COUNSELED mm NGN - COUNSELEQ vmezmA
3mm COLLEGE smws' PERCEPWNS or
CGUNSELENG AND OF PmSGNAL ADJUSTMENT [

Dissefiafisn far the Degree of Ph. D.
MEGHEGM STATE UNEVERSITY '
GERALD MCCANTS
1&74

{N
N

.29 ‘ A,“ {-
,

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

COUNSELED AND NON-COUNSELED VIRGINIA
STATE COLLEGE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF
COUNSELING AND OF PERSONAL ADJUSTMENT

presented by

GERALD MCCANTS
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D degree in Higher Education

”0' MW
Van C. Jogging

Maj rofessor

 

 

Date February 284 1974

0-7 639

ABSTRACT

COUNSELED AND NON-COUNSELED VIRGINIA
STATE COLLEGE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF
COUNSELING AND OF PERSONAL ADJUSTMENT'

BY

Gerald McCants

The major purpose of this investigation was to assess
the perceptions of counseled and non-counseled Virginia State
College students toward counseling and of personal adjustment,
and the significance of several variables on those perceptions.
Student perceptions toward counseling and personal adjustment
were determined through the use of an l8-item questionnaire
developed by the investigator. This instrument was used to
elicit perceptions toward counseling and of personal adjust-
ment from the students used in the study. Within the instru-
ment, a 19th item was used to elicit personal data information
from the respondents.

The population from which the students for this study
was obtained consisted of all students who used the counseling
center during the Fall semester, 1972; all students who
dropped out of Virginia State College after the Fall semester,
1972, and did not return for the second semester, 1973; all
students who used the counseling center during the Fall

semester, 1972, but who did not return for the second semester,

k Gerald McCants
W

£9

IV 1973; and all students in two residence halls who did not
use the counseling center during the Fall semester, 1972,
and who returned for the second semester, 1973. The total
population consisted of 1,272 students.

The following hypotheses were tested to determine
the influence of selected variables on student perceptions
toward counseling and of personal adjustment:

Hypothesis I

The perceptions of students who did and did not drop

out of Virginia State College toward counseling will

not differ significantly on the basis of sex.
Hypothesis II

The perceptions of students who did and did not drop

out of Virginia State College toward counseling will

not differ significantly on the basis of grade point
average (G.P.A.). -
Hypothesis III

The perceptions of students who did and did not drop

out of Virginia State College toward counseling will

not differ significantly on the basis of estimated
family income.
hypothesis IV

The perceptions of students who did and did not drop

out of Virginia State College toward counseling will

not differ significantly on the basis of classifica-
tion.
Hypothesis V

The perceptions of students who did and did not drop

out of Virginia State College toward personal adjust-

ment will not differ significantly on the basis of
sex.

Gerald McCants

Hypothesis VI

 

The perceptions of students who did and did not drop
out of Virginia State College toward personal adjust-
ment will not differ significantly on the basis of
grade point average (G.P.A.).

Hypothesis VII

 

The perceptions of students who did and did not drop
out of Virginia State College toward personal adjust-
ment will not differ significantly on the basis of
estimated family income.

Hypothesis VIII

 

The perceptions of students who did and did not drop
out of Virginia State College toward personal adjust-
ment will not differ significantly on the basis of
classification.

Hypothesis IX

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not use
the Virginia State College Counseling Center toward
counseling will not differ significantly on the basiS'
of sex.

Hypothesis X

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not use
the Virginia State College Counseling Center toward
counseling will not differ significantly on the basis
of grade point average (G.P.A.).

Hypothesis XI
The perceptions of students who used and did not use
the Virginia State College Counseling Center toward
counseling will not differ significantly on the basis
of estimated family income.

Hypothesis XII

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not use
the Virginia State College Counseling Center toward
counseling will not differ significantly on the basis
of classification.

Gerald McCants

Hypothesis XIII

The perceptions of students who used and did not use
the Virginia State College Counseling Center toward
personal adjustment will not differ significantly on
the basis of sex.

Hypothesis XIV
The perceptions of students who used and did not use
the Virginia State College Counseling Center toward
personal adjustment will not differ significantly on
the basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).

Hypothesis XV

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not use
the Virginia State College Counseling Center toward

personal adjustment will not differ significantly on
the basis of estimated family income.

Hypothesis XVI

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not use

the Virginia State College Counseling Center toward

personal adjustment will not differ significantly

on the basis of classification.

The following interpretations and generalizations
were made as a result of this research:

1. Males and females who did not drop out of Virginia
State College were generally positive in their perceptions
of counseling than males and females who dropped out of
Virginia State. For students who dropped out of Virginia
State, they were more positive in their perceptions of
personal adjustment than students who did not drop out.

2. Students who did not drop out of Virginia State
College, regardless of the grade point average, were positive

in their perceptions of counseling. Students with high

academic averages, drop outs and non-drop outs, were positive

Gerald McCants

in their perceptions of personal adjustment than students
with low grade point averages.

3. Students who did not drop out of Virginia State
College, regardless of estimated family income, were positive
in their perceptions of counseling. High estimated family
income students, drop outs and non-drop outs, were positive
in their perceptions of personal adjustment.

4. Undergraduate and graduate students who did not
drop out of Virginia State College were generally positive
in their perceptions of counseling. Graduate students,
drop outs and non-drop outs, were positive in their percep-
tions of personal adjustment than undergraduate students.

5. .Males and females who used the counseling center
were positive in their perceptions of counseling. Males
and females who did not use the counseling center were
positive in their perceptions of personal adjustment.

6. Students who used the counseling center, regard-
less of grade point average, were generally positive in their
perceptions of counseling than students who did not. Stu-
dents with high academic averages, users and non-users of
counseling, were positive in their perceptions of personal
adjustment.

7. Students with low estimated family incomes and
who used the counseling center were generally positive in
their perceptions of counseling. High estimated family
income students, users and non-users of counseling, were '

positive in their perceptions of personal adjustment.

Gerald McCants

8. Undergraduate and graduate students who used the
counseling center were generally positive in their percep-
tions of counseling. Undergraduate and graduate students
who did not use the counseling center were positive in
their perceptions of personal adjustment than undergraduate

and graduate students who used the counseling center.

COUNSELED AND NON-COUNSELED VIRGINIA
STATE COLLEGE STUDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF

COUNSELING AND OF PERSONAL ADJUSTMENT

BY

Gerald McCants

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1974

C9

Copyright By
GERALD MCCANTS
l97h

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The investigator wishes to express appreciation to
the many individuals who gave him their assistance during
the conduct of this research study. A special thank you
is extended to:

Dr. Van C. Johnson for his patience, guidance,
understanding and encouragement.

Dr. Robert L. Green for his insight into proble-
matic areas confronting the investigator.

Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos for the demanding expecta-
tions that he felt that the investigator was capable of
achieving.

Dr. James B. McKee for his being part of this com-
mittee.

A host of additional considerations are presented
to individuals at Virginia State College:

Dr. Valmore R. Goines, Vice President for Academic
Affairs; Dr. Earl V. Allgood, Professor of Statistics; Mrs.
Vivian Williamson, Director of College Counseling; Dr.
Vykuntapathi Thota, Assistant Professor of the Learning
Resources Center; Mr. Charles Cone, Director of the Com-
puter Center; Misses Joan Edwards, Crystal Crump, and Gilla
Brown, students; and Mrs. Lillian Rowlett, secretary.

ii

Phyllis, Darrell, Karla, Denise, Darren, and Mrs.
Odessa Earlene Strother, Jr., who made this feat possible
by their patience, pain, moral support, motivation, and

their extreme sacrifices.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF

Introduction . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . .
Purpose of the Study . . . .
Definitions of Terms Used .
Research Hypothesis . . . .
Limitations of the Study . .
Delimitations of the Study .
Organization of the Study .

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . .
Literature on Perceptions . .

Literature on Counseled and Non-Counseled

Students . . . . . . . . .
Limitation of Previous Studies
sumary O O O O O C O O O O I

THE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Beginnings of the Study
Location . . . . . .,.
Population . . . . . .
Instrumentation . . .
Procedure . . . . . .
Statistic . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . .

iv

TERMS

O O O O O 0

USED

Page

ii

12
13

26
37
37

39

39
41
41
43
48
49
50

Chapter

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . .

Section A: Analysis of Data of Perceptions
Toward Counseling for Students Who Did
And Did Not Drop Out of VSC on Selected

variables 0 O O O O O O O O C O O 0

Did and Did Not Drop Out of VSC on
Selected Variables . . . . . . . .

at VSC on Selected Variables . . .

of Personal Adjustment for Students
Used and Did Not Use the Counseling
Center at VSC on Selected Variables
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . .
The Perceptions Toward Counseling for

Students Who Did and Did Not Drop Out

of VSC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Perceptions of Persona Adjustment
for Students Who Did and Did Not

Drop Out of VSC . . . . . . . . . .
The Perceptions Toward Counseling for
Students Who Used and Did Not Use
the Counseling Center . . . . . . .
The Perceptions of Personal Adjustment
for Students Who Used and Did Not
Use the Counseling Center . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications for Further Research . .

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
APPENDIX A O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
APPENDIX B O O O O O O I O O O O O O I O O O 0

APPENDIX C I O O O O O I O O O O O O O I O O 0

Section B: Analysis of Data of Perceptions
of Personal Adjustment for Students Who

Section C: Analysis of Data of Perceptions
Toward Counseling for Students Who Used
and Did Not Use the Counseling Center

Section D: Analysis of Data of Perceptions

Who

Page

51

52

62

69

77
83

92

95

95

100

105

109
114
121
122
124
132
134

146

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Summary data for respondents . . . . . . .
Summary of general information data . . .

Chi-squares for females who dropped out of
VSC and males who did not on questions of
perceptions toward counseling . . . . . .

Chi-squares for females who did not drop
out of VSC and males who dropped out on
questions of perceptions toward counseling

Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who dropped out
of VSC and students with grade point
averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not
drop out, on questions of perceptions
toward counseling . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not drop
out of VSC and students with grade point
averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who dropped out,
on questions of perceptions toward coun-
seling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chi-squares for students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who
dropped out of VSC and students with
estimated family incomes of $5,001 and
above who did not drop out on questions
of perceptions toward counseling . . . . .

Chi-squares for students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who
did not drop out of VSC and students with
estimated family incomes of $5,001 and
above who drOpped out on questions of
perceptions toward counseling . . . . . .

vi

Page
53

54

54

55

56

57

58

S9

Table Page

9. Chi-squares for undergraduate students
who dropped out of VSC and graduate
students who did not drop out on ques-
tions of perceptions toward counseling . . . . 60

10. Chi-squares for undergraduate students
who did not drop out of VSC and graduate
students who dropped out on questions of

perceptions toward counseling . . . . . . . . 61
ll. Chi-squares for females who dropped out

of VSC and males who did not on questions

of perceptions of personal adjustment . . . . 63
12. Chi-squares for females who did not drop

out of VSC and males who dropped out on
questions of perceptions of personal
adjustment 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 6 3

13. Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who dropped out
of VSC and students with grade point
averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not
drop out, on questions of perceptions of
personal adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

14. Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not
drop out of VSC and students with grade
point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who dropped
out, on questions of perceptions of personal
adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

15. Chi-squares for students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who
dropped out of VSC and students with
estimated family incomes of $5,001 and
above, who did not drop out of VSC on
questions of perceptions of personal
adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

16. Chi-squares for students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who
did not drop out of VSC and students with
estimated family incomes of $5,001 and
above, who dropped out, on questions of
perceptions of personal adjustment . . . . . . 67

vii

Table Page

17. Chi-squares for undergraduate students
who drOpped out of VSC and graduate
students who did not on questions of
perceptions of personal adjustment . . . . . . 68

18. Chi-squares for undergraduate students
who did not drop out of VSC and graduate
students who drOpped out on questions of
perceptions of personal adjustment . . . . . . 69

19. Chi-squares for females who used the
counseling center and males who did not
on questions of perceptions toward
counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

20. Chi-squares for females who did not
use the counseling center and males
who did on questions of perceptions
toward counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

21. Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who used the
counseling center and students with grade
point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did
not use the counseling center, on ques-
tions of perceptions toward counseling . . . . 72

22. Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not use
the counseling center and students with
grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00,
who did use the counseling center, on
questions of perceptions toward counseling . . 73

23. Chi-squares for students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who
used the counseling center and students
with estimated family incomes of $5,001
and above, who did not use the counseling
center, on questions of perceptions toward
counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

24. Chi-squares for students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who
did not use the counseling center and
students with estimated family incomes of
$5,001 and above, who did use the coun-
seling center, on questions of perceptions
toward counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

viii

Table Page

25. Chi-squares for undergraduate students
who used the counseling center and graduate
students who did not use the counseling
center, on questions of perceptions toward
counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

26. Chi-squares for undergraduate students
who did not use the counseling center and
graduate students who did on questions of
perceptions toward counseling . . . . . . . . 76

27. Chi-squares for females who used the
counseling center and males who did not
use the counseling center, on questions
of perceptions of personal adjustment . . . . 77

28. Chi-squares for females who did not use
the counseling center and males who did
use the counseling center, on questions
of perceptions of personal adjustment . . . . 78

29. Chi-squares for students with grade point
. averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who used the
counseling center and students with grade
point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did
not use the counseling center, on ques-
tions of perceptions of personal adjustment . 79

30. Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not use
the counseling center and students with
grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who
did use the counseling center, on questions
of perceptions of personal adjustment . . . . 80

31. Chi-squares for students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who
used the counseling center and students
with estimated family incomes of $5,001
and above, who did not use the counseling
center, on questions of personal adjustment . 81

32. Chi-squares for students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who
did not use the counseling center and
students with estimated family incomes
of $5,001 and above, who used the coun-
. seling center, on questions of perceptions
of personal adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

ix

Table

33.

34.

Page

Chi-squares for undergraduate students

who used the counseling center and

graduate students who did not use the

counseling center on questions of per-

ceptions of personal adjustment . . . . . . . . 82

Chi-squares for undergraduate students

who did not use the counseling center

and graduate students who did use the

counseling center, on questions of per-

ceptions of personal adjustment . . . . . . . . 83

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED

Introduction

 

The formulation of an individual's uniqueness is
accomplished through a variety of roles and contacts. When
contacts and the assumption of roles are made, there is
often influencing variables which will determine the views
of individuals toward a particular event or set of cir-
cumstances. Moustakos1 has suggested fourteen concepts
that supports this assumption:

1. The individual knows himself better than
anyone else.

2. Only the individual himself can develop his
potentialities.

3. The individual's perception of his own feelings,
attitudes, and ideas is more valid than any outside
diagnosis can be.

4. Behavior can best be understood from the
individual's own point of View.

5. The individual responds in such ways as to be
consistent with himself.

6. The individual's perception of himself deter-
mines how he will behave.

 

1Clark E. Moustakos, "True Experience and Self,"
Clark E. Moustakos (ed.), The Self (New York: Harper and.
ROW, InCQ ' 1956) ’ pp. 9-110

7. Objects have no meaning in themselves. Indivi-
duals give meanings and reality to them. These
meanings reflect the individual's background.

8. Every individual is logical in the context of
his own personal experience. His point of view
may seem illogical to others when he is not under-
stood.

9. As long as the individual accepts himself,

he will continue to grow and develop his poten-
tialities. When he does not accept himself, much
of his energies will be used to defend rather than
explore and to actualize himself.

10. Every individual wants to grow toward self-
fulfillment. These growth strivings are present
at all times.

11. An individual learns significantly only those
things which are involved in the maintenance of
self. No one can force the individual to permanent
or creative learning. He will learn only if he
will to. Any other type of learning is temporary
and inconsistent with the self and will disappear
as soon as threat is removed.

12. Concepts, ideas, symbols, and events can be
denied or distorted, but experience is experienced
in the unique reality of the individual person and
cannot be untrue to itself. If it threatens the
maintenance or enhancement of self, the experience
will be of little relevance or consequence to the
individual though it may temporarily stifle further
growth.

13. We cannot teach another person directly, and
we cannot facilitate real learning in the sense

of making it easier. we can make learning for
another person possible by providing information,
the setting, atmosphere, materials, resources,

and by being there. The learning process itself

is a unique individualistic experience. It may

be a difficult experience for the individual
person even if it has significance for the enhance-
ment of self.

14. Under threat the self is less open to spon-
taneous expression; that is, is more passive and
controlled. When free from threat, the self is
more open, that is, free to be and to strive for
actualization.

Within the collegiate environment, roles and contacts
are informal and formal; however, the same influencing
variables are present within each informal and formal role
or contact.

The history of counseling in higher education is
full of areas of evaluation of roles and contacts as such
pertain to the individual and his role as a client within
counseling. Consequently, little room has been left for
the student to evaluate the role of the counseling agency.

Because of the investigator's concern for and
interest in counseling and in the students' perception of
the counseling agency, this study of counseling as per-
ceived by Virginia State College counseled and non-
counseled students will, hopefully, have some impact on
the counseling office at Virginia State College so that

the office might more adequately serve all students.

Statement of the Problem

 

Student Personnel Services at Virginia State
College (VSC) consists of six sub-divisions: placement,
student services, financial aids, housing, residence life,
and counseling. (Appendix A) Within the six sub-divisions,
it was speculated by the investigator that the first five
could possibly be evaluated for effectiveness by using
profit, loss, number of activities or events, times of

operation or dates of scheduling. The sixth sub-division,

the VSC Counseling Center, was considered to be more
difficult to evaluate for effectiveness.
The goals of the counseling center are as follows:

1. Assisting students in the development of self-
understanding, self-acceptance, and self-direction
in order that maximum personal social, and
educational growth may be attained.

2. Providing information to students that will
lead to improvement in skills needed to succeed
in college, and to overcome anxieties which inter-
fere with academic achievement and personal
development.

3. Assisting students in establishing occupational
goals in the light of their interest and abilities,
and helping them to make wise decisions based on
these conditions.

4. Assisting students in gaining perspective of
their roles as students, citizens, and members of
the community.
5. Creating and maintaining constant and open
communications with members of the faculty,
administrative offices, other branches of the
student personnel area, and community resources
so that the needs of students may be met with
greater efficiency and effectiveness.
The above goals appeared to be vague and expressed
generally, therefore the goal statements did not appear
to lend themselves to evaluation. Krumboltz3 has suggested
that goal statements such as these lack percision and are

incapable of being measured. He has suggested further

 

2Counseling Center Handbook, 1972-73, p. 2.

3John D. Krumboltz, "Parable of the Good Counselor,"
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 43:118-124, October 1964.

that goals should be used that are measureable.4 His-
torically most counseling goals have been expressed in

vague terminology and abstractions rather than in behavioral
descriptions that may be measured.5 Consequently, because

of the vague terminology and abstractions within the above
goal statements, assessment of the effectiveness of counseling
at VSC was needed by the use of techniques that would lend

themselves to measurement.

Purpose of the Study

It was the purpose of this study to (l) assess
the effectiveness of counseling at VSC by determining
any significant difference that may be present on selected
variables as such related to the perceptions of counseled
and non-counseled students who did and did not drop out
of VSC; (2) assess the effectiveness of counseling at
VSC by determining counseled and non-counseled VSC students'
perceptions of counseling and of personal adjustment;
(3) to show the significance, if any, between drop outs
and non-drop outs, counseled and non-counseled students

and such factors as sex, grade point average (G.P.A.),

 

4Ibid.; John D. Krumboltz, "Behavioral Goals of
Counseling," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13:153-159,
Summer 1966.

5Edward S. Shoben, Jr., "The Counseling Experience
as Personal Development," Personnel and Guidance Journal,
44:224-230, November 1965; Leona E. Tyler, TheyWork of the
Counselor (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1961),
p. 12; Gayle C. Reaves and Leonard E. Reaves, III, "The
Counselor and Preventive Psychiatry," Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 43:663, March 1965.

 

 

 

estimated family income, and classification; and (4) to
present students' perceptions with regard to counseling
and personal adjustment, as revealed through a questionnaire

study.

Definitions of Terms Used

Perception: In the review of the literature,

 

one definition of perception was not agreed upon by the
researchers.6 In order to understand the definition for
this study, several definitions had to be surveyed.

Bruner'7 defined perceptions as, ". . . a highly specialized
state of readiness to respond selectively to classes of
events in the environment."

Fieandt8 has suggested that "a perception is an
experienced sensation, i.e., a phenomenal impression
functionally from certain inputs."

Dember9 has suggested that perception may be a
mechanism that may be responsive to change and to the

opposite of change, i.e., constancy.

