish the relationship of this scale to other validated measures.

As the school counseling profession emerges into new standards of
practice, the impact of change agents needs to be evaluated. From the results
presented in this study, the possibility was raised that either the Education Trust
focus of school counseling was not affecting the students enrolled in their
programs or that it was affecting at least some other programs to a similar
extent. Further study on this impact, In areas of self-efﬁcacy as well as
performance, would be helpful in determining the importance of this impetus.
Similar empirical studies are needed to examine the effect of implementing the
national standards. Very few school counselors in this study were not aware of
the national standards due to the avenue of access, and almost half reported
training speciﬁc to standards implementation. It was not clear, but doubtful,
whether this was representative of the wider community of school counselors.
Future study is called for to access the community of school counselors who are
not active conference attendees.

The ﬁnding that those school counselors who reported experience as
teachers reported higher levels of self-efﬁcacy deserves exploration. As more
school counselors enter the profession without this background, counselor
educators and school counselors need to be aware of the impact of this decision
on training, service delivery, and outcomes.

The author recommends research to examine the relationship between

the elementary school counselor and college attendance. Some studies have

144

indicated that a college attendance mind-set is established by middle school. If
the author’s hypothesis (that elementary counselors frequently omitted the items
in which the word ‘college’ appeared because it seemed irrelevant to them) is
correct, then there is a disconnection in the ﬁeld. This disconnection has
implications for equity and access to college attendance. The practice of
elementary school counseling, as well as the preparation of school counselors,
could be affected by these ﬁndings.

Future studies utilizing the SCSE might include the examination of the
relationship between counselor self-efﬁcacy and the following: various classes,
methods, and educational experiences; school collaboration; career choices
made in a highly variable ﬁeld (including those who made a choice to leave the
profession); teaching experience; change agents active within the profession;
and school setting characteristics.

Implications for practitioners

The SCSE, as well as being used as a research tool, could be used by
practicing school counselors in the ﬁeld. Possibilities Include team building,
increasing recognition, and monitoring change. For example, if a school had
more than one school counselor, the SCSE could be one part of a team building
exercise with staff members who may be able to divide tasks.

Some school counselors can end up feeling overwhelmed by
expectations, and this scale may help them increase or rediscover a sense of
conﬁdence, or at least identify points of intervention that guide plans for future

in-service training. The author received some notes attached to the returned

145‘

surveys from practicing school counselors that expressed an appreciation for the
recognition of their work. One respondent, in particular, indicated that
“completing this scale made me recognize that what I do does make a
difference“. In a challenging profession such as school counseling, where the
focus is so often on the problems that exist, it is sometimes difﬁcult for the
practitioners to focus on successes. Use of this scale may be able to provide
some balance to that focus.

Finally, as the role of school counselors change within school systems,
the SCSE could be used as one measure for administrators and counseling
personnel to monitor the impact of this change within the system.

Conclusions

This study was a preliminary attempt to develop and validate a school
counselor self-efﬁcacy scale based on practice as deﬁned through the ASCA
national standards. The resulting scale consisted of four sub-scales: Personal
development, Impact on School Environment, Collaboration, and
Career/Academic development. Respondents with experience reported higher
levels of self-efﬁcacy than students in their internships. Respondents with
training speciﬁc to implementing the standards reported higher levels of self-
efﬁcacy than those who have not received such training. Reliability as assessed
by coefﬁcient alpha was high, as well as lntemal reliability as assessed by inter-
item correlations within each sub-scale. External validity was satisfactory,
although further research is needed to establish the relationship between self-

efﬁcacy and performance, as well as with the community of school counselors

146

who were not able or willing to attend a national conference. Preliminary
validation with other established scales measuring aspects related to self-
efﬁcacy indicate positive directions but needs to be further examined with larger

numbers of respondents.

147

APPENDICES

148

APPENDIX A

AMERICAN SCHOOL COUNSELOR ASSOCIATION NATIONAL STANDARDS

 

 

Academic Development: Standard A
The school counseling program enables all students to achieve
success in school. Students will acquire the attitudes, knowledge and skills

that contribute to effective Ieaming in school and across the life span.

 

Student Competencies

Improve Academic Self-Concept
Students will:

articulate feelings of competence and conﬁdence as a Ieamer
display a positive interest in learning

take pride in work and in achievement

accept mistakes as essential to the Ieaming process

identify attitudes and behaviors which lead to successful Ieaming

Acquire Skills for Improving Learning
Students will:

apply time management and task management skills

demonstrate how effort and persistence positively effect learning

use communication skills to know when and how to ask for help when needed
apply knowledge of Ieaming styles to positively inﬂuence school performance

Achieve School Success
Students will:

take responsibility for their actions

demonstrate the ability to work independently as well as the ability to work
c00peratively with other students

develop a broad range of interests and abilities

demonstrate dependability, productivity and initiative

share knowledge

149

 

 

 

Academic Development: Standard B

The school counseling program enables all students to achieve success in
school and to develop into contributing members of society. Students will
complete school with the academic preparation essential to choose from a wide
range of substantial post-secondary options including college.

 

Student Competencies

Improve Leaming
Students will:

demonstrate the motivation to achieve individual potential

Ieam and apply critical thinking skills

apply the study skills necessary for academic success at each level

seek information and support from faculty, staff, family and peers

organize and apply academic information from a variety of sources

use knowledge of learning styles to positively inﬂuence school performance
become self-directed and independent learners

Plan to Achieve Goals
Students will:

establish challenging academic goals in elementary, middle/junior high, and
high school

use assessment results in educational planning

develop and implement an annual plan of study to maximize academic ability
and achievement

apply knowledge of aptitudes and interests to goal setting

use problem solving and decision making skills to assess progress towards
educational goals

understand the relationship between classroom performance and success in
school

identify post-secondary options consistent with interests, achievement,
aptitude and abilities

150

 

 

 

Academic Development: Standard C
The school counseling program enables all students to achieve success In
school and to deveIOp into contributing members of our society by understanding
the relationship of academics to the world of work, and to life at home and In the
community.

 

Student Competencies

Relate School to Life Experiences

Students will:

. demonstrate the ability to balance school, studies, extra-curricular activities,
leisure time and family life

. seek co-curricular and community experiences to enhance the school
experience
understand the relationship between Ieaming and work
demonstrate an understanding of the value of life long Ieaming as essential
to seeking, obtaining, and maintaining life goals

. understand that school success is the preparation to make the transition from
student to community member

. understand how school success and academic achievement enhance future
career and avocational opportunities

151‘

 

 

 

The school counseling program enables all students to acquire the skills to
investigate the world of work in relation to knowledge of self and to make
informed career decisions.

Career Development: Standard A

 

 

Student competencies

Develop Career Awareness
Students will:

develop skills to locate, evaluate, and interpret career information

Ieam about the variety of traditional and non-traditional occupations
develop an awareness of personal abilities, skills, interests, and motivations
Ieam how to interact and work cooperatively in teams

Ieam how to make decisions

Ieam how to set goals

understand the importance of planning

pursue and develop competency in areas of interest

develop hobbies and avocational interests

balance between work and leisure time

Develop Employment Readiness
Students will:

acquire employabiiity skills such as working on a team, problem solving and
organizational skills

apply job readiness skills to seek employment opportunities
demonstrate knowledge about the changing workplace

Ieam about the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees
Ieam to respect individual uniqueness in the workplace

Ieam how to write a resume

develop a positive attitude toward work and Ieaming

understand the importance of responsibility, dependability, punctuality,
integrity, and effort in the workplace

utilize time and task management skills

152

 

The school counseling program enables all students to employ strategies to
achieve future career goals with success and satisfaction.

Career Development: Standard 8

 

 

 

Student competencies

Acquire Career Information
Students will:

apply decision making skills to career planning, course selection and career
transitions

identify personal skills, interests, and abilities and relate them to current
career choices

demonstrate knowledge of the career planning process

know the carious ways which occupations can be classiﬁed

use research and information resources to obtain career information

Ieam to use the Internet to access career planning information

describe traditional and non traditional occupations and how these relate to
career choice

understand how changing economic and societal needs inﬂuence
employment trends and future training

Identify Career Goals
Students will

demonstrate awareness of the education and training needed to achieve
career goals

assess and modify their educational plan to support career goals

use employabiiity and job readiness skills in internship, mentoring,
shadowing, and/or other world of work experiences

select course work that is related to career interests

maintain a career planning portfolio

153

 

 

Career Development: Standard C

The school counseling program enables all students to understand the
relationship between personal qualities, education, training, and the world of
work.

 

Student Competencies

Acquire Knowledge to Achieve Career Goals
Students will:

understand the relationship between educational achievement and, career
success

explain how work can help to achieve personal success and satisfaction
Identify personal preferences and interests which inﬂuence career choices
and success

understand that the changing workplace requires lifelong Ieaming and
acquiring new skills

describe the effect of work on life styles

understand the importance of equity and access in career choice
understand that work is an important and satisfying means of personal
expression

Apply Skills to Achieve Career Goals
Students will:

demonstrate how interests, abilities and achievement relate to achieving
personal, social, educational and career goals

Ieam how to use conﬂict management skills with peers and adults

Ieam to work co-operatively with others as a team member

apply academic and employment readiness skills in work based Ieaming
situations such as internships, shadowing and/or mentoring experiences

154

 

 

 

Personal/Social Development: Standard A

The school counseling program enables all students to acquire the knowledge,
attitudes, and interpersonal skills to help them understand and respect self and
others.

 

Student Competencies

Acquire self-knowledge
Students will:

develop a positive attitude toward self as a unique and worthy person
identify personal values, attitudes, and beliefs

Ieam the goal setting process

understand change as a part of growth

identify and express feelings

distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate behaviors
recognize personal boundaries, rights and privacy needs
understand the need for self-control and how to practice it
demonstrate cooperative behavior in groups

identify personal strengths and assets

identify and discuss changing personal and social roles
identify and recognize changing family roles

Acquire Interpersonal skills
Students will:

recognize that everyone has rights and responsibilities, including family and
friends

respect alternative points of view

recognize, accept, respect and appreciate individual differences
recognize, accept and appreciate ethnic and cultural diversity
recognize and respect differences in various family conﬁgurations
use effective communicative skills

know that communication involves speaking, listening, and nonverbal
behavior

Ieam how to communicate effectively with family

Ieam how to make and keep friends

155

 

 

 

The school counseling program enables all students to make decisions, set
goals, and take necessary action to achieve goals.

Personal/Social Development: Standard 8

 

 

Student Competencies

Self-Knowledge Applications
Students will:

use a decision-making and problem solving model

understand consequences of decisions and choices

identify alternative solutions to a problem

develop effective coping skills for dealing with problems

demonstrate when, where, and how to seek help for solving problems and
making decisions

know how to apply conﬂict resolution skills

demonstrate a respect and appreciation for individual and cultural differences
know when peer pressure is inﬂuencing a decision

identify long and short term goals

identify alternative ways of achieving goals

use persistence and perseverance in acquiring knowledge and skills
develop an action plan to set and achieve realistic goals

156

 

 

Personal/Social Development: Standard C

The school counseling program enables all students to understand safety and
survival skills

 

 

Student Competencies

Acquire Personal Safety Skills
Students will:

demonstrate knowledge of personal information (i.e. telephone number,
home address, emergency contact)

learn about the relationship between appropriate and inappropriate physical
contact

demonstrate the ability to assert boundaries, rights, and personal privacy
differentiate between situations requiring peer support and situations
requiring adult professional help

identify resource people in the school and community, and know how to seek
their help

apply effective problem-solving and decision-making skills to make safe and
healthy choices

Ieam about the emotional and physical dangers of substance use and abuse
learn how to cope with peer pressure

learn techniques for managing stress and conflict

Ieam coping skills for managing life events

157.

APPENDIX B

SCHOOL COUNSELOR SELF EFFICACY SCALE

Initial Scale - sent to panel of emrts

School Counselor Concept Scale

This is not a test. There are no right answers. Rather, it is an inventory that
attempts to measure how you feel you will behave as a counselor in a
counseling situation. Please respond to the items as honestly as you can so as
to attain the most accurate portrayal of how you think you will behave as a
school counselor. Do not respond with how you wish you could perform on each
item, rather answer in a way that reﬂects your actual estimate of how you will
perform as a counselor at the present time.

Use the following scale:

1: strongly agree, 2: agree, 3= mildly agree, 4= mildly disagree, 5= disagree,
6= strongly disagree

Please circle the number that best represents your response for each item.

1. I am conﬁdent that I can work within the educational 1 2 3 4 5 6
system in ways that will integrate academic, career and
personal/social development of students into the mission
of my school.

2. I have difﬁculty recognizing situations that impact (both 1 2 3 4 5 6
negatively and positively) student ieaming and
achievement.

3. I am capable of using and analyzing data that identify the 1 2 3 4 5 6
patterns of achievement and behavior that contribute to
school success.

4. I know what to look for in an individual student’s 1 2 3 4 5 6
cumulative ﬁle to identify patterns of achievement and
behavior that contribute to school success.

5. If I became aware of a situation which was defeating and 1 2 3 4 5 6
frustrating students in my school, I would not be able to
provide the leadership to initiate a solution.

6. I believe lam capable of ensuring that all students in my 1 2 3 4 5 6
school have equal access to quality academic programs.

158

7. i doubt that I will be able to advocate for myself as a
professional school counselor and to articulate the
purpose and goals of school counseling.

8. I am capable of developing outcome measures for a
school counseling program which would address the
accountability of the program.

9. I am capable of consulting and collaborating with
teachers, staff, administrators and parents to assist
students to be successful.

10. I am conﬁdent in my ability to establish rapport with a
student for individual counseling.

11. I believe I have the skills needed to function successfully
as a small group leader.

12. I am doubtful of my ability to effectively deliver
appropriate parts of the school counseling program
through large group meetings such as in classrooms.

13. I can help a student or group of students to increase their
personal pride in their accomplishments.

14. I am capable of working with students to apply time
management and task management skills.

15. i do not believe that students with whom I work will
develop an understanding of the relationship between
learning and work.

16. I have a clear understanding of how Ieaming styles effect
school performance and can explain this to students,
parents, and teachers.

17. I am capable of delivering a program which will enable all
students to acquire the appropriate developmental skills
needed to investigate the world of work.

18. I do not feel conﬁdent in my ability to establish a program
which will enable all students to make informed career
decisions.

19. I can help students apply decision making skills toward
their academic, personal and career success.

159

20. I am unsure how to help students apply problem-solving
skills toward their academic, personal and career success.

21. I can evaluate programs designed for school counseling
to establish their relevance to my school population.

22. I doubt that I could work with a student to integrate his or
her personal interests, achievements, and personal values in
career planning.

23. I understand how to help students optimize their choices
in the educational system.

24. I can model and teach conﬂict resolution skills.

25. i can ensure a safe environment for all students in my
school.

