THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A MULTiPLE-CHDICE SCALE T0 MEASURE AFFECTIVE SENSITWETY (EMPATHY) Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MiCHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY ROBERT J. CAMPBELL 1967 “MIMI“WW .. A R y Michigan State: University , .. This is to certify that. the... . J thesis entitled THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A MULTIPLE-CHOICE SCALE T0 MEASURE AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY (EMPATHY) . h. e C presented by Robert J. Campbell has been accepted towards fulfillment _l~. -h of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Connseling, Personnel Services & Educational Psychology fléum Major pIOfessor Date July 25, 1967 0-169 I ewe»:- 91 7 ‘* D 1 5 1 ABSTRACT THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A MULTIPLE-CHOICE SCALE TO MEASURE AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY (EMPATHY) by Robert J. Campbell The purpose of this research was to determine if multiple- choice items used with short excerpts from videotape or film scenes of actual counseling sessions could reliably and validly measure individuals' affective sensitivity. In addition, three different methods of obtaining correct answers and distractors were compared, and the functioning of two different sets of items--one reflecting the client's feelings about himself and the other reflecting his feelings about the counselor--were examined. The influence of poor sound quality on individuals' abilities to respond to the counseling session scenes was also explored. Three types of multiple-choice items were developed. Correct answers and distractors for each type came from different sources. Each item consisted of one correct answer and two distractors. Half the items referred to the client's feelings about himself, and the other half referred to his feelings about the counselor. Items were integrated into three equivalent deve10pmenta1 scale forms. The three deve10pmenta1 forms accompanied by the scenes on either kinescope (film) or videotape were administered to 8 sample groups, consisting of master's degree candidates in counseling and guidance. Peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness were collected from Robert J. Campbell each group. Data obtained from administering the three deve10pmental forms to sample groups was used to statistically test 5 hypotheses. It was found that if the items which adequately discriminated between individuals reSponding to the three developmental forms would be combined into a single revised form, the resulting form should have acceptable reliability. Some evidence for the validity of such a revised form was also found. Showing the scenes of counseling sessions on television videotape with its good sound quality resulted in significantly higher scores than showing the scenes on kinesc0pe with its poor sound quality. 0f the three different methods used to obtain correct answers and distractors, none was significantly superior to the others. No significant difference was found between the functioning of the items which referred to the client's feelings about himself and those which referred to his feelings about the counselor. Because the results obtained with the three developmental forms were promising, the discriminating items from these three forms were used as a basis for constructing a revised form. Revised Form A.was developed and administered to a sample group. Results of this procedure led to a second revision of the scale, Revised Form B. Studies of Form B's reliability and validity were made using data obtained by administering the form to nine sample groups. The studies resulted in the following conclusions: Robert J. Campbell The procedures used in deve10ping the scale, along with results from item analyses and other internal analyses of the scale, provide some evidence of the scale's content validity. For most somewhat heterogeneous groups the reliability of Form B is above .70. This should include most groups of practicing school counselors and groups of individuals entering counselor education programs. A low, positive relationship exists between scale scores and subjective measures of counselor effectiveness. The average correlation obtained between these two variables across all studies was .26, with a high of .42 and a low of .16. A more substantial relationship exists between the scale scores and subjective measures of affective sensitivity. The average correlation between these two variables across all studies was .38, with a high of .64 and a low of -.10. This relationship and the relationship indicated in 3 give an indication of the scale's concurrent validity. A substantial relationship exists between Form A scale scores obtained at the beginning of an academic year counselor training program and peer ratings of counselor effectiveness obtained seven months later (£_= .49). More than half the items in Revised Form B are identical to those in Revised Form A, so it is assumed that Form B will not differ markedly in predictive validity although Robert J. Campbell this will have to be tested in subsequent studies. Form B measures significant changes in individuals' affective sensitivity resulting from counselor training programs. Form B is unaffected by the practice effect often evident in procedures involving pretesting and posttesting using the same measuring instrument. THE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A MULTIPLE-CHOICE SCALE TO MEASURE AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY (EMPATHY) By ( Robert J? Campbell A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1967 To Mother and the memory of my Father ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Norman Kagan, not only for the opportunity to do this research and for his assistance and suggestions in developing and completing it, but also for the support and guidance he gave me throughout my entire doctoral program. I am also grateful to Drs. J. W. Costar, R. L. Ebel, and D. W. Thornton for their assistance as members of my guidance committee. I also wish to thank Dr. David R. Krathwohl for his many valuable suggestions and criticisms which he offered through- out this entire study. Many individuals contributed to the completion of this study by giving their time and effort to judge instrument scenes, to rate tapes, and to help with other tasks. To these individuals--Donald Waterstreet, Harold Bradsher, Nancy Abe, Al Goldberg, Paul Schauble, Steve Danish, Drs. J. Mezzano, R. Rank, W. Morrill,J; Messing, and K. Matheny--I would like to express my appreciation. I want to also thank the many other individuals who gave their time to view instrument scenes and write distractor statements. Lastly, to my wife Mart without whose understanding, inspiration, and help this project could not have been completed. The research reported herein was part of a larger project supported by a grant from the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S. Office of Education, "Exploration of the Potential Value of Interpersonal Process Recall Technique (IPR) for the Study of Selected Educational Problems," Norman Kagan, Project Director (Project No. 7-32-0410-216). iii CHAPTER I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROB LEM O O O O O 0 O O O 0 Need for the Study Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background of the Original Affective Sensitivity Instrument and Scale . . . . . . . . Critique of the Original Research . . . . . . . . Rationale for a New Scale . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Critique and Rationale . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . PREVIOUS APPROACHES TO THE DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF EMATHY O O O C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Definitions of Empathy and Related Concepts Empathy as Role Playing and Role Taking . . . . . Empathy as Role Reversal . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions Stressing Detachment and Objectivity Empathy as Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Conclusions Previous Approaches to the Measurement of Empathy . Predictive Tests of Empathy . Situational Tests of Empathy . . . . . . . . . Discussion and Conclusions . . . . . . General Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv PAGE 11 12 13 13 15 15 15 l6 l7 l8 19 20 21 26 34 35 CHAPTER III. IV. V. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . Construction of Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Construction of Three New Combination Scale Forms for Administration to Sample Groups 0 O O O O O O O O I O O I O O 0 O O O O 0 Item Analyses O O O O O O O O O O O O l O O O O 0 Reliability of Peer and Staff Ratings . . . . . . Hypotheses C O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O sumary O O O O O O I O I O O I O O O O O O O PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA FOR DEVELOPMENTAL FORMS I, II, AND III . . . . Results of Item Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . Results of Calculating Intraclass Correlations for Peer and Staff Ratings . . . . . . Results Obtained from Testing Hypotheses Interpretation and Discussion of Results . . . . General summary 0 O O O O I O C O O O O O REVISED FORMS A AND B OF THE AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY S CALE C C O C O C O O O O O I O I C O O O O 0 Revised Form A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ReVised Form B O O O O O O O O O O I O 0 O O O 0 Sample Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Item Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reliability . . validity o o o o o o o o o 0 PAGE 38 38 44 46 . 50 50 . 55 . 57 . S7 . 6O 61 71 79 . 83 . 83 . 84 . 85 . 87 87 . 88 89 . 91 CHAPTER V. VI. Interpretation, Discussion, Reliability . Item Analyses Validity . Summary . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . Summary . . Discussion . Theoretical Implications and Conclusions Implications for Future Research . . . . LIST OF REFERENCES vi PAGE 99 99 101 102 107 112 112 120 126 131 137 TABLE 3.2 3.3 3.4 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 LIST OF TABLES Sources of correct answers and distractors for item Types A, B, and C O O O O O O O O O O O O The procedure used to integrate the original types of items into three new scale forms . . . . . Item analysis procedures . . . . . . . . . . . Sample groups viewing the instrument on videotape and those viewing it on kinescope . . . . . . . Number of items significant at the .04 level when total test scores were used as the criterion for item analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of items significant at the .04 level when peer ratings of counselor effectiveness were used as the criterion for item analyses . . . . . . . . Number of items significant at the .04 level using staff ratings of counselor effectiveness as the criterion for item analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Intraclass correlation formula reliability estimates of individual and average ratings calculated for peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness . . Kuder-Richardson formula 20's calculated for original developmental forms for those calculated for developmental forms reSCOred on the basis of significant items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pearson product-moment coefficients of correlation between each group's scale scores and peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness . . . . . . The number of items from Types A, B, and C which were significant and nonsignificant against the total test score criterion . . . . . . . . . . The number of items from Types A, B, and C which were significant and nonsignificant against the peer rating criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii PAGE 39 45 49 54 58 59 60 61 62 64 66 67 TABLE 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Number of items from Types A, B, and C which were significant and nonsignificant against the staff rating criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The number of Set 1 and Set 2 items which were significant and nonsignificant against the total test score criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The number of Set 1 and Set 2 items which were significant and nonsignificant against the peer rating criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The number of Set 1 and Set 2 items which were significant and nonsignificant against the staff rating criterion . . . . . . . . . . . . . Descriptive statistical data for groups that were administered the instrument on kinescope and those that were administered the instrument on videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of item analysis data for Revised Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale . . . . . . . . Kuder-Richardson formula 20 reliability coefficients and other related data for seven sample groups . . . . Spearman rank correlation coefficients (Egg) calculated between therapist's affective sensitivity rankings of group members and the individuals' scale scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spearman rank correlation coefficients calculated between group member's average sensitivity rankings of each other and Form B scale scores . . . . . . . Spearman rank correlation coefficients calculated between Form B scale scores and supervisors' rankings of affective sensitivity and counseling effectiveness. Correlation coefficients (E's) between Form B scale scores and the two variables, peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data resulting from the administration of Form B on a pretest and posttest basis to Sample Groups J and K o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 viii PAGE 67 68 69 70 71 89 90 92 93 95 96 98 TABLE PAGE 6.1 Individuals from Groups I and L classified according to high-low Form B scale scores and high-low peer ratings of counselor effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . 124 6.2 Individuals from Groups I and L with Form B scale scores in the top or bottom quartile categorized according to high-low peer ratings of counselor effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 ix APPENDIX A LIST OF APPENDICES Affective Sensitivity Scale Forms I, II, and III . Scale Form I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scale Form II . . . . . . Scale Form III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Forms Used to Collect Peer and Staff Ratings of Counselor Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . Affective Sensitivity Scale, Revised Form A . . . Affective Sensitivity Scale, Revised Form B Summary Data from Administering Form B to Sample Groups I, J, K, L, M, N, and P . . . . . . IPR Counselor Verbal Response Scale and Manual PAGE 142 144 158 172 186 189 205 .222 224 CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM Counseling theorists and practitioners have continually attempted to identify and measure the primary variables essential to effective counseling. A number of these variables have been identified and attempts to measure them have been prolific. How- ever, of the variables identified, only a few have been consistently mentioned by the majority of writers in the field. Empathy is one of these. Need for the Study Though the importance of a counselor's empathic ability to effective counseling is recognized throughout the literature (May, 1939; Rogers, 1942, 1949, 1951; Sullivan, 1947; Tyler, 1953; Stewart, 1953; Cartwright and lerner, 1963), few studies have successfully dealt with the measurement of this variable. Buchheimer (1963) clearly indicates the state of research and theorizing in empathy in his recent writings: There has been activity, but in comparison with the study of other psychological phenomena, intelligence, for example, the efforts have been meager. There has been much theorizing but not a great deal else . . Empathy is talked about more today than it was ten years ago, but to date there is no measure of empathy that has either social, industrial, educational, or therapeutic usefulness. Even more recently, R.A. Hatch writing in The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Buros, 1965) makes this same point quite clear: In summary, research on the measurement of interper- sonal perception processes has not, as yet, yielded 1 an acceptable approach to the construction of an "off-the-shelf" test of empathic sensitivity. Con- sequently, the reviewer is unaware of any valid standardized empathy test which might be recommended . . .. One reason for this deficiency of valid empathy measuring instruments is that theorists and researchers have given the term empathy a multitude of different theoretical and operational meanings, and little common agreement and/or research support can be found for any one means of defining and measuring the concept. This inconsistency in measurement approaches is partially caused by the inability of researchers to develop operational definitions of empathy which are congruent with their chosen theoretical definitions. For example, to operationalize one such theoretical definition of empathy, "putting oneself in the place of another," in a manner which would be pertinent to the counseling and therapy process, researchers have been in need of some standard means of presenting a subject with as much of the total stimuli as possible from real- life situations so that the subject could attempt to put himself in the place of another. Prior to the widespread use of motion pictures and television facilities, this was a difficult task to accomplish. The need for this study is implicit in the preceding statements, for if a reliable, valid, and operationally consistent instrument for the measurement of empathy could be developed, the study of this variable and its relationship to effective counseling would be greatly facilitated. Definition of Terms a. Affective Sensitivity is used to refer to a person's 3 ability to detect and identify the immediate affective state of another. In order to avoid the semantic confusion and theoretical difficulties inherent in the use and definition of the concept empathy, this research purports only to measure the more circum- scribed trait of affective sensitivity. b. Instrument refers to both the affective sensitivity film and the television videotape since both are identical in content. c. IPR Project refers to a research project entitled IPR - Interpersonal Process Recall; Stimulated Recall by Video- tape, which is supported by a U.S. Office of Education Title VII grant. The project consists of research studies in the areas of counselor supervision, nonverbal behavior, teacher-learning, acceleration of counseling, and empathy (affective sensitivity). d. $23 is a process by which a client views and reacts to an immediately pmeceding counseling session via the media of television videotape. The original counselor leaves the scene, and the client interacts with a new individual referred to as an interrogator or recall worker. This individual stimulates the client to relate new and additional thoughts and feelings which are activated by viewing the television videotape of the client's preceding statement. e. Recall material or typed protocols refer to the verbatim statements made by interrogators and clients during the IPR project's interrogation sessions. These followed each of the counseling sessions from which scenes were taken for use in the Affective Sensitivity Instrument. Background of the Original Affective Sensitivity Instrument and Scale This research is a direct outgrowth of previous attempts by the IPR Project staff to develop a means of measuring affective sensitivity. The original attempts to develop a reliable, valid, and operationally consistent method for the measurement of this trait were carried out during 1963-65. The instrument as originally developed has been used in this research; therefore, its development will be briefly outlined. The original scale development process will also be reviewed, and its implications for this study will be indicated. The Instrument The instrument consists of scenes on film or videotape of segments from a number of counseling sessions. Each scene shows a split-screen, full-faced image of counselor and client. The scenes were selected from videotaped counseling sessions on the basis of the recall material obtained from the client and also on thetasis of the content of the original video- tape interview. The criteria for scene selection were (a) that there had been some emotion displayed by the client, (b) that the nature of the emotion had been revealed during interrogation, and (c) if possible, that it represented a switch from a previous mood. When the instrument was constructed, scenes were chosen which displayed emotions ranging along a continuum of obviousness. The emotion displayed by clients at the end of some scenes is 5 very subtle, and at the end of others very obvious. The instru- ment, using different combinations of clients and counselors appear- ing in 41 scenes, provides a variable exposure to different clients and counselors. The 11 different clients each appear in from two to six scenes; are both male and female; and are exper- iencing normal problems with interpersonal conflicts, social maturity, and educational planning. Except for two married women, all clients are high school-aged students. The counselors are both male and female, varying considerably in their skills. Most are beginning counselors, but some experienced counselors are included.1 Development of the Original Scale The instrument was shown to individuals who were identified by their peers or supervisors as high or low empathizers. These groups were presented with lists of adjectives derived from Osgood's list of feeling words. Adjectives which high empathizers selected and low empathizers tended to neglect were included in the final scale form. Adjectives which low empathizers selected and high empathizers tended to ignore were also included. The test required that a subject view a film or a videotape scene, feel the emotions of the client, and indicate what these emotions were by marking on a scale the extent to which each of the adjectives corresponded with the subject's own feelings. Each adjective was to be rated by a subject on a 1A complete report of the procedure used to develop the original scale and instrument can be found in Kagan, N; Krathwohl, D.R.; and Farquhar, W.W.; "Developing a Scale to Measure Affective Sensitivity." Educational Research Series, Number 30, March, 1965, Michigan State University. 