 

6Kai von Fieandt, The World of Perception (Illinois:
The Dorcey Press, 1966), p. 4.

7Jerome S. Bruner, "Personality Dynamics and the
Process of Perceiving," Robert R. Blake and Glenn V.
Ramsey (eds.), Pgrceptign: An Approach to Personality
(New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1951I, p. 124.

8Fieandt, loc. cit.

9William N. Dember, The Psychology of Perception

(New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965), p. 16.

 

10

LeShan suggested that perception is the relation-

ship of the individual and his goals in time, and Michotte11
insists that perception is:

. . . one phase of the total process of action,

and its biological role is to initiate and direct

the behavior of men and animals. It not only pro-

vides material for their contemplation, but in-

vites them to action, and allows them to adjust

this action to the world in which they live.

Johnson12 has suggested that "perception is a
specific background or frame of reference." He suggests
further that perception has several metaphors: "I see,"
"I understand," and "I agree." Additionally, he adds,
perception can mean "obtaining knowledge through the
senses."

Since the existence and use of a word such as
perception should carry with it the implication of its
meaning, reference to the word perception within this
study was interpreted as meaning the relationship of the
individual to a previous stimulus as reported by the

individual under a predefined condition. By definition,

"the relationship of the individual to a previous stimulus"

 

0Lawrence L. LeShan, "Time Orientation and Social
Class," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47:589,
1952.

 

11A. Michotte, The Perception of Causality (New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968), p. 3.

12Donald M. Johnson, The Psychology of Thought I
and Judgment (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955),
pp. 102-1090

 

 

is used to cover the stimulus or input of that stimulus;
"as reported by the individual" is used to cover response
or output as it was related to the previous stimulus;

and "under a predefined condition" is used to cover the
stimulus used in ascertaining the emitted behavior of the
individual as it was related to the stimulus received as
a result of the previous stimulus.

Personal adjustment: For the purposes of this

 

study it will mean how the individual perceives himself
relative to his own feelings, attitudes, ideas, values,
and beliefs. Since the interpretation of how much an
individual adjusts personally is within him and known

to no other13

the subjects were given the benefit of
any doubt and were assumed to be honest in judging their

personal adjustment.

Research Hypotheses

 

Hypothesis I: The perceptions of students who
did and did not drop out of Virginia State
College toward counseling will not differ sig-
nificantly on the basis of sex.

 

Hypothesis II: The perceptions of students who
did and did not drop out of Virginia State College
toward counseling will not differ significantly
on the basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).

 

 

13Moustakos, loc. cit.; Milton E. Hahn and Malcom
S. MacLean, Copnseling Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1955), p. 27; Bill F. Payne and
Charletta J. Dunn, "An Analysis of the Change In Self—
Concept," Journal of Negro Education, XLI:158, Winter 1972.

 

Hypothesis III: The perceptions of students who
did and did not drop out of Virginia State College
toward counseling will not differ significantly

on the basis of estimated family income.

Hypothesis IV: The perceptions of students who
did and did not drop out of Virginia State College
toward counseling will not differ significantly

on the basis of classification.

H othesis V: The perceptions of students who

dig and d1d not drop out of Virginia State College
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of sex.

Hypothesis VI: The perceptions of students who
did and did not drop out of Virginia State College
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).

 

Hypothesis VII: The perceptions of students who
did and did not drop out of Virginia State College
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of estimated family income.

Hypothesis VIII: The perceptions of students who
did and did not drop out of Virginia State College
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of classification.

Hypothesis IX: The perceptions of students who
used and did not use the Virginia State College
Counseling Center toward counseling will not
differ significantly on the basis of sex.

Hypothesis X: The perceptions of students who
used and did not use the Virginia State College
Counseling Center toward counseling will not
differ significantly on the basis of grade point
average (G.P.A.).

Hypothesis XI: The perceptions of students who
used and did not use the Virginia State College
Counseling Center toward counseling will not
differ significantly on the basis of estimated
family income.

 

Hypothesis XII: The perceptions of students who
used and did not use the Virginia State College
Counseling Center toward counseling will not
differ significantly on the basis of classifica-
tion.

 

10

Hypothesis XIII: The perceptions of students who
used and did not use the Virginia State College
Counseling Center toward personal adjustment will
not differ significantly on the basis of sex.

 

Hypothesis XIV: The perceptions of students who
used and did not use the Virginia State College
Counseling Center toward personal adjustment will
not differ significantly on the basis of grade
point average (G.P.A.).

Hypothesis XV: The perceptions of students who
used and did not use the Virginia State College
Counseling Center toward personal adjustment will
not differ Significantly on the basis of estimated
family income.

 

Hypothesis XVI: The perceptions of students who
used and did not use the Virginia State College
Counseling Center toward personal adjustment
will not differ significantly on the basis of
classification.

 

Limitations of the Study
The study is limited by the factors inherent in
the use of any questionnaire. These include the difficulties
in validating, tabulating, securing maximum return, and

choosing adequate population for utilization.

Delimitations of the Study
The primary delimitation of this study is that it
is concerned only with the perceptions of students at
Virginia State College toward counseling and personal

adjustment.

Organization of the Study
For the purpose of convenience and systematic

consideration, this study is reported in five chapters.

11

Chapter I presents an introduction to the study, the
statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, a
definition of terms used, research hypotheses, the
limitations and delimitations of the study. Chapter II
presents a review of literature on perception, counseled
and non-counseled students. Chapter III will be a detailed
report of the historical beginnings of the study, location,
population, instrumentation, procedures for administering
the questionnaire, and procedures used in analyzing the
data. Chapter IV will be a reporting of the findings. A
summary of the findings along with the conclusions and
implications for further study will be presented in

Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

The study of perception is a science that has been
considered as part of the field of psychology, i.e.,
perceptual psychology.l4 Most of the research and specu-
lations about perception have dealt with vision, auditory,
and tactual perception.15 Although much has been written
in regard to these forms of perceptions, only a summary
of the work done on problems very closely related to the
one at hand will be given.

The investigator has chosen, for organizational
reasons, to divide this chapter into two sections. The
first section will present a review of studies forming
approaches to perception. The second section will present
a review of studies which have attempted to concentrate
on counseled and non-counseled students and such areas

as sex, G.P.A., socio-economic status and others.

 

l4Fieandt, op. cit., p. 3.

15Norman L. Munn, The Evolution and Growth of
Human Behavior (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965),
p. 281.

 

12

13

Literature on Perception
Dember16 has suggested that a perceptual system

is one which relates output to input, and that the study
of perception is the study of such a system as it occurs
in human organisms. He has suggested further that the
input,funbtion is the stimulation received from any stimuli,
and the output function is the emitted behavior of the
organism as a result of the stimuli.17 He states:

Living organisms emit behavior: they have

output. The output of organisms is dependent

on the energy impinging on them - the input.18
He further adds:

Theories of perception would ideally consist

of a set of concepts, variables, and the

relationship among them. The concepts would

be further related both to obserable stimulus

conditions and to observable behavior patterns.

By means of this relation to observables, the

theories would be potentially open to empirical

test.19

Dember suggests that in the empirical testing of

an event, the detection of the stimulus may require only
that the subject indicate that some predefined event has
occured.20 In this regard, he tells us, the subject need

give no other information about the event, and therefore,

the subject needs no additional information from the stimulus

 

16Dember, op. cit., pp. 3-4.
17Ibid. 18Ibid., p. 6.
lgIbid. 20lbid., p. 16.

14

other than what is enough to establish its existence.21

He states further that for a subject to make a response

to a stimulus, the subject must have some standards

against which to compare his perceptual experience.22

The standards that may be used as comparisons have been
suggested by Shertzer and Stone.23 They have suggested,

as an example, that perceptions of the counseling function
by clients may be influenced by internal determining factors
such as attitudes, needs, values, training, and life
experiences of the clients. However, Pearlman24 warns
that perception, when compared with these standards, may
be distorted by the individual due to anxiety or ignorance,
or through lack of exposure to various experiences.

Fieandt has suggested that the individual's
perceived environment is of the physical world, and that
everybody, in some way, creates a perceptual world of his
own built upon percepts.25 Furthermore, Fieandt suggests,
the physical picture of the world may be created as a

result of variant experiences which force themselves upon

 

ZlIbid. 221bid., p. 33.

23Bruce Shertzer and Shelley C. Stone, Fundamentals
of Counseling (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968),
p. 182.

 

 

24S. Pearlman, "The College Student Views His Mental
Health Experience," Journal of American College Association,
14: 277- -283, 1966.

25

 

Fieandt, op. cit., p. 5.

15

the individual and may influence his behavior, as well
as his description of mental experiences.26
Another description of the way in which an indivi-

dual perceives the physical world, based on experiences,

is that of Peak.27 She states:

Perception depends on the activation of psycho-
logical structure by patterns of stimuli which
initiate events leading to the identification and
classification of the stimuli. The perception of
complex stimuli will as a rule involve a series
of acts depending in some measure on preceding
acts.

Blakez8 has suggested the following about per-

ception:

An individual's perceptual activity must be
fabricated from his current organization of
personally meaningful and significant ex-
periences. The individual's unique organi-
zation of beliefs are derived from the
techniques of knowing, which are adopted
from the past for use in achieving a stable,
definite and predictable present.

Bruner29 has suggested that the individual's con-

cept of perceiving involves a three-step cycle:

 

261bid.

27Helen Peak, "Psychological Structure and Person
Perception," Renato Tagiuri and Luigi Petrullo (eds.),
Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior (California:
Stanford University Press, 19585, p. 340.

28Robert R. Blake, Perception: An Approach to
Personality (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1951),
p. 7.

29Jerome S. Bruner, "Personality Dynamics and the
Process of Perceiving," Robert R. Blake and Glenn V. Ramsey
(eds.), Perception: An Approach to Personality (New York:
The Ronald Press Company, 1951).

16

1. The individual begins with an expectancy;

2. the individual's perceiving process is the
input of information from the environment;
and

3. input information is confirmation or infir-
mation of the expectancy.

Bruner indicates further that the cycle of ex-
pectancy to confirmation or infirmation may be dependent
on relevant information.30 Relevant information has
reference to the stimulus input which could be used by.
the individual for confirming or infirming an expectancy
about the environment.31 Therefore, the extent to which
the individual's experiential knowledge may be used in
determining utilization of information, or output, may
determine to which extent confirmation or infirmation of
expectancy may be perceived.

Rogers32 has suggested that in the client-counselor
relationship the client may attempt to reorganize himself
at both the conscious and deeper levels of his personality
due to his experience. The client may, Rogers tells us,
change the perception of himself by becoming more realistic

in his view of himself in order to c0pe with life more

constructively. As such, this reorganization will help

 

3OIbid.

31Ibid., p. 131.

32Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person (Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 231.

 

17

the client control that part of the environment that is

33

perceived by him, and the client's perception of himself

may move through a process of interaction with himself

34

and his physical environment. This form of perception

is described as "a process of continuous interaction."35

36

Allport has suggested six postulates that

favor the concept of experiences influencing perception,
as well as the concept of continuous interaction:

1. The needs of the organism seem to affect its
perception.

2. Perception is affected by rewards and punish-
ment.

3. The recognition of objects (by the organism)
depends on their subjective value.

4. The apparent or phenomenal size of objects
depends on the impression of their value.

5. The directedness, omissions, and the com-
pletions of an individual's perception
depend on his personality.

6. The resulting effects of an individual's
unconscious dynamism will determine what he
perceives or fails to perceive.

 

33Fritz Heider, "Consciousness, The Perceptual
World, and Communications with Others," Renato Tagiuri
and Luigi Petrullo (eds.), Person Perception and Intgpf
ersonal Behavior (California) Stanford University Press,
I958), p. 30.

34George F. J. Lehner and Ella Kube, The D namics
of Personal Adjustment (New Jersey: Prentice-HaII, Inc.,
1964), p. 4.

35

 

 

 

Ibido ' pp. 4-50

36Floyd H. Allport, Theories of Perception and
Qopcept of Structure (New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 196i), p. 3.

18

37 38

Agreeing with Shertzer and Stone, Restle'
indicates also that it may be a psychological fact that

an individual's perception may be so influenced by certain
stimuli eminating from his experiential condition, that

he may respond only in accord with his internal determing
factors of need, attitude, ideas, and so on.

In order to determine subjects' perception of
their goals in time based on economic conditions, LeShan39
asked 117 subjects to respond to the stimulus, "tell me
a story." Seventy-four (74) subjects were recorded as
being in the lower economic class and the remaining 43
were in the upper class. He hypothesized that lower
class individuals would desire immediate gratification
and upper class individuals would delay gratification
for longer periods of time in order for their future
generations to benefit. There was a significant time
differential between stories of lower class subjects as
compared with upper class subjects. In addition, stories
told by lower class subjects were of a wider magnitude

than upper class subjects which suggested that perception

by an individual may be influenced by economic condition;

 

37Shertzer and Stone, loc. cit.

38Frank Restle, Psychology of Judgment and Choice:
A Theoretical Essay (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1961), p. 3.

39

 

 

LeShan, loc. cit.

19

thereby, a certain stimulus in a certain situation may
have an effect on what he perceives or fails to per-
ceive.

Postman, ep_gl.,40 and Vanderplas41 report that
a positive relationship may exist between an individual's
perception of his personal values and the ease with which
he may recognize words relating to his personal values.
Furthermore, McClelland and Liberman42 have suggested
that an individual whose experiential condition may not
require a high degree of need achievement may perceive
negative achievement-related words less quickly than
those who are high in this need.

Using the Counseling Appropriateness Checklist,
Resnick and Gelso43 examined six campus groups in order
to determine how the groups perceived the appropriateness
for counselors working with problems of "college routine,"

"vocational choice," and "adjustment to self and other."

One of the six groups were students whose perceptions

 

40Leo Postman, Jerome S. Bruner, and E. McGinnis,

"Personal Values as Selective Factors in Perception,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43:142-154, 1948.

41James M. Vanderplas and Robert R. Blake, "Selective
Sensitization in Auditory Perception," Journal of Personality,
18:252-266, 1949.

420. c. McClelland and A. M. Liberman, "The Effect of
Need Achievement on Recognition of Need-Related Words,"
Journal of Personalipy, 18:236-251, 1949.

 

 

3Harvey Resnick and Charles J. Gelso, "Differential
Perceptions of Counseling Role: A Reexamination," Journal
of Counseling Psychology 18:549-553, 1971.

20

were obtained prior to counseling and immediately after
counseling. The study revealed that students perceived
vocational choice and college routine as appropriate for
discussion with counselors, but adjustment to self and
others was not considered an appropriate topic for con-
sideration with a counselor.

Begley and Lieberman44 have indicated the clients
expect to adjust to self and others by changing feelings
about different situations and people. Therefore, a
reason that the above sample of students would not per-
ceive adjustment to self and others as appropriate for
discussion with a counselor may well be what Lindgren45
has described a perceptual regidity. He has defined
perceptual regidity as:

. . . a psychological mechanism whereby
attitudes deve10ped in one situation are
transferred virtually without change to
another situation that appears similar.
In other words, Lindgren suggests:

. . . through our experiences in childhood
we learn methods (acquired 'habits') of
meeting and dealing with situations in

rather consistent ways and these patterns
persist in later life.4

 

44Carl E. Begley and Lewis R. Lieberman, "Patient
Expectations of Therapists' Techniques," Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 26:112-116, 1970.

45Henry G. Lindgren, Psychology of Personal Adjust-
ment and Social Adjustment (New York: American Book Company,
1959): Pp. 81-82.

46

 

 

47

Ibid., p. 393. Ibid., p. 84.

21

These patterns of behavior and awareness of per-
sonal response give rise to anxiety due to the perception
that may be held about a situation of a similar nature
in the individual's previous exPerienced condition.48
Therefore, the stimulus may have been different, as in

49

the study by Resnick and Gelso, but the response was

the same, which distorted the perception of the situation,
as suggested earlier by Pearlman.50
Using the Willoughby-Emothional Maturity Scale

(E-M Scale), Rogers51

attempted to examine clients at
the University of Chicago's Counseling Center in order
to determine clients' perception of personal adjustment
after receiving therapy. The E-M Scale was completed
by the client himself, the therapist, and two friends
designated by the client as persons who knew him well.
The research suggested that significant changes in the
client's behavior as perceived by the client, therapist,
and the friends of the client.

The individual who has received therapy and

perceives himself as being changed as a result of this

 

48£§£§3 49Resnick and Gelso, loc. cit.

50Pearlman, loc. cit.

51Carl R. Rogers, "The Concept of the Fully Function-
ing Person," Psycho-therapy: Theory, Research and Practice,
1:23, August 1963, and in "Changes in the Maturity of
Behavior as Related to Therapy," Carl R. Rogers and R. F.
Dymond (eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1954).

22

therapy is called the "adjusted" individual. Hahn and
MacLean have suggested the following about the adjusted
individual:

Thus the well-integrated, 'adjusted' individual

is assumed to understand himself and to have a
clear and realistic ego image. He is objective
rational about his personal assets and liabilities.
But he also, by means of continuous interaction,
sees himself in appropriate perspective relative
to his social and physical environment . . ..

They further add:

This integration extends his perception from his
private world to the social and physical world
around him. Although he recongnizes himself as

a unique being, he grants that his likenesses to
others are greater than his behavioral differences.
Vocationally, educationally, aesthetically, and in
other areas of human activity he 'accepts the
universe' as it comes and manipulates it when
possible to meet his needs and desires. In other
words, he knows himself and his world well enough
to operate in self-satisfying manner which is

also socially acceptable. 2

Atkinson and Shiffrin53 have suggested a system
for perception and memory, and have indicated that per-
ception and memory have much in common. In their descrip-
tion of the memory system, Atkinson and Shiffrin have
suggested that the "stimulus input" activates a "sensory
register" which feeds into the "short term memory bank"
or into the "long term memory bank" for purposes of

identification of the stimulus input. Once identified,

 

52Hahn and MacLean, loc. cit.

53Richard G. Atkinson and R. M. Shiffrin, "Human
Memory: A Proposed System and Its Control Processes," The“
Psychology of Learning and Motivation (New York: Academia
Press, 1968).

23

the "response generator" is activated for the "response
output" which reacts to the stimulus input.54
An example of the process of stimulus input and
response output is a study by T031 and Carlson.55 The
researchers used 40 males and 29 females who sought educa-
tional counseling at Kent State University's Guidance
Laboratory in order to investigate the students' perception
of counseling received. All clients were administered
the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale as part of an intake procedure
prior to counseling in order to classify them as being
either high, medium or low dogmatic students. After the
counseling, the clients were administered the Barrett-
Lennard Relationship Inventory in order to indicate their
perceptions of the counseling received. The relationship
between client dogmatism and client rating of counseling
received were then measured by the use of Pearson Product-
Moment Correlations. The attained r's were then tested
for significance using a one-tailed test. The results
of the investigation suggested that clients high in

dogmatism may have more difficulty than the medium and

low dogmatic students in perceiving the type of counseling

 

54Ibid.

55Donald J. T051 and William A. Carlson, "Client
Dogmatism and Perceived Counselor Attributes," Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 48:657-660, April 1970.

24

received such pertains to counselor's empathy, positive

regard, level of regard and congruence..56

Basically, the stimulus input and response output
may be best understood in terms of a single motor neuron
and the muscle fibers which it supplies. Each nerve
fiber from the branching of a neuron may innervate hundreds
of muscle fibers.57 When a stimulus travels along a
motor neuron, and reaches a muscle fiber, there may be a
minute latent period, which is followed by a period of

contraction, which in turn is followed by a brief period

58

of relaxation. Variations in the degree of contraction

may be dependent on the frequency of the stimulus impulse.

Wells59 states:

The motor neuron functions only in response
to a stimulus. The stimulus may stem from
volition (i.e., from the cerebrum), from the
cerebellum and brain stem, or it may come as
a simple reflex, irritated by pressure, pain,
irritation and so on.

The stimulus input and response output may be
understood also by what Weitz6o has suggested:

. . . the stimulus functions may be considered
as the way in which an object or event acts
upon an individual, or it may be viewed as

the essential meaning attributed to the object
or event by the individual.

 

SGIbid.

57Katherine F. Wells, Kinesiology (Philadelphia:
W. B. Saunders Company, 1964), p. 38.

58 59

 

Ibid. Ibid., p. 39.