26. If I was aware of an individual or group who were treating
others in a disrespectful or harassing manner, i would be
instmmental in changing the situation.

27. I feel capable of delivering a program that will result in
students Ieaming and using effective communication skills.
Students will have the skills to communicate appropriately
with friends, family, classmates, teammates, and community
members.

28. I follow school counseling ethical and legal obligations.

29. It is natural for students to succumb to peer pressure,
there is nothing I could do to combat this.

30. I do not believe that I can change my communication
style to be appropriate to the age and developmental levels
of various students.

31. I feel that I will appear competent and earn the respect of
the students, staff and parents.

32. My understanding of the developmental stages of
students is adequate for counseling effectively.

33. My understanding of the college and ﬁnancial aid
process is sufﬁcient to be able to encourage all students that
college can be part of their future.

34. I will be able to lead my students toward the
development and selection of concrete goals to work toward.

160

35. I feel conﬁdent that I have enough skills and techniques
to work with any student.

36. I would not be able to help students cope with crises in
their lives - e.g., peer suicide, parent’s death, abuse, etc.

37. I will be an effective counselor with students of a
different social class.

38. In working with students from different cultural
backgrounds, I may have a difﬁcult time understanding their
viewpoint and experiences.

39. I am conﬁdent that I can help teachers improve their
relationships with students.

40. When I am working on a project, I get annoyed if I am
inten'upted.

41. I am uncomfortable speaking in front of large groups
such as faculty or parent meetings.

42. I am familiar with and comfortable with using technology
programs designed to support students in the counseling
process.

43. I am conﬁdent in my ability to communicate with staff,
parents, and the external community in writing.

44. I am certain that I can help students identify and attain
attitudes and behaviors which lead to successful ieaming.

161

SCHOOL COUNSELOR SELF EFFICACY SCALE

Draft two: revised and sent as pilot study to ASCA conference attendees

Formatting has been modiﬁed to ﬁt publication needs. in version sent to
participants, each page contains slanted list of indicators corresponding to each
numeric response.

School Counselor Concept Scale

Below is a list of activities representing many school counselor responsibilities.
Indicate your conﬁdence in your current ability to perform each activity by
circling the appropriate answer next to each item according to the scale deﬁned
below. Please answer each item based on one current school, and based on
how you feel now, not on your anticipated (or previous) ability or school(s).
Remember, this is not a test and there are no right answers.

Use the following scale:

1 = not conﬁdent,

2 = slightly conﬁdent,

3 = moderately conﬁdent,
4 = generally conﬁdent,
5 = highly conﬁdent.

Please circle the number that best represents your response for each item.

I. Advocate for integration of student academic, career, and 1 2 3 4 5
personal development into the mission of my school.

2. Recognize situations that impact (both negatively and 1 2 3 4 5
positively) student Ieaming and achievement.

3. Analyze data to identify patterns of achievement and 1 2 3 4 5
behavior that contribute to school success.

4. Identify and initiate models for changing situations which 1 2 3 4 5
defeat and frustrate students in my school.

5. Ensure that all students in my school have equal access to 1 2 3 4 5
quality academic programs.

6. Advocate for myself as a professional school counselor and 1 2 3 4 5
articulate the purposes and goals of school counseling.

7. Develop measurable outcomes for a school counseling 1 2 3 4 5
program which would demonstrate accountability.

162

8. Consult and collaborate with teachers, staff, administrators
and parents to promote student success.

9. Establish rapport with a student for individual counseling.

10. Function successfully as a small group leader.

11. Effectively deliver suitable parts of the school counseling
program through large group meetings such as in
classrooms.

12. Conduct interventions with parents, guardians and families in
order to resolve problems that impact students’ effectiveness
and success.

13. Teach students how to apply time and task management
skills.

14. Foster understanding of the relationship between Ieaming
and work.

15. Offer appropriate explanations to students, parents and
teachers of how Ieaming styles affect school performance.

16. Deliver age-appropriate programs through which students
acquire the skills needed to investigate the world of work.

17. Implement a program which enables all students to make
informed career decisions.

18. Teach students to apply problem-solving skills toward their
academic, personal and career success.

19. Evaluate commercially prepared material designed for school
counseling to establish their relevance to my school
population.

20. Foster integration of student interests, achievements, and
values in career and college planning.

21. Promote optimization of student choices in the educational
system.

22. Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills.

23. Ensure a safe environment for all students in my school.

163

24. Change situations in which an individual or group treats
others in a disrespectful or harassing manner.

25. Teach students to use effective communication skills with
peers, faculty, employers, family, etc.

26. Follow ethical and legal obligations designed for school

counselors.

27. Guide students in techniques to cope with peer pressure.
28. Adjust my communication style appropriately to the age and
developmental
levels of various students.

29. Earn the conﬁdence and respect of the students, staff and
parents.

30. Incorporate students’ developmental stages in establishing
and conducting the school counseling program.

31. Encourage all students that post-secondary education can be
part of their future.

32. Facilitate student selection and achievement of concrete
goals towards academic, career and personal development.

33. Comprehend the college admission and ﬁnancial aid
processes as they relate to my student population.

34. I can ﬁnd some way of connecting and communicating with
any student in my school.

35. Teach, develop and/or support students’ coping mechanisms
for dealing with crises in their lives - e.g., peer suicide,
parent’s death, abuse, etc.

36. Counsel effectively with students and families from different
social/economic statuses.

37. Understand the viewpoints and experiences of students and
parents who are from a different cultural background than
myself.

38. Help teachers improve their effectiveness with students.

39. Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual orientation in an age
appropriate manner with students.

164

40. Speak in front of large groups such as faculty or parent
meetings.

41. Use technology designed to support student success and
progress through the educational process.

42. Communicate in writing with staff, parents, and the external
community.

43. Help students identify and attain attitudes, behaviors and
skills which lead to successful Ieaming.

44. Select and implement applicable strategies to assess school-
wide issues.

45. Promote the use of counseling and guidance activities by the
total school
community to enhance a positive school climate.

46. Develop school improvement plans based on interpreting
school-wide assessment results.

47. Identify aptitude, achievement, interest, values, and
personality appraisal resources appropriate for speciﬁed
situations and populations.

48. Implement a preventive approach to student problems.

49. Lead school-wide initiatives which focus on ensuring a
positive Ieaming environment.

50. Consult with external community agencies which provide
support services for our students.

51. Provide resources and guidance to school population in times
of crisis.

165

A

SCHOOL COUNSELOR SELF-EFFICACY SCALE

Draft Three - revised and sent to master’s level students for validity studies.

Formatting has been modiﬁed to ﬁt publication needs. In version sent to
participants, each page contains slanted list of indicators corresponding to each
numeric response.

School Counselor Concept Scale

Below is a list of activities representing many school counselor responsibilities.
indicate your conﬁdence in your current ability to perform each activity by
circling the appropriate answer next to each item according to the scale deﬁned
below. Please answer each item based on one current school, and based on
how you feel now, not on your anticipated (or previous) ability or school(s).
Remember, this is not a test and there are no right answers.

Use the following scale:

1 = not conﬁdent,

2 = slightly conﬁdent,

3 = moderately conﬁdent,
4 = generally conﬁdent,
5 = highly conﬁdent.

Please circle the number that best represents your response for each item.

1. Advocate for integration of student academic, career, and 1 2 3 4 5
personal development into the mission of my school.

2. Recognize situations that impact (both negatively and 1 2 3 4 5
positively) student Ieaming and achievement.

3. Analyze data to identify patterns of achievement and 1 2 3 4 5
behavior that contribute to school success.

4. Advocate for myself asa professional school counselor 1 2 3 4 5
and articulate the purposes and goals of school
counseling.

5. Develop measurable outcomes fora school counseling 1 2 3 4 5

program which would demonstrate accountability.

6. Consult and collaborate with teachers, staff, administrators 1 2 3 4 5
and parents to promote student success.

7. Establish rapportwith a student for Individual counseling. 1 2 3 4 5

166

8. Function successfully as a small group leader.

9. Effectively deliver suitable parts of the school counseling
program through large group meetings such as in classrooms.

10.Conduct interventions with parents, guardians and families
in order to resolve problems that impact students' effectiveness
and success.

11. Teach students how to apply time and task management
skills.

12. Foster understanding of the relationship between Ieaming
and work.

13. Offer appropriate explanations to students, parents and
teachers of how Ieaming styles affect school performance.

14. Deliver age-appropriate programs through which students
acquire the skills needed to investigate the world of work.

15. implement a program which enables all students to make
informed career decisions.

16. Teach students to apply problem-solving skills toward their
academic, personal and career success.

17. Evaluate commercially prepared material designed for
school counseling to establish their relevance to my school
population.

18. Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills.

19. Ensure a safe environment for all students in my school.

20. Change situations in which an individual or group treats
others in a disrespectful or harassing manner.

21. Teach students to use effective communication skills with
peers, faculty, employers, family, etc.

22. Follow ethical and legal obligations designed for school
counselors.

23. Guide students in techniques to cope with peer pressure.

24. Adjust my communication style appropriately to the age and
developmental levels of various students.

167

25. Incorporate students' developmental stages in establishing
and conducting the school counseling program.

26. I can ﬁnd some way of connecting and communicating with
any student in my school.

27. Teach, develop and/or support students’ coping
mechanisms for dealing with crises in their lives - e.g., peer
suicide, parent’s death, abuse, etc.

28. Counsel effectively with students and families from different
social/economic statuses.

29. Understand the viewpoints and experiences of students
and parents who are from a different cultural background than
myself.

30. Help teachers improve their effectiveness with students.

31. Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual orientation in an age
appropriate manner with students.

32. Speak in front of large groups such as faculty or parent
meetings.

33. Use technology designed to support student success and
progress through the educational process.

34. Communicate in writing with staff, parents, and the external
community.

35. Help students identify and attain attitudes, behaviors and
skills which lead to successful ieaming.

36. Select and implement applicable strategies to assess
school-wide issues.

37. Promote the use of counseling and guidance activities by
the total school community to enhance a positive school
climate.

38. Develop school improvement plans based on interpreting
school-wide assessment results.

168

39. Identify aptitude, achievement, interest, values, and
personality appraisal resources appropriate for speciﬁed
situations and populations.

40. Implement a preventive approach to student problems.

41. Lead school-wide initiatives which focus on ensuring a
positive Ieaming environment.

42. Consult with external community agencies which provide
support services for our students.

43. Provide resources and guidance to school population in
times of crisis.

169

APPENDIX C

CONSENT FORMS - PILOT STUDY PRACTICING SCHOOL COUNSELOR

Nancy Bodenhom
3074 Windcrest Way
Grand Rapids, MI 49525
nanboden@pilot.msu.edu
616-285-3146

Dear school counselor,

l have been a school counselor for twenty years and am now a doctoral
candidate in Counselor Education at Michigan State University. In June, I
attended the wonderful ASCA conference where I received the list of other
attendees. It is from this list that your name was randomly selected. I am writing
to ask for your help in my dissertation project; developing a self-efﬁcacy scale for
school counselors. I believe that the school counselor is a pivotal position in
most schools, yet there Is little research in place about what makes a school
counselor successful. Part of the reason for this is that there are few research
instruments designed to be used with school counselors speciﬁcally. And, as
any of us in the ﬁeld know, school counseling is a different specialty ﬁeld from
any other counseling area.

I need help from current, practicing school counselors to help establish
the validity of the instrument as it is developed. Completing the survey should
take approximately twenty to thirty minutes. I wish that I could offer some reward
for your time and effort, but all I can offer is my appreciation.

Any and all publications regarding this study will report results in
aggregate form only. Respondent names and afﬁliations will not be identiﬁed in
any way. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable bylaw.
The forms will be coded for my tracking purposes, but the identiﬁcation of the
code will be destroyed after the research is complete. There are no anticipated
risks to you. There are no personal beneﬁts to you either, other than the
knowledge that you are part of an effort to expand the research capability
around school counseling. Should you have any additional concerns or
questions regarding this study, please contact me through the information listed
above, or David Wright, chairperson of the MSU IRB board, at 507-355-2180.

Should you agree to participate, please return the survey in the enclosed
postage paid envelope. By returning the survey, you are indicating your
voluntary agreement to participate in the study. You may choose to not answer
certain parts of the survey, and may discontinue participation at any time without
any penalty.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please contact me with any additional
questions you have.

Thank you,

Nancy Bodenhom

170

CONSENT FORMS - PROGRAM DIRECTOR

Nancy Bodenhom

3074 Windcrest Way
Grand Rapids, MI 49525
nanboden@pilot.msu.edu
616-285-3146

Dear (director of masters program)

I am a doctoral candidate in Counselor Education at Michigan State
University. I am writing to ask for your help in contacting respondents for my
dissertation project; developing a self-efﬁcacy scale for school counselors.

Your program was selected from programs who offer school counseling master’s
degrees based on an attempt to match program formats for comparability
purposes.

Speciﬁcally, I am seeking students In their second or ﬁnal year of their
master’s program in counseling. Students should be participating in either their
practicum or Internship. Each participant will be asked to complete the newly
designed scale and an additional survey Instrument. They will also be asked to
complete a short demographic information survey. Completing the surveys
should take an average of twenty to thirty minutes, certainly no more than forty.

On a random basis, school counseling students will also either complete
the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale (SDS), the Tennessee self-
concept Scale (TSCS), the Counselor Self-efﬁcacy scale (COSE), and/or the
State-trait anxiety inventory (STAI). In addition, students in the master's
program preparing for other counseling settings (i.e. agency, rehabilitation, etc.),
will be asked to complete the newly developed scale and the COSE for
discriminant validity studies.

Any and all publications regarding this study will report results in
aggregate form only. Student names and afﬁliations will not be identiﬁed in any
way. Students’ privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by
law. There are no anticipated risks to your students. There are no personal
beneﬁts to your students either, other than the knowledge that they are part of
an effort to expand the research capability around school counseling. Should
you have any additional concerns or questions regarding this study, please
contact me through the information listed above, or David Wright, chairperson of
the MSU IRB board, at 507-355-2180.

Should you agree to allow me to contact your students, please let me
know by mail, phone, or at the e-mail address above. I would like to arrange for
the students to be encouraged to participate but remain anonymous in their
choice. I will send you the appropriate number of surveys and return envelopes,
ask that you distribute them to your students, and to return any that are not
used. Each student will receive a letter similar to this one explaining the study,
their rights as a study participant, and an assurance that their decision to
participate or not is independent of your decision to allow me to contact them.