6 four point scale from (1) I have this kind of feeling strongly, to (4) I have this kind of feeling not at all. Several groups of counseling students from various universities attending NDEA summer institutes were given the instrument and scale. The instructors at each institution were asked to categorize their students as high, medium, or low empathizers. Chi squares were computed on a two-by-two contingency table for each item to determine which items differentiated high from low empathizers. A total of 65 items of the original 280 differentiated between students in the first sample group. However, when this process was replicated with other student groups from other institutions, only nine of the sixty-five items continued to differentiate at a significant level. Critique of the Original Research Results of the original research with the Affective Sensitivity Instrument and Scale indicated that scale items had differentiated either on the basis of chance alone or that the instructors were inaccurate in categorizing the students as high, medium, or low empathizers. As the data was gathered,it became apparent that the instructors were quite uncertain about the validity of their own choices because they frequently pointed out that they did not know the students very well and therefore were doubtful about their ratings. This may indicate that summer institutes, such as those used as sample groups in the original study, are of such short duration that staff members are unable to become familiar enough with enrollees to accurately rate them on counselor effectiveness. It may also be that staff ratings are not the only possibility. Other methods of obtaining ratings of counselor effectiveness could also be used. The original instrument and scale required a testee to view a film clip, feel as the client felt at the end of the scene, and identify these feelings by responding to a list of adjectives. These isolated adjectives may have contributed to the poor results since such adjectives without qualifying phrases could have different meanings for different people. The individuals may have had similar feelings in empathizing but could have been responding to the adjectives in different ways. The individuals may also have been confused by the different kinds of client feelings present in the instrument scenes. It is evident in viewing the scenes of the instrument that clients not only experience emotions concerning themselves and their own problems, but they also experience feelings about the counselor with whom they are working. In taking the scale, subjects were provided with no information indicating which kind of emotion they were to attempt to accurately identify. In the original study a group of qualified judges viewed the instrument scenes and at the end of each identified the affective communication of the client. The responses of these judges became the correct answers for the scale. Results of the study indicate that this may not be the most productive procedure to follow. It may be that other methods of determining correct answers could produce better results. The original instrument was composed of selected excerpts of videotaped recordings of counseling interviews merged into logical order. The excerpts were then transferred to a kinescope. However, the transfer process produced a final instrument with poor sound quality. Because of this, it is very possible that the random results obtained by the study may in part be caused by the inferior sound production of the kinescope film. Rationale for a New Scale The preceding critique provided a rationale for the develop- ment of new scale forms to be used with the Affective Sensitivity Instrument. The statements by staff members indicating that they did not know enrollees well enough to accurately rate them suggested that using members of full-year NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institutes rather than members of summer institutes would provide more accurate criterion. The instrument and scale could be adminis- tered, and the ratings of counselor effectiveness could be gathered towards the end of a nine month period of training when the counselor educators would be more familiar with the institute trainees. A second criterion, peer ratings, could also be obtained by having the members of each sample group rate each other on counselor effectiveness. The use of isolated adjectives in the original scale may have caused confusion; whereas, phrases or sentences in a multiple- choice type of test structure could be used to describe feelings more specifically. Such phrases or sentences would result in more consis- 9 tency of interpretation. For example, the single adjective angry can be used to describe a number of emotional levels and types of feelings. These could be interpreted differently by testees. But the sentence, "I am feeling very angry with my father; I'm so mad I could kill him," gives a more accurate description of a specific emotional state. Such a sentence or phrase form would provide subjects with more complete descriptions of the feelings they are to identify. Another confusing aspect of isolated adjectives was that they did not indicate the object of the client's feelings. A study of statements which clients typically made during recall sessions indicated that when a client experiences an emotion it is directed towards an object. When a client is angry, he is either angry with himself, some aspect of his problem, or the counselor with whom he is working. This suggested that client's statements concerning their feelings could be generally classified into two main areas - statements which indicate how the client feels about himself or some other aspect of his problem, or state- ments which indicate how the client feels about the counselor with whom he is working. Scales developed to be used with the scenes of the instrument should contain sets of items relating to both of these areas because such items would provide a clearer description of what the client is actually experiencing. A logical approach would be to develOp one item of each set for each scene of the instrument. In the development of the original scale only one method of 10 determining correct answers was used. Judges, qualified on the bases of training and experience, viewed the scenes of the instru- ment and specified correct answers by responding to a list of adjectives. Since then two additional methods of determining correct answers have been developed. One method uses qualified judges who are supplied with a large amount of clinical information concerning each client. The other method is the direct copying of recall statements obtained from the clients during interrogation sessions. All three of these methods for obtaining correct responses to the scenes of the instrument could produce useful items, items which discriminate between individuals responding to the scale. Which method would produce the largest number of such items could be determined if all three methods were used to construct scales for the instrument. The method which produces the largest number of useful items could then be identified. It is also a possibility that all three methods will produce a fairly equal number of such items. If this is the case, the most effective scale would consist of a combination of all three item types. Counselors in empathizing with clients respond to both verbal and non-verbal cues. Because of this, the technical quality of such cues is an important variable influencing the effectiveness of any audio-visual instrument developed to measure counselors' sensitivity. The cross-validation data for the original research was gathered using the kinescope instrument. The sound quality of the instrument is poor. The importance of this quality could be 11 investigated because all of the scenes of the instrument are presently on both kinescope and television videotape. The sound quality of the videotape is superior to that of the kinescope, and the picture quality is as good as that of the kinescope. Because many colleges and universities presently have the necessary facilities and equipment to playback television videotape, it would be feasible to gather data using both. Data of this nature would provide information which would permit an evaluation of the importance of sound quality. Summary of Critique and Rationale The critique of the first scale development research with the Affective Sensitivity Instrument provided reasons for the pro- cedures used in this study. There are five main differences be- tween these procedures and those used in the previous research: 1. The data for this research was gathered from members of full-year NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institutes rather than from members of summer institutes. 2. Phrases and sentences in a multiple-Choice type of test structure were used rather than the original adjective list type of structure. 3. Two additional methods, along with the judges' method used in the original research, were used to construct correct answers and distractors. 