60Henry Weitz, Behavior Change through Guidance
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964): p. 19:

 

25

Norman,61 as Atkinson and Shiffrin,62 insists
that perception and memory have much in common. Norman
has suggested a system for perception, naming and memory.
The system is based on the receipt of "input" which
activates a "sensory information storehouse." From
this activation, "feature extractions" are received which
are channeled into "perceptual passageways" in order to
activate the naming area or "naming process" by the use
of the "sensory memory dictionary" or the "memory vectors,"
which are the "long term memory processes." Once the
memory has been utilized in order to name the input, the
"decision process" is then utilized in order to respond
idirectly to the input. It is with this in mind that
Norman concludes:

The conclusion one reaches from the study of
perception, of memory, of problem solving, and
of thinking is that they all have much in common
with one another and, indeed, may not even be
separable. There is more to the processing of
informag§on than simple analysis by the nervous
system.

Much of the concern of the above theories of

perception is related to the concepts of input-output,

stimulus input-response output, and perception of the

 

61Donald A. Norman, "Human Information Processing,
Viewpoints, 47:48-66, 1971.

62

 

Atkinson and Shiffrin, loc. cit.

63Norman, loc. cit.

26

self, as such occurs in human organisms: these items

were relevant to this study. The stimulus condition of
counseling and the response to that condition were the
important consideration to the investigator in the attempt
to ascertain the perceptions of counseling and of personal
adjustment by the use of counseled and non-counseled VSC
students.

Literature on Counseled and
Non-Counseled Students

64

 

 

Elliott, ep_gl, examined the relationship
between counseling and academic achievement. The researchers
used 347 freshmen subjects who had enrolled at the Mont
Alto campus of Pennsylvania State University. Three
variables were employed in the study: the Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT) total score, first term grade point
average, and whether the student had been counseled or
not counseled. The primary question considered within
the study was whether there would be differences between
the counseled and non-counseled students. Data revealed
that scores on the SAT and first term grade point average
were significantly higher for counseled rather than non-

counseled students.65

 

64Earl S. Elliott, Carl A. Lindsay, and Vernon L.
Shockley, "Counseling Status and Academic Achievement of
College Freshmen," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 47:364-
368, 1968.

65

 

Ibid.

27

66 used a population of 2,891~

Rossman and Kirk
incoming freshmen students at the University of California,
Berkley campus. The students were asked to complete the
School and College Abilities Test, Form 1A (SCAT), a
student questionnaire, and the Omnibus Personality Inven-
tory, Form F (OPI). Instead of examining of examining
counseled and non-counseled students at the end of the
freshman year, the researchers used a basis of two year,
or sophomore year. Scholastic aptitude comparison of
the 539 students who had sought counseling and those who
had not revealed a significantly higher score on the
quanlitative section of the SCAT for counseled students,
whereas no significant difference was found on the verbal
section between counseled and non-counseled students.
Comparisons on the OPI indicated significant differences
between the two groups at the .05 level of confidence.
Furthermore, counseled students were more likely to come
from families with income levels of $15,000 or less than

non-counseled students with income levels greater than

$15,000.

 

66Jack E. Rossman and Barbara Kirk, "Comparisons
of Counseling Seekers and Nonseekers," Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 17:184-188, 1970.

67Ibid.

28

’ Gilbreath68 examined male underachievers who had
responded to a mailed invitation to participate in group
counseling in order to improve academic skills. He
randomly selected 30 of the respondents and 30 of the
nonrespondents and compared them on grade point average.
A11 randomly selected subjects were either freshmen or
sophomore underachievers who had scored on the 50th per-
centile or higher on an aptitude entrance test but whoSe
grade point average was below 2.00 on a 4.00 scale. The
randomly selected respondents had been initially lower
on grade point average during the fall term than the
randomly selected nonrespondents. The results showed
a marked increase in grade point average of the randomly
selected respondents as compared with the randomly selected

nonrespondents over the course of the winter and spring

 

 

terms:
Respondents Nonrespondents
.l.429 1.493 --—Fa11 (start)
1.710 1.494 ---Winter
1.948 1.589 ---Spring (finish)

This study suggested that male underachievers who respond

voluntarily to offers of counseling may be more successful

 

68Stuart Gilbreath, "Comparison of Responsive
and Nonresponsive Underachievers to Counseling Service
Aid," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18:81-84, 1971.

29

academically than male underachievers who are not willing
to participate in counseling on a voluntary basis.69

King and Matteson7O studied 300 out of 800 students
who had responded to a mailed questionnaire in order to
determine if there would be a difference between students'
perception of the appropriateness of taking educational
problems to the counseling center. The respondents were
divided into two groups: students who had participated
in the summer counseling clinics and those who had not.
The instrument used for this study was composed of 40
items that ranged from scores of 0 to 5, utilizing the
Likert method of scoring. The resaults revealed that
the students who had participated in the summer counseling
clinics had a range average of 3.54 as compared to 3.05
for nonparticipants. These results suggest that students
who participate in summer counseling clinics feel that
the counseling center is the appropriate place to take
educational problems moreso than students who do not
attend the clinics.“

Examining 250 Wayne State University students

who had been to the counseling center at least three

 

69Ibid.

70Paul T. King and Ross W. Matteson, "Student
Perception of Counseling Center Services," Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 37:358-364, January 1959.

 

30

times during the academic year, Glazer71 forwarded an
open-ended questionnaire to each student in order to
examine their perception toward their counseling experience.
Seventy-two (72) responded to the questionnaire. Three-
fourths of the respondents were satisfied with the counseling
received and the remaining one-fourth did not find counseling
helpful.

Using the Order, Dominance, and Abasement sub-
scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS),
Minge and Bowman?2 administered the instrument to 41
vocational-educational clients, 30 personal counseling
clients, and 54 nonclients. The instrument was administered
in order to determine any significant difference that may
exist between the three groups. The researchers hypothe-
sized that many college students did not seek counseling
and it may be important to consider them so that counselors
may have a better understanding of students' reasons for
not attending or requesting counseling so that counseling
services can relate to all persons. Vocational-educational

clients scored significantly higher on the Order scale

 

71Stanford H. Glazer, "Client Evaluation of
Counseling Experiences," The Journal of College Student
Personnel, 10:115-117, March 1969.
72Ronald M. Minge and Thomas F. Bowman, "Per-
sonality Differences Among Nonclients and Vocational-
Educational and Personal Counseling Clients," Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 14:137-139, 1967.

 

 

 

31

than did personal counseling clients or nonclients. In
addition, vocational-educational clients and personal
counseling clients scored significantly higher than
nonclients on the Dominance and Abasement subscales.
The conclusions suggested by this study were that non-
clients may be more dominant, have more doubts about
their own self-worth, and may have less order to their

lives.73

The primary interest of Synder, ep_pl.,74 was
to determine why some students do not use the counseling
center. The researchers examined a sample of 181 par-
ticipants in an introductory psychology class. An instru-
ment of 70 items was developed by the researchers and
administered as part of a class assignment for the
students. The instrument was divided into five parts:
effectiveness of counseling; stigma about counseling;
information about counseling center; information about
counseling process; and counseling readiness. Of the
examined sample, 28% had been to the counseling center.
The 28% were in favor of the concept of counseling,

agreed that counseling was effective and tension releasing,

and felt that friends would approve if they sought

 

73Ibid.

74John F. Synder, Clara E. Hill, Timothy P.
Derksen, "Why Some Students Do Not Use University

Counseling Facilities," Journal of Counseling Psychology,'
19:263-268, 1972.

 

32

counseling help. For those students who had not attended
counseling, depression, personal concerns, change of
major, and the future were cited as problematic areas
that kept them from going to the counseling center.

Orlinsky, ep_§l.,75 have suggested that patients
are often concerned with areas of dependency, obligations,
anger, shame, guilt, loneliness, sex, expression of self,
’fears, identity, that they may not be obliged to seek
assistance in the resolution of one or many of these
areas.

Berdie and Stein76 examined a population of 3,937
students at the University of Minnesota who were freshmen.
The researchers attempted to determine if freshmen students
who had been counseled would differ significantly from
those freshmen students who had used only the reading and
study skills services of counseling but had not been
formally counseled. At the end of the freshman year,

'the results of this study suggested that students using‘
only the reading and study skills portion of counseling

achieved less academically than counseled students. Women

 

75David E. Orlinsky, Kenneth I. Howard, and James
A. Hill, "The Patients' Concerns in Psychotherapy,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25:104-111, 1970.

76Ralph F. Berdie and June Stein, "A Comparison
of New University Students Who Do and Do Not Seek Counseling,"
Journal of Counselinngsychology, 13:310-317, 1966.

 

 

33

who had been counseled had achieved significantly higher
grades than did non-counseled women, as well as achieving
higher scores on the Minnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test
and the American College Test. Differences were found
in the level of income between counseled and non-counseled
students. On the basis of ability and achievement between
counseled and non-counseled men, no difference was found.
Williamson and Bordin77 examined 768 students
at the University of Minnesota in order to determine the
effectiveness of counseling. Counseled students were
placed in the experimental group and numbered~384. The
control group consisted of 384 non-counseled students.
Each group was rated on an Adjustment Scale, which centered
around educational and vocational progress. The researchers
discovered that 68% of the control group and 81% of the
experimental group achieved satisfactory adjustment as
such related to progress in classes and vocational choices.
Counseled students rated significantly higher on the
Adjustment Scale and achieved significantly higher grades
than non-counseled students -- 2.18 to 1.97.
Heilbrun78 attempted to investigate the differences

in academic achievement between students who had been

 

77E. G. Williamson and E. S. Bordin, "Evaluating
Counseling by Means of a Control-Group Experiment," School
and Society, 52:434-440, November 1940.

78Alfred B. Heilbrun, "Male and Female Personality
Correlates of Early Termination in Counseling," Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 8:31-36, Spring 1961.

 

 

34

exposed to counseling but withdrew early and those students
who had continued. He concluded that students who had
withdrawn early from counseling achieved less academically
than those students who had continued.

Tseng and Thompson79 sought to determine if
differences would exist between high school age students
who had been counseled and those who had not in terms of
socioeconomic backgrounds, certain selected personality
variables and relations with parents. The researchers
hypothesized that students who had been counseled would be
of higher economic backgrounds; have higher scores on
occupational aspiration, self-esteem, achievement moti-
vation, perceived parental interest, and would show a
lower fear of failure; and choose occupations with higher
levels of responsibility and prestige. The total sample
size for this study was 245 students. Ninety-three (93)
of the 245 students had received counseling. The findings
(suggested that parents of the counseled group had signifi-
cantly higher educational levels and stronger parental
interest: McClelland's p/Achievement Thematic Apperception
Test scores showed higher motivation by counseledstudents;
counseled students had selected future occupations mor so.
than non-counseled students; and middle class students
utilized the counseling service more than lower class

students.

 

79Michael Tseng and Donald L. Thompson, "Differences
Between Adolescents Who Seek Counseling and Those Who Do Not,"
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 47:333-336, December 1968.

 

35

Linden, ep_al.,80 have suggested that client
ratings of counselors seldom have been investigated as
a source of criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of
counseling. Two researchers have attempted longitudinal
studies to partially offset this argument. ,Rotneyal
reports that after five years counseled students, as
compared with non-counseled students, had achieved higher
academic records in post-high school education; were more
realistic in evaluating their own strengths and weaknesses;
had made more progress in employment and salary; and
viewed counseling as a favorable experience.

The second researcher, Campbell,82 has reported
that over a 25-year period counseled students had achieved

more than non-counseled students: earned significantly

better grades, 2.20 to 2.06 on a 4.00 scale; graduated

 

80James D. Linden, Shelley C. Stone, Bruce Shertzer,
"Development and Evaluation of an Inventory for Rating
Counseling," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIV:267-276,
November 1965.

81John W. M. Rothney, Guidance Practices and Results
(New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958), pp. 479-480. Other
longitudinal studies appear in Peter F. Merenda and John W.
M. Rothney, "Evaluating the Effects of Counseling - Eight
Years After," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 5:163-168,
1958, and John W. M. Rothney, "Trained and Non-Trained
Males Ten Years After High School Graduation," Vocational
Guidance Quarterly, 14:247-250, Winter 1966.

82David P. Campbell, "Achievements of Counseled and
Non-Counseled Students Twenty-Five Years After Counseling,"
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 12:287-293, Fall 1965, and
in David P. Campbell, The Results of Counseling: Twenty-
Eive Years Later (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company,
1965).

 

 

36

from college in higher numbers, 59% to 48%; earned more
advanced degrees; and earned annually more money on the
average, $14,700 as compared with $13,500.

While Campbell and Rothney concentrated on longi-
tudinal outcomes of counseling effectiveness, the purpose
of O'Leary's83 study at the University of Illinois was to
investigate the possible influence of certain active
counselor behavior on counseling outcome. Her hypothesis
was that the activity level of the counselor was positively
related to academic improvement within the student. The
hypothesis of the study was supported.

Edgar84 has suggested that predicted outcomes of
counseling can be verified if operations are used that are
measureableiklgince most research in counseling can be
classified as either process research or outcome research,
this investigation concentrates on outcome. Therefore,
the major aim of this investigation is to ascertain the
current status of the VSC counseling service within some
frame of reference and on the basis of this knowledge to

improve its quality and efficacy.

 

83Susan G. O'Leary, "Counselor Activity as a
Predictor of Outcome," Personnel and Guidance Journal,
48:135-139, October 1969.

84Thomas E. Edgar, "Wishful Wish: Evaluation
Without Values," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44:
1025-1029, June 1966.

 

 

37

Limitation of Previous Studies
Form85 has suggested that "effectiveness of counseling
by its very nature depends upon a willingness of students
to use it." He states:
.Obviously the social and cultural backgrounds
of clients may condition their attitudes towards
counselors and the counseling process. This
background may generally set the course of the
. relationship between client and counselor. Speci-
.fica11y, the students‘ sex, socio-cultural back-
ground, economic level, social steriotypes, images,
and attitudes toward himself or the counselor may
be related to successful counseling.
It is within this context lies the limitation of
the previous studies -- cultural identity. Many of the
previous studies were conducted at predominantly white
institutions of higher education. This study is conducted
at Virginia State College, a predominantly Black institution

of higher education.

Summary

In this chapter, a brief summary of perception
theory was presented along with a review of relevant
studies. In addition, a review of studies on counseled
and non-counseled students were presented. It is apparent

that the use of clients as the criterion for evaluation

 

85Arnold L. Form, "Measurement of Student Attitudes
Toward Counseling Services," Personnel and Guidance Journal,
32:84, October 1953.

86

 

Ibid., p. 85.

38

of counseling is still in its early stages of utilization,
and much more must be done, particularly in terms of the
perceptions of counseled and non-counseled students.

In that regard, this study should be of some significance

in prOviding a model for future investigation.

CHAPTER III
THE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Beginnings of the Study

The idea for this study began with the reading of
an article by McMillin and Cerra.87 The article was
shared with the directors in Student Personnel Services
at VSC during the month of December 1972. Since members
of the counseling center staff were also serving as
. academic advisors to undeclared majors, the article was
shared with Dr. Valmore R. Goines, Vice President for
Academic Affairs, in January 1973. There was agreement
that Student Personnel Services should attempt a similar
study as to that of McMillin and Cerra. The conducting
of a similar study at VSC would be the first step in the
accumulation of information concerned with VSC students'
knowledge about the counseling center.

In February, 1973, one topic of discussion on the
agenda was the pursuit of the aforementioned study. Within

Student Personnel Services' meetings, the particular points

 

87Marvin R. McMillin and Patrick Cerra, "Student
Knowledge About a College Counseling Center," NASPA
Journal, 10:138-141, October 1972.

39

40

of interest were: who would undertake it?; would this

type of information suffice?; would more data be required?:
and what specific population of students would be utilized?
As a result of the discussions, a decision was made to
first send for the instrument that was used by McMillin
and Cerra to gather information for their article.
(Appendix B)

While a response was being waited upon, the
investigator conducted individual discussion with Mrs.
Vivian Williamson, Director of the VSC Counseling Center,
Dr. Valmore R. Goines, and Miss Marian Jones, Director
of Residence Life. The topic of discussion was the
student population to be utilized.

Mrs. Williamson suggested utilizing the students
who had used the counseling center during the first semester,
1972. Dr. Goines had an interest in 559 students who had
not returned to VSC for the second semester, 1973. Miss
Jones suggested utilizing students who had received
counseling within the residence hall but not from the
counseling center. The first decision that was made was
to utilize the student populations of Mrs. Williamson and
Dr. Goines; a second decision was made and will be presented
later.

The responses from Drs. McMillin and Dr. Cerra
(Appendix B) were received. The instrument they utilized
for the accumulation of data had not been tested for

internal consistency or reliability. The investigator

41

recognized that more information could be obtained from

the populations than originally contemplated and, therefore,
a more in-depth study was begun in order to gather more
information about VSC's counseling center, as well as for

dissertation material for the investigator.

Location

This study was conducted at Virginia State College
in Petersburg, Virginia, located approximately 25 miles
south of Richmond, Virginia, 120 miles south of Washington,
D.C., and 99 miles north of Rocky Mount, North Carolina.
Virginia State College is a predominantly Black institution
of higher learning (88% Black), with an estimated enrollment
of 3,700 students, and an established top enrollment of
4,500 students, as indicated by the State Council on
Higher Education located in Richmond, Virginia. The
institution was founded in 1882.

The counseling center considered within this study
is located on the campus of Virginia State College, in
the Foster Hall College Center. The counseling center
is staffed by a director, orientation counselor, religious
affairs counselor, veterans counselor, and two general

counselors, in addition to a receptionist-secretary.

Population

 

A universe pOpulation was utilized for this study.

The number of students in the population represented all

42

students who used the counseling center during the Fall
semester, 1972, all students who dropped out of VSC after
the Fall semester, 1972, and did not return for the second
semester, 1973. Since 19 students appeared on both lists,
another group of students comprising all students who used
the counseleing center during the Fall semester, 1972, but
did not return for the second semester, 1973, was utilized.

As the reader will recall, it was mentioned earlier
that a second decision was made later concerned with the
population of students. Upon review of the initial proposal
for this study, Dr. Robert L. Green, of Michigan State
University, recommended that a population be utilized that
would be composed of students who did not use the counseling
center and who did not drop out of VSC. ConSequently, such
a population of students was incorporated into this study.

Since a decision had to be made as to what segment
of the population to utilize within the area suggested by
Dr. Green, a decision was made by the investigator to
utilize two residence halls, male and female, because of
their similarity in population and proximity to the counseling
center. The total population of students was divided into
four groups:

GROUP I ------ Used counseling center, did not
drop out of VSC (total: 581)

GROUP II ------ Used counseling center, dropped
out of VSC (total: 19)

43

GROUP III ------ Did not use counseling center,
did not drop out of VSC (total:
132)

GROUP IV ------ Did not use counseling center,

dropped out of VSC (total: 540)

The population total is 1,272.

Instrumentation
The instrument requested from Dr. Patrick Cerra of

Indiana State University was found not appropriate for the
purposes of this study, it was desireable to utilize an
instrument that would apply to the population being studied.
In addition, a search of the literature did not locate an
instrument that would be appropriate for the purposes of
this study. Form88 has suggested the conditioning of
clients due to social and cultural backgrounds. Vontress89
has indicated the differences in conditioning based on
race:

The white and Black worlds never meet except

in a superficial way on the job, in school, and

sometimes on Brotherhood Sundays. Each group

develOpS its own values, attitudes, and approaches

to coming to grips with its environment. Although

whites and Blacks are part of the same umbrella

culture, they are uniquely different at the sub-
culture level.

 

88Form, loc. cit.

89Clemmont E. Vontress, "Racial Differences:
Impediments to Rapport," Journal of Counseling Psychology,
18:8, 1971.

 

44

Adams90 has suggested white counselor insecurity
when encountering a Black counselee, and the potential
hostility of the Black counselee when encountering the
white counselor, often brings with it a negative relation-
ship based on the counselor's and counselee's backgrounds.
Therefore, it appeared appropriate to develop an instrument
that would take into account the racial backgrounds and
language of the population that was being studied, as
well as those of the counselors.

Since the scope of this study was limited to the
counseling phase of Student Personnel Services, and with
the assistance of Dr. Goines, Mrs. Williamson, Miss Jones,
Dr. Earl V. Allgood, Professor of Statistics, and Mr.
Charles Cone, Director of the Computer Center, a 41-item
provisional instrument was developed that required a
forced-choice, yes or no response, concerning counseling
and personal adjustment.