171

I look forward to hearing from you. Please contact me with any additional
questions you have.
Thank you,

Nancy Bodenhom

172

CONSENT FORMS - COUNSELING STUDENT

Nancy Bodenhom

3074 Windcrest Way
Grand Rapids, MI 49525
nanboden@pilot.msu.edu
616-285-3146

Dear (counseling masters student),

l have been a school counselor for twenty years and am now a doctoral
candidate in Counselor Education at Michigan State University. I am writing to
ask for your help in completing my dissertation project; developing a self-efﬁcacy
scale for school counselors. As a student in counseling, hopefully you have
gained a strong respect for the necessity of validity and reliability studies on
research instruments. It Is to this end that I ask for your help.

One of the studies I want to conduct is one examining group differences
on this scale between students prepared for school counseling and students
prepared for counseling in other settings. Hence my request for you to complete
these surveys.

Your university program was selected from a list of programs offering
school counseling degrees. Your program director was contacted and gave me
permission to fonrvard these surveys to you, however It Is your independent
decision as to whether to participate or not. I have arranged with your program
director for nooone else in your program to know your choice. I would appreciate
it if you would return the surveys even if you are not completing them.
Completing the surveys should take approximately twenty to thirty minutes.

Any and all publications regarding this study will report results in
aggregate form only. Respondent names and afﬁliations will not be identiﬁed in
any way, in fact I am not requiring that information from you. Your privacy will be
protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The forms will be coded for
my tracking purposes, but the identiﬁcation of the code will be destroyed alter
the research is complete. There are no anticipated risks to you. There are no
personal beneﬁts to you either, other than the knowledge that you are part of an
effort to expand the research capability around school counseling. Should you
have any additional concerns or questions regarding your rights in this study,
please contact me through the information listed above, or David Wright,
chairperson of the MSU IRB board, at 507-355-2180.

Should you agree to participate, please complete the enclosed surveys.
One of them will be the newly developed self-efﬁcacy scale for school
counselors (SE-SC). The other is another counseling self-efﬁcacy scale
designed for more general use. By returning the surveys, you are indicating
your voluntary agreement to participate in the study. You may choose to not
answer certain parts of the survey you receive, and may discontinue
participation at any time without any penalty.

173

I look forward to hearing from you. Please contact me with any additional
questions you have.
Thank you, and good luck with your career as a counselor,

Nancy Bodenhom

174

CONSENT FORMS - SCHOOL COUNSELING STUDENT

Nancy Bodenhom

3074 Windcrest Way
Grand Rapids, MI 49525
nanboden@pilot.msu.edu
616-285-3146

Dear (school counseling masters student),

i have been a school counselor for twenty years and am now a doctoral
candidate in Counselor Education at Michigan State University. I am writing to
ask for your help In completing my dissertation project; developing a self-efﬁcacy
scale for school counselors. As a student in counseling, hopefully you have
gained a strong respect for the necessity of validity and reliability studies on
research instruments. it is to this end that i ask for your help.

Your university program was selected from a list of programs offering
school counseling degrees. Your program director was contacted and gave me
permission to forward these surveys to you, however it is your independent
decision as to whether to participate or not. I have arranged with your program
for no-one else in your program to know your choice. I would appreciate it if you
would return the surveys even if you are not completing them. Completing the
surveys should take approximately twenty to thirty minutes.

Any and all publications regarding this study will report results in
aggregate form only. Respondent names and afﬁliations will not be identiﬁed in
any way. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.
The forms will be coded for my tracking purposes, but the identiﬁcation of the
code will be destroyed after the research is complete. There are no anticipated
risks to you. There are no personal beneﬁts to you either, other than the
knowledge that you are part of an effort to expand the research capability
around school counseling. Should you have any additional concerns or
questions regarding this study, please contact me through the information listed
above, or David Wright, chairperson of the MSU IRB board, at 507-355-2180.

Should you agree to participate, please complete the enclosed surveys.
One of them will be the newly developed self-efﬁcacy scale for school
counselors (SE-SC). The other(s) are randomly assigned from among the
instruments being used for the validity and reliability studies. By returning the
surveys, you are indicating your voluntary agreement to participate in the study.
You may choose to not answer certain parts of the survey you receive, and may
discontinue participation at any time without any penalty.

I look forward to hearing from you. Please contact me with any additional
questions you have.

Thank you, and good luck with your career as a school counselor,

Nancy Bodenhom

175

APPENDIX D

DEMOGRAPHIC FORM - PILOT STUDY PRACTITIONERS

Practitioner survey information: Please answer the following information. These
questions, along with the information gained from the accompanying surveys will
be used for research purposes only, they will NOT be used for individual
identiﬁcation purposes.

SCHOOL INFORMATION:
1) Please circle the letter representing the type of school(s) in which you
currently work.

A) Elementary school 8) Middle school C) High school
(K- grade 5 or 6) (grade 68 or 7-8) (grade 9-12)

D) Combined pre-high school E) Combined middle and high school
(K-grade 8) (grade 7-12)

F) Other: please specify grades

2) Please circle the letter representing the setting of the school(s) in which you
currently work.

A)Rural B) Suburban C) Urban D) Combination or not

characterized by
these descriptors
COUNSELOR DEMOGRAPHICS

Please indicate a response or ﬁll in a requested response that best describes
you.

3) lam a member of American School Counselor Association .(1) YES (2) NO
4) I am aware of the ASCA National Standards ........................ (1) YES (2) NO

5) l utilize the ASCA National Standards in my role
as school counselor ............................................................... (1) YES (2) NO

6) I have received training in implementing
the ASCA National Standards ................................................. (1) YES (2) NO

176

7) The total number of years that l have been employed as a school counselor
at the same type of school indicated above in question one is..

 

8) I have a Master’s degree in school counseling ..................... (1) YES (2) NO

9) The total number of years that l have been employed as a school counselor
is:

 

10) The total number of years that l have been employed as a teacher
is..

 

11) My total number of years of experience in a counseling ﬁeld but NOT
SCHOOL COUNSELING is:

 

12) My age on my last birthday was:

13) My gender is .................................................................. (1) FEMALE (2) MALE

14) My race/ethnicity is (please indicate)

 

177

DEMOGRAPHIC FORM - STUDENTS

Student survey information: Please answer the following information. These
questions, along with the information gained from the accompanying surveys will
be used for research purposes only, they will NOT be used for individual
identiﬁcation purposes.

SCHOOL INFORMATION:
Please indicate the specialty area of counseling in which you will be certiﬁed
upon your graduation...

 

if your area of certiﬁcation is NOT school counseling, please skip these
questions and proceed to questions 8 -14.

1) If you are in a school counseling program, please circle the letter
representing the type of school(s) In which are completing your current
internship or practicum.

A) Elementary school 8) Middle school C) High school
(K - grade 5 or 6) (grade 6-8 or 7-8) (grade 9-12)

D) Combined pre-high school E) Combined middle and high school
(K-grade 8) (grade 7-12)

F) Other: please specify grades

 

2) If you are in a school counseling program, please circle the letter
representing the setting of the school(s) in which are completing your current
internship or practicum.

A) Rural 8) Suburban C) Urban D)Combination or not
characterized by
these descriptors

COUNSELOR DEMOGRAPHICS

Please indicate a response or ﬁll in a requested response that best describes
you.

3) I am a member of American School Counselor Association (1) YES (2) NO
4) I am aware of the ASCA National Standards ........................ (1) YES (2) NO

5) I will utilize the ASCA National Standards in my role
as school counselor .............................................................. (1) YES (2) NO

178

6) l have received training in implementing
the ASCA National Standards ................................................ (1) YES (2) NO

7) The total number of years that I have been employed as a school counselor
at the same type of school indicated above in question one is:

 

ALL RESPONDENTS PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
8) l have a Master’s degree in school counseling ..................... (1) YES (2) NO

9) The total number of years that l have been employed as a school counselor
is:

 

10) The total number of years that l have been employed as a teacher
is..

 

11) My total number of years of experience in a counseling ﬁeld but NOT
SCHOOL COUNSELING is:

 

12) My age on my last birthday was:

13) My gender is ................................................................. (1) FEMALE (2) MALE

14) My race/ethnicity is (please indicate)

 

179

APPENDIX E

SCALES USED IN VALIDATION STUDIES

CROWNE-MARLOWE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE

Personal Reaction Inventory

Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and
traits. Read each item and decide whether the statement is true or false as it
pertains to you personally. Circle either T for true or F for false for each item.

T F
F
T F

-l-l-l-i—l
'I'I'V'I'I'I'I'I'f'l

T F
T F
T F
T F

1.

series”

10.

11.

12.

Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualiﬁcations of all
the candidates.

I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble.

It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not
encouraged.

l have never intensely disliked anyone.

On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed.
I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way. i

I am always careful about my manner of dress.

My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a
restaurant.

lfl could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not
seen I would probably do it.

On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because
I thought too little of my ability.

I like to gossip at times.

There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people
in authority even though I knew they were right.

180

-I-i-l-l-l-l

-r-r-r-r

m

'I'I'TI'I'ITI

'l'l

'TI'TI‘I'I'TI

13.
14.

15.

16.
17.

18.

19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

24.

25.
26.

27.
28.

29.
30.
31.
32.

No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener.
I can remember “playing sick“ to get out of something.

There have been occasions when l have taken advantage of
someone.

I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.
I always try to practice what I preach.

I don’t ﬁnd it particularly difﬁcult to get along with loud
mouthed, obnoxious people.

I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.
When I don’t know something I don’t at all mind admitting it.

I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.
At times i have really insisted on having things my own way.
There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things.

I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my
wrong-doings.

I never resent being asked to return a favor.

l have never been irked when people expressed ideas very
different from my own.

I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car.

There have been times when l was quite jealous of the good
fortune of others.

i have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.
I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.
I have never felt that I was punished without cause.

I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got
what they deserved.

181

F

33.

l have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s
feelings.

182

Reliability
****** Method 2

******

R E L I A B I L I T Y

Lomdd‘tU'lrt-XLONH
s as s es s so

APPENDIX F

CORRELATION TABLE FROM PILOT STUDY RESPONSES

SCSl

SCSZ

SCS3

SCS6

SCS7

SCSB

SCS9

SCSlO
SCSll
SCSlZ
SCSl3
SCSl4
SCSlS
SCSlG
SCSl?
SCSlB
SCS19
SCSZZ
SCSZ3
SCSZ4
SCSZS
SCSZ6
SCSZ7
SCSZB
SCSBO
SCS34
SC335
SCS36
SCS37
SCS38
8C839
SCS4O
SCS41
SCS42

(covariance matrix)

Mean

4.2477
4.5748
3.9953
4.3224
3.5000
4.6776
4.8505
4.4112
4.5421
4.2757
4.1449
4.1215
3.8692
3.9159
3.7991
4.2103
4.2243
4.3598
4.1822
4.0981
4.3692
4.6869
4.3364
4.6121
4.3645
4.4019
4.3785
4.4299
4.1729
3.9299
3.9206
4.3692
3.6916
4.4907

A N A L Y S I S

183

Std Dev

.7928
.5906
.9666
.8129
1.0823
.5598
.4180
.8217
.7092
.7953
.7767
.7897
.8512
.9506
1.0263
.8036
.8537
.8202
.7928
.8692
.6777
.5219
.6706
.6005
.7107
.6552
.7132
.6516
.7587
.8334
.9730
.9189
1.0247
.7427

S C A L E

Cases

214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.
214.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

will be used for this analysis

(A L P H A)

R E L I A B I L I T Y

SCSl

SCSZ

SCSB

SCSG

SCS7

SCSB

SCS9

SCSlO
SCSll
SCSlZ
SCSIB
SCSl4
SCSlS
SCSlG
SCS17
SCSlB
SCSl9
SCSZZ
SCSZ3
SCSZ4
SCSZS
SCSZG
SCSZ7
SCSZB
SCS30
SCS34
SCS35
SCS36
SCS37
SCS38
SC339
SCS4O
SCS41
SCS42
SCS43
SCS44
SCS45
SCS46
SCS47

SCS43
SCS44
SCS45
SCS46
SCS47
SCS48
SCS49
SCSSO
SCSSl

Correlation Matrix

SCSl

1.0000

.4165
.3017
.3417
.2490
.2760
.2540
.2465
.2528
.2784
.3150
.3641
.2361
.3019
.3673
.3969
.2366
.1800
.2490
.3188
.2834
.2564
.3371
.2323
.2223
.1871
.1988
.1655
.1080
.3035
.2569
.3637
.3372
.1594
.3585
.2771
.3039
.1921
.2835

4.
3.
4.
.6636
.7243
.1869
.9720
.3645
.4206

checkout»

2897
7196
1542

SCSZ

1.0000

.3912
.2576
.2460
.4779
.3117
.1685
.2839
.4806
.2577
.2623
.4211
.0865
.1372
.3080
.3204
.2592
.2766
.3011
.3588
.2362
.2918
.3403
.4493
.2496
.3727
.2576
.2906
.4351
.3167
.2993
.1624
.3495
.4186
.3603
.2584
.2925
.2755

A N A L Y S I

184

.6715
.9374
.8931

1.0431
1.0363

.8180
.9734
.8037
.8054

214.0
214.0
214.0
214.0
214.0
214.0
214.0
214.0
214.0

SCS3

1.0000

.1872
.3792
.2835
.1028
.0438
.1475
.2521
.3198
.2714
.3702
.2040
.2735
.2310
.2971
.1916
.1359
.1291
.2320
.1646
.1908
.1829
.3032
.0845
.2818
.1299
.0587
.3493
.0545
.1923
.2545
.1471
.2480
.3716
.2401
.3756
.4815

S C A L E

SCS6

1.0000

.4509
.3946
.3498
.2504
.2166
.3339
.3198
.3044
.2377
.3573
.3763
.3413
.1862
.1068
.2726
.2739
.2175
.2722
.2307
.1612
.1613
.2756
.2987
.2423
.1908
.3107
.2403
.3993
.3116
.1800
.2581
.2855
.2933
.2503
.2844

(A L P H A)

SCS7

1.0000

.3216
.2491
.2851
.2080
.2973
.3546
.3955
.4128
.4198
.4670
.4400
.3354
.2618
.2708
.3418
.3424
.3283
.2846
.2564
.3479
.1523
.3680
.2996
.1687
.3878
.2876
.2526
.2117
.2307
.3618
.4720
.4250
.5115
.4793

SCS48 .3409 .3208 .4108 .2337 .4614

SCS49 .2463 .3385 .3591 .3081 .5080
SCSSO .2114 .3874 .2137 .2073 .3185
SCSSl .2920 .3679 .2076 .2867 .3555

R B L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

Correlation Matrix

SCS8 SCS9 SCSlO SCSll SCSlZ

SCSB 1.0000
SCS9 .4551 1.0000
SCSlO .2488 .4533 1.0000
SCSll .3122 .2272 .2925 1.0000
.SC312 .4220 .3929 .3501 .2998 1.0000
SCSl3 .3023 .2406 .3034 .3937 .4670
SCSl4 .2377 .3113 .2916 .3848 .2977
SCSlS .3051 .2614 .2451 .2658 .3032
SCSlG .2399 .1927 .2188 .3744 .1923
SCSl7 .1809 .1813 .0929 .3052 .2177
SCSl8 .3706 .3037 .3377 .3675 .3055
SCSl9 .2012 .1997 .2226 .1937 .2197
SCSZZ .2436 .2535 .5109 .3653 .2790
SCSZB .3234 .3518 .2520 .3245 .2029
SCSZ4 .3451 .3119 .3442 .2560 .3478
SCSZS .3276 .3946 .4090 .3827 .3677
SCSZ6 .3277 .3870 .2797 .1943 .3107
SCSZ7 .3404 .4148 .4209 .3354 .3798
SCSZB .2547 .3851 .2772 .3196 .2151
SCSBO .3558 .2634 .2647 .3886 .3031
SCSB4 .2781 .4433 .2497 .2767 .3269
SCSBS .4600 .3797 .3821 .2608 .5021
SCS36 .2788 .4095 .2470 .2045 .4768
SCS37 .2092 .3632 .1189 .0519 .2630
SCS38 .4243 .3336 .3302 .3823 .4401
SCSB9 .3320 .3170 .2936 .1648 .4046
SCS40 .2964 .2300 .1711 .2967 .3740
SCS41 .0959 .1439 .1067 .1278 .2028
SCS42 .2581 .2072 .1063 .3038 .2627
SCS43 .4870 .4227 .3702 .4673 .4036
SCS44 .2295 .2040 .1930 .2297 .2805
SCS45 .2971 .1878 .3162 .3270 .3364
SCS46 .2475 .1640 .1457 .2477 .3443
SCS47 .2345 .1537 .1283 .2043 .2977
SCS48 .4090 .3018 .3531 .2939 .3245
SCS49 .3366 .2666 .3138 .3214 .3678
SCSSO .3668 .2329 .2767 .3684 .4664
SCSSl .3542 .3411 .3334 .2977 .4558

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

Correlation Matrix

185

SCSl3 SCSl4 SCSlS SCSlG SCSl?