4. Using each method of determining correct answers, two items were constructed for each scene of the film. One Purpose 12 item dealt with the client's feelings about himself or some other important aspect of his problem. The second item dealt with the client's feelings about the coun- selor with whom he was working. The original research did not classify client's feelings into any general areas such as these. Counseling session scenes were shown to sample groups using both the kinescope and television videotape; whereas, the original data was gathered using only the kinescope. The main purpose of this research is to determine if various types of multiple-choice items when used with videotape or film scenes of counselor-client interaction can measure a counselor's affective sensitivity with adequate validity and reliability. Other sub-purposes are: 1. To compare the three methods of obtaining correct answers and distractors. To compare the functioning of two different sets of items - one constructed to reflect the client's feelings about himself and the other constructed to reflect the client's feelings about the counselor with “10m he is working. To investigate the influence of poor sound quality on individuals' abilities to respond accurately to the instrument. l3 Hypotheses The following hypotheses are investigated in this study and are here stated in broad research form:2 1. Multiple-choice items accompanied by scenes from actual counseling sessions can be used to reliably measure affective sensitivity. 2. Multiple-choice items accompanied by scenes from actual counseling sessions can be used to validly measure affective sensitivity. 3. Of the three methods used to construct correct answers and distractors, one method will prove to be superior to the other two. 4. One set of items,either those referring to the client's feelings about himself or those referring to his feelings about the counselor, will be superior for measuring affective sensitivity. 5. The sound quality of the instrument will influence individuals' abilities to accurately respond to the developmental forms of the scale. Overview of the Thesis Various definitions of empathy, along with studies of the measurement of this concept, are reviewed in Chapter II. In Chapter III, the research and statistical procedures used in this study are presented. This chapter describes the methods used ZThese hypotheses are restated in testable form in Chapter III. 14 to develop items, to integrate them into developmental scales, and to collect and analyze the data. The results of these procedures and methods are presented, analyzed and discussed in Chapter IV. In Chapter V, two revised forms of the Affective Sensitivity Scale are described. These forms are a result of the information and data collected using the three developmental forms of the scale. Validity and reliability data for the two revised forms are presented. Chapter VI includes a general summary of the results obtained in this study and some statements concerning the implications which these results have for future research. CHAPTER II: PREVIOUS APPROACHES TO THE DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF EMPATHY Attempts to define and measure the concept of empathy have been numerous and varied. Strunk (1957) states in his review of empathy theory and research that the literature is spread through- out the fields of psychology, sociology, industry, education and counseling. Even though the concept of empathy has been stressed and studied in numerous fields, there exists no one commonly accepted definition of empathy and no definite answers to critical questions concerning the importance of empathic ability in various areas of human relations. This review explores two major questions: (1) How have empathy and related concepts been defined? (2) What approaches have been followed in attempting to operationalize and effectively measure empathy and its related concepts. Definitions of Empathy and Related Concepts A recognition of the psychological processes which are now usually categorized under the broad term empathy have been with us for a long time. Going back as far as 2,000 years, references can be found to such processes in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, St. John, Plotinus, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (Compertz, 1960). Empathy as Role Playing and Role Taking Lipps (1909) coined the word EinfUhlung which was later translated into English as the term empathy (Buchheimer, 1963). EinfUhlung has been translated as "feeling into" (Compertx, l9bO). 15 16 "feeling together with" (Buchheimer, 1963), and a "feeling of oneness" (Katz, 1962). Lipps used the term to refer to an aesthetic process in which a person took in a stimulus (some work of art) and reintegrated the stimulus thereby causing a'Teeling of oneness"or a"fee1ing together with" to occur. This process, when applied to interpersonal situations, becomes the common sense idea of "putting yourself in the other fellow's place" or role playing vfidch Allport (1954) found to be common to a number of definitions of empathy. The most commonly accepted role playing type of definition is Dymond's, " . . . the imaginative transposing of oneself into the thinking, feeling, and acting of another and so structuring the world as he does" (Dymond, 1948). A number of other definitions (Warren, 1934; Woodson, 1954; Johnson, 1957) which are similar to Dymond's can be found in the literature. Empathy as Role Reversal Speroff (1953) agreed with defining empathy as role playing or role taking but added to this the additional dimension of role reversal. He defined empathy as " . . . the ability to put your- self in the other person's position, establish rapport, anticipate his feelings, reactions and behavior . . . empathy and role reversal are mutually complementary." Buchheimer (1963) in criticizing such definitions of empathy stated that " . . . concepts that are based on role-taking ability and predictive ability may be testing diagnos- tic understanding rather than empathy." Robinson (1955) and Meehl (1960) indicated that the importance of diagnostic understanding to the counseling relationship and the equating of empathy with diagnos- 17 tic understanding can both be questioned. Definitions StressingiDetachment and Objectivity Another group of empathy definitions are quite similar to the role-taking and role-reversal definitions of the concept, except that they require a degree of detachment and objectivity on the part of the empathizer. This degree of detachment and objectivity is stressed to different extents by various definitions. English and English (1958, p. 178) gave a definition of empathy in which it was viewed as an intellectual,objective, and detached process: Apprehension of the state of mind of another person without feeling (as in sympathy) what the other feels. While the empathic process is primarily intellectual, emotion is not precluded, but it is not the same emotion as that of the person with whom one empathizes. The parent may empathize with the child's puny rage, feeling pity or amusement, whereas in sympathy he would feel rage along with the child. The attitude in empathy is one of acceptance and understanding of an implicit "I see how you feel." A similar type of definition was expounded by Rogers (1959, p. 210-211) except that he put more emphasis on the affective components of empathy. He described the empathic process as one of perceiving: . . . the internal frame of reference of another with accuracy, and with the emotional components and mean- ings which pertain thereto, as if one were the other person, but without ever losing the "as if" condition. Thus it means to sense the hurt or pleasure of another as he senses it, and to perceive the causes thereof as he perceives them, but without ever losing the recognition that it is as if I were hurt or pleased, etc. If this "as if" quality is lost, then the state is one of identification. Some psychoanalytic definitions of empathy contain these same elements of detachment and objectivity. Fenichel (1945, p. 511) 18 stated: . . . empathy consists of two acts: (a) an identifi- cation with the other person, and (b) an awareness of one's own feelings after the identification, and in this way an awareness of the object's feelings. Although this definition was conceptualized in 1945, it is accepted and used in current empathy research (Chessick, 1965). Empathy as Interaction Murray (1938) was the first to describe empathy as an interactive process which he referred to as recipathy. Later Stewart (1954, 1955, 1956) defined empathy as mutual transference, thus describing the empathic process as an interactive one. In describing empathy and role reversal as complementary processes, Speroff (1953) recognized empathy as a process involving interaction. In 1956 Speroff referred to this process as convergence (Buch- heimer, Goodman, Sircus, 1965). Buchheimer (1963) stressed the interactive component of the empathic process and referred to it by using the term confluence. In a technical research report, Buchheimer, Goodman and Sircus (1965) defined empathy as: The ability to structure the world as another person sees it; i.e., the counselor's task is to feel, to react and to interpret the counselee's world as he sees it without the counselor's enactment of these perceptions as if he were the counselee. (Italics mine) Rogers (1951, p. 29) included similar interaction variables in his definition of empathy when he stated that: . . . it is the counselor's function to assume in so far as he is able, the internal frame of reference of the client, . . . and to communicate something of this empathic understanding to the client. (Italics mine) 19 In the preceding two definitions, words such as react, interpret and communicate add the dimension of interaction to definitions which are otherwise quite similar in content to def- initions mentioned throughout this review. Discussion and Conclusions It is evident that in spite of abundant defining and theorizing the concept of empathy remains an ambiguous conglomera- tion of meanings and shades of meaning. Allport's statement published in 1937 still is a fairly accurate description of the present state of defining and theorizing concerning empathy. "The theory of empathy is a peculiar blend, and must in fact be regarded both as a theory of inference and as a theory of intuition, depending somewhat on the coloring given it by different authors" (Allport, 1937). However, some common threads of meaning can be found throughout most definitions of empathy, especially those definitions which are related to counseling or interpersonal relations. Most of these definitions in some way require that a person be able to detect and identify the immediate affective state of another. Therefore, this study attempts to measure only this more restricted trait of affective sensitivigy, defined as "the ability to detect and describe the immediate affective state of another, or in terms of communication theory, the ability to receive and decode affective communication" (Kagan, Krathwohl, and Farquhar, 1965). Other authors have followed a similar procedure of contriv- ing new more generic paraphrasings in order to avoid the semantic 20 confusion inherent in general definitions of empathy. Examples of this are Cage and Cronbach's (1955) "interpersonal perception" and Taft's (1955) "ability to judge