Two pilot studies were conducted using samplings
of student subjects in order to identify ambiquous
questions that could be combined, shortened or eliminated.
One additional pilot study was conducted in order to
determine whether the instrument would be representative
of the content to be measured by means of internal con-

sistency and reliability.

 

90Walter A. Adams, "The Negro Patient in Psychiatric

Treatment," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 20:305—310,
April 1950.

45

In order to determine whether the substance of the
instrument would be representative of the content to be
measured, thirty (30) students were asked to fill out the
questionnaire: 15 students who had come to the counseling
center on an intake basis during the second semester, 1973,
and 15 students who had visited the Office of the Vice
President for Student Affairs.91 After all questionnaires
had been completed, a decision was made to assign a
numerical value of "l" to each "yes" response and the
numerical value of "0" to each "no" response.

With the assistance of Dr. Allgood, a split—half
reliability for internal consistency was conducted for
each group by the use of the Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient which yielded r's of .59 and .57 for those
students who filled out the questionnaire at the counseling
center and at the Office of the Vice President for Student
Affairs respectively. Using the Spearman-Brown formula
to determine the prediction of reliability, results were
.74 and .72 for the respective groups. An 4 to Z trans-
formation was conducted which resulted in .95 and .91 for
the respective groups. The computation of the standard

error of the difference between the Z coefficients resulted

 

91The total of 30 students did not represent the
total number of students visiting the counseling center of
the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs during
the second semester, 1973, but represented only those students
who were administered the instrument during this period on a
pilot basis.

in .07.

46

The determinations were that (1) there was no

significant difference between the scores of the sample

populations at the .05 level of confidence; (2) the

instrument was fairly consistent; and (3) the instrument

appeared to be reliable.

ment:

The following questions appear within the instru-

1. Have you ever been to a counselor at the
Virginia State College (VSC) Counseling Center?

2. Were you referred to the Counseling Center?
3. Did you go for academic reasons?

4. Did you go for personal reasons?

5. Did you go for vocational reasons?

6. In your opinion, do you feel that the counselor
was helpful to you?

7. Do you feel that the Counseling Center was
the right place to go to seek assistance with
your concern?

8. In your opinion, were you better prepared to
deal with your concern after going to the Counseling
Center?

9. Do you feel that if you had another concern you
would return to the Counseling Center for further
service?

10. Do you feel that if you had another concern
you would return to the same counselor at the
Counseling Center?

 

11. Do you feel that your friends could benefit
from counseling at the Counseling Center?

12. In your opinion, does the counseling program
add anything of value to VSC?

47

13. Was the Counseling program at VSC ever explained,
described or outlined to you?

14. In your opinion, could you tell a new student
what counseling services are available to him at
VSC?

15. Do you feel reasonably sure you can identify
your own personal weaknesses and strengths without
counseling help?

16. Do you feel reasonably sure you can identify
your own personal academic aptitudes and abilities
without counseling help?

17. As far as you can determine, do you feel that
the college's counseling program and services are
of benefit to the student body?

18. In your opinion, would you be a better counselor,
at this time, than those employed at the VSC
Counseling Center?

19 . GENERAL INFORMATION

Status: Enrolled at VSC
Not enrolled at VSC

Classification: Undergraduate
Graduate Student

Cumulative Grade
Point Average: 0.01 to 2.49
2.50 to 4.00

Sex: Female
Male

Estimate of total
family income: $0.01 to $5,000
$5,001 and above

Phrases within the questionnaire such as "helpful
to you," "right place to go," "deal with your conCern'n

"anything of value," "reasonably sure," "weaknesses and

strengths," "academic aptitudes and abilities,‘ and a

better counselor,‘ were used in order that the respondents

48

could interpret them based on what they considered them
to be within their life values, needs or expectations.

The categories of the designated grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49 and 2.50 to 4.00 were chosen
due to the fact that 506 students, during the Fall semester
1972, were on the Dean's List and 485 students during the
same period of time were on the Academic Probation List.
When plotted to represent the population at VSC according
to academic accomplishment, these list represented opposite
ends of an approximate bell-shaped curve. Therefore, the
academic averages were divided as previously indicated.

The categories of the estimate of total family
income were decided upon due to information that the inves-
tigator gathered from the Office of Financial Aids at VSC.
According to the records within the Financial Aids Office,
approximately 60% of all students who applied for financial
aid during the Fall semester 1972 were from families with
total income of less than $5,000. Therefore, since over
half of the students applying for financial aid were of
low income status, the estimate of total family income was

divided as previously indicated.

Procedure

 

Each member of each student population was mailed
a cover letter and an instrument. No information was mailed
regarding any facet of the counseling center. The purpose

for this was to minimize any factor that could possibly

49

influence the students' perception. No follow-up mailing
was utilized due to the economic cost involved. A11
questionnaires were to be anonymous. In order to properly
identify the different populations, one information item
within the instrument was used to identify respondents as
being enrolled or not enrolled, and one question concerning
whether or not use had been made of the counsleing center.
Students residing off-campus were mailed a cover
letter, an instrument, and a self-addressed, stamped
envelope to return their response. Students residing
on-campus were asked to leave the questionnaire with the
resident counselor within the residence hall or at the

Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.

Statistic

 

The Chi-square test of independence was used to
indicate specific areas of significant differences that
may have existed between the populations on selected
variables. Analysis was to be made at the .05 level of
confidence, two- tailed test.

The Chi-square was considered appropriate for use
because it was possible to determine whether the discrepancies
between the observed and theoretical frequencies were chance
discrepancies by use of the formula where "O" is the observed
frequency and "E" is the expected frequency. One degree of

freedom was utilized.

50

Summary

In this chapter, the historical beginnings of the
study were presented along with the location and pOpulation
employed in conducting the investigation. The pOpulation
was defined as all students who used the counseling center
during the Fall semester, 1972; all students who dropped
out of VSC after the Fall semester, 1972, but did not
return for the second semester, 1973; all students who
used the counseling center during the Fall semester, 1972,
but did not return for the second semester, 1973; and all
students located in two residence halls closest to the
counseling center, who were enrolled during the second
semester, 1973, but who had not used the counseling center.

The instrument used in the collection of data was
described and the reliability and internal consistency of
the instrument were reported. The procedures used in
distributing and collecting the instrument were presented.

Finally, in the last section, the statistic for
use in the analysis of data, the Chi-square, at the .05

level of confidence, using a two-tailed test were discussed.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The major purpose of this investigation was to
assess the perceptions of counseled and non-counseled
Virginia State College students toward counseling and
personal adjustment. The investigation also attempted
to determine any significant difference that may be present
on selected variables as such related to the perceptions of
counseled and non-counseled students who did and did not
drop out of Virginia State College.

This chapter will present the results of the data
collected as described in Chapter III. The total data
collected was from 880 respondents out of 1,272, or 69.2%.
The total usuable data was 849, or 66.7%, of the total
pOpulation.

In order to systematically present the data, this
chapter is divided into four sections. Section A presents
the Chi-squares obtained at the .05 level of confidence on
questions of perceptions toward counseling, and B presents
the Chi-squares obtained at the .05 level of confidence on
questions of perceptions of personal adjustment by students
who did and did not drop out of Virginia State College on
selected variables. Section C presents the Chi-squares

51

52

obtained at the .05 level of confidence on questions of
perceptions toward counseling, and D presents the Chi-
squares obtained at the .05 level of confidence on
questions of perceptions of personal adjustment by
students who used and did not use the counseling center
on selected variables.

The four groups of students were presented in
Chapter III. Table 1 presents the summary data for
respondents with each group.

General information items were presented in the
instrument. This data is found in Table 2.

Section A: Analysis of Data of Perceptions

Toward Counseling for Students Who Did and
Did Not Drop Out of VSC on Selected Variables.

 

Hypothesis I
”I The perceptions of students who did and did not

drOp out of Virginia State College toward coun-

seling will not differ significantly on the

basis of sex.

The results presented in Table 3 are the Chi-

squares for females who dropped out of VSC and males who

did not. Significant differences are shown between females

who dropped out of VSC and males who did not drop out of

VSC responded more favorably in their perceptions toward

counseling.

53

TABLE 1.--Summary data for respondents.

 

 

Categories Total
Group I--Used counseling center, did not drop
out of VSC 320
males ----------------------------- 104
females --------------------------- 216
0.01 to 2.49 ---------------------- 144
2.50 to 4.00 ---------------------- 176
$0.01 to $5,000 ------------------- 120
$5,001 and above ------------------ 200
undergraduates -------------------- 264
graduates ------------------------- 56
Group II--Used counseling center, dropped out
of VSC 19
males ----------------------------- 11
females --------------------------- 8
0.01 to 2.49 ---------------------- 11
2.50 to 4.00 ---------------------- 8
$0.01 to $5,000 ------------------- 7
$5,001 and above ------------------ 12
undergraduates -------------------- l4
graduates ------------------------- 5
Group III--Did not use counseling center, did
not drop out of VSC 68
males ----------------------------- 32
females --------------------------- 36
0.01 to 2.49 ---------------------- 34
2.50 to 4.00 ---------------------- 34
$0.01 to $5,000 ------------------- 34
$5,001 and above ------------------ 34
undergraduates -------------------- 58
graduates ------------------------- 10
Group IV--Did not use counseling center, dropped
out of VSC 442
males ----------------------------- 240
females --------------------------- 202
0.01 to 2.49 ---------------------- 112
2.50 to 4.00 ---------------------- 330
$0.01 to $5,000 ------------------- 104
$5001 and above ------------------- 338
undergraduate --------------------- 198

graduates ------------------------- 244

 

54

TABLE 2.--Summary of general information data.

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Total

Status

Enrolled 388

Not enrolled 461
Classification.

Undergraduates 534

Graduates 315
Grade point average

0.01 to 2.49 301

2.50 to 4.00 548
Sex

Females 462

Males 387
Estimated family income

$0.01 to $5,000 265

$5,001 and above 584

 

TABLE 3.--Chi-squares for females who dropped out of VSC
and males who did not on questions of perceptions
toward counseling.

 

 

Question Chi-square
6. Counselor was helpful 21.6089
7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 43.2828
8. Better prepared after counseling 46.0101
9. Would return to counseling center 52.3757
10. Would return to the same counselor 70.3926
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 13.0409
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 13.1949

13. Explanation of counseling was received 33.1182

 

55

Table 4 presents the Chi-squares of females who
did not drop out of VSC and males who dropped out. Signifi-
cant differences were found between females who did not
drop out of VSC and males who dropped out on 6 of 8 questions
of perceptions toward counseling. On these questions of
significance, females who did not drop out of VSC responded

more favorably in their perceptions toward counseling.

TABLE 4.--Chi-squares for females who did not drop out
of VSC and males who dropped out on questions
of perceptions toward counseling.

 

Question Chi-square

 

6. Counselor was helpful 74.7874

7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 18.9440

8. Better prepared after counseling 54.7693
9. Would return to counseling center 34.4478
10. Would return to the same counselor 57.6664
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 1.0542
12. Counseling program of value to VSC .9178
13. Explanation of counseling was received 25.7180

 

Hypothesis II

 

The perceptions of students who did and did not

drop out of Virginia State College toward counseling
will not differ significantly on the basis of grade
point average (G.P.A.).

56

The results presented in Table 5 are the Chi-
squares for students with grade point averages of 0.01 to
2.49, who dropped out of VSC and students with grade point
averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not drop out on questions
of perceptions toward counseling. Significant differences
are shown on 5 of 8 questions of perceptions toward counseling
at the .05 level. Students who did not drop out of VSC and
had G.P.A.'s of 2.50 to 4.00 responded more favorably in
their perceptions toward counseling on questions that were

significant.

TABLE 5.--Chi-squares for students with grade point averages
of 0.01 to 2.49, who dropped out of VSC and students
with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did
not drop out, on questions of perceptions toward

 

 

counseling.

Question Chi-square

6. Counselor was helpful 18.3293
7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 2.4197
8. Better prepared after counseling 114.3368
9. Would return to counseling center 109.7567
10. Would return to the same counselor 172.9053
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 98.8595
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 1.5682

13. Explanation of counseling was received 2.2434

 

57

Table 6 presents the Chi-squares for students with
grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not drop out
of VSC and students with grade point averages of 2.50 to
4.00, who dropped out on questions of perceptions toward
counseling. Significant differences are shown in 7 of 8
'resulting Chi-squares. Students with G.P.A.'s of 0.01 to
2.49, who did not drop out of VSC differed significantly
from students with G.P.A.'s of 2.50 to 4.00, who dropped
out, and responded more favorably on 6 of 8 questions.
Students with G.P.A.'s of 2.50 to 4.00 responded more

favorably on friends benefiting from counseling.

TABLE 6.--Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not drop
out of VSC and students with grade point
averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who dropped out,
on questions of perceptions toward counseling.

 

Question Chi-square

 

6. Counselor was helpful 54.4678

7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 48-7713

8. Better prepared after counseling 71.2763
9. Would return to counseling center 63.0580
10. Would return to the same counselor 78.2083
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 5.3911
12. Counseling program of value to VSC .2500

13. Explanation of counseling was received 42.9226

 

58

Hypothesis III

The perceptions of students who did and did not

drOp out of Virginia State College toward counseling

will not differ significantly on the basis of esti-

mated family income.

Table 7 presents the Chi-squares for students with
estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who dropped out
of VSC and students with estimated family incomes of $5,001
and above, who did not drop out on questions of perceptions
toward counseling. Significant differences are shown on
all questions and, more specifically, students with esti-
mated incomes of $5,001 and above, who did not drop out
of VSC, responded as having perceptions of counseling that

were more positive toward counseling than students with

incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, and who dropped out.

TABLE 7.--Chi-squares for students with estimated family
incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who dropped out of
VSC and students with estimated family incomes
of $5,001 and above who did not drop out on
questions of perceptions toward counseling.

 

 

Question Chi-square

6. Counselor was helpful 20.1619
7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 15.7930
8. Better prepared after counseling 44.0211
9. Would return to counseling center 73.4302
10. Would return to the same counselor 51.7629
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 23.3985
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 18.3182

13. Explanation of counseling was received 26.3464

 

59

The Chi-squares presented in Table 8 reflect the
students with estimated incomes of $0.01 to $5,001, who
did not drop out of VSC and students with estimated family
incomes of $5,001 and above, who dropped out on questions
of perceptions toward counseling. No significant differences
were found on friends benefiting from counseling and
counseling program of value to VSC. Of the 6 of 8 questions
that were significant, students with incomes of $0.01 to
$5,000, who did not drop out of VSC were significantly
more positive toward counseling than students with incomes

of $5,001 and above who did drop out.

TABLE 8.--Chi-squares for students with estimated family
incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who did not drop
out of VSC and students with estimated family
incomes of $5,001 and above who dropped out on
questions of perceptions toward counseling.

 

Question Chi-square

 

6. Counselor was helpful 42.1718

7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 26.0374

8. Better prepared after counseling 42.8090
9. Would return to counseling center 51.9934
10. Would return to the same counselor 49.4023
11. Friends could benefit from counseling .0592
12. Counseling program of value to VSC .002

13. Explanation of counseling was received 37.6407

 

60

Hypothesis IV

 

The perceptions of students who did and did not

drop out of Virginia State College toward counseling

will not differ significantly on the basis of

classification.

Table 9 presents the Chi-squares for undergraduate
students who dropped out of VSC and graduate students who
did not drop out on questions of perceptions toward coun—
seling. On 7 of 8 questions, significant differences are
shown. Graduate students who did not drop out of VSC

were more positive in their responses toward counseling

than undergraduates who dropped out of VSC.

TABLE 9.--Chi-squares for undergraduate students who
dropped out of VSC and graduate students who
did not drop out on questions of perceptions
toward counseling.

 

Question Chiesquare

 

6. Counselor was helpful 19.8996

7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 19.8996

8. Better prepared after counseling 7.2020
9. Would return to counseling center 10.5237
10. Would return to the same counselor 13.0823
11. Friends could benefit from counseling .4691
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 8.8195

13. Explanation of counseling was received 13.4348

 

61

The Chi-squares for undergraduate students who did
not drop out of VSC and graduate students who dropped out
on questions of perceptions toward counseling are presented
in Table 10. Also, in this table, 7 of 8 questions are
shown to be significant at the .05 level. Undergraduate
students who did not drop out of VSC tended to have positive
perceptions toward counseling moreso than graduate students

who dropped out of VSC.

TABLE lO.--Chi-squares for undergraduate students who did
not drop out of VSC and graduate students who
dropped out on questions of perceptions toward

 

 

counseling.
Question Chi-square
6. Counselor was helpful 50.3580
7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 16.2048
8. Better prepared after counseling 53.3435
9. Would return to counseling center 61.5459
10. Would return to the same counselor 9.5999
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 71.1216
12. Counseling program of value to VSC .0095

13. Explanation of counseling was received 40.7974

 

62

Section B: Analysis of Data of Perceptions of
Personal Adjustment for Students Who Did andiDid
Not Drop Out of VSC on Selected Variables.

Hypothesis V

 

The perceptions of students who did and did not

drop out of Virginia State College toward personal

adjustment will not differ significantly on the

basis of sex.

The results presented in Table 11 are the Chi—squares
for females who dropped out of VSC and males who did not on
questions of perceptions of personal adjustment. No signifi—
cant difference was found on personal ability to identify
weaknesses and strengths. Significant differences are shown
on all other questions. Females who dropped out of VSC
responded as having the personal ability to identify academic
aptitudes and abilities and being a better counselor moreso
than males. Males could explain the counseling services and
indicated that counseling was of benefit to the student body
moreso than females.

Table 12 presents the Chi-squares for females who
did not drop out of VSC and males who dropped out on ques-
tions of perceptions of personal adjustment. No significant
difference was found on counseling being of benefit to the
student body; however, significant differences were found on
all other questions of personal adjustment. Males who
dropped out of VSC responded as being able to identify per-

sonal weaknesses and strengths, academic aptitudes and

abilities, and being a better counselor than those employed

63

at the VSC Counseling Center moreso than females who did not
drop out. Females perceived their personal ability to

explain the counseling services moreso than males.

TABLE ll.--Chi-squares for females who dropped out of VSC
and males who did not on questions of perceptions
personal adjustment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services 48.2573

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths .9252

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities 34.7044

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body 5.6668

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed 22.5407

 

TABLE 12.--Chi-squares for females who did not drop out
of VSC and males who dropped out on questions
of perceptions of personal adjustment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services 100.7328

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths 29.2438

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities 12.8421

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body 3.7429

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed 4.3300

 

64

Hypothesis VI

 

The perceptions of students who did and did not

drop out of Virginia State College toward personal

adjustment will not differ significantly on the

basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).

Table 13 presents data of Chi-squares for students
with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who dropped out
of VSC and students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00,
who did not drOp out of VSC on questions of perceptions of
personal adjustment. Significant differences were found on
3 of 5 questions. Students with grade point averages of 0.01
to 2.49, who dropped out, responded as being able to identify
personal weaknesses and strengths moreso than students with
grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not drop out.
Students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did
not drop out, responded as perceiving counseling as being
of benefit to student body and of being a better counselor
than those presently employed moreso than students with grade
point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who dropped out.

No significant difference was found on counseling
being of benefit to student body, as shown in Table 14.
Significant differences are shown for all other questions.
Students with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did
not drOp out, responded as being able to explain counseling
services moreso than students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00, who dropped out. Students with grade point
averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who dropped out, responded as

being able to personally identify weaknesses and strengths,

65

aptitudes and abilities, and of being a better counselor

than those persons presently employed.

TABLE 13.--Chi-squares for students with grade point averages
of 0.01 to 2.49, who dropped out of VSC and stu-
dents with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00,
who did not drop out, on questions of perceptions
of personal adjustment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services .6115

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths 39.3893

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities 1.7875

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body 28.3002

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed 30.2057

 

TABLE 14.--Chi-squares for students with grade point averages
of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not drop out of VSC and
students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00,
who dropped out, on questions of perceptions of
personal adjustment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services 82.3094

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths 15.1072

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities 67.9219

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body .8048

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed 20.2124

 

 

66

Hypothesis VII

The perceptions of students who did and did not
drop out of Virginia State College toward personal
adjustment will not differ significantly on the
basis of estimated family income.‘

In Table 15, no significant differences are shown for

identification of personal aptitudes and abilities and being

a better counselor than those presently employed. Students

with estimated family incomes of $5,001 and above, who did

not drop out, stated preferences for being able to explain

counseling services, identification of personal weaknesses

and strengths, and perception of counseling being of benefit

to student body moreso than students with low income and

dropped out.