SCSl3 1.0000
SCSl4 .6217 1.0000
SCS15 .4548 .5406 1.0000
SCSlG .4108 .5765 .2938 1.0000
SCSl7 .4372 .5805 .2761 .8103 1.0000
SCSlB .5527 .5662 .4316 .4904 .5183
SCSl9 .3189 .3633 .3248 .3010 .3196
SCS22 .2642 .2221 .2157 .2136 .1532
SCSZ3 .2161 .2869 .1955 .3132 .2356
SCSZ4 .3126 .3108 .1761 .2259 .2011
SCSZS .4241 .3719 .2794 .2160 .1814
SCSZG .2745 .3205 .1821 .3441 .2939
SCSZ7 .4198 .3391 .2338 .3024 .2488
SCSZB .3425 .2978 .2676 .3045 .3300
SCSBO .4312 .3390 .3276 .2610 .2296
SCS34 .2725 .3407 .1873 .2204 .1974
SCS35 .3667 .2597 .3294 .1372 .0852
SCSBG .3123 .2538 .2119 .1648 .1719
SCSB7 .1804 .1998 .1660 .1179 .1353
SCS38 .4219 .4767 .4569 .2770 .2853
SCS39 .3259 .2815 .2765 .1958 .2284
SCS40 .2799 .3067 .2121 .2238 .2582
SCS41 .2687 .2728 .2226 .2094 .3024
SCS42 .3727 .2821 .2357 .1917 .2716
SCS43 .4592 .4822 .4445 .3252 .3165
SCS44 .3075 .3823 .3833 .3843 .4047
SCS45 .3263 .3128 .2984 .3637 .2952
SCS46 .3849 .4089 .4313 .3738 .3795
SCS47 .3182 .3739 .3474 .4005 .4686
SCS48 .3340 .3717 .3252 .2618 .2295
SCS49 .4028 .3953 .3865 .3526 .3515
SCSSO .4039 .2702 .2965 .2554 .2087
SCSSl .2549 .2662 .2861 .2365 .1879

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS - SCALE (ALPHA)

Correlation Matrix
SCS18 SCSl9 SCS22 SCSZ3 SCS24

SCSl8 1.0000
SCSl9 .3963 1.0000
SCSZZ .3904 .3737 1.0000
SCSZB .3007 .2445 .4185 1.0000
SCSZ4 .4341 .3371 .5100 .5598 1.0000
SCSZS .4861 .3674 .5285 .3984 .6634
SCS26 .4152 .2532 .1876 .4108 .3164
SCSZ7 .4780 .3268 .4191 .3433 .4505
SCSZ8 .4325 .4269 .3037 .3464 .2891
SCSBO .4406 .3754 .5069 .4232 .3902
SCS34 .2311 .1906 .2364 .3735 .3921
SCS35 .3356 .2455 .3761 .3922 .4321
SC336 .2569 .2225 .1923 .2929 .3064
SCSB7 .2327 .1863 .0806 .1971 .3016
SCS38 .4217 .3983 .3599 .3463 .4502

SCSB9
SCS40
SCS41
SCS42
SCS43
SCS44
SCS45
SCS46
SCS47
SCS48
SCS49
SCSSO
SCSSl

SCSZS
SCSZ6
SCSZ7
SCSZ8
SCS30
SCS34
SCS35
SCS36
SCS37
SCS38
SCSB9
SCS40
SCS41
SCS42
SCS43
SCS44
SCS45
SCS46
SCS47
SCS48
SCS49
SCSSO
SCSSl

SCS34
SCS35
SCS36
SCS37
SCS38
SCS39
SCS40
SCS41
SCS42
SCS43

.3637
.2187
.2616
.2826
.5043
.3092
.3275
.3144
.2842
.4542
.3497
.3242
.2254

L I A B I L I T Y

Correlation Matrix

SCSZS

1.0000

.2354
.5622
.3881
.4114
.3727
.4089
.2980
.2953
.4949
.2725
.2325
.1309
.1888
.4448
.2524
.4407
.3226
.2526
.5186
.4499
.2776
.2389

SCS34

1.0000

.4164
.4401
.3507
.3699
.2565
.3061
.1435
.2007
.3424

.1459
.1034
.1975
.2477
.3366
.2667
.3423
.2749
.3143
.3968
.3183
.3045
.1968

SC326

1.0000

.3829
.3298
.2458
.2324
.3955
.3286
.1018
.2515
.2651
.0463
.1522
.2044
.3136
.2515
.1645
.2109
.2737
.3247
.2137
.3069
.2812

SCS35

1.0000

.5473
.2776
.3924
.3412
.2729
.0834
.1796
.4170

A N A L Y S I S

187

.1948
.1157
.0209
.1250
.3639
.2723
.4430
.2409
.1835
.4801
.4361
.3913
.3171

SCSZ7

1.0000

.4072
.3621
.2678
.4491
.3443
.2358
.4456
.2570
.2242
.2064
.1760
.4811
.2703
.4460
.2968
.2692
.4840
.4533
.3202
.3192

SCSB6

.0000
.6371
.3410
.3651
.1649
.1854
.2703
.3685

.2379
.1908
.1273
.1664
.4383
.3533
.3049
.3129
.2500
.4250
.3899
.2784
.4088

S C A L E

SCSZB

1.0000

.5308
.3025
.3225
.2601
.1994
.3957
.2524
.2182
.1709
.4498
.4430
.3063
.3309
.2779
.2348
.3872
.3668
.3819
.2612

SCS37

1.0000

.2791
.3112
.1235
.1776
.1654
.2422

.3534
.2131
.1132
.1360
.3613
.2586
.4219
.2851
.1917
.5155
.4028
.2980
.3297

(A L P H A)

SCS30

1.0000

.3091
.4768
.3697
.2744
.4793
.2458
.1956
.0390
.3445
.4959
.3655
.3918
.4005
.2710
.4476
.4220
.4404
.3954

SCS38

1.0000

.3752
.3466
.3429
.3668
.6489

SCS44 .2149 .2789 .2751 .2005 .4434

SCS45 .2225 .3944 .2486 .1129 .5192
SCS46 .2468 .3297 .3174 .2281 .5236
SCS47 .2124 .2880 .2737 .1684 .4505
SCS48 .3322 .5944 .4034 .2503 .5083
SCS49 .2975 .4684 .2855 .1719 .5589
SCSSO .2644 .5118 .4166 .2119 .4238
SCSSl .3989 .6452 .5127 .2569 .4498

R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)

Correlation Matrix

SC839 SCS40 SCS41 SCS42 SCS43
SCSB9 1.0000
SCS40 .2640 1.0000
SCS41 .2390 .2860 1.0000
SCS42 .3271 .2493 .2183 1.0000
SCS43 .3372 .3357 .2533 .4479 1.0000
SCS44 .3152 .2897 .3348 .3064 .4429
SCS45 .2303 .2507 .1394 .2464 .4497
SCS46 .2742 .3114 .3241 .2868 .4347
SCS47 .2715 .2652 .3573 .2010 .4189
SCS48 .2429 .2825 .2259 .1884 .5078
SCS49 .2851 .3738 .2360 .3373 .5584
SCSSO .4215 .3573 .1600 .4462 .4124
SCSSl .3843 .4300 .2319 .1871 .4074
SCS44 SCS45 SCS46 SCS47 SCS48
SCS44 1.0000
SCS45 .5117 1.0000
SCS46 .6569 .5447 1.0000
SCS47 .5290 .4164 .5522 1.0000
SCS48 .4727 .5965 .5252 .4322 1.0000
SCS49 .5676 .7124 .6287 .5182 .6434
SCSSO .3482 .3988 .4438 .2678 .4815
SCS51 .4305 .3924 .4039 .3477 .5073
SCS49 SCSSO SCSSl
SCS49 1.0000
SCSSO .4632 1.0000
SCSSl .4164 .5019 1.0000
R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A)
N of Cases = 214.0
N of
Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables
Scale 180.9720 394.2997 19.8570 43

188

Item Means Mean
Variance

4.2087
.0932

R E L I A B I L I T Y

Item-total Statistics

SCSl

SCSZ

SCS3

SCSG

SCS7

SCSB

SCS9

SCSlO
SCSll
SCSlZ
SCSl3
SCSl4
SCSlS
SCSl6
SCSl7
SCSlB
SCSl9
SCSZZ
SCSZ3
SC824
SCSZS
SCSZG
SCSZ7
SC828
SCS30
SCS34
SCS35
SCS36
SCS37
SCSBB
SCS39
SCS40
SCS41
SCS42
SCS43
SCS44
SCS45
SCS46
SCS47
SCS48
SCS49
SCSSO
SCSSl

Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted
176.7243
176.3972
176.9766
176.6495
177.4720
176.2944
176.1215
176.5607
176.4299
176.6963
176.8271
176.8505
177.1028
177.0561
177.1729
176.7617
176.7477
176.6121
176.7897
176.8738
176.6028
176.2850
176.6355
176.3598
176.6075
176.5701
176.5935
176.5421
176.7991
177.0421
177.0514
176.6028
177.2804
176.4813
176.6822
177.2523
176.8178
177.3084
177.2477
176.7850
177.0000
176.6075
176.5514

A

Minimum

3.5000

N A L Y S I 5

Scale
Variance
if Item

Deleted
378.9518
381.6396
377.3938
378.5386
368.0720
382.3589
386.0603
379.2334
380.3401
376.0153
375.1859
374.6348
375.9612
374.0907
372.5662
373.7880
377.3445
377.7972
377.6316
374.5239
377.9964
384.6648
378.5050
381.3676
377.2161
381.8894
377.0124
380.7658
383.2223
370.8292
375.2133
377.3861
378.7004
381.2837
375.5511
371.2788
372.2342
367.9326
370.5252
371.7564
367.1174
375.2537
375.1124

189

Maximum Range Max/Min
4.8505 1.3505 1.3858
- S C A L E (A L P H A)
Corrected
Item- Alpha
Total if Item
Correlation Deleted

.4769 .9486
.5335 .9484
.4253 .9491
.4774 .9486
.6034 .9479
.5311 .9485
.4910 .9488
.4497 .9488
.4865 .9486
.5723 .9480
.6152 .9478
.6229 .9477
.5336 .9483
.5250 .9484
.5220 .9485
.6394 .9476
.4892 .9486
.4965 .9485
.5205 .9484
.5653 .9481
.6012 .9480
.4573 .9488
.5881 .9481
.5360 .9484
.6006 .9479
.4679 .9487
.6058 .9479
.5155 .9484
.3535 .9493
.7096 .9472
.4812 .9487
.4501 .9489
.3648 .9497
.4298 .9489
.7031 .9475
.6129 .9478
.6171 .9477
.6317 .9476
.5690 .9481
.6935 .9473
.7033 .9471
.5910 .9479
.5943 .9479

Reliability Coefficients 43 items

Alpha = .9494 Standardized item alpha = .9517

190

APPENDIX G

FACTOR ANALYSES RESULTS

PRELIMINARY FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH 43 ITEMS AND 339 PARTICIPANTS

Total Variance Explained

Initial

 

% of Va Cumulative
38.26 38
5. 44
3.86 48.1
3. 51.68
3. 55.1
2.76 57.
2. 60.54
2.49 63.
2.2 65.31
2.01 67.33
1. 69.31
1. 71.21
1.74 72.95
1.62 74.58
1. 76.1
77.65
79.1
80.51
81.
83.03
84.1
85.2
86.
87.41
88.42
89.
90.2
91.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

N

NM
A—L-A—L—t—L-BA—L—L

191

Initial Eigenvalues, continued

.35
.32
.31
.31

.21

.19
.16
1

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadijnﬁ Loadings
om- Total % of Cumulative Total '% of umulative

Fonent ariance % Variance /0

1 16.455 38.267 38.267 l5.973 13.890 13.890
[2 2.579 5.998 44.265 4.704 10.940 24.830
[3 1.660 3.861 148.126 3.961 9.211 34.041
[4 1.529 3.555 [51.681 2.965 6.895 140.936
[5 1 .489 3.462 [55.143 2.890 6.721 [47.657
B 1.187 2.761 [57.904 2.466 .736 3.393
|7 1.137 2.643 l80.547 2.288 15.320 58.713
[8 1.074 2.497 63.044 1.863 [4.332 3.044

 

 

 

 

 

 

192

 