people." This research follows a similar procedure in utilizing the term affective sensitivity to describe a trait which should be a basic component of any general definition of empathy or description of the empathic process. Previous Approaches to the Measurement of Empathy Compared with the efforts made to measure some psychological variables such as intelligence, efforts made to measure empathy have been meager (Buchheimer, 1963); nevertheless, a certain amount of research has been carried out in spite of the difficulties in- herent in defining and effectively measuring the concept. Gorden (1934) made one of the first attempts to demonstrate a person's ability to respond empathically. She used four photo- graphs of a Mexican image which had one arm raised. The negatives of the four images were reversed and printed so that a total of eight photographs were shown to subjects. Subjects were asked to indicate which arm, right or left, was raised. They were then observed to detect any overt physical responses which they made in attempting to mimic the images in the photographs. These overt mimickmg responses were taken to mean that the subjects were attempting to feel with the photographed images. This procedure attempted to operationalize Lipp's concept of aesthetic empathy and was more a demonstration of such empathy than an actual attempt to measure it. 21 Predictive Tests of Empathy After Gorden's work demonstrating empathic responsiveness, the area of empathy measurement saw little activity until the 1950's. From the early 1950's until the present, research has mainly followed two different approaches--predictive tests of empathy and situational tests of empathy. Predictive test approaches can be further subdivided into those involving predictions based on a specific other and those involving predictions based on a general other. Predictive Tests of Empathy--The Generalized Other Kerr and Speroff (1954) constructed a group paper and pencil device, The Empathy Test, for use in industrial selection. In operationalizing their theoretical definitions, they required subjects to rank as the average person would rank them: (a) the popularity of different musical forms, (b) the popularity of different magazines, and (c) the annoyance magnitude of different experiences such as seeing a person's nose run. This test is one of the two normative empathy tests reported in the Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook. It is accompanied by the following comment from Robert L. Thorndike (Buros, 1959, p. 120): There appears to be no inherent validity in the operations called for in this test, and so its validity must be established empirically through its ability to predict socially important criteria, or its relationships to other variables that would make it a meaningful construct. The manual reports several studies presenting evidence on the validity of the test, and certain of these appear quite im- pressive. However, the relatively few studies by persons not associated with the author have tended 22 to yield predominately negative results. Unless the positive results reported in the manual are verified in the findings of other workers, this test cannot be recommended as either a useful practical device or a contri- bution to the description and understanding of an individual. Wallace B. Hall (Buros, 1965, p. 215) comments on this same test in the Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. He criticizes the test's normative data, manual, forms, references, scoring keys and goes on to say: In view of these negative features and the implication that the test is more a measure of general information and prediction of opinions than of interpersonal empathy, there appears little to recommend this test for the purposes stated by its authors. One other empathy test is mentioned in both the Fifth and Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbooks. In the first of these pub- lications it is referred to as the Primary Empathic Abilities (Buros, 1959). The test constructed by one of the authors of The Empathy Test, William Kerr, is an instrument which purports to extend the basic idea of that test to the measurement of a number of distinct empathy factors. The test purports to measure understanding of others' feelings by having the examinee predict the self-descriptions of a large variety of generalized others. Thorndike (Buros, 1959) comments that he does not think that the purported factors are true factors and that, if this is so, the results from the test are mostly meaningless. In the Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook this same instrument is referred to as the Diplomacnyest of Empathy and is 23 accompanied by the following comment by Arthur H. Brayfield (Buros, 1965, p. 187): Undoubtedly something is being measured here; it is difficult to say what. There are in— sufficient and inadequate data to believe that the construct "empathy" has been isolated. Norman and Ainsworth (1954) developed an empathy measuring procedure based on a similar process of requiring individuals to predict the responses of a generalized other. They administered two forms of the GAMIN Personality Inventory to one sample group. On the first administration the subjects answered the questions as they normally would. Two weeks later on the second administration, the subjects were asked to answer the questions as they thought the majority of other people of their own sex and age would. A mass empathy score was determined for individuals by giving them credit each time they answered questions on the second administration the same way it had been answered by 51 percent of the subjects on the first administration. As with Kerr and Speroff's test, this approach is designed to measure a person's sensitivity to a generalized other. Whether it accomplishes this or not can certainly be debated. However, even if it does, the approach is not very applicable to counseling or interpersonal situations since these require interpersonal interaction and sensitivity to a specific other. Predictive Tests of Empathy--The Specific Other Most predictive tests of empathy, whether they attempt to measure sensitivity to a generalized other or a specific other, have tended to follow the 24 procedure introduced by Dymond (1949). In this approach empathy was measured by assessing the degree of similarity between individuals' ratings of others known to them through group interaction and the others' actual self ratings. Ratings were usually done on some personality characteristics using one of several attitude and/or personality tests. If individuals A and B were to be tested for their empathy for each other, the procedure usually used was as follows: A rated A B rated B A rated B B rated A A rated B as he thought B rated himself B rated A as he thought A rated himself A rated A as he thought B would have rated him B rated B as he thought A would have rated him Many studies using similar procedures to measure and other- wise study the empathic process followed in the wake of Dymond's original work (Bender and Hastorf, 1950, 1953; Cowden, 1955; Hawkes and Egbert, 1954; Halpern, 1955; Weiss, 1963). Many researchers investigating these procedures questioned their adequacy. Questions were raised concerning whether or not such predictive tests were actually measuring empathy or whether they were simply measuring, or at least confounded by, such psychological variables as projection (Hastorf and Bender, 1952; Norman and Leiding, 1956; Cowden, 1955), attribution (Halpern, 1957), or identification (Jackson and Carr, 1955). Other criticisms of the predictive-type empathy test can also be found in the literature. Lindgren and Robinson (1953) evaluated 25 Dymond's test and found that subjects in making predictions tended to conform to social norms, that the reliability of the test was too low for predictive purposes, and that the validity of the test could be questioned. Hastorf, Bender and Weintraub (1955) suggested that subjects' high empathy scores may have been due to their tendency to make mid-scale responses under certain conditions and extreme responses under other conditions. They also indicated that responses may have reflected a cultural norm, and thus empathy scores may only have measured conformity to the social norm by the judge and the object of empathy. Borgatta (1960) described another bias which may have operated in the Dymond-type test. That bias, self-image error, was the tendency of a person in rating himself to consider that he was high or low in certain qualities without paying attention to the qualities of others with whom he was being compared. Since most predictive tests are variants of Dymond's approach, they all partake of these shortcomings to some extent. Cronbach (1955, p. 191) in commenting on predictive approaches to empathy measurement made the following statement: Social perception research has been dominated by simple, operationally defined measures. Our analysis has shown that any such measure may combine and thereby conceal important variables, or may depend heavily on unwanted components. Only by careful subdivision of global measures can an investigator hope to know what he is dealing with. Our analysis makes especially clear that the investigator of social perception must develop more explicit theory regarding the constructs he intends to study, so that he can reduce his measures to the genuinely relevant components. 26 It is clear that individuals' abilities to accurately predict the personality characteristics of others is a difficult and complex phenomenon to investigate, and research which has followed this procedure has not produced a reliable, valid or operationally consistent means of measuring empathy Situational Tests of Empathy Situational approaches to empathy measurement seem to hold the most promise of isolating genuinely relevant components of the empathic process and producing operational definitions which are consistent with theoretical concepts of the empathic process in counseling and therapy. These approaches provide some type of real-life or simulated real-life situations involving combinations of visual, auditory or kinesthetic stimuli which give the subject a standard experience to which he can attempt to respond empathically. Situational Tests of Empathy Using Typescripts or Audio Stimuli Reid and Snyder (1947) examined how accurately counselors could identify client's feelings. They played phonographic recordings and used typescripts of client's statements from actual interviews. The subjects were asked to identify the feelings being expressed in each statement within a 15 second time limit. Using 15 subjects, they found that approximately 50 percent of them agreed 50 percent of the time on the feelings identifiedl However, the authors did not attempt to designate correct answers from this data or further develop a measuring instrument. 