TABLE 15.--Chi-squares for students with estimated family

incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who dropped out of

VSC and students with estimated family incomes

of $5,001 and above, who did not drop out of VSC
on questions of perceptions of personal adjustment.

 

 

Question Chi-square

14. Can personally explain counseling services 41.0817
15. Can personally identify weaknesses and

strengths 18.8062
16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes

and abilities .0086
17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to

student body 20.7554
18. Would be a better counselor than those

employed 2.0841

4

 

67

Table 16 presents the Chi-squares for students with
estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who did not
drop out of VSC and students with estimated family incomes
of $5,001 and above, who dropped out, on questions of
personal adjustment perceptions. No significant difference
was found on students personal assessment of counseling
being of benefit to student body. Students with estimated
family incomes of $5,001 and above, who dropped out, indi-
cated personal preferences for being able to identify per-
sonal weaknesses and strengths, academic aptitudes and
abilities, and being a better counselor than those presently
employed moreso than students with estimated family incomes

of $0.01 to $5,000, who did not drop out.

TABLE 16.--Chi-squares for students with estimated family
incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who did not drop out
of VSC and students with estimated family incomes
of $5,001 and above, who dropped out, on questions
of perceptions of personal adjustment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services 53.8776

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths 63.4018

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities 56.7608

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body .3146

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed 28.3615

 

68

Hypothesis VIII

The perceptions of students who did'and did not
drop out of Virginia State College toward personal
adjustment will not differ significantly on the

basis of classification.

Table 17 shows significant differences only on

questions of being able to explain counseling services

and being a better counselor.

Graduate students, who

did not drop out, stated their preferences for the afore-

mentioned questions of significance.

TABLE l7.--Chi-squares for undergraduate students who
dropped out of VSC and graduate students who
did not on questions of perceptions of personal

 

 

 

adjustment.
Question Chi-square

14. Can personally explain counseling services 11.0348
15. Can personally identify weaknesses and

strengths .2867
16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes

and abilities .1566
17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to

student body .8510
18. Would be a better counselor than those

employed 39.9684

Table 18 shows significant differences on all

questions.

69

TABLE 18.--Chi-squares for undergraduate students who did
not drop out of VSC and graduate students who
dropped out on questions of perceptions of
personal adjustment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services 90.3818

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths 33.6469

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities 53.3398

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body 9.2676

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed 5.1985

 

Section C: Analysis Of Data of Perceptions
Toward Counseling for Students Who Used
and Did Not Use the Counseling Center
at VSC on Selected Variables.

 

Hypothesis IX

The perceptions of students who used and did not

use the Virginia State College Counseling Center

toward counseling will not differ significantly

on the basis of sex.

The statistical results presented in Table 19 are
the Chi-squares for females who used the counseling center
and males who did not on questions of perceptions toward
(counseling. Significant differences are shown on all
<questions of perceptions toward counseling, except friends

benefiting from counseling and counseling program of value

‘to VSC. Females who used the counseling center tended to'

70

be more responsive in their perceptions toward counseling

moreso than males who did not use the counseling center.

TABLE l9.--Chi-squares for females who used the counseling
center and males who did not on questions of

perceptions toward counseling.

 

Question

Chi-square

 

13.

Counselor was helpful

Counseling Center was the right place to go
Better prepared after counseling

Would return to counseling center

Would return to the same counselor

Friends could benefit from counseling
Counseling program of value to VSC

Explanation of counseling was received

82.3443
21.1882
61.9175
37.6087
61.9175

1.1115

3.5422

27.1548

 

at the .05 level on questions of perceptions toward counseling

The Chi-square test in Table 20 revealed significance

for females who did not use the counseling center and males

who did.

No significant difference was found fOr counseling

center being the right place to go and explanation of

counseling being received.

 

71

TABLE 20.--Chi-squares for females who did not use the
counseling center and males who did on questions
of perceptions toward counseling.

 

 

Question Chi-square

6. Counselor was helpful 30.8227
7. Counseling Center was the right place to go .0027
8. Better prepared after counseling 119.5304
9. Would return to counseling center 114.4561
10. Would return to the same counselor 130.1609
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 90.5089
12. .Counseling program of value to VSC 7.0383
13. 'Explanation of counseling was received .0142

 

Hypothesis X
The perceptions of students who used and did not
use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward counseling will not differ significantly
on the basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).
All questions in Table 21 were significant at the
.05 level. Students with grade point averages of 0.01 to
2.49, who used the counseling center responded more positively
ill their perceptions toward counseling than students with

«grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not use the

counseling center.

72

TABLE 21.--Chi-squares for students with grade point averages
of 0.01 to 2.49, who used the counseling center
and students with grade point averages of 2.50 to
4.00, who did not use the counseling center, on
questions of perceptions toward counseling.

 

 

Question Chi-square
6. Counselor was helpful 59.9505
7. Counselinngenter was the right place to go 49.7006
8. Better prepared after counseling 75.5366
9. WOuld return to counseling center 62.8262
10. Would return to the same counselor 75.5709
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 24.9197
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 24.6465
13. Explanation of counseling was received 16.4827

 

Table 22 presents the Chi-squares for students with
grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not use the
counseling center and students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00, who did use the counseling center, on questions
of perceptions toward counseling. Significant differences
are shown on 5 of 8 questions on perceptions toward coun-
seling. Students with grade point averages of 2.50 to
4.00, who used the counseling center, responded more
positively toward perceptions of counseling on questions
that were of significance than students with 0.01 to 2.49
grade point averages and who did not use the counseling

center.

73

TABLE 22.--Chi-squares for students with grade point averages
of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not use the counseling
center and students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00, who did use the counseling center,
on questions of perceptions toward counseling.

 

 

Question Chi—square
6. Counselor was helpful 12.4768
7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 13.1100
8. Better prepared after counseling 28.6505
9. Would return to counseling center 19.3299
10. Would return to the same counselor 32.3016
11. Friends could benefit from counseling ’ .0106
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 3.0190
13. Explanation of counseling was received .0914

 

Hypothesis XI

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not

use the Virginia State College Counseling Center

toward counseling will not differ significantly

on the basis of estimated family income.

Table 23 presents the Chi-squares for students with
estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who used the
counseling center and students with estimated family
incomes of $5,001 and above, who did not use the coun-
seling center, on questions of perceptions toward counseling.

Significant differences were found on all questions on

perceptions toward counseling.

74

TABLE 23.--Chi-squares for students with estimated family
incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who used the coun-
seling center and students with estimated family
incomes of $5,001 and above, who did not use
the counseling center, on questions of percep-
tions toward counseling.

 

 

Question Chi-square
6. Counselor was helpful 21.8121
7. Counsling Center was the right place to go 13.3202
8. Better prepared after counseling 42.3025
9. Would return to counseling center 16.5317
10. Would return to the same counselor 51.2347
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 24.3140
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 19.6666
13. Explanation of counseling was received 25.1170

 

Significant differences are shown only on counselor
was helpful and being better prepared after counseling, in
Table 24. For all other questions, the null hypothesis

was not rejected.

Hypothesis XII

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not

use the Virginia State College Counseling Center

toward counseling will not differ significantly

on the basis of classification.

No significant difference is shown in Table 25 on
friends benefiting from counsling. Significant differences

are shown on all other questions on perceptions toward

counseling. Undergraduate students who used the counseling

75

center responded more favorably in their perceptions toward
counseling than graduate students who did not use the

counseling center.

TABLE 24.--Chi-squares for students with estimated family
incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who did not use the
counseling center and students with estimated
family incomes of $5,001 and above, who did
use the counseling center, on questions of
perceptions toward counseling.

 

 

Question Chi-square
6. Counselor was helpful 7.6481
7. Counseling Center was the right place to go .0069
8. Better prepared after counseling 5.8693
9. Would return to counseling center .0541
10. Would return to the same counselor 1.9653
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 3.3111
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 3.4460
13. Explanation of counseling was received .0001

 

TABLE 25.--Chi-squares for undergraduate students who used
the counseling center and graduate students who
did not use the counseling center, on questions
of perceptions toward counseling.

 

 

Question Chi-square
6. Counselor was helpful 23.9391
7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 38.1957
8. Better prepared after counseling 9.2069
9. Would return to counseling center 14.4146
10. Would return to the same counselor 14.0223
11. Friends could benefit from counseling .7617
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 4.6019

13. EXplanation of counseling was received 6.8255

 

76

Table 26 presents the Chi-squares for undergraduate
students who did not use the counseling center and graduate
students who did on questions of perceptions toward coun-
seling. Helpfulness of counselor, counseling center being
the right place to go, and information being received shows
no significant difference. Question 11 indicates that
undergraduates who did not use the counseling center
responding more favorably toward friends benefiting from
counseling. On all other questions of significance, graduate
students responded favorably in their perceptions toward
counseling moreso than undergraduate students who did not

use the counseling center.

TABLE 26.--Chi-squares for undergraduate students who did
not use the counseling center and graduate
students who did on questions of perceptions
toward counseling.

 

 

Question Chi-square
6. Counselor was helpful 3.2597
7. Counseling Center was the right place to go 3.4613
8. Better prepared after counseling 10.4249
9. Would return to counseling center 50.4537
10. Would return to the same counselor 18.6914
11. Friends could benefit from counseling 26.6620
12. Counseling program of value to VSC 19.0170

13. Explanation of counseling was received 1.5903

 

77

Section D: Analysis of Datapf Perceptions
of Personal Adjustment for Students Who

gsed and Did Not Use the Counselipg
Center at VSC on Seiécted Variables.

 

Hypothesis XIII

The perceptions of students who used and did not
use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-

cantly on the basis of sex.

Table 27 presents the Chi-squares for females who

used the counseling center and males who did not use the

counseling center, on questions of perceptions of personal

adjustment.

questions on perceptions of personal adjustment.

Significant differences are shown on 4 of 5

TABLE 27.--Chi-squares for females who used the counseling
center and males who did not use the counseling
center, on questions of perceptions of personal

adjustment.

 

Question

Chi-square

 

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Can personally explain counseling services

Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths

Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities

Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body

Would be a better counselor than those
employed

64.8869

.8239

30.8248

14.9178

30.0196

 

78

Table 28 reveals no significant differences in
being personally able to explain counseling services and
ability to identify personal weaknesses and strengths.
Significant differences are shown for all other questions
and, more specifically, females who did not use the
counseling center responded more favorably toward their

personal adjustment.

TABLE 28.--Chi-squares for females who did not use the
counseling center and males who did use the
counseling center, on questions of perceptions
of personal adjustment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services .2382

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths 1.9037

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities 4.2762

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body 8.2115

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed 6.7582

 

Hypothesis XIV

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not
use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward personal adjustment will not differ sig-
nificantly on the basis of grade point average
(G.P.A. ) .

79

Table 29 presents the Chi-squares for students with
grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who used the counseling
center and students with grade point averages of 2.50 to
4.00, who did not use the counseling center, on questions
of perceptions of personal adjustment. No significant
differences are shown on personal ability to eXplain the
counseling services and ability to identify personal
academic aptitudes and abilities. Significant differences

are shown on all other questions of personal adjustment.

TABLE 29.--Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who used the counseling
center and students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00, who did not use the counseling
center, on questions of perceptions of personal

 

 

adjustment.
Question Chi-square
14. Can personally explain counseling services 1.6733

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths 42.7488

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities .1212

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body 23.0103

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed 11.9346

 

Table 30 reveals no significant differences on
questions of personal ability to explain counseling services,

identification of personal weaknesses and strengths, and

80

counseling of benefit to student body. Significant dif-
ferences are shown on the other two questions of identifi-
cation of personal academic aptitudes and abilities and

being a better counselor than those presently employed.

TABLE 30.--Chi-squares for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not use
the counseling center and students with
grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who
did use the counseling center, on questions
of perceptions of personal adjustment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services .3051

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths .0000

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities 21.0077

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body 2.7868

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed 5.2612

 

Hypothesis XV

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not
use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of estimated family income.
Identification of personal academic aptitudes and
abilities and personal assessment of being a better coun-
selor than those employed were not significant at the .05

level, in Table 31. Significant differences are shown in all

other questions of perceptions of personal adjustment.

81

TABLE 31.--Chi-squares for students with estimated family
incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who used the coun-
seling center and students with estimated family
incomes of $5,001 and above, who did not use the
counseling center, on questions of perceptions
of personal adjustment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services 55.9816

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and
strengths 12.2108

16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes
and abilities .4347

17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to
student body 26.0909

18. Would be a better counselor than those
employed .0003

 

Table 32 shows significant differences on personal
ability to explain counseling services and identification
of personal academic aptitudes and abilities. The null

hypothesis was rejected on these two questions.

Hypothesis XVI

 

The perceptions of students who used and did not

use the Virginia State College Counseling Center

toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-

cantly on the basis of classification.

Significant differences are shown on only two
questions in Table 33; personal ability to explain counseling

services and would be a better counselor than those employed

are shown to be significant at the .05 level.

82

TABLE 32.--Chi-squares for students with estimated family

incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who did not use the
counseling center and students with estimated
family incomes of $5,001 and above, who used
the counseling center, on questions of percep-
tions of personal adjustment.

 

 

Question Chi-square

14. Can personally explain counseling services 9.1467
15. Can personally identify weaknesses and

strengths .7996
16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes

and abilities 8.6592
17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to

student body .0263
18. Would be a better counselor than those

employed 1.7241

 

TABLE 33.--Chi-squares for undergraduate students who used

the counseling center and graduate students who
did not use the counseling center, on questions
of perceptions of personal adjustment.

 

 

Question Chi-square

14. Can personally explain counseling services 16.5156
15. Can personally identify weaknesses and

strengths .0030
16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes

and abilities 1.7697
17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to

student body .8912
18. Would be a better counselor than those

employed 34.7961

 

83

In Table 34, identification of personal weaknesses
and strengths is shown not to be significant at the .05
level. Significant differences are shown for all other

questions of perceptions of personal adjustment.

TABLE 34.--Chi-squares for undergraduate students who did
not use the counseling center and graduate
students who did use the counseling center,
on questions of perceptions of personal adjust-
ment.

 

Question Chi-square

 

14. Can personally explain counseling services 8.9538

15. Can personally identify weaknesses and

 

strengths 1.2352
16. Can personally identify academic aptitudes

and abilities 26.7151
17. Perceives counseling being of benefit to

student body 16.9130
18. Would be a better counselor than those

employed 99.0144

Summary

The major purpose of this investigation was to assess
the perceptions of counseled and non-counseled Virginia
State College students toward counseling and personal adjust-
ment, as tested by an 18-item survey questionnaire, and the
significance on those perceptions of the variables: sex,
grade point average, estimated family income, and classifi-

cation. The investigation also attempted to determine any

84

significant difference that may be present on selected
variables as such related to the perceptions of counseled
and non-counseled students who did and did not drop out
of Virginia State College.

The first related hypothesis which studied the
significance of sex on the perceptions toward counseling,
yielded significant differences between females who dropped
out of VSC and males who did not, thereby rejecting the
null hypothesis. Significant differences were found
between females who did not drop out of VSC and males who
dropped out on six of eight questions of perceptions toward
counseling. Therefore, the hypothesis was rejected on
these six questions.

The second hypothesis studied the significance of
grade point average on perceptions toward counseling between
students who did and did not drop out of VSC. Significant
differences were found on five of eight questions of per-
ceptions toward counseling at the .05 level of confidence,
which allowed a rejection of the hypothesis on these
questions for students with grade point averages of 0.01
to 2.49, who dropped out of VSC and students with grade
point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not drop out.
Significant differences were found on seven of eight
questions of perceptions toward counseling at the .05
level between students with grade point averages of 0.01

to 2.49, who did not drop out and students with 2.50 to

85

4.00, who dropped out. The null hypothesis was not accepted
on seven of the eight questions.

The third hypothesis studied the significance of
estimated family income on the perceptions toward counseling
between students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to
$5,000, and students with estimated family incomes of
$5,001 and above, who did and did not drop out of VSC.
Significant differences were found at the .05 level on
all questions between students with estimated family incomes
of $0.01 to $5,000, who dropped out of VSC and students
With estimated family incomes of $5,001 and above, who did
not drop out, thereby the hypothesis was rejected. Between
students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000,
who did not drop out of VSC, and students with estimated
family incomes of $5,001 and above, who dropped out,
significant differences were shown for six of eight ques-
tions of perceptions toward counseling. The null hypothesis
was rejected for these six questions.

The forth hypothesis tested the significance of
the variable of classification on the perceptions toward
counseling of undergraduate and graduate students who
did and did not drop out. Between undergraduate students
who dropped out and graduate students who did not, signifi-
cant differences were shown on seven of eight questions at
the .05 level. Also, significant differences were found at

the .05 level on seven of eight questions on perceptions

86

.toward counseling between undergraduate students who did
not drop out and graduate students who dropped out.

The fifth hypothesis determined the significance
of sex on the perceptions of personal adjustment between
students who did and did not drop out of VSC. Significant
differences were found on four of five questions between
females who dropped out and males who did not, thereby
the null hypothesis was rejected on these four questions.
Also, significant differences were found on four of five
questions at the .05 level for females who did not drop
out and males who dropped out.

The sixth hypothesis studied the significance of
grade point average on the perceptions of personal adjust-
ment between students who did and did not drop out of VSC.
Significant differences were found at the .05 level on
three of five questions for students with grade point
averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who dropped out of VSC and
students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who
did not drop out. Significant differences were found at
the .05 level on four of five questions of personal
adjustment between students with grade point averages
of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not drop out and students with
grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did drop out,
thereby the null hypothesis was rejected on these four

questions.

87

The seventh hypothesis tested the significance of
estimated family income on the perceptions of personal
adjustment between students who did and did not drop out
of VSC. Significant differences were found on three of
five questions of personal adjustment between students
with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who
dropped out of VSC, and students with estimated family
incomes of $5,001 and above, who did not drop out of VSC.
Significant differences were found on three of five
questions between students with estimated family incomes
of $0.01 to $5,000, who did not drop out of vsc and students
with estimated family incomes of $5,001 and above, and who
dropped out. The null hypothesis was rejected on three of
the five questions.

The eighth hypothesis studied the significance of
classification on students' perceptions toward personal
adjustment between students who did and did not drOp out
of VSC. The null hypothesis was not rejected on three of
five questions between undergraduate students who dropped
out of VSC and graduate students who did not.~ Significant
differences were found on all questions of personal adjust-
ment between undergraduate students who did not drop out
and graduate students who dropped out, thereby the null
hypothesis was rejected at the .05 level.

The ninth hypothesis tested the significance of sex

on the perceptions toward counseling for students who used

88

and did not uSe the counseling center. For females who
used the counseling center and males who did not, signifi-
cant differences were shown for six of eight question.
The null hypothesis was rejected on six of the eight
questions. For females who did not use the counseling
center and males who did, significant differences were
also shown for six of eight questions. The null hypothesis
was rejected on these six questions.

The tenth hypothesis studied the significance of
grade point average on the perceptions toward counseling
~ for students who did and did not use the counseling center.
All questions were significant at the .05 level between
students with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who
used the counseling center, and students with grade point
averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not use the counseling
center. The null hypothesis was rejected. For students
with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not use
the counseling center and students with grade point averages
of 2.50 to 4.00, who did use the counseling center, the null
hypothesis was rejected on five of eight questions of
perceptions toward counseling.

The eleventh hypothesis studied the significance
of estimated family income on the perceptions of counseled
and non-counseled students. Significant differences were
found on all questions on perceptions toward counseling

between students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to‘

89

$5,000, who used the counseling center and students with
estimated family incomes of $5,001 and above, who did not
use the counseling center. The null hypothesis was rejected
for this group. No significant differences were found
on six of eight questions between students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who did not use the
counseling center and students with estimated family
incomes of $5,001 and above, who did use the counseling
center. The null hypothesis was not rejected on six of
the eight questions.

The twelfth hypothesis studied the_significance
of classification on the perceptions of counseled and non-
counseled students. Significant differences were found
on seven of eight questions on perceptions toward coun-
seling between undergraduate students who used the counseling
center and graduate students who did not, thereby rejecting
the null hypothesis on seven of eight questions. Between
undergraduate students who did not use the counseling
center and graduate students who did, significant differences
were found on five of eight questions. The null hypothesis
at the .05 level of confidence was rejected on these five
questions.