Component Matrix

Components 1-4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 1 2 I4
[teacher effectiveness .748 -1 .413E-02 -9.850E-02 1.699E-02
ﬁccessful Ieaming .746 48285-02 -3.762E-02 15.342 E-02
Ereventive .745 -6.274E-02 P299 [-.142
risis coping skills .732 5.334 .190 .122
[crisis management .706 -.152 .213 .217
Ead initiatives .702 .174 r323 [-5.564E-02
[each communication .701 -.247 7.825E-02 4.228
Emblem solving .698 .125 .291 -.289
mily interventions .697 .170 .381 E-02 .287
Essessment .687 .292 -.262 2.144E-02
trategies
evelopmental .680 -.149 3.580E-02 -5.203E-02
ta es
eerjressure .674 -.281 7.975E-02 -.209
ositive school .669 l8.745E-02 -.327 -6.446E-02
Iimate
Echool improvement .668 .335 .378 1.203E-02
Ians
taff collaboration .666 ~.121 .197 .360
time management .664 8.018E-02 .242 -.144
Fgency consultation .662 -.110 -.211 .181
earning and work .642. .270 .284 -.235
[stop harassment .640 -.294 -2.831E-02 r203
[conﬂict resolution .638 -.257 -3.738E-02 A185
bission .618 .138 .240 .215
[evaluate material .618 8.149E-02 7.798E-02 ~7.083E-02
Earge group delivery .613 ~5.428E-02 .283 .223
afe environment .61 1 -.198 -1 .678E-02 -.184
[world of work .599 .421 .257 -.264
Self-advocate .588 .188 .209 .221
Eifferent .586 -.318 P.169 -2.516E-02
ocial/economic
['ecggnize situations .584 .276E-02 9.878E-02 .420
[special assessment .581 .337 -.328 -5.961E-02
Emallgroup leader .574 -.334 .149 -3.063E-02
xplain Ieaming .565 .224 .104 r9.406E-02
les '
by communication .559 -.220 .135 -9.804E-02

 

193

 

Components 14 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ccountability .558 .374 -7.213E-02 1 .361 E-02
utcomes
Eexuality .538 -.132 -.150 -6.108E-03
individual rapport .538 -.282 .313 .157
[ethics .517 -.159 .264 -1.610E-02
Eublicjpeamq .516 .105 4771502 .450
ata analysis .494 .383 -6.145E-02 .223
[way to connect .493 -.277 -4.296E-02 -.164
[technolog .389 .378 -2.860E-02 1 .161 E-02
[career program .524 .570 .216 p.231
[understand culture .460 -.216 .157 -9.666E-02
m .457 133 .951 E-02 .190
Component Matrix
Components 5 - 8
I '6 7 8
[teacher effectiveness -4.974E-02 -3.385E-02 -8.268E-02 .244
[successful Ieaming -4.649E-02 -.177 -4.965E-02 .194
Eeventive -.136 .101 [5.984E-03 35945-02
risis coping skills -8.499E-03 .126 .943E-02 -.21 1
[crisis management .106 .610E-02 -8.999E-02 A331
lead initiatives 5.166 p.158 -.1 14 '5.740E-02
Eeach communication -.141 8.709E-02 -5.122E-03 .240
Emblem solving -3.941E-02 2.635E-03 3.740E-02 1.038E-02
amily interventions 9.952E-02 .1 18 -3.842E-02 l5.278E-02
Essessment -2.699E-02 -4. 1 78E-02 l5.461 E-02 2.1 38E-02
trategies
evelopmental r6.636E-02 [290 .290 r7.814E-02
ta es
eer pressure ~8.478E-02 6.206E-02 2.125E-02 3.478E-02
ositive school -.221 -.1 16 -.164 -2.104E-02
Iimate
Echool improvement -2.161 E-02 -6.066E-02 1 .231 E-02 F.252E-02
lans
taff collaboration -9.567E-02 .660E-02 1.070E-02 .463E-02
[time management 6.472E-02 -6.477E-02 1.562E-02 .1 12

 

 

 

 

194

 

 

 

Egency consultation [8.519E-02 [-.250

[2.544502 [-.323

Components 5 - 8 continued

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

learning and work .207 4.077502 4.502502 T5.614502
Etop harassment -.183 .276 -.133 8.173E-02
[Eonﬂict resolution -.379 -2.060502 -1.991502 6.040502
Eiission -8.373502 .237 3.861 503 2.965502
Evaluate material ~.189 ~8.007E-02 .257 -4.314E-02
ar e roggdelivery 5205 -.160 -.166 7.104E-02
Eafe environment -9.812E-02 .139 -.143 2.256E-02
[world of work [5.909502 _3.643502 -.152 5.287
Belt-advocate 59995-02 .237 -.124 .214
Eiﬁerent .488 I5.979502 .121 v.1 18
ocial/economic
Fecognize situations 46265-02 .3555-02 .358 .182
[special assessment -1.221E-02 .152 .976E-02 3.562E-03
Emall mp leader -.134 .114 ~.160 ~6.258E-02
xplain Ieaming .135 7420503 .254 .144
tyles
[my communication ~8.077E-03 -.454 .155 -1.738E-02
ccountability -9.609502 .188 I4.007502 -.197
utcomes
[sexuality .286 4.423502 -.158 L‘I .039502
individual rapport .134 4.283E-02 -8.370E-02 6.753E-02
[ethics 3.514503 1 .284502 .248 -.407
EUblic speaking .125502 -7.824502 .447 .109
ata analysis -.189 .173 .425 .155
hay to connect .265 1.824502 #6128502 .272
technology .269 .1 19 -.126 .201
[career program .181 1.811E-02 -.149 -.168
Eiderstand culture .594 .166 .181 .100
W22 .204 -.539 22405-02 7.9405-02

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

8 8 components extracted.

195

Rotated Component Matrix

Components 1 - 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 1 2 3
[stop harassment .734 .222 .103 .137
[leach communication .723 .170 .165 .107
[conﬂict resolution .688 .297 [4.836E-02 .842E—02
Eeer pressure .651 .140 .169 8.261 E-02
mall group leader .602 '5.275E-02 9.565502 .287
[safe environment .590 .235 .170 .145
brisis copingskills .470 .339 53.921E-02 .234
Euccessful learning .459 .366 .198 .236
teacher effectiveness .449 .417 .171 .296
Fehool improvement .125 .722 .249 .120
lans
ead initiatives .318 .686 .189 .162
Eositive school climate .373 .658 .135 .165
pecial assessment .1 39 .622 .293 2.836E-02
[assessment strategigs .165 .620 .281 .135
Egventive .512 .559 .131 [5.648502
ccountability .125 .449 .415 .1 16
utcomes
[career program 2.183E-02 .267 .830 .109
[world of work .178 .246 .783 .108
Learning and work .259 .131 .674 .134
Foblem solving .477 .134 .567 l5.885E-02
ime mamement .381 .125 .454 .168
Lechnology -3.817E-02 .282 .420 .216
[explain learning styles .173 .192 .407 1 .051 E-02
ublic speaking 9.530E-02 .285 .145 .757
taff collaboration .362 .109 9.361 E-02 .521
ar e roup delivery .392 .104 .186 .514
%min interventions .346 .186 9.198E-02 .480
[gen-advocate .158 .161 .430 .447
hdividual rapport .390 -.131 .147 .430
[.mderstand culture .150 9.082E-02 .119 L1 .181E-02
Eifferent .233 .162 7.791 502 8.817502
ocial/economic
bray to connect .412 93275-02 8.545E-02 .111
Igexuaiity .223 .275 .139 .238
[data analysis '5.391 E-02 .375 .186 65395-02
Lecognize situations .153 .155 4.710E-02 .332
hission .294 135 .335 .405

 

196

 

Comﬂnents 1 - 4 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[evaluate material .349 .259 .261 .752 503
Fny communication .358 8.448E-02 .1 14 .757E-02
[writing -7.647E-02 .221 .196 .316
[developmental stages .383 .225 .128 2.224E-02
[ethics .302 50295-02 .256 149505-02
[Erisis management .256 .421 7.904E-02 .364
@ency consultation .164 .438 .3495-02 .285
Rotated Component Matrix
Components 5 - 8
F )5 I6 7 [8
[510p harassment .188 7.134E-02 P8.504E-02 .012E-02
[teach communication .208 .186 .160 H.401 E-02
[conﬂict resolution 54.157502 7.329E-02 .183 .219
Eeer pressure .227 .120 .169 .150
mall Mp leader .121 1.707E-02 .886E-02 .224
[safe environment .183 1 .551 E-02 1 .999E-02 9.743E-02
[crisis coping skills .354 .170 8.0235-02 .459
[successful learnigg .200 .153 .364 53.621E-02
[teacher effectiveness .224 .209 .217 -7.71 5E-02
Fchool improvement .162 -222 .147 4684503
lans
ead initiatives 6.106E-02 8.340E-02 .236 1.120E-02
Eositive school climate 2.409E-02 1 .268 E-02 .176 8.476E-02
pecial assessment .167 .247 -5.870E-02 14.790E-02
[assessment strategies .151 .263 .163 7117502
reventive .217 .142 .898E-02 .183
ccountability -8.929E-03 .270 [8527502 .239
utcomes
ﬁreer program .566E-02 3.616E-02 l5.796E-02 l6.440E-02
[world of work L2.036E-02 -1 .426E-02 .133 .216
[earning_and work .219 .139 .211 -2.4955-02
Eoblem solving 8.5545-02 .198 .224 7.9245-02
ime management .181 .203 .282 1.707E-03
[echnology .257 .148 -4.689E-02 -.211
[explain learningstyles .241 .395 .212 -1 .705E-02
tublic speaking l4.954E-02 1.928E-02 .1 13 53.859502
taff collaboration .109 .374 .169 .198

 

 

 

 

 

197

 

 

Components 5 - 8 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earge group delivery +8.797E-02 .171 .317 .533E-02
mily interventions .340 .271 .101 .184
Self-advocate 9.728502 .218 F9.298E-02 .305
individual rapport .283 . 140 .173 .130
iinderstand culture .805 .132 .500E-02 6.377E-02
Eiﬁerent .729 .816502 .146 .306
ocial/economic
Bray to connect .505 91245-03 .160 .133
[sexuality .446 -8.075502 .1 50 .846502
[data analysis 4.620502 .727 2.361502 3.535502
i'ecoﬂze situations .1 56 .686 .1 80 .1 16
inission 14.528E-02 .407 -3.163E-02 .137
[evaluate material 2.888E-03 .359 .286 .204
iny communication .142 7.471 E-02 .640 .180
[Suiting .159 l5.63ZE-02 .618 40235-02
[developmental stages .164 .261 .522 .293
[ethics .120 .203 .201 .575
[crisis management .336 4.374E-02 7.229E-02 .494
bgengy consultation .252 -4.1 15E-03 .350 .460

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax
with Kaiser Normalization.
A Rotation converged in 14 iterations.

198

 

Eigenvalue

20

10-

Scree Plot

 

 

 

      

 

 

           

1471073161922E2831343740

Component Number

199

RESULTS OF FACTOR ANALYSIS LIMITED TO FIVE FACTORS

APPENDIX H

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omponent Total We of Variance umulative %
1 16.455 8.267 38.267
2 .579 .998 [44.265
1.660 3.861 [48.126
[4 1.529 3.555 [51.681
E5 1.489 3.462 [55.143
I8 1.187 2.761 [57.904
I7 1.137 2.643 60.547
|8 1.074 2.497 63.044
[9 .976 2.270 65.315
10 .867 2.016 [67.331
11 .854 1.986 59.317
12 .814 1.893 71.210
13 .751 1.747 72.957
14 .698 1.624 74.581
15 .666 1.549 76.130
16 .656 1.526 77.657
17 .622 1.446 79.102
18 .605 1.408 80.510
19 .552 1.283 81.793
0 .532 1.238 3.031
21 .489 1.137 .168
22 .486 1.131 85.299
23 .468 1.089 86.388
24 .441 1.026 87.414
25 .433 1.008 88.421
26 .406 .945 9.366
27 .382 .889 90.255
28 .361 .840 91.095
29 .351 .816 91.911
30 .325 .755 92.667
1 .318 .739 93.406

 

 

 

 

 

200

 

Initial Eigenvalues, continued

722
703
663
77 645
626
587

31 1
302

524
1 1 490
483
443
388
320

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

191
167
138

 

Rotation Sums

of Squared Loadin s
[°/o of umulative

Extraction Sums
of Squared Loadings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ompo Total % of Cumulative Total
ent Variance % Variance /0
1 16.455 38.267 98.267 .886 16.013 16.013
.579 .998 [44.265 [4.943 11.496 27.509
1.660 .861 [48.126 [4.419 10.277 37.785
4 1.529 3.555 [51.681 [4.172 9.703 7.489
[5 1.489 3.462 [55.143 3.291 7.654 [55.143

 

 

 

 

 

201

 

Component Matrix

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 1 2 3
eacher .748 -1.413E-02 -9.850E-02 1.699E-02 -4.974E-02
ffectiveness
Euccessful learning .746 -4.828E-02 -3.762E-02 -5.342E-02 94.649502
Ereventive .745 -6.274E-02 -.299 -.142 -.136
risis coping skills .732 -.334 -.190 .122 -8.499E-03
brisis manggment .706 9152 .213 .217 .106
Lead initiatives .702 .174 -.323 -5.564E-02 -.166
Leoach .701 -.247 7.825E-02 -.228 ~.141
mmunication
goblem solvigg .698 .125 .291 -.289 ~3.941E-02
mily interventions .697 -.170 .381E-02 .287 9952502
Essessment .687 .292 9262 2144502 ~2.699E—02
trategies
evelopmental .680 -.149 3.580E-02 -5.203E-02 -6.636E-02
ta es
er pressure .674 -.281 7.975E-02 9.209 -8.478E-02
ositive school .669 8.745E-02 -.327 ~6.446E-02 9.221
imate
Echool improvement.668 .335 9.378 1.203E-02 92.161E-02
lans
taff collaboration .666 -.121 .197 .360 -9.567E-02
iime management .664 8.018E-02 .242 .144 6.472E-02
Egency consultatio .662 5.110 .211 .181 8.519E-02
earning and work .642 .270 .284 -.235 .207
[stop harassment .640 -.294 -2.831E-02 .203 .183
[conflict resolution .638 .257 3.738E-02 -.185 -.379
Eission .618 .138 .240 .215 ~8.373E-02
Evaluate material .618 8.149E-02 7.798E-02 -7.083E-02 R189
ar e roup delivery.613 5.428E—02 .283 .223 .205
Eafe environment .611 -.198 -1.678E-02 -.184 -9.812E-02
[world of work .599 .421 .257 -.264 .909E-02
belf-advocate .588 .188 .209 .221 I5.999E-02
Eifferent .586 -.318 -.169 -2.516E-02 .488
ocial/economic
Ecognize situation .584 .276E-02 9.878E-02 .420 -4.626E-02
[special assessment .581 .337 -.328 -5.961E-02 42215-02
Emall group leader .574 .334 .149 3.063E-02 l-.134

 

 

 

202‘

 

Component Matrix, continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

xplain Ieaming .565 .224 .104 9.406E-02 .135
tyles
Ely communication .559 -.220 .135 -9.804E-02 ~8.077E-03
ccountability .558 .374 -7.213502 1 .361 502 99.609502
utcomes
ﬁexuality .538 -.132 b.150 -6.108503 .286
individual rapport .538 ~.282 .313 .157 .134
@ﬂcs .517 -.159 .264 -1.6105-02 35145-03
tublic speakLng .516 .105 .7715-02 .450 2.1255-02
ata analysis .494 .383 ~6.145E-02 .223 .189
[May to connect .493 -.277 -4.296E-02 -.164 .265
[writinL .457 .133 .951 502 . 190 .204
technology .389 .378 2.860502 1.161502 .269
[career program .524 .570 .216 -.231 .181
maerstand culture .460 .216 -.157 -9.666E-02 .594

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a 5 components extracted.