27 Astin (1967) published the results of her doctoral disserta- tion completed in 1957. She developed a situational test of empathy by having a professional actor record ten client statements on audiotape. Subjects, eight graduate students in counseling psy- chology and eight students with no counseling background, were required to respond to the statements as if they were the counselor. Typescripts of the responses were then independently ranked for empathic content by seven experienced psychologists. Each subject's performance was expressed as an average rank position. Astin found that the eight subjects with counseling experience performed significantly better than the eight non-counseling students. Arbuckle and Wicas (1957) developed a similar situational test. They used audiotape recordings of interviews and developed rating systems for analyzing counselor behavior. Stefflre (1962) also experimented with a similar approach to empathy measurement. Subjects listened to an audiotape of a professional actor reading statements displaying various feelings and attempted to choose correct descriptive statements from a number of alternatives. O'Hern and Arbuckle (1964) carried out research using audio stimuli to develop an instrument to measure the sensitivity of counselor trainees. The initial instrument consisted of 30 different client problems roleplayed by professional counselors. Each problem recorded on the audiotape was followed by counselor responses provided by thirteen individuals with varied backgrounds-- full-time counselors, graduate students in counseling, and under- graduates. Professional judges independently evaluated each 28 response on a four point scale for its degree of sensitivity. The refined instrument included 29 client problems and 114 coun- selor responses. The responses were validated by professional judges and were found through item analysis procedures to adequately discriminate between individuals scoring high and low on the scale. The refined instrument was administered to 212 students enrolled in seven Guidance and Counseling Institutes. Final sensitivity scale scores had no significant relationship with counseling practicum grades, staff sensitivity ratings or self sensitivity ratings. However, in a similar study it was found that students judged most effective in counseling practice did score significantly higher on the scale than students judged least effective. The results of research to develop situational tests which use typescripts and/or audio recordings as stimuli has been inter- esting and sometimes encouraging, but the research has not pro- duced a usable test of empathy. The procedures advocated by Astin (1967) and Arbuckle and Wicas (1957) present obvious problems in that they require the use of judges in their scoring procedures. Such procedures take large amounts of time, are not easily standardized, and do not readily produce normative data. The approaches used by Stefflre (1962) and O'Hern and Arbuckle (1964) take these problems into account; however, none of these pro- cedures has produced an instrument for measuring empathy with acceptable reliability and predictive or concurrent validity. Some of these measurement procedures made use of actors rather than actual counselors and clients to obtain the necessary stimuli. This 29 practice is of unknown value and may be one of the factors causing the poor results. Another reason for the failure of the approaches may well be that tests based solely on the verbal text of an interview or on the audio-recording of it are not capable of providing a subject with all the cues and clues needed for empathic understanding. In an actual counseling interview a counselor not only hears but also sees the client. The counselor reacts to the client's total presence. Sullivan (1954, p. 19) stated: A verbatim recording of an interview, until it has been heavily annotated, is almost invariably remarkably misleading. I have had recordings of interviews which I regarded as astonishingly good teaching material, but when I have sprung these on intelligent colleagues, I have often found them barking up trees I hadn't seen--if, indeed, such trees were ever there, and I came to realize that they weren't. In other words the complete meaning of a conversation is not to be found in the verbatim verbal context of the communication, but is reflected in all sorts of subtle interplay. Such implications are serious limitations to situational empathy measurement approaches which only make use of written or audio stimuli. Situation Tests of Empaghy Using both Audio and Video Stimuli With the presence and increased use of film and television videotape, the possibility of constructing a measuring instrument which makes use of the total stimuli presented in actual counseling situations has become more feasible. Research of this type has been carried out, but the studies have been few. 30 Buchheimer, Goodman and Sircus (1965) as part of a larger research study developed a three part situational film test of empathy. Part 1, Silent Set, consisted of filmed passages from an actual counseling session which had the sound eliminated. The task of the subject was to view the silent film and at the conclusion describe freely in writing his impression of what had occurred. The written responses were then scored by a group of judges using a scale designed for that purpose. Part II, Free Response, was constructed from film scenes of counselor-client interaction. The counselor was edited out so that the film contained the counselee along with blank passages in place of the counselor's responses. The subjects were required to view the sequence of filmed passages and at the end of each passage respond into a tape recorder as if they were the actual counselor. The recorded responses were then rated by a group of judges on a confluence rating scale. Part III, Structured Response, made use of the same stimulus as Part II with the addition of multiple—choice items. Project staff members viewed the film passages and wrote a pool of responses for each statement made by the counselee. The responses were classified on a five point continuum by the project staff with point one responses being the least empathic and point five the most. Item analysis procedures using the total score as criterion were used to identify the valid items. In responding to this part of the test, the subject's task was to view the 31 five responses shown at the end of each film passage and select the most appropriate empathic response. On all parts of the Film Test subjects with counseling experience scored significantly higher than individuals without experience. Scores on Part III correlated .58 with ratings of empathy for a sample of 24 individuals. Results of this research seem promising; however, Parts I and II have some inherent difficulties. Part I is actually a measure of a subject's sensitivity to non-verbal behavior and his ability to accurately describe it. This certainly may be a part of the empathic process, but only a part. Both Part I and II of the test require that judges be used to rate the subject's responses. This is time consuming, cumbersome and presents problems of standardization since every time these parts would be administered judges would have to be obtained and properly trained in the use of the scales. Part 11, Free Response, presents additional difficulties. Buchheimer, et. a1. (1965) stated: The Language Laboratory Method, necessary for the Free Response, is a cumbersome method. Much val- uable data was lost due to equipment failure. The lack of uniformity in installation presented another problem in the use of the language laboratories . . .. It was difficult to write a comprehensive set of specifications to accommodate to various installations. In view of these difficulties and in view or the significant correlations between the Free Response and the Structured Response, only two parts of the Film Test may be used. Part III, Structured Response, comes close to the measure- ment procedure advocated in this research. However, there is one 32 main difference. The Structured Response subtest requires that a subject choose the most empathic counselor response from a number of alternative responses; whereas, the approach advocated in this research requires that the subject choose from a number of alter- native statements the one statement which best describes what the client feels. The difference in the two approaches is obvious. The first approach requires not only that the subject be sensitive to feelings, but that he also be able to differentiate between good and poor counselor responses. This approach should, perhaps, be considered more of a work sample type test for the prediction of counselor success than a measurement of empathy itself. Work sample tests have often proved to have greater predictive validity than aptitude measures. However, it is quite possible that an aptitude measure which requires only that the subject accurately identify the feelings of another may identify cases which might be missed by a work sample test. Subjects who have had inadequate or no counseling training or those who have had training in a related field may be overlooked by a work sample test, but may do quite well on an aptitude measure. Thus, Buchheimer's measures have certain limitations, but in general his approaches, particular- ly those used in constructing Part III, are similar to those pro- posed in this research. Rank (1966) developed a total stimuli measurement approach which is also similar to the procedure used in this research. To test counselor's perceptions of interview behavior, he developed 33 a motion picture test consisting of short segments of counselor- client interaction. Items for the test were obtained by having counselor educators view the scenes and after each list state- ments describing their observations of client, counselor, and their interaction. The final test form consisted of a selected list of such statements for each film scene to which a subject responded by marking a five point scale from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The test was used to analyze change in trainee perceptions during a practicum and to assess the relation- ship between counselor perceptions and counseling competence. Rank found a significant relationship between post-practicum counseling competence and both pre-practicum and post-practicum test scores. A complex weighting system was used to score the test. The system actually weighted responses to test items on the basis of counselor effectiveness rankings received by the original sample groups from various staff members. Two NDEA Institute groups of 30 trainees each were used to develop scoring weights, and a third institute group of 30 trainees was used for cross-validation purposes. Since all of these groups came from the same university, the test must be much more broadly cross-validated with other groups before its usefulness to the profession will be known. Also, because correct responses are weighted on the basis of counselor effectiveness rankings, it is more an instrument to measure counselor competence than one to measure empathy or affective sensitivity. 