The thirteenth hypothesis studied the significance
of sex on the perceptions of personal adjustment between
students who used the counseling center and students who

did not. Between females who used the counseling center

90

and males who did not, significant differences were found
on four of five questions, thereby rejecting the null
hypothesis on these four questions. For females who did
not use the counseling center and males who did, signifi-
cant differences were found on three of five questions

at the .05 level.

The fourteenth hypothesis tested the significance
of grade point average on the perceptions of personal
adjustment between students who used the counseling center
and students who did not. Significant differences were
found on three of five questions, thereby rejecting the
null hypothesis at the .05 level on these questions
between students with grade point averages of 0.01 to
2.49, who used the counseling center, and students with
2.50 to 4.00, who did not. Between students with grade
point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not use the
counseling center and students with 2.50 to 4.00, who used
the counseling center, three of five questions were not
significant at the .05 level of confidence. Therefore,
the null hypothesis was not rejected on these three ques-
tions.

The fifteenth hypothesis studied the significance
of estimated family income on the perceptions of students
toward personal adjustment. Between students with estimated
family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who used the counseling

center and students with estimated family incomes of

91

$5,001 and above, who did not use the counseling center,
significant differences were shown for three of five
questions. For students with estimated family incomes of
$0.01 to $5,000, who did not use the counseling center
and students with estimated family incomes of $5,001 and
above, who did use the counseling center, no significant
differences were shown for three of five questions. The
null hypothesis was not rejected for these three questions.
The sixteenth hypothesis studied the significance
of classification on the perceptions of students who used
and did not use the counseling center toward personal
adjustment. ON three of five questions, no significant
differences were shown between undergraduate students who
used the counseling center and graduate students who did
not use the counseling center. The null hypothesis was not
rejected on three of five questions. Between undergraduate
students who did not use the counseling center and graduate
students who did use the counseling center, significant
differences were shown for three of five questions, thereby

rejecting the null hypothesis for these questions.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The major purpose of this investigation was to
assess the perceptions of counseled and non-counseled
Virginia State College students toward counseling and of
personal adjustment, and the significance of several
variables on those perceptions. The necessity of such a
study appeared to be evident in light of the vague termin-
ology and abstractions that appear with the goal statements
of the Virginia State College Counseling Center. Student
perceptions toward counseling and personal adjustment were
determined through the use of an 18-item questionnaire.

In Chapter II, a brief summary of perception theory
was presented along with a review of relevant studies. In
addition, a review of studies on counseled and non-counseled
students were presented. It was apparent that the use of
clients as the criterion for evaluation of counseling is
still in its early stages of utilization, particularly in
terms of the perceptions of counseled and non—counseled
students.

The problem selected for this study attempted to

test the following hypotheses:
92

93

I. The perceptions of students who did and did
not drop out of Virginia State College toward
counseling will not differ significantly on the
basis of sex. '

II. The perceptions of students who did and did
not drop out of Virginia State College toward
counseling will not differ significantly on the
basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).

III. The perceptions of students who did and did
not drop out of Virginia State College toward
counseling will not differ significantly on the
basis of estimated family income.

IV. The perceptions of students who did and

did not drop out of Virginia State College toward
counseling will not differ significantly on the
basis of classification.

V. The perceptions of students who did and did
not drop out of Virginia State College toward
personal adjustment will not differ significantly
on the basis of sex.

VI. The perceptions of students who did and did
not drop out of Virginia State College toward
personal adjustment will not differ significantly
on the basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).

VII. The perceptions of students who did and did
not drop out of Virginia State College toward
personal adjustment will not differ significantly
on the basis of estimated family income.

VIII. The perceptions of students who did and
did not drop out of Virginia State College toward
personal adjustment will not differ significantly
on the basis of classification.

IX. The perceptions of students who used and did
not use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward counseling will not differ significantly on
the basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).

X. The perceptions of students who used and did

not use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward counseling will not differ significantly on
the basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).

94

XI. The perceptions of students who used and did
not use the Virginia State College Counseling
Center toward counseling will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of estimated family income.

XII. The perceptions of students who used and
did not use the Virginia State College Counseling
Center toward counseling will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of classification.

XIII. The perceptions of students who used and did

not use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-

cantly on the basis of sex.

XIV. The perceptions of students who used and did
not use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of grade point average (G.P.A.).

XV. The perceptions of students who used and did
not use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of estimated family income.

XVI. The perceptions of students who used and did
not use the Virginia State College Counseling Center
toward personal adjustment will not differ signifi-
cantly on the basis of classification.

The population from which the students for this

study was obtained consisted of all students who used the
counseling center during the Fall semester, 1972; all
students who dropped out of VSC after the Fall semester,
1972, and did not return for the second semester, 1973;
all students who used the counseling center during the
Fall semester, 1972, but did not return for the second
semester, 1973; and all students in two residence halls
who did not use the counseling center during the Fall
semester, 1972, and who returned for the second semester,

1973. The population consisted of 1,272 students.

95

The principal instrument used in this study was
an 18-item questionnaire, developed by the investigator.
This instrument was used to elicit perceptions toward
counseling and of personal adjustment from the students
used in the study. Within the instrument, a 19th item
was used to elicit personal data information from the

respondents.

Findings and Conclusions

 

The design of this study allowed sixteen null
hypotheses to be tested. Because of the four basic sets
of data which were analyzed, the report of the findings.
is presented in four sections which are as follows:

A. The perceptions toward counseling for
students who did and did not drop out
of VSC.

B. The perceptions of personal adjustment
for students who did and did not drop
out of VSC.

C. The perceptions toward counseling for
students who used and did not use the
counseling center.

D. The perceptions of personal adjustment
'for students who used and did not use
the counseling center.

The Perceptions Toward Counseling
for Students Who Did and Did Not
Drop Out of VSC

 

 

Findings
The questionnaire was administered as the measuring

instrument to obtain information concerning the perceptions

96

toward counseling for students who did and did not drop
out of VSC, as indicated by the significance of the
variables sex, grade point average, estimated family
income, and classification. Significant differences
were found to support the following statements:

1. Analyzed on the basis of sex, male respondents
who did not drop out of VSC, responded more favorably on
all questions in their perceptions toward counseling than
female respondents who dropped out of VSC.

2. Analyzed on the basis of sex, female respondents
who did not drop out of VSC, responded more favorably in
their perceptions toward counseling than male respondents
who dropped out of VSC, on (1) counselor was helpful;

(2) counseling center right place to go; (3) better pre-
pared after counseling; (4) would return to counseling
center; (5) would return to the same counselor; and (6)
explanation of counseling was received.

3. Analyzed on the basis of grade point average,
students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who
did not drop out of VSC, responded more favorably in their
perceptions toward counseling than students with 0.01 to
2.49 grade point averages, who dropped out of VSC, on (1)
counselor was helpful; (2) better prepared after counseling:
(3) would return to the counseling center; (4) would return
to the same counselor; and (5) friends could benefit from

counseling.

97

4. Analyzed on the basis of grade point average,
students with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who
did not drop out of VSC, responded more favorably in their
perceptions toward counseling than students with 2.50 to
4.00 grade point averages, who dropped out of VSC, on
(1) counselor was helpful; (2) counseling center right
place to go; (3) better prepared after counseling; (4)
would return to counseling center; (5) would return to
the same counselor; (6) friends could benefit from coun—
seling; and (7) explanation of counseling was received.

5. Analyzed on the basis of estimated family income,
students with estimated family incomes of $5,001 and above,
who did not drop out of VSC, responded more favorably in
their perceptions toward counseling than students with
estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who dropped
out of VSC.

6. Analyzed on the basis of estimated family
income, students with estimated family incomes of $0.01
to $5,000, who did not drop out of VSC, responded more
favorably in their perceptions toward counseling than
students with estimated family incomes of $5,001 and above,
who dropped out of VSC, on (1) counselor was helpful;

(2) counseling center right place to go; (3) better pre-
pared after counseling; (4) would return to counseling
center; (5) would return to the same counselor; and

(6) explanation of counseling was received.

98

7. Analyzed on the basis of classification,
graduate students who did not drop out of VSC, responded
more favorably in their perceptions toward counseling than
undergraduate students, who dropped out of VSC, on (1)
counselor was helpful; (2) counseling center right place
to go; (3) better prepared after counseling; (4) would
return to counseling center; (5) would return to the same
counselor; (6) counseling program of value to VSC; and
(7) explanation of counseling was received.

8. Analyzed on the basis of classification,
undergraduate students who used the counseling center,
responded more favorably in their perceptions toward
counseling than graduate students who dropped out of
VSC, on (1) counselor was helpful; (2) counseling center
right place to go; (3) better prepared after counseling;
(4) would return to counseling center; (5) would return
to the same counselor; (6) friends could benefit from

counseling; and (7) explanation of counseling was received.

Conclusions

 

The findings of this portion of the study yield
evidence to support the general conclusion that there are
differences in the perceptions of students toward counseling
at Virginia State College as reported by the students who
did not drOp out of VSC and students who dropped out.

Several specific conclusions can be drawn from the

findings of this portion of the study; they are listed below:

99

1. Among male students included in the study, those
who did not drop out of VSC perceived counseling more
favorably than females who dropped out.

2. Among female students included in the study,
those who did not drop out of VSC perceived counseling
more favorably than males who dropped out.

3. Among students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00 included in the study, those who did not
drop out of VSC perceived counseling more favorably than
students with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who
dropped out.

4. Among students with grade point averages of
0.01 to 2.49 included in the study, those who did not drop
out of VSC perceived counseling more favorably than students
with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who dropped out.

5. Among students with estimated family incomes
of $5,001 and above included in the study, those who did
not drop out of VSC perceived counseling more favorably
than students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to
$5,000, who dropped out.

6. Among students with estimated family incomes
of $0.01 to $5,000 included in the study, those who did
not drop out of VSC perceived counseling more favorably
than students with estimated family incomes of $5,001

and above, who dropped out.

100

7. Among graduate students included in the study,
those who did not drop out of VSC perceived counseling
more favorably than undergraduate students who dropped
out.

8. Among undergraduate students included in
the study, those who did not drop out of VSC perceived
counseling more favorably than graduate students who
dropped out.

The Perceptions of Personal Adjustment

for Students Who Did and Did Not Drop
Out of VSC

 

Findings

The perceptions of personal adjustment as tested
by the questionnaire were analyzed in terms of the signifi-
cance of the variables of sex, grade point average, estimated
family income, and classification for students who did and
did not drop out of VSC. Significant differences were found
to support the following statements:

1. Analyzed on the basis of sex, females who dropped
out of VSC responded more favorably in their perception of
personal adjustment than males who did not drop out, on
(1) identifying personal academic aptitudes and abilities
and (2) being a better counselor than those employed.
However, males who did not drop out of VSC responded more
favorably in their perceptions of personal adjustment more
favorably than females who dropped out, on (1) being able
to personally explain counseling services and (2) counseling

being of benefit to student body.

101

2. Analyzed on the basis of sex, males who dropped
out of VSC responded more favorably in their perceptions
of personal adjustment than females who did not drop out,
on (1) personally able to identify weaknesses and strengths;
(2) personally able to identify academic aptitudes and
abilities; and (3) being a better counselor than those
employed.

3. Analyzed on the basis of grade point average,
students with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who
drOpped out of VSC, responded more favorably in their
perceptions of personal adjustment than students with
grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not drop
out, on being able to personally identify personal weak-
nesses and strengths. However, students with grade point
averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not drop out, responded
more favorably in their perceptions of personal adjustment
than students with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49,
who dropped out, on (1) perceiving counseling of benefit
to student body and (2) being a better counselor than those
employed.

4. Analyzed on the basis of grade point average,
students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who
dropped out of VSC, responded more favorably in their per-
ceptions of personal adjustment than students with grade
point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not drop out, on

(1) personally able to identify academic aptitudes and

102

abilities; (2) personally able to identify academic
aptitudes and abilities; and (3) being a better counselor
than those employed.

5. Analyzed on the basis of estimated family
income, students with estimated family incomes of $5,001
and above, who did not drop out of VSC, responded more
favorably in their perceptions of personal adjustment
than students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to
$5,00, who dropped out, on (1) personally able to explain
counseling services; (2) personally able to identify
weaknesses and strengths; and (3) counseling being of
benefit to student body.

6. Analyzed on the basis of estimated family
income, students with estimated family incomes of $5,001
and above, who dropped out of VSC, responded more favorably
in their perceptions of personal adjustment than students
with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000, who did
not drop out of VSC, on (1) personally able to identify
weaknesses and strengths; (2) personally able to identify
academic aptitudes and abilities; and (3) being a better
counselor than those employed.

7. Analyzed on the basis of classification, gradu-
ate students who did not drop out of VSC, responded more
favorably in their perceptions of personal adjustment than
undergraduate students who dropped out, on (1) personally
able to explain counseling services and (2) being a better

counselor than those employed.

103

8. Analyzed on the basis of classification,
graduate students who dropped out responded more favorably
in their perceptions of personal adjustment than under-
graduate students who did not drop out, on (1) personally
able to identify weaknesses and strengths; (2) personally
able to identify academic aptitudes and abilities; and
(3) being a better counselor than those presently employed.
On the other hand, undergraduate students who did not drop
out of VSC, responded more favorably in their perceptions
of personal adjustment than graduate students who dropped
out, on (1) personally able to explain counseling services

and (2) counseling being of benefit to student body.

Conclusions

 

The findings of this portion of the study yield
evidence to support the general conclusion that there are
differences in the perceptions of students toward personal
adjustment, as reported by the students who did drop out
of VSC and students who did not.

Several specific conclusions can be drawn from
the findings and these are listed below:

1. Among female students included in the study,
those who dropped out of VSC perceived personal adjustment
more favorably than male students who did not drop out,
on (1) identifying personal academic aptitudes and abilities

and (2) being a better counselor than those employed. Among

104

male students included in the study, those who did not
drop out of VSC perceived personal adjustment more favor-
ably than female students who dropped out, on (1) being
able to personally explain counseling services and (2)
counseling being of benefit to student body.

2. Among male students included in the study,
those who dropped out of VSC perceived their personal
adjustment more favorably than females who did not drop
out.

3. Among students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00 included in the study, those who did not drop
out of VSC perceived their personal adjustment more favor-
ably than students with grade point averages of 0.01 to
2.49, who dropped out.

4. Among students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00 included in the study, those who drOpped out
perceived personal adjustment more favorably than students
with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not
drop out.

5. Among students with estimated family incomes
of $5,001 and above included in the study, those who did
not drop out of VSC perceived their personal adjustment
more favorably than students with estimated family incomes
of $0.01 to $5,000, who dropped out.

6. Among students with estimated family incomes of

$5,001 and above included in the study, those who dropped

105

out of VSC perceived their personal adjustment more favorably
than students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to
$5,000, who did not drop out.

7. Among graduate students included in the study,
those who did not drop out of VSC perceived their personal
adjustment more favorably than undergraduate students who
dropped out.

8. Among graduate students included in the study,
those who dropped out of VSC perceived their personal
adjustment more favorably than undergraduate students who
did not drop out.

The Perceptions Toward Counselipg

for Students Who Used and Did Not
Use the Counseling Center

 

 

 

Findings

This section also assesses the perceptions of
respondents who used and did not use the counseling center
toward counseling, as indicated by the significance of the
variables of sex, grade point average, estimated family
income, and classification. Significant differences were
found to support the following statements:

1. Analyzed on the basis of sex, females who used
the counseling center responded more favorably in their
perceptions toward counseling than males who did not use
the counseling center, on (1) counselor was helpful; (2)

counseling center right place to go; (3) better prepared

106

after counseling; (4) would return to counseling center;
(5) would return to the same counselor; and (6) explanation
of counseling was received.

2. Analyzed on the basis of sex, males who used
the counseling center responded more favorably in their
perceptions toward counseling than females who did not
use the counseling center, on (1) counselor was helpful;
(2) better prepared after counseling; (3) would return to
counseling center; (4) would return to the same counselor;
(5) friends could benefit from counseling; and (6) counseling
program of value to VSC.

3. Analyzed on the basis of grade point average,
students with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who
used the counseling center, responded more favorably in
their perceptions toward counseling than students with
grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not use the
counseling center.

4. Analyzed on the basis of grade point average,
students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who
used the counseling center, responded more favorably in
their perceptions toward counseling than students with
grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not use the
counseling center, on (1) counselor was helpful; (2) coun-
seling center right place to go; (3) better prepared after
counseling; (4) would return to counseling center; and

(5) would return to same counselor.

107

5. Analyzed on the basis of estimated family
income, students with estimated family incomes of $0.01
to $5,00, who used the counseling center, responded more
favorably in their perceptions toward counseling than
students with estimated family incomes of $5,001 and
above, who did not use the counseling center.

6. Analyzed on the basis of estimated family
income, students with estimated family incomes of $5,001
and above, who used the counseling center, responded more
favorably in their perceptions toward counseling than
students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000,
who did not use the counseling center on only two questions
of eight: (1) counselor was helpful and (2) better pre-
pared after counseling.

7. Analyzed on the basis of classification, under-
graduate students who used the counseling center responded
more favorably in their perceptions toward counseling than
graduate students who did not use the counseling center.

8. Analyzed on the basis of classification,
graduate students who used the counseling center responded
more favorably in their perceptions toward counseling than
undergraduate students who did not use the counseling center,
on (1) better prepared after counseling; (2) would return
to the counseling center; (3) would return to the same
counselor; (4) friends could benefit from counseling; and

(5) counseling program of value to VSC.

108

Conclusions

 

The findings of this portion of the study yield
evidence to support the general conclusion that there are
differences in the perceptions of students toward counseling,
as reported by the students who used and did not use the
counseling center.

Several specific conclusions can be drawn from the
findings; they are listed below:

1. Among females included in this study, those
who used the counseling center perceived counseling more
favorably than males who did not use the counseling center.

2. Among males included in the study, those who
used the counseling center perceived counseling more
favorably than females who did not use the counseling
center.

3. Among students with grade point averages of
0.01 to 2.49 included in the study, those who used the
counseling center perceived counseling more favorably
than students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00,
who did not use the counseling center.

4. )Among students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00 included in the study, those who used the
counseling center perceived counseling more favorably than
students with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who

did not use the counseling center.

109

5. Among students with estimated family incomes of
$0.01 to $5,000 included in the study, those who used the
counseling center perceived counseling more favorably than
students with estimated family incomes of $5,001 and above,.
who did not use the counseling center.

6. Among students with estimated family incomes of
$5,001 and above included in this study, those who used
the counseling center did not differ significantly from
students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000,
who did not use the counseling center. The differences
that were observed between the populations were due to
chance and chance alone.

7. Among undergraduate students included in the
study, those who used the counseling center perceived
counseling more favorably than graduate students who did
not use the counseling center.

8. Among graduate students included in this study,
those who used the counseling perceived counseling more
favorably than undergraduate students who did not use the
counseling center.

The Perceptions of Personal Adjustment

for Students Who Used and Did Not Use
the Counseling Center

 

 

 

Findings
Those perceptions of personal adjustment as tested

by the questionnaire were analyzed in terms of significance

of the variables of sex, grade point average, estimated

110

family income, and classification for students who used
and did not use the counseling center. Significant differ-
ences were found to support the following statements:

1. Analyzed on the basis of sex, female students
who used the counseling center responded more favorably in
their perceptions of personal adjustment than males who did
not, on (1) personally able to explain counseling services
and (2) perceiving counseling being of benefit to the
student body. However, males who did not use the counseling
center responded more favorably in their perceptions of
personal adjustment than females who used the counseling
center, on (1) personally able to identify weaknesses and
strengths and (2) would be a better counselor than those
employed.

2. Analyzed on the basis of sex, females who did
not use the counseling center responded more favorably in
their perceptions of personal adjustment than males who
used the counseling center, on (1) personally able to
identify academic aptitudes and abilities; (2) perceiving
counseling being of benefit to the student body; and (3)
being a better counselor than those employed.

3. Analyzed on the basis of grade point average,
students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did
not use the counseling center, responded more favorably in
their perceptions of personal adjustment than students

with grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who used the

111

counseling center, on (1) personally able to identify
weaknesses and strengths; (2) perceiving counseling being
of benefit to the student body; and (3) being a better
counselor than those employed.

4. Analyzed on the basis of grade point average,
students with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who
used the counseling center, responded more favorably in
their perceptions of personal adjustment than students with
grade point averages of 0.01 to 2.49, who did not use the
counseling center, on (1) personally able to identify
academic aptitudes and abilities and (2) would be a better
counselor than those employed.