203

 

Rotated Component Matrix

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ 1 l4 '5

[conflict resolution .736 .306 .124 3.105502 7.438503
each .705 .191 .145 .201 .187
mmunication

Etop harassment .684 .233 .105 7.607502 .180

Peer pressure .678 .149 .147 .179 .236
mall group .613 .783502 .277 .755502 .158
eader

[safe environment .573 .230 .11 1 .147 .202
evelopmental .532 .240 .268 .187 .216
ta es

risis coping .531 .342 .357 .793502 .410
kills
y .512 .412502 .206 .178 .221
mmunication

[successful .493 .361 .271 .246 .239
earning

Ethics .441 -2.513E-02 .298 .233 .155
eacher .439 .424 .312 .211 .241
ffectiveness

Evaluate material .435 .308 .245 .300 +1.028503
hool .140 .733 .183 .274 .193
mprovement

lans

ead initiatives .345 .676 .163 .198 .130
pecial .121 .652 .101 .296 .158
ssessment

ositive school .399 .642 .141 .1 17 .106
Iimate

Essessment .194 .640 .237 .305 .176
trategies

Ereventive .525 .568 .114 .120 .248
ccountability .141 .493 .240 .381 -8.135E-03
utcomes

[data analysis .854502 .490 .394 .260 9.1 15
gency .300 .397 .368 .789502 .387
onsultation

taff .390 .147 .660 .108 .122
ollaboration

Lecognize .185 .244 .642 .129 9.987502
ﬂuaﬁons

 

 

 

 

 

 

204

 

Rotated Component Matrix, continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ublic speakng I6.763502 .255 .619 .118 .128
arge group .437 .1 12 .555 .193 33.249502
elivery
Emily .353 .200 .555 9.989502 .356
nterventions
inission .279 .195 .534 .332 1.189502
EeIf-advocate .166 .187 .512 .375 .111
individual rapport .407 -.132 .462 .158 .295
[writing 4.252502 .182 .369 .266 .253
Icareerprog ram 4.479502 .268 .108 .803 5.765502
[world of work .242 .240 .129 .736 2.479502
[gaming and .281 .138 .174 .702 .207
ork
Eoblem solving .519 .161 .164 .587 7.4205-02
ime .415 .140 .249 .496 .176
anagement
xplain learning .204 .239 .201 .482 .189
tyles
Lechnolggy -.104 .289 .166 .444 .221
tnderstand .145 7.797502 4.569502 .171 .766
ulture
Eifferent .289 .131 .159 9.250502 .759
ocial/economic
Eexuality .240 .228 .170 .135 .505
[way to connect .383 .745502 .248502 .134 .496
risis .326 .397 .415 1.954502 .434
ana ement

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax

with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 10 iterations.

205

 

APPENDIX I

RESULTS OF ITEM ANALYSIS: GROUPING 6

CORRELATIONS OF EACH SELF-EFFICACY ITEM WITH ITS OWN FACTOR
AFTER REMOVING FOCAL ITEM (BOLD) AND WITH THE OTHER FACTORS

 

ITEMS

PER

ENV

CO

CAR

 

22. Model and teach conﬂict resolution skills

.61

.47

.40

.40

 

25. Teach students to use effective
communication skills with peers, faculty,
employers, family, etc.

.67

.51

.49

.5

 

24. Change situations in which an individual or
‘ group treats others in a disrespectful or
harassing manner.

.64

.44

.45

.39

 

27. Guide students in techniques to cope with
peer pressure.

.49

.45

.48

 

35. Teach, develop, and/or support students’
coping mechanisms for dealing with crises in
their lives - e.g., peer suicide, parent’s death,
abuse, etc.

.75

.53

.41

 

30. Incorporate students’ developmental stages
in establishing and conducting the school
counseling proLram.

.62

.51

.50

48

 

50. Consult with external community agencies
which provide support services for our students.

.62

.48

.42

 

36. Counsel effectively with students and
families from different social/economic statuses.

.63

.39

.35

 

37. Understand the viewpoints and experiences
of students and parents who are from a different
cultural background than myself.

.32

.24

 

39. Discuss issues of sexuality and sexual
orientation in an age appropriate manner with
students.

.52

.42

.39

 

 

12. Conduct interventions with parents,
guardians, and families in order to resolve
problems that impact students’ eﬁectiveness
and success.

 

 

.53

 

.62

 

.46

 

206

 

Item Analysis grouping 6 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PER ENV CO CAR
3. Analyze data to identify patterns of .34 .51 .46 .43
achievement and behavior that contribute to
school success.
46. Develop school improvement plans based .54 .76 .44 .53
on interpretingschool-wide assessment results.
49. Lead school-wide initiatives which focus on .57 .73 .46 .5
ensuring a positive learning environment.
44. Select and implement applicable strategies .55 .74 .48 .53
to assess school-wide issues.
45. Promote the use of counseling and guidance .58 .67 .47 .44
activities by the total school community to
enhance a positive school climate.
38. Help teachers improve their effectiveness .67 .63 .59 .53
with students.
7. Develop measurable outcomes for a school .41 .57 .38 .52
counseling program which would demonstrate
accountability.

PER ENV CO CAR
8. Consult and collaborate with teachers, staff, .56 .49 .64 .43
administrators and parents to promote student
success.
2. Recognize situation that impact (both .49 .49 .56 .38
negatively and positively) student Ieaming and
achievement.
40. Speak in front of large groups such as .41 .46 .55 .37
faculty or parent meetings.
11. Effectively deliver suitable portions of the .49 .45 .58 .46
school counseling program through large group
meetings such as in classrooms.
1. Advocate for integration of student academic, .48 .52 .60 .5

career, and personal development into the
mission of the school.

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Per = Personal Development factor items

Env = Impact on School Environment factor items

Co = Collaboration factor items
Car = Academic/Career factor items

Items in italics are listed in a different factor than in the previous analysis.

207

 

Item Analysis grouping 6 continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PER ENV CO CAR
17. Implement a program which enables all .32 .48 .37 .68
students to make informed career decisions.
16. Deliver age-appropriate programs through .40 .52 .43 .71
which students acquire the skills needed to
investigate the world of work.
14. Foster understanding of the relationship .48 .51 .47 .74
between learning and work.
18. Teach students to apply problem-solving .6 .51 .50 .68
skills toward their academic, personal and
career success.
13. Teach students how to apply time and task .57 .51 .49 .63
management skills.
15. Offer appropriate explanations to students, .43 .51 .39 .54

parents and teachers of how Ieaming styles
affect school performance.

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Per = Personal Development factor items

Env = Impact on School Environment factor items

Co = Collaboration factor items
Car = Academic/Career factor items

Items in italics are listed in a different factor than in the previous analysis.

208

 

APPENDIX J

FACTOR ANALYSIS WITH FINAL 25 ITEMS

Total Variance Explained

Initial Eiggnvalues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omponent Total I°/o of Variance Cumulative %
1 10.032 0.128 [40.128
2 1.707 6.830 [46.957
3 1.334 [5.338 [52.295
[4 1.190 [4.761 [57.057
[5 1.125 [4.499 [61.556
[6 .968 3.874 [65.430
fr .817 3.270 768.700
[8 .749 2.995 71.695
.682 2.728 74.423
10 .623 2.492 76.916
11 .585 2.340 79.256
12 .515 2.062 1.317
13 .481 1.926 83.243
14 .477 1.910 [85.153
15 .423 1.693 [86.846
16 .415 1.662 [88.508
17 .408 1.631 [90.139
18 .380 1.519 91.658
19 .360 1.441 93.099
20 .343 1.371 94.470
21 .324 1.296 95.766
22 .293 1.171 96.937
23 .284 1.138 98.075
24 .252 1.010 99.084
25 .229 .916 100.000

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

209

 

Extraction Sums of

Rotation Sums of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Squared Loadiggs Squared Loadings
ﬁzmpol'l'otal /0 of umulative Total [% of Eumulative
nt ariance /0 Variance /o
[1 10.032 [40.128 [40.128 3.396 13.585 13.585
[2 1.707 5.830 [46.957 3.380 13.521 27.106
[3 1.334 75.338 [52.295 3.162 12.650 39.755
[4 1.190 [4.761 [57.057 2.748 10.992 [50.747
[5 1.125 [4.499 B1556 2.702 10.809 B1556
Component Matrix
F 1 2 3 l4 [5
Erisis copilg skills .734 -.347 9.135 92.263502 '5.941502
Finily .718 -.190 -.229 .184 59.102502
nterventions
Problem solving .703 .151 .279 6352502 -.312
ead initiatives .695 .130 9.287503 .307 .371
Eevelopmental .692 -8.953E-02 3.609502 4.912502 -3.276E-02
ta es
'me management .683 .115 .226 I6.125502 ~.288
Essessment .682 .195 2.471 502 6696502 .397
trategies
[staff collaboration .678 1.021503 -.34‘l .151 ~.131
ositive school .670 .056502 4.576502 -.406 .301
Iimate
er pressure .668 -.230 6.129502 -.192 -.198
gency .668 -.223 9461502 8544502 .156
nsultation
ieaming and work .649 .272 .415 .147 -.194
bission .634 .198 .242 .169 9.176
Etop harassment .631 -.247 -5.188E-02 -.264 -.193
Eonﬂict resolution .629 -.169 -5.094E-02 .425 -.168
Large group .627 .122 -.283 -5.298502 -.319
elivery
ecognize .606 .1 1 1 -.341 .385 .525502
nuaﬂons
Erorld of work .597 .372 .328 8450502 9049502
xplain Ieaming .583 .243 .349 .250 3.895502
tyles

 

 

 

 

 

 

210

 

 

Component Matrix continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ifferent .583 -.540 .191 .247 .150
cialleconomic
ccountability .567 .317 .100 57.659502 .318
utcomes
Eexuality .550 5.281 .134 3.316502 7.079502
Bublic speaking .525 .140 5.397 7.615502 51.643502
ata analysis .512 .427 5.172 .255 .222
Widerstand culture .460 5.498 .298 394 .187
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
a 5 components extracted.
Rotated Component Matrix
I 1 2 3 l1 l5
Lecognize .724 1.681502 [143 .201 .253
nuaﬂons
[staff collaboration .655 .331 .163 .120 .191
inission .623 .228 .317 .125 .021502
Elblic speaking .602 .212 .635502 .214 1.833502
mily .563 .372 .155 .944502 .398
nterventions
[data analysis .554 -.148 .279 .424 2.667502
barge group .548 .462 .269 6.620502 54.314502
elivery
[conﬂict resolution .134 .727 .165 .231 9.784502
Etogharassment .193 .662 .165 .130 .219
eer pressure .170 .614 .277 .124 .285
risis coping skills.356 .501 .906502 .249 .487
gency .283 .418 l6.542502 .359 .386
nsultation
evelopmental .275 .414 .299 .255 .302
Ftpges
earning and work .179 .141 .784 .163 .184
Emblem solving .193 .418 .673 .128 .120
rld of work .120 .198 .673 .334 57.236503
xplain learning .204 53.309502 .628 .269 .274
tyles
Eme management .266 .338 .625 .231502 .187

 

 

 

 

 

211

 

 

Rotated Component Matrix continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iead initiatives .177 .339 .191 .728 .137

Essessment .280 .138 .255 .678 .209
trategies
ositive school .147 .462 .1 12 .670 .1 10
Iimate

Eccountability .204 6.351502 .336 .612 7.540502
utcomes

Enderstand 6.755502 4.324502 .166 4.750502 .839
ultu re
ifferent .121 .245 .122 .107 .807
ocial/economic

Eexuality .117 .310 .184 .188 .477

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax
with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 9 iterations.

212

APPENDIX K

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR FINAL TWENTY-FIVE ITEM SCALE AND FOR
EACH OF THE SUB-SCALES

Reliability
****** Method 2 (covariance matrix) will be used for this
analysis ******

“RELIABILITY ANALYSIS — SCALE
(ALPHA)
Mean Std Dev Cases
1. SCS22 4.2324 .8728 327.0
2. SCSZ4 3.9878 .8998 327.0
3. SCSZ7 4.2385 .7377 327.0
4. SCSBS 4.1346 .8793 327.0
5. SCS30 4.1865 .7942 327.0
6. SCSSO 4.1927 .9182 327.0
7. SCS36 4.3303 .7100 327.0
8. SCSB7 4.1162 .7824 327.0
9. SCS39 3.8135 1.0177 327.0
10. SCSB 3.8440 .9924 327.0
11. SCS49 3.8869 .9412 327.0
12. SCS44 3.6391 .9552 327.0
13. SCS45 4.0367 .8957 327.0
14. SCS7 3.4373 1.0368 327.0
15. SCSB 4.4954 .7629 327.0
16. SCSZ 4.4404 .6706 327.0
17. SCS40 4.1865 1.0086 327.0
18. SCSll 4.2997 .8941 327.0
19. SCSl 4.0459 .8867 327.0
20. SCSlZ 4.1101 .8862 327.0
21. SCSlG 3.8318 .9460 327.0
22. SCSl4 4.0428 .7860 327.0
23. SCS18 4.0948 .8327 327.0
24 SCSl3 4.0826 .8041 327.0
25 SCSlS 3.8563 .8585 327.0
N of
Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables
Scale 101.5627 187.4186 13.6901 25

213

Item Means

Mean

Minimum

4.0625 3.4373

Item Variances

Mean
.7674

Minimum
.4497

Maximum
4.4954

Maximum
1.0750

Item—total Statistics

SCSZZ
SCSZ4
SCSZ7
SCS35
SCS30
SCSSO
SCS36
SCSB7
SCS39
SCSB

SCS49
SCS44
SCS45
SCS7

SCSB

SCSZ

SCS40
SCSll
SCSl

SCSlZ
SCSlG
SCSl4
SCS18
SCSlB
SCSlS

Scale

Mean
if Item
Deleted

97.3303
97.5749
97.3242
97.4281
97.3761
97.3700
97.2324
97.4465
97.7492
97.7187
97.6758
97.9235
97.5260
98.1254
97.0673
97.1223
97.3761
97.2630
97.5168
97.4526
97.7309
97.5199
97.4679
97.4801
97.7064