34 Discussion and Conclusions Attempts to measure empathy have been as varied as have the attempts to define the concept. One reason is that researchers not only have used different theoretical conceptualizations of empathy and the empathic process, but they also have often opera- tionalized these theoretical definitions in manners bearing little apparent similarity to their theoretical statements. Thus predictive tests of empathy using the generalized other approach, those using the specific other approach, and situational tests of empathy have been found to have no relationship with each other (Hall and Bell, 1953; Gilbert, 1953; Astin, 1967; Buchheimer, et. al., 1965). All of these procedures measure something, but they do not measure the same thing. Which approach comes closest to actually measuring empathy is debatable. However, the situational test procedures, particularly those which confront the subject with as much of the total stimuli from the situation as possible by using film or videotape, come closest to measuring operational definitions of empathy which are consistent with most theoretical conceptualizations of the term. Such situational approaches are rare, but the procedures which have been attempted are promising, and more work in the area is needed. After a review of the diverse literature on empathy, Gompertz (1960, p. 541) stated: . . . there is need to develop new testing ideas. One method might involve creating a situation which demands "feeling into" by the subject in order to complete it, reactions to be checked against objective criteria or norms. 35 Such a situation is provided in this research by making use of videotaped sequences from actual counseling sessions accompanied by multiple-choice items consisting of statements describing various affective states which the client may be experiencing. This procedure requires that the subject be able to detect and identify the feelings experienced by the client. It provides a highly realistic yet standardized mode of presenting the total stimuli from a real-life situation to subjects in a manner which should differentiate between those sensitive and those not sensitive to the affective states of another. There is need for such a test which is easy to administer, provides normative scores, and measures an operational definition of affective sensitivity which is consistent with the theoretical definition of the concept. General Summary' Various definitions of empathy and a number of approaches which have been used in attempting to operationalize and measure these definitions are presented in this review. Empathy has been defined in many diverse ways. Its definitions can be classified into four main divisions: 1. Empathy as role playing or role taking. 2. Empathy as role reversal. 3. Empathy as a detached and objective process. 4. Empathy as interaction. Many definitions, and particularly those pertaining to counseling 36 or interpersonal relations, require that the empathizing subject perceive and accurately identify the affective state of the empathy object. Thus this research purports to measure affective sensitivity, defined as the ability to detect and describe the immediate affective state of another. Attempts to measure empathy have been meager when compared with the efforts made to measure some other psychological variables, but a certain amount of research has been carried out. There have been two main measurement approaches: 1. Predictive tests of empathy. 2. Situational tests of empathy. Predictive test procedures are generally of two types--those in- volving predictions based on a specific other and those involving predictions based on a general other. In the generalized other approach subjects are required to specify the likes, dislikes, or other psychological characteristics of an average person in the general population or in some subgroup of the pOpulation. In using the specific other approach, empathy is measured by assessing the degree of similarity between a person's rating of a specific other known to him through group interaction and the other's actual self rating. Situational approaches to empathy measurement provide sub- jects with some type of real-life or simulated real-life situations involving visual, auditory or a combination of both stimuli. Such stimuli give the subjects a standard experience to which they can 37 attempt to respond empathically. Research of this nature can be divided into that using written or audio stimuli and that using a combination of audio and video stimuli. None of these pro- cedures has produced an instrument for measuring empathy with acceptable reliability and validity; however, the procedures using the total stimuli approach, a combination of audio and video, seem to hold the most promise of isolating relevant com- ponents of the empathic process and of measuring operational definitions which are consistent with theoretical concepts of the empathic process in counseling and therapy. Such an approach is followed in this research by using videotape sequences from actual counseling sessions accompanied by multiple'choice items consisting of statements describing various affective states which the client may be experiencing. CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES This research was primarily conducted to determine if various types of multiple-choice items used with scenes from actual counseling sessions can validly and reliably measure affective sensitivity. Therefore, it was necessary to develop logical procedures for constructing items, for integrating the items into developmental scale forms for administration to sample groups, and for analyzing the resulting data. These procedures are described in this chapter. Construction of Items Three types of multiple-choice items were constructed for use with the Affective Sensitivity Instrument. Each type of item derived correct answers from a different source, and the distractors, incorrect answers, for each were also obtained from differing sources. Table 3.1 is a graphic representation of this. The horizontal rows of the table indicate the three sources of correct answers and the five sources of distractors used in constructing the items. The vertical columns show the specific sources used in constructing each item type. Items were constructed to consist of one correct answer and two distractors. Type A and B items were constructed by pairing a correct answer with two Level 1 Distractors, or two Level 2 Distractors, or a distractor from each level. An attempt was made to use each procedure an equal number of times in constructing the items. It was assumed in doing this that the items containing two 38 39 Level 1 Distractors would be the most difficult to answer; those containing one distractor from each level would be the next most difficult, and those containing two distractors from Level 2 would be the least difficult. These levels of difficulty were based on the assumption that individuals with more training and experience would provide distractors which would be closer in meaning to the correct answer, and therefore more difficult to differentiate from it. This was not a concern in constructing Type C items because all of the distractors for these items came from one source, client responses from other parts of the typed protocols. Table 3.1 Sources of correct answers and distractors for item Types A, B and C Choices Types A B C J I P Correct Judges Informed Judges Client responses Answers from typed pro- tocols of client recall sessions Level 1 M.A. Counseling M.A. Counseling Client responses Distractors and Guidance and Guidance from other parts candidates candidates of the protocols given informa- tion Level 2 Non-counseling Non-counseling Same as above Distractors and guidance and guidance individuals individuals given informa- tion Each of the types--A, B and C--was constructed to consist of two sets of choices (items) for each scene of the instrument. 40 One set of choices dealt with the client's feelings about himself or some other relevant aspect of his environment. The other set dealt with the client's feelings about the counselor. Because the instrument contains forty-one scenes, Types A and B were each constructed to contain eighty-two items. Type C contained fewer sets of choices because at some appropriate times during recall sessions clients did not always respond with statements which could be logically used as correct answers.1 Type A - Correct Answers The correct answers for Type A were obtained from four qualified judges. These judges were counselors with specialist degrees who at the time were working for the Michigan State University Counseling Center, or they were individuals who were enrolled in doctoral programs in counselor education or counseling psychology. The judges were asked to consider as they Viewed each instrument scene how the client would answer the following questions if he, the client, were completely free to be honest with him- self: (1) At the end of that scene what feelings were you experi- encing concerning yourself or the subject you were talking about? TAt some points when the videotape was stopped during a recall session, clients made statements describing their feelings about themselves or their problems at that particular spot in the counseling session. However, they did not make statements describ- ing their feelings about the counselor. Also the situation was often reversed. When the videotape was stopped, clients described their feelings about the counselor but not about themselves or their problems. Because of this only one Type C item could be con- structed to accompany some scenes of the instrument. 