5. Analyzed on the basis of estimated family
income, students with estimated family incomes of $5,001
and above, who did not use the counseling center, responded
more favorably in their perceptions of personal adjustment
than students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to
$5,000, who used the counseling center, on (1) personally
able to explain counseling services; (2) personally able
to identify weaknesses and strengths; and (3) perceiving
counseling being of benefit to the student body.

6. Analyzed on the basis of estimated family
income, students with estimated family incomes of $5,001
and above, who used the counseling center, responsed more
favorably in their perceptions of personal adjustment than

students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000

112

who did not use the counseling center, on (1) personally
able to explain counseling services and (2) personally
able to identify academic aptitudes and abilities.

7. Analyzed on the basis of classification,
undergraduate students who used the counseling center,
responded more favorably than graduate students who did
not use the counseling center on personally able to eXplain
counseling services. Graduate students who did not use
the counseling center responded more favorably in their
perceptions of personal adjustment than undergraduate
students on would be a better counselor than those
employed.

8. Analyzed on the basis of classification,
undergraduate students who did not use the counseling
center responded more favorably in their perceptions of
personal adjustment than graduate students who used the
counseling center, on (1) personally able to explain
counseling services; (2) personally able to identify
academic aptitudes and abilities; (3) perceiving coun-

seling being of benefit to the student body; and (4) being

a better counselor than those employed.

Conclusions

The findings of this portion of the study yield-
evidence to support the general conclusion that there are
differences in the perceptions of students toward their own
personal adjustment, as reported by the student who used

and did not use the counseling center.

113

Several specific conclusions can be drawn from the
findings and these are listed below:

1. Among females included in the study, those who
used the counseling center perceived their personal adjust-
ment more favorably than males who did not use the counseling
center, on (1) personally able to explain counseling services
and (2) perceiving counseling being of benefit to the
student body. Among males included in the eudy, those who
did not use the counseling center perceived their personal
adjustment more favorably than females who used the counseling
center, on (1) personally able to identify weaknesses and
strengths and (2) would be a better counselor than those
employed.

2. Among females included in the study, those who
did not use the counseling center perceived their personal
adjustment more favorably than males who used the counseling
center.

3. Among students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00 included in the study, those who did not use
the counseling center perceived their personal adjustment
more favorably than students with grade point averages of
0.01 to 2.49, who used the counseling center.

4. Among students with grade point averages of
2.50 to 4.00 included in the study, those who used the
counseling center perceived their personal adjustment more
favorably than students with grade point averages of 0.01

to 2.49, who did not use the counseling center.

114

5. Among students with estimated family incomes
of $5,001 and above included in the study, those who used
the counseling center perceived their personal adjustment
more favorably than students with estimated family incomes
of $0.01 to $5,000, who did not use the counseling center.

6. Among students with estimated family incomes
of $5,001 and above, those who used the counseling center
perceived their personal adjustment more favorably than
students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000,

who did not use the counseling center.

 

7. Among undergraduate students included in the
study, those who used the counseling center perceived their
personal adjustment as being able to explain counseling
services; however, graduate students who did not use the
counseling center perceived their personal adjustment as
being a better counselor than those employed.

8. Among undergraduate students included in the
study, those who did not use the counseling center per-
ceived their personal adjustment more favorably than

graduate students who used the counseling center.

Summapy
It is desirable, at this point, to make further

interpretations and generalizations from the conclusions
reached as a result of this research.
1. Male students who did not drop out of Virginia

State College were generally positive in their perceptions

 

115

of counseling, however, in their perceptions of personal
adjustment, they were only adjusted to the extent that
confidence was expressed in being able to explain the
counseling services and perceiving that contemporaries

at VSC could benefit from the services. On the other hand,
females who dropped out of VSC were not favorable toward
counseling. In addition, they perceived themselves as
being better able to identify personal academic aptitudes
and abilities, as well as being a better counselor than

the professionals employed in the counseling center. These
results suggest that males who did not drop out of VSC

have a dependency on counseling and a low perception of
self without counseling. Furthermore, females who dropped
out of,VSC were generally more independent of thought and,
therefore, counseling was not important. Additionally,
since females outnumber males in the student body, in
dropping out (Table l), and in response to the questionnaire
(Table 2), dominance in attitude may be attributed to
females as a cause of their negative perceptions of
counseling and strong perceptions of self.

2. Female students who did not drop out of VSC
were generally positive in their perceptions toward coun-
seling. Males, however, who dropped out of VSC were
generally positive in their perceptions of personal
adjustment. A possible cause for these results is that

a significantly greater number of Black males who drop

116

out of VSC are confronted with obtaining employment than
are females at VSC, and adequate perceptions of self would
tend to overshadow that of females who stay within the
academic environment.

3. Students with grade point averages of 0.01 to
2.49, who did not drop out of VSC, were generally positive
in their perceptions of counseling. Students with grade
point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who dropped out, were
generally positive in their perceptions of personal adjust-

ment. These results suggest that students with high grade

 

point averages, who drop out of VSC, would view perceptions
of self due to prevailing academic success; whereas,
students with low grade point averages, who did not drop
out, possibly viewed counseling as a source of assistance
in their academic pursuits.

4. Students with grade point averages of 2.50
to 4.00, who did not drop out of VSC, were generally
positive in their perceptions of counseling. In addition,
these same students perceived their personal adjustment
positively. These results suggest that students with high
grade point averages will possibly perceive their personal
adjustment being positive and if they remain at VSC, will
perceive counseling being positive more than students with
low grade point averages.

5. Students with estimated family incomes of $0.01

to $5,000, who did not drop out of VSC, were generally

117

favorable in their perceptions of counseling. However,
students with estimated family incomes of $5,001 and above,
who dropped out, were generally positive in their percep-
tions of personal adjustment. These results suggest that
income level would appear to be significant in the percep-
tion of worth of counseling and of personal adjustment.

6. Students with estimated family incomes of
$5,001 and above, who did not drop out of VSC, were
generally favorable in their perceptions of counseling.

Furthermore, the same population of students were generally

 

I. a-4

positive in their perceptions of personal adjustment.
These results suggest that students with high incomes
basically view their personal adjustment favorably and if
they remain at VSC, will possibly perceive counseling being
more favorable than students with low incomes.

7. Undergraduate students who did not drop out
of VSC were generally adequate in their perceptions of
counseling. Graduate students were generally positive in
their perceptions of personal adjustment, thereby suggesting
that graduate students because of their having been through
the undergraduate route, are more positive in their personal
adjustment and would not require counseling.

8. Graduate students who did not drop out of VSC
were generally positive in their perceptions of counseling,
as well as in their perceptions of personal adjustment.

These results suggest that graduate students would basically

118

view personal adjustment favorably and if they remain at
VSC, will possibly perceive counseling being more favorable
than undergraduate students.

9. Females who used the counseling center were
generally favorable in their perceptions of counseling.
In addition, females who used the counseling center
generally perceived their personal adjustment as being
able to explain the counseling services and perceiving
that other students could benefit from counseling. Males

who did not use the counseling center did not perceive

 

counseling favorably; however, in their perceptions of
personal adjustment, they viewed themselves as being able
to identify weaknesses and strengths and being a better
counselor than those employed at the counseling center.
These results suggest that males had no use for the
counseling center since they perceived themselves more
adequate than the counselor employed. Contact with the
center favored the perceptions of females.

10. Males who used the counseling center were
generally favorable in their perceptions of counseling.
Females who did not use the counseling center were gen-
erally more favorable in their perceptions of personal
adjustment. It appears that female dominance in campus
population, non-use of counseling center (Table l), and
in response to questionnaire (Table 2) could be contri-

buting factors to these results.

119

11. Students with grade point averages of 0.01
to 2.49, who used the counseling center, were generally
positive in their perceptions of counseling. Students
with grade point averages of 2.50 to 4.00, who did not
use the counseling center, perceived their personal adjust-
ment favorably. These results suggest that grade point
average could possibly be the contributing factor in the .
use of the counseling center and perception of personal

adjustment.

 

I
12. Students with grade point averages of 2.50 E
to 4.00, who used the counseling center, were generally
positive in their perceptions of counseling, as well as
in their perceptions of personal adjustment. These results
suggest, as in number 11, that students with high grade
point averages may perceive positive perceptions of self
and if they use the counseling center, will possibly per-
ceive counseling being more favorable than students with
low grade point averages.
13. Students with estimated family incomes of
$5,001 and above, who used the counseling center and
students with estimated family incomes of $0.01 to $5,000,
who did not use the counseling center tended to perceive
counseling in the same manner. ‘However, high income
students, who used the counseling center, were generally

positive in their perceptions of personal adjustment.

120

14. Students with estimated family incomes of
$0.01 to $5,000, who used the counseling center, were
generally favorable in their perceptions of counseling.
Students with incomes of $5,001 and above, who did not
use the counseling center, were generally positive in their
perceptions of personal adjustment. These results suggest
that students with low incomes, who use the counseling
center probably use it as a supportive service; whereas,
high income students may not use it for that purpose but

will retain favorable perceptions of self.

 

15. Undergraduate students who used the counseling
center were generally favorable in their perceptions of
counseling. There was only a slight difference between
graduate students who did not use the counseling center and
undergraduate students who did in their perceptions of
personal adjustment. Graduate students perceived personal
adjustment in being a better counselor than those employed
in the counseling center, and undergraduate students as
being able to explain the counseling services. These '
results suggest that undergraduate students who use the
counseling center are more favorable toward counseling
and almost, if not so, equal to graduate students who do
not use the counseling center in their perceptions of
personal adjustment.

16. Graduate students who used the counseling

center were generally favorable in their perceptions of

121

counseling. Undergraduate students who did not use the
counseling center were generally more favorable in their
perceptions of personal adjustment. These results suggest
that graduate students who may actively seek counseling
may possibly have a low perception of self, as it may
relate to academic success or adjustment within a higher

context of education.

Recommendations

 

The results of this investigation demonstrate that

students generally have a high regard for counseling at

 

Virginia State College. This is especially true for
student respondents who remained at Virginia State College
and who used the counseling center. Respondent female
students, students with high grade point averages, and
students with high incomes who dropped out of Virginia
State College and who did not use the counseling center
generally had greater positive perceptions of their
personal adjustment than students who remained at VSC or
who used the counseling center. Therefore, in order to
assist students in attaining stronger perceptions of self
and to minimize the negative perceptions of counseling,
the following recommendations seem to be in order:

1. That counseling center personnel begin immediate
contact with all students who drop out of Virginia State
College, after each semester, for the purpose of lending

counseling aid.

122

2. In order that each non-user of Counseling may
have contact with the counseling center, counseling center
personnel should send brochures, letters, or other forms
of communication to the non-users.

3. That counseling center personnel explore the
strategies for remaining open beyond the customary 5:00 p.m.
period in order to serve a greater number of graduate r—
students who participate in the evening and Saturday classes.

4. That counseling center personnel conduct pro-

gress evaluation reports on counseled students, who no

 

longer have continued in counseling, for the purpose of _
determining any change that may have occured as a result
of counseling contact.

5. That counseling center personnel use behavioral
goals rather than vague and abstract goals in order to be
precise as to what is to occur as a result of counseling
rather than what may occur.

6. That counseling center personnel be increasingly
capable of truly understanding poor Black students, and
low achieving students, who possibly come to the counseling

center with low self-concepts to start.

Implications for Further Research
The first recommendation which must be given after
reviewing this study is to encourage many more studies of
this or similar nature. Since this is the first study

conducted involving the Virginia State College Counseling

123

Center since 1950, many studies must be completed which can
serve as building blocks for the counseling center organiza-
tion in the future.

As a result of this research, several challenging
and valuable studies are immediately apparent to the
investigator. In this section three of these possibilities
will be presented.

On a larger scale, an investigation should be
attempted in the area of the perceptions of Virginia State

College students toward the college environment, using the

 

College and University Environmental Scales (C.U.E.S.) or
a similar instrument to assist college personnel in more
adequately meeting the needs of all college students.

An investigation of a longitudinal nature should
be attempted that will measure the change in students'
perceptions of counseling and of their personal adjustment
over an extended period of time.

On a short range or longitudinal basis, investigations
of the perceptions of entering freshmen toward counseling or
the college environment would be of great value when compared
with this population's initial perceptions upon entering
college versus the perceptions held at a later date after

exposure to the college environment.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

124

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Walter A. "The Negro Patient in Psychiatric Treatment."
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 20:305-310,
April 1950.

Allport, Floyd H. Theories of Perceppion and Concept of
Structure. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Incor-
porated, 1961.

Atkinson, Richard C. and R. M. Shiffrin. "Human Memory:
A Proposed System and Its Control Processes." The

Psychology of Learning and Motivation. New York:
Academic Press, 1968.

Berdie, Ralph F. and June Stein. "A Comparison of New
University Students Who Do and Do Not Seek Counseling."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13:310-317, Fall

 

1966.
Begley, Carl E. and Lewis R. Lieberman. "Patient EXpecta-
tions of Therapists' Techniques." Journal of

 

Counseling Psychology, 17:112-116, 1970.

Blake, Robert R. Perception: An Approach to Personality.
New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1951.

Bruner, Jerome 8. "Personality Dynamics and the Process
of Perceiving." Perception: An Approach to
Personality. Robert R. Blake and Glenn V. Ramsey
(eds.). New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1951,
pp. 121-147.

Campbell, David P. "Achievements of Counseled and Non-
Counseled Students Twenty-Five Years After Counseling."

Journal of Counseling_Psychology, 12:287-293, Fall
1965.

. The Results of Counseling: Twenty-Five Years
Later. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company,
1965.

125

1"

126

Clark, David D. "Characteristics of Counseling Centers
in Large Universities." Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 44:817-823, April 1966.

Cooke, Margaret K. and Donald D. J. Kiesler. "Prediction
of College Students Who Later Require Personal
Counseling." Journal of Counseling Psychology,
14:346-349, 1967.

Counseling Center Handbook. Virginia State College,
1972-73, p. 2.

Crites, John 0. Vocational Psychology. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1969.

 

.Dember, William N. The Psychology of Perception. New

York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1965.

Edgar, Thomas E. "Wishful Wish: Evaluation Without
Values." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44:1025-
1029, June 1966.

Elliott, Earl 8., Carl A. Lindsay, and Vernon L. Shockley.
"Counseling Status and Academic Achievement of
College Freshmen." Personnel and Guidance Journal,
47:364-368, December 1968.

 

Form, Arnold L. "Measurement of Student Attitudes Toward
Counseling Services." Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 32:84-87, October 1953.

 

 

Feldman, Kenneth. "Some Methods for Assessing College
Impacts." Sociology of Education, 44:133-150,
Fall 1971.

«Fieandt, Kai von. The World of Perceptions. Illinois:

 

The Dorcey Press, 1966.

Gilbreath, Stuart. "Comparison of Responsive and Non-
responsive Underachievers to Counseling Service
Aid." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18:81-

 

84, 1971.
Glazer, Stanford H. "Client Evaluation of Counseling
Experiences." The Journal of College Student

 

Personnel, 10:1150117, March 1969.

 

Gonyea, G. "The Ideal Therapeutic Relationship and
Counseling Outcome." Journal of Clinical Psychology,
19:481-487, October 1963.

 

 

127

Hahn, Milton E. and Malcolm S. MacLean. Counseling-
Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Incorporated, 1955.

 

 

Heider, Fritz. "Consciousness, The Perceptual Word, and
Communications with Others." Person Perception
and Interpersonal Behavior. Renato Tagiuri and
Luigi Petrullo (eds.). California: Stanford
University Press, 1958, pp. 27-32.

 

 

Heilbrun, Alfred B. "Male and Female Personality Correlates
of Early Termination in Counseling." Journal of an
Counseling Psychology, 8:31-36, Spring 1961.

 

Hoover, B. "College Students Who Didn't Seek Counseling

 

During a Period of Academic Difficulty." Disser-
tation Abstracts International, 28(4-A), 1967, 2
p. 1298. «

 

"'~ .‘I‘-

Ivey, Allen E. and Stanley S. Robin. "Role Theory, Role
Conflict and Counseling." Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 13:31-35, Spring 1966.

 

 

”Johnson, Donald M. The Psychology of Thought and Judgment.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Incorporated,

 

1965.
King, Paul T. and Ross W. Matteson. "Student Perception
of Counseling Center Services." Personnel and

 

Guidance Journal, 37:358-364, January 1959.

 

Krumboltz, John D. "Behavioral Goals of Counseling."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 13:153-159,
Summer 1966.

. "Parable of the Good Counselor." Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 43:118-124, October 1964.

 

 

Lawrence, Douglas H. and George R. Coles. "Accuracy of
Recognition with Alternatives Before and After
the Stimulus." Journal of Experimental Psychology,
47:208-214, 1954.

Lehner, George F. J. and Ella Kube. The Dynamics of Personal
Adjustment. New York: Prentice-Hall, Incorporated,
1964.

 

128

 

"LeShan, Lawrence L. "Time Orientation and Social Class."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47:589-
592, 1952.

Linden, James D., Shelley C. Stone, and Bruce Shertzer.
"Development and Evalutation of an Inventory for
Rating Counseling." Personnel and Guidance Journal,
XLVI:267-276, November 1965. F"

 

Lindgren, Henry C. Psychology of Personal Adjustment and
Social Adjustment. New York: American Book
Company, 1959.

 

 

 

McClelland, D. C. and A. M. Liberman. "The Effect of Need
Achievement on Recognition of Need-Related Words."
Journal of Personality, 18:236-251, 1949.

 

 

McMillin, Marvin R. and Patrick Cerra. "Student Knowledge
About a College Counseling Center." NASPA Journal,
10:138-141, October 1972.

 

Mendelsohn, Gerald A. and Barbara A. Kirk. "Personality
Differences Between Students Who Do Not Use a
Counseling Facility." Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 47:333-336, 1968.

 

 

Merenda, Peter F. and John W. M. Rothney. "Evaluating
the Effects of Counseling - Eight Years After."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 5:163-168,
Fall 1958.

 

w Michotte, A. The Perception of Causality. New York:

 

Basic Books, Incorporated, 1968.

Minge, M. Ronald and Thomas F. Bowman. "Personality
Differences Among Nonclients and Vocational
Educational and Personal Counseling Clients."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14:137-139, 1967.

 

/Moustakos, Clark E. "True Experience and Self." The Self.
Clark E. Moustakos (ed.). New York: Harper and
Row, Incorporated, 1956, pp. 9-11.

Mueller, Kate H. Student Personnel Work in Higper Education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961.

 

129

Munn, Norman L. The Evolution and Growth of Human
Behavior. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1965.

Norman, Donald A. "Human Information Processing."
Viewpoints, 47:48-66, 1971.

O'Leary, Susan G. "Counselor Activity as a Predictor
of Outcome." Personnel and Guidance Journal,
48:135-139, October 1969.

Orlinsky, David E., Kenneth I. Howard, and James A. Hill.
"The Patients' Concerns in Psychotherapy."
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25:104-111, 1970.

Payne, Bill F. and Charletta J. Dunn. "An Analysis of the
Change in Self-Concept." Journal of Negro Educa-
tion, XLI:156-l63, Winter 1972.

Peak, Helen. "Psychological Sturcture and Person Perception."
Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior.
Renato Tagiuri and Luigi Petrullo (eds.). Cali-
fornia: Stanford University Press, 1958, pp. 337-
352.

Pearlman, S. "The College Student Views His Mental
Health Experience." Journal of American College
Association, 14:277-283, 1966.

 

Postman, Leo, Jerome S. Bruner, and E. McGinnis. "Personal
Values as Selective Factors in Perception."
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43:142-

 

154, 1948.
Reaves, Gayle C. and Leonard E. Reaves, III. "The Counselor
and Preventive Psychiatry." Personnel and Guidance

 

Journal, 43:661-664, March 1965.

Resnick, Harvey and Charles J. Gelso. "Differential
Perceptions of Counseling Role: A Reexamination."
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 18:549-553, 1971.

Restle, Frank. Psychology of Judgment and Choice: A
Theoretical Essay, New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Incorporated, 1961.

 

130

‘iRogers, Carl R. On Becoming A Person. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1961.

 

and R. F. Dymond (eds.). Psychotherapy and
Personality Change. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1954.

 

 

. "The Concept of the Fully Functioning Person."
Psycho-therepy: Theory, Research and Practice,
1:23, August 1963.

Rothney, John W. M. Guidance Practices and Results.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958.

 

. "Trained and Non-Trained Males Ten Years
After High School Graduation." Vocational
Guidance Quarterly, 14:247-250, Winter 1966.