Scale

Variance
if Item
Deleted

173.3323
172.8157
174.7658
170.7118
173.2108
171.5038
176.7495
178.1743
172.8326
174.1169
170.2627
170.2549
171.7470
171.8953
173.9709
176.8132
173.5115
172.9490
172.7536
170.9234
172.6574
174.0663
172.2191
173.2074
174.3675

Reliability Coefficients

Alpha =

.9350

Range

1.0581

Range

.6254

Corrected
Item-
Total

Correlation

.5798
.5830
.6208
.6934
.6495
.6267
.5385
.4132
.5064
.4703
.6624
.6520
.6333
.5314
.6393
.5695
.4851
.5813
.5954
.6780
.5578
.6140
.6637
.6409
.5432

25 items

214

Max/Min

1.3078

Max/Min

2.3908

Squared
Multiple

Variance
.0580

Variance
.0283

Alpha
if Item

Correlation Deleted

.5059
.5065
.4861
.6248
.4941
.4945
.5861
.4782
.3533
.4195
.5976
.5223
.5673
.3929
.4975
.5117
.4036
.4792
.5258
.5753
.5041
.5727
.5708
.5387
.4554

Standardized item alpha

.9326
.9325
.9322
.9309
.9317
.9319
.9332
.9347
.9339
.9344
.9313
.9315
.9318
.9335
.9319
.9329
.9342
.9326
.9323
.9312
.9329
.9322
.9314
.9318
.9331

.9367

PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT SUB-SCALE

Mean Std Dev Cases
1. SCSZZ 4.2402 .8691 333.0
2. SCSZ4 3.9970 .9001 333.0
3. SC827 4.2432 .7349 333.0
4. SCS35 4.1351 .8797 333.0
5. SCS30 4.1922 .7947 333.0
6. SCSSO 4.2012 .9143 333.0
7. SCS36 4.3393 .7085 333.0
8. SCS37 4.1291 .7828 333.0
9. SC839 3.8108 1.0313 333.0
N of
Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables
Scale 37.2883 28.3865 5.3279 9
Item Means
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
4.1431 3.8108 4.3393 .5285 1.1387 .0245
Item Variances
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
.7250 .5020 1.0635 .5615 2.1186 .0303
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
SCS22 33.0480 22.7326 .5911 .4660 .8528
SCSZ4 33.2913 22.4300 .6036 .4474 .8517
SCSZ7 33.0450 23.4106 .6238 .4176 .8507
SCS35 33.1532 21.5698 .7395 .5727 .8381
SCS30 33.0961 23.0510 .6164 .4158 .8507
SCSSO 33.0871 22.2062 .6202 .4381 .8500
SCS36 32.9489 23.5305 .6334 .5649 .8503
SCSB7 33.1592 24.0198 .4892 .4528 .8615
SCS39 33.4775 22.2804 .5180 .2848 .8627
Reliability Coefficients 9 items
Alpha = .8664 Standardized item alpha = .8701

215

IMPACT SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT SUB-SCALE

01.5me

SCS3
SCS49
SCS44
SCS45
SCS7

N of Cases

Statistics for

Scale

Item Means

Mean

Minimum

3.7733 3.4332

Item Variances

Mean
.9375

Minimum
.8046

Item-total Statistics

SCS3
SCS49
SCS44
SCS45
SCS7

Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted

15.0178
14.9703
15.2226
14.8220
15.4332

Mean
3.8487
3.8961
3.6439
4.0445
3.4332
= 337.0
Mean Variance
18.8665 13.5565
Maximum Range
4.0445 .6113
Maximum Range
1.0737 .2691
Scale Corrected

Variance Item-
if Item Total

9.5652 .4893
8.7967 .6944
8.7152 .6824
9.3075 .6294
8.9725 .5655

5 items

Std Dev

.9930
.9408
.9687
.8970
1.0362

Cases

337.0
337.0
337.0
337.0
337.0

N of

Std Dev Variables

3.6819

Max/Min
1.1780

Max/Min
1.3345

Squared

Multiple
Deleted Correlation Correlation

.2672
.5437
.4721
.5065
.3250

Reliability Coefficients

Alpha = .8178

Standardized item alpha

216

5

Variance
.0567

Variance
.0103

Alpha
if Item
Deleted

.8174
.7570
.7597
.7771
.7963

= .8202

COLLABORATION SUB-SCALE

0101.5me

SCSB
SCSZ
SCS40
SCSll
SCSl
SCSlZ

N of Cases

Statistics for
Scale

Item Means

Mean Minimum
4.2594 4.0387
Item Variances
Mean Minimum
.7482 .4494

Item-total Statistics

SCSB
SCSZ
SCS40
SCSll
SCSl
SCSlZ

Scale
Mean
if Item
Deleted

21.0625
21.1220
21.3780
21.2560
21.5179
21.4464

Mean
4.4940
4.4345
4.1786
4.3006
4.0387
4.1101
= 336.0
Mean Variance
25.5565 14.5401
Maximum Range
4.4940 .4554
Maximum Range
1.0367 .5872
Scale Corrected

Variance Item-
if Item Total
Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted

10.5722
11.4567

9.8776
10.2328
10.3161
10.1941

Reliability Coefficients

Alpha =

.8295

.6755
.5804
.5665
.6020
.5951
.6261

6 items

Standardized item alpha

217

Std Dev

.7688
.6704
1.0182
.9054
.8953
.8893

Cases

336.0
336.0
336.0
336.0
336.0
336.0

N of

Std Dev Variables

3.8131

Max/Min
1.1127

Max/Min
2.3066

Squared
Multiple

.4711
.3909
.3330
.3781
.3956
.4183

6

Variance

.0330

Variance

.0414

Alpha
if Item

.7891
.8092
.8131
.8018
.8032
.7965

.8357

CAREER AND ACADEMIC SUB-SCALE

Mean Std Dev Cases
1. SCSl6 3.8314 .9488 338.0
2. SCSl4 4.0385 .7866 338.0
3. SCSlB 4.0888 .8321 338.0
4. SCS13 4.0828 .8111 338.0
5. SCS15 3.8521 .8726 338.0
N of Cases = 338.0
N of
Statistics for Mean Variance Std Dev Variables
Scale 19.8935 11.0628 3.3261 5
Item Means
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
3.9787 3.8314 4.0888 .2574 1.0672 .0161
Item Variances
Mean Minimum Maximum Range Max/Min Variance
.7261 .6187 .9003 .2816 1.4551 .0122
Item-total Statistics
Scale Scale Corrected
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
SCSl6 16.0621 7.0970 .6064 .4224 .8204
SCSl4 15.8550 7.3113 .7365 .5500 .7841
SCSl8 15.8047 7.3386 .6725 .4615 .7995
SC813 15.8107 7.5367 .6441 .4453 .8074
SCSlS 16.0414 7.5354 .5774 .3610 .8257
Reliability Coefficients 5 items
Alpha = .8398 Standardized item alpha = .8432

218

APPENDIX L

REGRESSION RESULTS ANALYZING EXPERIENCE AND SELF-EFFICACY

Regression - Effect of years of experience on total SCSE scale
(ﬁgure 1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Deviatio
Mean 11 N
school counselor
years any level 1 15315 8231 1 213
TOTAL E57840 10.6996 213 ,
Correlations
school
counselo
r years
_ any level TOTAL
Pearson school counselor
Correlation years any level 1000 476
TOTAL .176 1.000
319- (1-tailed) school counselor 005
years any level - -
TOTAL .005 ,
N school counselor
years any level 213 213
TOTAL 213 213

 

 

 

 

 

219

Varlables Entemleemovecf

 

Variable

s
Entered

d

Variable

Remove

Method

 

 

MW
1

 

TOTAi

 

 

Enter

 

aAlrequestladvaidilecentared.
bwvmschodcwmdormmyleml

Model Summer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Std.
Adjusted Error of

Mod R R the
el R Square Square Estimate
1 .176a .031 .026_ 8.1222

 

a. Predictors: (Constant), TOTAL

b. Dependent Variable: school counselor
years any level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA"
Sum of Mean
. Model Squares df Square F Si .
1 SEW 443.697 1 443.697 6.726 .010'
Residual 13919.6 211 65.970
Total 14363.3 212
a. Predictors: (Constant), TOTAL
b. mpendent Variable: school counselor years any level
Coefficients‘
Standa
rdized
Unstandardlzed Coefﬂci
Coefficients ents
Std.
‘ Model B Error Beta t Sig.
1 [3mm -1319 5.025 -.263 .793
TOTAL .135 .052 .176 2.593 .010

 

 

e.DependentVarlable:schooloounselaryearsanylevel

220

Residuals satisﬁed

 

 

Std.
Minimu Maximu Deviatio
_ m m Mean n N
Predicted Value 7.6044 14.2296 11.6315 1.4467 213
Residual -12.283 23.6914 -1.E-16 8.1030 213
Std. Predicted
Value -2.784 1.796 .000 1.000 213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Std. Residual -1.512___2.917 .000 .998 213 ‘
a Dependent Vaiable: school counselor were my level

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charts

Scatterplot

Dependent Variable: school counselor years any level
'5 3
3 a
:9 o
(D a D a
Q) n o a
m 2‘ n 0 g u
.8 g a: a” n no u
.u a a a 0..
E 11 n u 0 g a: a a a a
(0 o u a 0 0° 0 a
U a u 0 0° 0 D a
c O D D an O
3 ° 0 o a on a can "a n o 0 0°:
(0 0‘ U n 3 8‘0 D Donna Do 0 n D
c a a on 20:: 90033;: a 0 n u
'09, a a on: 00:0 “'3 a can goo E E : °° a
E ‘1‘ "on Dan on n can: u 30:8 on Dog 2 a
8’ ° °
CE -2 ' - . 1

-3 -2 -1 0 1

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

221

Regression - Effect of years of experience (<5) on total SCSE

scale (ﬁgure 2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics
I Std. l
Mean Deviation N
ANYYEAR 3.0932 1.5326 59 l
TOTAL 93.1017 10.4266 59 f
Correlations
_ ANYYEARS TOTAL
Pearson ANYY EARS 1.000 .253
Correlation TOTAL .253 1.000
Sig. ANYYEARS . .027
(Hailed) TOTAL .027 .
N ANYYEARS 59 59
TOTAL 59 59
Variables EnteredIRemovod’
I Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
| 1 [TOTAL3 . Enter ]
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: ANYYEARS
Model Summary
Std.
Adjusted Error of
R R the
Model R Squa Square Estimate
1 .253“ .064 048 1.4957

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Predictors: (Constant), TOTAL

222

 

AMOVAh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mod Sum of Mean
el Squares df Square F Si .
1 55’9”” 8.717 1 8.717 3.896 .053
Residual 127.521 57 2.237
Total 136g37 58
a. Predictors: (Constant), TOTAL
b. Dependent Variable: ANYYEARS
Coefficients‘
Standa
rdized
Unstandardized Coeffici
Coefﬁcients ents
Std.
‘Model 8 Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -.368 1.764 -.209 .835
TOTAL 4.E-02 .019 .253 1.974 .053

 

 

a. Dependent Variable: ANYYEARS

223

Regression - Effect of year of experience (<5) on personal
development sub-scale (ﬁgure 3)

 

     
   

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics
I Std. I
Mean Deviation N
ANYYEAR 3.0932 1.5326 59'
PERSON 33.5085 4.3087 59
Correlations
! ANYYEARS PERSON
Pearson ANYYEARS 1.000 .331
Correlation PERSON .331 1.000
Sig. ANYYEARS . .005
(1-tailed) PERSON .005 .
N ANYYEARS 59 59
PERSON 59 59
Variables Entered/Remover?

 

l Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
I 1 I PERSON . Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
D. W Variable: ANYYEARS

 

 

 

 

Model Summary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Std.
Adjusted Error of

R R the
Model R Square Square Estimate
1 .331‘1 .109 .094 1 .4590

 

a. Predotors: (Constant). PERSON

224

ANOVA"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Si.
1 529”“ 14.910 1 14.910 7.005 .010
Residual 121.328 57 2.129
Total 136.237 58
a Predators: (CW). PERSON
b. wvmmwems
Coefﬁclents'
Standa
rdized
Unstandardized Coefﬁci
Coefﬁcients ents
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) -.850 1.502 -.566 .574
PERSON .118 .044 .331 L647 .010

 

 

 

 

 

ainendentVaidalezANYYEARS

225

 

Regression- Effect of years of experience on impact school
environment sub-scale (ﬁgure 4)

 

 

Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
school
counselor
years any 11.6315 8.2311 213
level

 

 

 

 

 

ENVIRON 19.3286 3.5255 213

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlations
school
counselor
years
any level ENVIRON
Eamon school
rrelation counselor

years any 1.000 .156

level

ENVIRON .156 1.000
Sig. school
(1 -tailed) counselor 011

years any '

level

ENVIRON .011
N school

counselor

years any 213 213

level

ENVIRON 213 213

 

 

 

 

 

226

Variables EnteredIRemoverP

 

Model
1

Variables
Entered

Variables
Removed

Methodl

 

ByVIRo
N

 

 

Enter I

 

aAIremeetedVI-imlesentered.

b-DependentVuidrle:schooloounseloryeusmylevel

Model Summary’

 

de

 

R

 

R
Square

 

Adjusted
R
Square

Std.
Error of
the
Estimate

 

1

.156a

 

a Predictors: (Constant), ENVIRON

 

.og_4_ .020

 

 

8.1497

 

b.DependentVrli¢leschooloounseloryeusmylevel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVAh
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Si .
1 Regression 349.243 1 349.243 5.258 .023
Residual 14014.1 211 66.417
Total 14363.3 212
a. Predictors: (Constant), ENVIRON
b. Dependent Variable: school counselor years any level
Coefﬁcients'
Standa
rdized
Unstandardized Coefﬁci
Coefﬁcients ents
Mod Std.
el B Error Beta Sig.
1 f“) "51" 4.595 3.119 1.473 .142
$er .364 .159 .156 2.293 .023

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ainendentVaidalenchooloounseloryeasmylael

227

Residuals Statistica'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Std.

Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation N
:Predicted
Va'ue 7.8712 13.6962 11.6315 1.2635 213
Residual -11.8759 2.6522 1.515 8.1304 213
Std.
Predicted .2930 1.609 .000 1.000 213
Value
3111' -1457 2604 000 996 213
Residual ' ' ' '

 

 

a. Dependent Variable: school counselor years any level

 

 

 

 

Charts

Scatterplot

Dependent Variable: school counselor years any level
3 3
3 n
:2 .. a
m 2" o n o a D o
E a ‘3 ‘3 g g o u E o
E 1- a .. ° E ° °
(0 o a 5 g a 8 a
‘O 3 3 a 0 °
C '3 8 o a u n a
.9- " 3 3 3 g a ‘1 3 n 3 3 o
(D 01 a o a u n g g D g n
c ° ° ° ° 3 ° 9 ° ° 3
.9 D D a D g D g 0 g g D D O U
(D a r: ° ° 0 a a

a o g c g 3 ° 9
E -1 n o a S B a g g a E o
8) o
a: -2 1 _ . r

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

228

Regression - Effect of years of experience on Collaboration sub-
scale (ﬁgure 5)

Descriptive Statistics

Std.
Mean Deviation N

11.6315 8.2311 213

 

 

school counselor
years any level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COLLAB 22.1221 2.4406 213 ,
Correlations
school
counselor
years
any level COLLAB
$wmn school
Correlation counselor
years 1.000 .232
any level
COLLAB .232 1.000
Sig. school
(1-tailed) counselor
years .000
any level
COLLAB .000
N school
counselor
years 213 213
any level
COLLAB 213 213 ,
Variables EnteredIRemoverP
I Variables Variables I
Model Entered Removed Method
[1 ICOLLABa . Enter |
e Allrequestedverianlesmtered.

b. DependentVaridilezschooIcounseloryecsmylevel

229

Model Summary”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Std.
Adjusted Error of

R R the
Model R Square Square Estimate
1 .2323 .054 .049 8.0257

 

 

aPredictors:(Constmt).COLLAB
b. DmendentValidiluschoolcouneeloryeasmylevel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOVA"
Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Si .
1 Regression 772.330 1 772.330 11.990 .001
Residual 13591.0 211 64.412
Total 14363.3 212
8- Predictors: (Constant). COLLAB
b- DependentVuiable: schoolcounseloryeusanylevel
Coefﬁcients'
Standa
rdized
Unstandardized Coefﬁci
Coefﬁcients ents
Std.
Model B Error Beta t Si .
1 (Constant) -5.669 5.026 -1.128 .261
COLLAB .782 .22_6_ .232 3.463 .001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e. DependentVaidileschoolcounseloryeasmylellel

 

 

Casewise Diagnostics'
school
counselor

Case Std. years
ﬂmber Residual any level
185 3.091 34.0

 

 

 

 

 

aDependentVariablezschoolcounseloryearsmylevel

230

Residuals Statistica'

 

Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation N
Predicted

Value 2.1515 13.8821 11.6315 1.9087 213

Residual -12.8821 24.6101 2.5-15 6.0066 213
Std.
Predicted 4.967 1.179 .000 1.000 213
Value
31‘1- -1 605 3 091 000 998 213
Residual ' ' ' '

a DependentVuiablezschoolcounseloryeusanylewl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Charts
Scatterplot
Dependent Variable: school counselor years any level
'5 4
3
.9
3 a
a: 3' a a
E 2'1 3 n a a a g
E a 8 5 ° g :
2 w .. ° . .
S a B o 0 E 8 § 8 a
w a ° 6 ° 6
c 0‘ a g n E
-§ ° 5:” 8 2 E i E E 1 a
9 ‘1' 8 E i g g E g
8’ 8 ..
a: -2 _ - _ . _ ' _
'6 '5 '4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

231

Regression - Effect of years of experience (<5) on Collaboration
sub-scale (ﬁgure 6) '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Descriptive Statistics
2 Std. I
Deviation N
1.5326 59
2.5732 59
Correlations
_ ANYYEARS COLLAB
Pearson ANYY EARS 1.000 .314
Correlation COLLAB .314 1.000
Sig. ANYYEARS . .008
(1-tailed) COLLAB .006 .
N ANYYEARS 59 59
COLLAB 59 59
Variables Entered/Removed”

 

I [Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
| 1 [COLLABa . Enter
a. All requested variables entered.
b. Dependent Variable: ANYYEARS

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model Summary
Std.
Adjusted Error of
R R the
Model R Square Square Estimate
1 .3141' .099 .083 1 .4677

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Predctors: (Constmt). COLLAB

232

 

ANOVA"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. inendentVaridile: ANYYEARS

233

Sum of Mean
. Model Squares df Square F Si .
1 Regress‘on 13.445 1 13.445 6.241 .015‘l
Residual 122.792 57 2.154
Total 136.237 58
a Predictors: (omit). COLLAB
b. wvmzmwms
Coefficienu‘
Standa
rdized
Unstandardized Coefﬁci
Coefﬁcients ents
Std.
Model B Error Beta 1 Sig.
1 (“"513 -.90 1.61 -.5 .57
nt)
COLLA
B .18 .07 .31 2.4 .01]

Regression - effect of years of experience on career and
academic sub-scale (ﬁgure 7)

 

 

Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Mean Deviation N
school
counselor
years 11.6315 8.2311 213
any level

 

 

 

 

 

CAREER 20.1925 3.2222 213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlations
school
counselor
years any
_ Variables level CAREER
Pearson Correlation school counselor
years any level 1'01” '1 58
CAREER .158 1.000
Sig. (1-tailed) school counselor 011
years any level '
CAREER .011 .
N school counselor
years any level 213 213
CAREER 213 213
Variables EnteredIRemovecP

 

 

‘ Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 CAREEREl . Enter 7

G-Allrequestedvariablesentered.
b.0ependentVuiablezschoolc0unseloryearsanylevel

 

 

 

234

Model Summary”

 

 

 

 

 

Std. Error

R Adjusted ofthe

Model R Square R Square Estimate
1 1 .158“ .025 .023 8.1475l

 

lPrm:(Cortstﬂ'It).CAREER
b-DependentVaidile:schoolcounseloryeasmylewl

AlllOVAb

 

Sum of

Squares df

Mean
Square

Si

 

1 R

Residual

 

m

Total

egressl

 

1
211
212

356.726
14006.6
14363.3

 

 

356.726 5.374

66.382

 

 

 

a. Predctors: (Constant). CAREER
b- Dependent Variable: sd'lool counseloryeas my lent

Coefﬁcients‘

 

‘Model
1

 

(Constant)
CAREER

Unstandardized
Coefﬁcients

Standa
rdized
Coefﬁci
ents

 

B Std. Error

Beta

Sis-_

 

 

3.502 3.551

 

 

.403 .174

 

.158 2.318

 

.021

325 ‘

 

 

o-iner'ldentVaridilezsd'loolcounseloryeersarlylevel

Residuals Statistics'

 

Minimum

Maximum Mean

Std.
Deviation

 

”Predicted
Value
Residual
Std.
Predicted
Value

Std.
Residual

 

7.9308
-12.5668

-2.853

-1.542

 

11.6315
2.E-15

13.5668
22.0435

1 .492 .000

2.706 .000

 

 

1.2972
8.1283

1.000

.998

 

 

213
213

213

213

 

 

8- DependentVarlablezschoolcounseloryeasmervel

235

Charts

Scatterplot

Dependent Variable: school counselor years any level

 

 

 

3 2

.328”. 352855 568.com

 

Regression Standardized Predicted Value

236

BIBLIOGRAPHY

237

Bibliography

Arbona, C. (1990). Career counseling research and Hispanics: a review
of the literature. The Counseling Psycholggist, 18, 300-323.

Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efﬁcacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psycholggical Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1977b). Social Learning Theogy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of thoughts and action: a social
cggnitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efﬁcacy in
changing societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efﬁcagy in changing societies (pp.
1-45). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Betz, N. E. & Hackett, G. (1981). The relationship of career-related self-
efﬁcacy expectations to perceived career options in college men and women.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 399-410.

Brown, M. T. (1995). The career development of African Americans:
theoretical and empirical issues. In F. Leong (Ed.), Career development and
vocational behavior of racial and ethnic minorities (pp. 7-36). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Arlbaum Associates.

Buros, O. K. (1978). Mental Measurements Yearbook (711‘ Ed.). Highland
Park, NJ: The Gryphon Press.

Campbell, C. A. & Dahir, C. A. (1997). The National Standards for school
counseling programs. Alexandria, VA: American School Counseling
Association.

Clark, L. A. 8: Watson, D. (1998). Objective scale development. In A.
Kazdin (Ed), Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research (pp. 215-

239). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

Coll, K. M. 8: Freeman, B. (1997). Role conﬂict among elementary school
counselors: a national comparison with middle and secondary school

counselors. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 251-261.

238

Comrey, A. L. (1988) Factor-analytic methods of scale development in

personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psycholpgy, 56, 754-761.

Cortina, J. M. (1993) What is coefﬁcient alpha? An examination of theory
and applications. Journal of Applied Psycholpgy, 78, 98-104.

Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, D. (1960) A new scale of social desirability

independent of psychopathology. Journal of Counseling Psycholpgy, 24, 349-
354.

Dawis, R. V. (1987). Scale construction. Journal of Counseling
Psycholpgy, 34, 481-489.

Fitts, W. H. & Warren, W. L. (1996). Tennessee Self-concept Scale -
TSCS:2. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Floyd, F. J. & Widman, K. F. (1995). Factor Analysis in the develoment
and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psycholpgical Assessment,
7. 286-299.

Fowler, F.J. (1995). Improving Survey Questions: design and evaluation.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fox, R.W., Rawls, T., and Folger, W., (1993). Demographics of Michigan
School Counselors. Michigan (MACD). 21 , 29-30.

F riedlander, M., 8 Snyder, J. (1983). Trainees’ expectations for the
supervisory process: testing a developmental model. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 22, 342-348.

Gibson, 8., 8r Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher Efﬁcacy: A construct
validation. Journal of Educational Psycholpgy, 76, 569-582.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis: its role in item
analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68 (3), 532-560.

Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., 8 Akey, T. M. (1997). Using SPSS for
windows: analyzing and understanding data. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Gysbers, N. C. 8: Henderson, P. (1994). Developing and managing your
school guidance prpgram(2"11 Ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling
Association.

239

Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efﬁcacy in career choice and development. In A.
Bandura (Ed.), Self-efﬁcapy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.

Hackett, G. 8 Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efﬁcacy approach to the career
development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior 18, 326-339.

 

Hackett, G. 8: Betz, N. E. (1995). Self-efﬁcacy and career choice and
development. In J. E. Maddux (Ed), Self-EfﬁcacyI Adaptation, and Adjustment:
Theogy, research and application (pp. 249-280). New York: Plenum Press.

Heppner, P. P., Kivlingham, D. M., 6 Wampold, B. E. (1999). Research
design in counseling (2"‘1 Ed.). Paciﬁc Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Jerusalem, M. & Mittag, W. (1995). Self-efﬁcacy in stressful life
transitions. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efﬁcacy in changing societies (pp. 177-
201). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kameen, M.C., Robinson, E.H., Rotter, JG. (1985). Coordination
activities: a study of perceptions of elementary and middle school counselors.
Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 20, 97-104.

Larson, L. M., & Daniels, J. A. (1998). Review of the counseling self-
efﬁcacy literature. The Counseling Psycholpgist, 26, 179-218.

Larson, L. M., Suzuki, L. A., Gillespie, K. N., Potenza, M. T., Bechtel, M.
A., and Toulouse, A. L. (1992). Development and validation of the counseling
self-estimate inventory. Journal of Counseling Psycholpgy, 39, 105-120.

Lauver, P. J., 8. Jones, R. M. (1991). Factors associated with perceived
career options in American Indian, White, and Hispanic rural high school
students. Journal of Counseling Psycholpgy, 38, 159-166.

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1996). Career development
from a social cognitive perspective. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.),
Career choice and development (3'11 ed., pp. 373- 421). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Lent, R. W., 8. Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efﬁcacy: Empirical status
and future directions [Monograph]. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 347-382.

Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantiﬁcation of content validity.
Nursing Research, 35, 382-385.

240

Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-Efﬁcacy theory: An introduction. In J.E.

Maddux (Ed), Self-Efﬁcag, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theogy, research and
application (pp. 3-33). New York: Plenum Press.

Maddux, J. E. & Lewis, J. (1995). Self-Efﬁcacy and Adjustment. In J. E.

Maddux (Ed.), Self-Efﬁcapy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory, research and
application (pp. 37-68). New York: Plenum Press.

Marris, P. (1974). Loss and change. New York, Pantheon Books.

Melchert, T. P., Hays, V. L., Wiljanen, L. M., & Kolocek, A. K. (1996).
Testing models of counselor development with a measure of counseling self-

efﬁcacy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 640-844.

Miller, T.K., ( 1998) Secondary School Counselor Survey Report, National
Association for College Admission Counseling, Alexandria VA.

Morse, C.L., & Russell, T. (1988). How elementary counselors see their

role: an empirical study. Elementagy School Guidance and Counseling. 23, 54-
62

O’Brien, K. M., Heppner, M. J., Flores, L. Y., & Bikos, L. H. (1997). The
career counseling self-efﬁcacy scale: instrument development and training
applications. Journal of CounselingPsvchology, 44, 20-31.

Osipow, S. H., (1991). Developing instruments for use in counseling.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 322-326.

Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, LA, 8. Alexander, CM, (1995).
Handbook of Multicultural Counseling. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications.

Reynolds, W-M., Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Short
Forms). Journal of Clinical Psycholpgy, 38, 119-125.

Ritchie, M.H., 8r Partin, R.L., (1994). Referral practices of school
counselors. The School Counselor, March 1994, 41, 263-272.

Rotberg, H. L., Brown, D. 8. Ware, W. B. (1987). Career self-efﬁcacy
expectations and perceived range of career options in community college

students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 164-170.

Schmidt, J. J. (1993). Counseling in Schools: Essential Services and
Comprehensive Prpgrams. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

241

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated Rating Scale Construction, An
Introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Spielberger, C. (1983). State-Trait Anxiehr Inventory (Form Y). Redwood
City, CA: Mind Garden.

Standards for educational and psychological testing. (1985). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.

Streiner, D. L. (1994). Figuring out factors: the use and misuse of factor
analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39, 135-140.

Sudman, S. & Bradbum, N. M (1982). Asking Questions: A practical
guide to Questionnaire design. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sutton, J. M., & Fall, M. (1995). The relationship of school climate factors
to counselor self-efﬁcacy. Journal of Counseling 8. Development, 73, 331-336.

Tinsley, H. E., 8: Tinsley, D. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in
counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Q. 414-
424.

Tyack, D. 8 Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering Toward Utopia. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Weathers, P. L., Furlong, M. J., & Solorzano, D. (1993). Mail survey
research in counseling psychology: Current practice and suggested guidelines.

Journal of Counseling Psycholpgy, 40, 238-244.

Zane, N. W., Sue, S, Hu, L., 8: Kwon, J. (1991). Asian-American
assertion: a social Ieaming analysis of cultural differences. Journal of

Counseling Psycholpgy, 38, 63- 70.

242