 

 

Rossman, Jack E. and Barbara Kirk. "Comparisons of
Counseling Seekers and Nonseekers." Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 17:184-188, 1970.

 

 

Runyon, Richard P. and Aubrey Haber. Fundamentals of
Behavioral Statistics. Massachusetts: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, 1968.

 

 

Schneider, G. and Ralph Berdie. "Representatives of
College Students Who Receive Counseling Services."
Journal of Educational Psychology, 33:545-551, 1942.

 

Shertzer, Bruce and Shelley C. Stone. Fundamentals of
Counseling. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company,

 

 

1968.
Shoben, Edward S. "The Counseling Experience as Personal
Development." Personnel and Guidance Journal,

 

44:224-230, November 1965.

Stringham, M. C. "Factors Pertaining to the Utilization
or Non-Utilization of Psychological Counseling
Services in a Liberal Arts College." Dissertation

 

Abstracts International, 30(2-A), 1969, p. 556.

 

Synder, John F., Clara E. Hill, and Timothy P. Derksen.
"Why Some Students Do Not Use University Counseling

Facilities." Journal of Counseling Psychology,
19:263-268, 1972.

 

131

Tosi, Donald J. and William A. Carlson. "Client Dogmatism
and Perceived Counselor Attributes." Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 48:657-660, April 1970.

 

 

Tseng, Michael and Donald L. Thompson. "Differences
Between Adolescents Who Seek Counseling and Those
Who Do Not." Personnel and Guidance Journal,
47:333-336, December 1968.

Tyler, Leona E. The Work of the Counselor. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Incorporated, 1961.

 

VanDalen, Deobold B. and William J. Meyer. Understanding
Educational Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1962.

 

 

Vanderplas, James M. and Robert R. Blake. "Selective
Sensitization in Auditory Perception." Journal
of Personality, 18:252-266, 1949.

 

Vontress, Clemmont E. "Racial Differences: Impediments
to Rapport." Journal of Counseling Psychology,
18:7-13, 1971.

Weidman, John C. "The Influence of Educational Attainment
on Self-Evaluations of Competence." Sociology
of Education, 45:303—312, Summer 1972.

 

 

Weitz, Henry. Behavior Change through Guidance. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, 1964.

 

Williamson, E. G. and E. S. Bordin. "Evaluating Counseling
by Means of a Control-Group Experiment." School
and Sociepy, 52-434-440, November 1940.

 

Wellman, Barry. "I am a Student." Sociology of Education,
44:422-437, Fall 1971.

 

Wells, Katherine F. Kinesiology. Philadelphia: W. B.
Saunders Company, 1964.

 

Yamamoto, Kaoru. "Healthy Students in the College
Environment." Personnel and Guidance Journal,
48:809-816, June 1970.

 

APPENDIX A

132

133

. 88380

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uqowmmoml
hcmuufi—HOUI HOHQEH—OU a: 53'
8038K! o: I
88380! 88880 :53 b 333
8864‘ “598ml am eggthl
. h0~®mfiflo N H «50 I
£8me “838%! = m w a m
$8.8m was 88880 :3; 838ml
Lemme. :2 2 222-
. . 0 882800 a .820 I
882500 EoEmoml :3 v m
.m888>l umWwWMOW =4“: aofiofiwmml
.0 l I . «33 I
8.8580 “Eon—:80 =5.“ vim an m .
maowmm—oml .88th ail . #82937. zam 85.—ml flmgfiubth
.pm .980 no wEEEE mam—8580 mE< .fioaafim £5 .8: Manson moomtom 28me
80.80 mo .88th .8 882.5 mo 88th 8 889:9 8 .8885 8* .88th

 

 

r

_ >888me

I 33:. 80me 8* “828.5 85 _

 

unuvmmoum

“mu—33m amZZOmem nines—hm

APPENDIX B

134

135

aflirginia 512112 01011252

fictmbmg, yirginia 23083

March 19, 1973

OFFICI 0' TH! VIC! 'RISIDENT
FOR ITUDINT AFFAIRS

Dr. Marvin R. McMillan

Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Studies
College of Education

University of Florida

Gainesville. Florida 32601

Dear Dr. McMillan:

I read with interest your article in the October, 1972
edition of the NASPA Journal.

 

Here at Virginia State College I am presently doing a
similar study. In order to assist me further in this regard,
I would appreciate it if you would forward me a reprint of
your article, a copy of your instrument. and information on
the statistical validity of the instrument.

Cordial regards ,

{/1’ :42» ”z?“

1)" Gerald McCants
Vice President for
Student Affairs

GM

136

March 27, 1973

Dr. Gerald McCants

Vice President for Student Affairs
Virginia State College

Petersburg, Virginia 23083

rear Dr. McCants:

Thank you for your interest in the article that I had published in
the NASPA Journal. A reprint of the article is attached.

This study was done while I was in Indiana State University at Terr.
Uaute, Indiana and I do not have copies of the questionnaire used.
Dr. Pat Cerra, who marked with me on the study, is still at Indiana
State so I an sending a note to him asking that he send you a copy
of the questionnaire used.

You also asked about the statistical validity of the instrument.

The instrument was a questionnaire and I cannot be sure that the
information received was valid. I assume that the students were
responding honestly since nothing would be gained for them to have
done otherwise. Once Dr. Cerra has sent you a copy of the instrument,
perhaps you can make some judgment about the face validity of the
questionnaire.

Sincerely,

( ' ‘
. . \ .
3’“ @M».-.-, ‘ h t N \ i \- --,

Marvin R. McMillin
Assistant Dean
Undergraduate Studies

MIDI/cos

Attachment

II III! ‘I ll..|.lf|!l

137

STUDENT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT A COLLEGE
COUNSELING CENTER

Marvin R. McMillin and Patrick Cerra

Student personnel agencies such as counseling centers,
financial aid offices, and learning skills centers depend
heavily on effective communication for proper utilization of
their services. If students are to use these agencies, they
must have information, first regarding their existence and,
second, regarding their services.

This study attempted to assess the amount of infor-
mation one college student body had about its counseling
center, to examine the accuracy and thoroughness of this
information, and to explore the communications channels used
to obtain it. In a related research project, Frankel and
Perlman concluded that knowledge of center function was not
dependent upon a student having been a counselee, and that
a student body, in general, perceived individual counseling
as serving, primarily, the needs of those with personal
problems. Warman reported differences in perception of
counseling center role, not only among students, counseling
staff, and other faculty on one camgus, but also differences
among various counseling centers.2:

BACKGROUND

The Counseling Center in this report was located on
the campus of a mid-western state university; a rapidly
growing institution with an enrollment of about 13,000 in a
community of 70,000. Although one quarter of the student
population commuted, a majority of students lived in campus
residence halls. The Counseling Center was a relatively new
campus agency, in its fourth year of operation at the time
of the study.

The Center utilized a variety of communications
channels in an attempt to inform students about its existence
and services, i.e., the student handbook, the school
catalog, posters, and pamphlets. During pre-school orienta-
tion, all freshmen heard a five to seven minute presentation
about the Counseling Center by a staff member of the Center
at an "information hour" in the school auditorium. Addition-
ally, an article about the Center and its functions had
appeared in the campus newspaper during the school year
prior to the study.

I ‘i : {I -
1 t1! ‘3 a. .II

III 1 1|
1 11"

III. In full

138

In spite of these attempts to communicate with
students, staff members continued to hear comments from
counselees such as "I wish I had known about the Center
sooner;" and "I know there are others who would like to
use this service if they knew about it." The frequency
of these statements gave rise to serious questions about
the adequacy of communication with students and led to
this investigation.

QUESTIONS

The study was designed to provide information
about the following questions:

1. Is there a significant number of students
unaware that the Counseling Center exists?

2. In what manner does a student get the infor-
mation he has about the Counseling Center?

3. Are certain services more well known than
others?

METHOD

A cover letter and questionnaire were sent to a
random sample of 476 university students. In addition
to a brief statement about the purpose of the study, the
letter included a description of the Counseling Center
and its function, and instructed students to respond to
the questionnaire with information they had prior to
receiving the letter.

The first question asked students whether they
were aware that the Counseling Center was present on
campus. If a student's answer to this question was
negative, he was instructed to make no more responses
since all other items depended upon a knowledge of the
Center's existence. Students who knew about the Center
were asked to indicate their source of sources of infor-
mation. A number of known methods of gaining information
were listed so that a student might check appropriate
ones, and space was provided for free responses. Finally,
the students were instructed to consider a number of
questions regarding the Center's services. They were to
answer these questions by checking "Yes" (I was aware of
that service) or "No" (I was not aware of that service).
The questionnaire reiterated the cover letter's statement
that students were to respond with information they had
prior to reading the description of the Center and its
functions.

Of the 476 students who were sent questionnaires,
252 returned them completed (a 52 per cent return). Demo-
graphic variables for the respondents were similar to those
for the total random sample. No follow-up mailing was made
since the questionnaires had been designed for anonymous
responses.

139

RESULTS

From among the 252 respondents, over a quarter of
the total, 72 students, indicated they were unaware of the
Counseling Center's existence prior to receiving the infor-
mational letter and questionnaire. Seventy-nine per cent
of the dormitory residents compared to only 54 per cent of
the commuters knew about the Center; a statistically signifi-
cant difference at the .01 level of confidence.

Over 40 percent of the students who knew of the
Center's existence indicated getting information about the
Center from other students; 18 percent mentioned the orien-
tation speech as a source of information, and 17 percent
suggested that faculty and staff had given them information.
Brochures, the school catalog, posters, and the school news-
paper were each mentioned by less than 15 percent of the
students as a means by which they had gained information
about the Counseling Center.

Even among those students who knew of the Center's
existence, information regarding its services appeared
incomplete. Only 71 per cent were aware that counsel was
provided for vocational concerns, and still fewer, (46 per
cent) knew that counsel was provided for personal concerns.
Also, only 49 per cent realized that testing of an interest,
personality, and aptitude nature was available, and 23 per
cent knew about the vocational library within the Center.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The study provided some valuable but disconcerting
information for the Counseling Center in question. If the
results reflected accurately the situation as it existed
on campus, over a fourth of the students did not know of
the Center's existence, and those who did know were not
well informed about its services.

Factors contributing to the communication deficiency
may have included the Center's short existence on the campus,
and/or the rapid expansion of the institution it served.
Whatever the reasons, the message was clear; attempts at
communicating were inadequate.

In addition to appraising the situation for one
counseling center, the writers believe that certain findings
from the research have relevance not only for other counsel-
ing centers but for any campus agency whose maximum utiliza-
tion is dependent upon students being informed about its
services. Other student personnel agencies, whether or not
they realize it, may have similar communications problems.
This may be true, especially, if the agency is new and/or
a part of a rapidly growing institution. Serving a sub-
stantial number of students does not mean, necessarily, that
all students who need the service are receiving it.

140

Many colleges rely rather heavily on printed material
to inform students. This study indicated that individuals
were more likely to get their information from other people
than from the printed page. A more personal kind of approach,
if possible, might prove productive.

A need for effective communication between a student
personnel agency and the student body cannot be over-empha-
sized. The greater the number of students who have accurate
and complete information about an agency, the more likely
that agency can perform the service for which it is intended.
A systematic and continual attempt must be made to communicate
with students, particularly so since about one-fourth of them
(the freshman class) are new each year. Each student per-
sonnel agency should critically examine its procedures in
this area. It would appear that some traditional methods
of informing students may not be particularly effective.

Marvin R. McMillin is assitant dean of undergraduate
studies, College of Education, University of Florida and
Patrick Cerra is a counselor in the Student Counseling
Center, Indiana State University.

REFERENCES

l. Frankel, Phylis M. & Perlman, Suzanne M. "Student
Perceptions of the Student Counseling Service Function."
Journal of College Student Personnel 10, (1969) PP. 232-
235.

2. Warman, R. E. "Differential Perceptions of Counseling
Role." Journal of Counseling Psychology 7, (1960)
pp. 269-274.

3. Warman, R. E. "The Counseling Role of College and
University Counseling Centers." Journal of Counseling
Psychology 8, (1961): pp. 231—238.

 

 

 

 

141

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY “Rummammm 47809

 

 

STUDENT COUNSELING CENTER (812) 232-6311

April 13, 1973

Dr. Gerald McConts

Vice President for Student Affairs
Virginia State College

Petersburg, Virginia 23803

Dear Dr. McConts:

Dr. McMillin has indicated you would like a cepy of the questionaire on which
we based the recent NASPA Journal article. Enclosed you will find the ques-
tionaire and the cover letter we used.

 

I hope you will find it of value for your uses. If you have any questions
feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Patrick F. Cerra

PFC:SED

2142

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY ummrammm. 47809

 

STUDENT COUNSELING CENTER

May 7,1069

Your Help :5 Needed.

 

You have been chosen as a member of a random sample of the

entire student body. Your answers to the attached, short questionnaire
will help us to understand how well the services of the Student Counseling
Center are being communicated to you---as a member of the student body.

If you respond "Yes" to any of the questions on the next page, this means
to us that the present means of communication have reached you and may be
adequate.

—M*—fl

If you respond "No" to any of the questions on the next page, this means
to us that the present means of communication have not reached you and
are probably not adequate.

This lg Vegy Important For 95.22 Know.

 

Please fill out the attached questionnaire regarding the services of the‘
Student Counseling Center, place it into the enclosed return envelope, and
mail it. Your help in this manner will be greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions, please call us at Extension 551. We thank you
"or helping us with this questionnaire.

Sincerely,

Marvin R. McMillin
Director

143

COMMUNICATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE
STUDENT COUNSELING CENTER

(1) SEX (2) DATE

 

(3) CAMPUS RESIDENCE: (check one)

GREEK HOUSING COMMUTER LIVE IN RESIDENCE

HALL
OTHER (specify)

 

(4) CLASS STANDING: (check one)
FRESHMAN SOPHOMORE JUNIOR

SENIOR GRADUATE OTHER (specify)

 

PLEASE READ

 

The Student Counseling Center is a free service provided for
the students by the University. A staff of professional
counselors offers their services for student personal-social
concerns, choice of a vocation, and choice of an academic
major. In this counseling process there is no tie between
the Counseling Center and the administration or faculty
which would jeopardize the confidentiality between the
student and the counselor.

 

 

 

 

To aid the counselors in helping students the Center has a
vocational library with up-to-date information about the
world of work, tests are available, and personal counseling
is offered.

 

The Student Counseling Center is a separate facility from
the Student Health Center, the Learning Skills Center, and
the Academic Advisement Center.

 

The Counseling Center is located in Hulman Center, Room 306;
it is open from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, and from 1:00 p.m.
to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to
12:00 noon on Saturday.

 

DIRECTIONS: Answer the following questions about the Student
Counseling Center WITH INFORMATION YOU HAD PRIOR
TO READING THE ABOVE STATEMENT. Check "Yes" or
"No" to the following questions in the spaces
provided.

144

Prior To Reading The Above Statement Were You Aware That:
(a) Indiana State University had a Counseling Center?

YES
NO

IF YOU ANSWERED "NO" TO QUESTION (a) ABOVE, YOU DO NOT NEED
TO FINISH THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

IF YOU ANSWERED "YES" TO QUESTION (a) ABOVE, PLEASE ANSWER
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.

Prior To Reading The Statement On The First Page, Were You
Aware That:

 

YES NO

(b) The Counseling Center is a separate
facility from the Student Health Center?

(c) The Counseling Center is a separate
facility from the Academic Advisement
Center?

(d) The Counseling Center is a separate
facility from the Learning Skills
Center?

(e) The Counseling Center is located in
Hulman Center, Room 306?

(f) A Vocational Library with up-to—date
information is available in the Center?

(9) Tests of an interest, personality and
aptitude nature are available?

(h) Aid is given at the Center for decisions
of an vocational nature?

(i) Aid is given at the Center for decisions
of an academic nature?

(j) Aid is given at the Center for decisions
of a personal-social nature?

(k) There is no tie with the administration
or faculty which would jeopardize the
confidentiality between the student and
counselor?

(1)

145

How did you become aware of the Student Counseling
Center? (check one)

A brochure put out by the Counseling Center.

A poster stating the location of the Counseling
Center.

From someone who had been to the Counseling Center.
From catalogs put out by the University.

From Orientation -- Speeches.

From your faculty advisor.

From your residence director or staff.

Other (specify)

 

COMMENTS: (on anything regarding the Center-~its role--
need--communication of what it does--your
reactions--use the back of this page if you
need more space)

 

APPENDIX C

146

147

Dear Student:

My records reveal that you are presently enrolled at Virginia
State College for the second semester, Spring 1973. As such. you
can be of assistance in helping to evaluate the counseling program
and services atVirginia State.

 

The purposes of the questionnaire are to determine your
feeling about (1) the counseling program; and (2) counselors.
Please fill out the attached questionnaire. As you will notice,
the questionnaire is "YES" or "NO" and only requires a check-
mark under one or the other.

Once you have completed the questionnaire. please mail it
to the Vice President for Student Affairs, Box 41. Virginia State
College. Petersburg, Virginia 23803. in the stamped enclosed
envelope or. if on campus. you may bring it by 201 Virginia
Hall or give it to your Resident Director in your dormitory.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. and if you
desire to know the result of this survey. please contact me.

Cordial regards.

Gerald McCants
Vice President
for Student Affairs

GM: lbr

Enclosure

148

Dear Student:

My records reveal that you are presently n91 enrolled at Virginia
State College for the second semester, Spring 1973. As such. you can
be of assistance in helping to evaluate the counseling program and
services at Virginia State College.

The purposes of the questionnaire are to determine your feeling
about (1) the counseling program; and (2) counselors. Please fill out
the attached questionnaire. As you will notice. the questionnaire is
"YES" or "NO" and only requires a check-mark under one or the other.

Once you have completed the questionnaire. please mail it to the
Vice President for Student Affaires. Box 41. Virginia State College.
Petersburg, Virginia 23803. in the stamped enclosed envelope or, if
on campus, you may bring it by 201 Virginia Hall.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. and if you desire to
know the result of this survey. please contact me.

Cordial regards.

Gerald McCants
Vice President
for Student Affairs

GM: lbr

Enclosures

149

***kA***********************************A***********k**************************a
INSTRUCTIONS: Listed below are a series of questions. Please read each
question carefully. Whenever you feel that you have a response to make,
please place a check mark under either "YES" or "N ". The last question in
this questionnaire-is related to general information about you. Once you
have completed this questionnaire, please return it to:

Vice President for Student Affairs
Box 41

Virginia State College

Petersburg, Virginia 23803

PLEASE DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME TQ_THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. Your response is needed
as soon as possible.
***********************A********************************************************

 

YES NO

1. Have you ever been to a counselor at the Virginia State
College (VSC) Counseling Center?

 

' 2. Were you referred to the Counseling Center?

 

3. Did you go for academic reasons?

 

4. Did you go for personal reasons?

 

 

5. Did you go for vocational reasons?

6. In your opinion, do you feel that the counselor was helpful
to you? '

 

7. Do you feel that the Counseling Center was the right place
to go to seek assistance with your concern?‘

 

8. In your opinion, were you better prepared to deal with your
concern after going to the Counseling Center?

 

9. Do you feel that if you had another concern you would return
to the Counseling Center for further service?

 

10. Do you feel that if you had another concern you would return
to the same Counselor at the Counseling Center?

 

 

11. Do you feel that your friends could benefit from counseling
at the Counseling Center?

 

12. In your opinion, does the counseling program add anything of
value to VSC?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

150

PAGE #2

0

13. Was the Counseling program at VSC ever explained,
described or outlined to you?
14. In your opinion, could you tell a new student what
counseling services are available to him at VSC?
15. Do you feel reasonably sure you can identify your own
personal weaknesses and strengths without counseling help?
16. Do you feel reasonably sure you can identify your own
personal academic aptitudes and abilities without
counseling help?
17. As far as you can determine, do you feel that the
college's counseling program and services are of benefit to
the student body? ’
18. In your opinion, would you be a better counselor, at
this time, than those employed at the VSC Counseling Center?
19 . GENERAL INFORMATION
Status: __Enrolled at VSC
Not enrolled at VSC
Classification: Undergraduate

Graduate Student

Cumulative Grade

Point Average: 0.01 to 2.49
2.50 to 4.00
Sex Female
_____;Male
Estimate of total
family income $0.01 to $5,000

$5,001 and above

 

 

[ES

LIBRAR

“Will”

Y
.h
s
R
E
w
N
U
F.
T
A

ST

MICHIGAN

IIIHIH

1293 03145 3214

IIHI

IHIHWHH