41 (2) At this same point in time what feelings were you experiencing towards the counselor? In writing their answers, the judges were instructed to use language which they felt the client would use. After each scene they discussed what they had written and arrived at a common answer for each of the questions. A second judging session was held to further validate the results obtained by the first session. The second group of judges consisted of three staff members from the Counseling and Guidance Department in the College of Education at Michigan State University. These individuals reviewed the results of the first judging session and made any corrections which they felt were necessary. Type A - Distractors Distractors for Type A were obtained from individuals who were less qualified in aspects of training and experience than the individuals who acted as judges. Master's degree candidates in counseling and guidance at Michigan State University, along with other individuals outside the field of counseling such as secretaries or students majoring in English, were used for this purpose. The same procedure was followed with these individuals as was followed with the judges, except that there was no common discussion of their answers. The written responses from these persons which seemed quite different from the qualified judges' answers were used as distractors for Type A. To produce the Type A items, two wrong answers were grouped with each right answer. Type B - Correct Answers Type B correct answers were the responses of three informed judges who had qualifications similar to the judges 42 who provided the correct answers for Type A. These individuals were referred to as informed judges because of the information which was made available to them concerning the various clients. Typed protocols of all of a client's counseling sessions, along with his accompanying recall sessions, were read by the judges. Some written case studies were also supplied. Type B informed judges followed the same procedure as Type A judges and answered the same two questions. They viewed each scene of the instrument, discussed it, and designated two sentences or phrases as correct answers for that particular scene. They structured the statements to represent the language they thought the client would use if he were faced with a similar task. Type B - Distractors Distractors for this item type were pro- vided by groups of individuals similar in nature to those that pro- vided the distractors for Type A. Master's degree candidates in counseling and guidance, along with individuals outside the field of counseling, were used. These people followed the same general procedure as the judges and informed judges except that there was no common discussion of their responses. Because the informed judges had access to additional informa- tion concerning the instrument clients, the same information was provided for the Type B distractor groups. These groups read the information concerning a client, they viewed a scene from the client's counseling session, and they wrote out two statements concerning the client's feelings. One statement reflected the 43 client's feelings about himself, and the other reflected his feelings about the counselor. The groups were instructed to write statements which would be similar to those which the client would make in an actual client recall session. The phrases produced by these groups were reviewed, and any of them which disagreed with the informed judges' responses were used as wrong answers. Two of these phrases were used with each correct response to produce Type B items. Type C - Correct Answers Correct responses for Type C were taken from the typed protocols of the client recall sessions. These sessions accompanied each of the counseling interviews from which scenes were selected for the construction of the Affective Sensitivity Instrument. The typed protocols were studied and client recall statements which corresponded with the latter part of each instrument scene were identified. Whenever the client had verbally stated his feelings about himself or his relationship with the counselor, these statements were used as correct answers for Type C. By following this procedure, two correct responses were obtained for most of the film scenes. However, the correct answers depended upon the amount and nature of the client's verbal productions during appropriate points in the recall sessions. Be- cause of this limitation it was possible to obtain only one correct answer for some of the instrument scenes (See footnote 1, p. 40). Type C - Distractors Distractors for Type C were chosen from parts of the typed protocols which were not directly related to 44 those portions of the counseling sessions used as instrument scenes. Content of the statements chosen to be used as dis- tractors was an important consideration because the distractors had to be realistic and feasible. For each correct answer taken from a typed protocol, two incorrect answers were selected from other parts of the same protocol. This procedure was followed so that both the correct and incorrect responses would be the verbal productions of the same client. The Construction of Three New Combination Scale Forms for Adminis- tration to Sample Groups After the three types of items were created, they were integrated into three scale forms which were then used in con— junction with the film or videotape instrument. The integration procedure is illustrated in Table 3.2. This table shows how each set of choices from the original types was assigned to the new Scale Forms I, II, and III. Each type contributed an equal number of items to each scale form in an evenly distributed manner. Each of the resulting new forms con- sisted of one-third of the items from each of the types. Combining the pure item types into Scale Forms I, II, and III allowed for the control of the differences which were assumed to exist in the various sample groups. If the three pure types had been given to three different sample groups, it would have been impossible to separate the influencing variables operating due to the differences in the types of items from those operating due to the inherent differences within the sample groups. By 45 Table 3.2 The procedure used to integrate the original types of items into three new scale forms .o.-—--—--. Original types of items A B C J1 11 P1 Scene 1. J2 I2 P2 CLIENT I Scene 2. J2 I2 P2 Jl I1 P1 Scene 3. J I P 2 2 2 New scale forms for administration to sample groups I II III J1 I1 P1 Scene 1. I P J 2 2 2 P1 J1 Ii CLIENT I Scene 2. J2 I2 P2 I1 P1 J1 Scene 3. I P2 J2 2 Key for Item Symbols J - Correct answer from judges (Type A items) I - Correct answer from informed judges (Type B items) P - Correct answer from protocol of client recall session (Type C items) 1 - Items referring to the client's feelings about himself 2 - Items referring to the relationship--c1ien€s feelings about the counselor 46 following this procedure, it was possible to control these differ- ences. (Copies of Forms I, II, and III can be found in Appendix A). Sample Groups The sample groups used in this study were eight full-year master's degree NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institutes. The number of institutes which were used as sample groups was re- stricted by two factors. One was the limited number of full-year guidance and counseling institutes in operation. The second was the extreme distances which would have been involved had institutes in some areas of the country been used. Of the eight institute groups which were administered the instrument and scale, two were located in Georgia and one in each of the following states: Alabama, Indiana, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The scale forms were administered to these groups within the last month of their academic year training experience. Form I was administered to two groups, and Forms II and III were each administered to three groups. Item Analyses After Scale Forms 1, II, and III were administered to the sample groups, three item analyses were carried out with each form. The procedure followed in developing the forms resulted in scales with high face or content validity. Because of this and also due to the absence of other well-validated, objective measures of affective sensitivity, the criterion measure for the first analysis was each group's scores on their particular form of the scale. In using this procedure, it was assumed, because of the 47 present state of empathy measurement research, that the best measure of a counselor's affective sensitivity was his score on the form of the scale given to his sample group. The second and third item analyses used as criterion measures peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness. The use of both of these ratings is supported by the literature on counselor effectiveness which generally indicates that a counselor's affective sensitivity (empathy) is related to his counseling ability (May, 1939; Rogers, 1942, 1949, 1951; Sullivan, 1947; Tyler, 1953; Stewart, 1953; Cartwright and Lerner, 1963). Ratings were obtained from staff members who supposedly had worked closely and consistently with members of each group. These individuals were asked to rate each member of their institute on a normal curve distribution using counselor effectiveness as a basis for their ratings (See Appendix B for form used). The average rating for each institute member was computed, and these scores were used as the criterion measure for the second item analysis. Peer ratings were obtained from the members of each group. Using counselor effectiveness as a basis for their ratings, each individual rated all the other members of his group on a normal curve distribution (See Appendix B for form used). The average rating which each person received was used as the criterion for the third analysis. Item analyses were carried out as shown in Table 3.3. As 48 illustrated in that table, an item analysis was calculated for Sample Group A's responses to Scale Form I using the scores obtained on the scale as a criterion variable. Items which ob- tained a Student's £2 significant at the 20 percent level using a one-tailed test of significance were identified. Sample Group B's responses to Form I were rescored on the basis of these items. A second item analysis was then calculated on Sample Group B's responses. Any items which continued to have a Student's 5 significant at the 20 percent level (hence .20 X .20 = .04 level of confidence across two groups) were identified. The same item analysis procedures were followed with Forms II and III. However, since Forms II and III were each administered to ghrgg sample groups, items were identified which had a Student's t significant at the .34 level (.34 X .34 X .34 = .04) across each of the three groups. Through these cross-validation procedures, items were selected which had Student's Eds significant at or above the .04 level. When criterion measures 2 and 3, peer and staff ratings, were used in the item analysis procedures; it was not necessary to rescore Sample Groups B, D, E, G and H on the basis of the items found to be significant in Sample Groups A, C, D, F and G. This rescoring procedure was necessary only when criterion variable 1, actual test scores, was used since rescoring certain sample 2In the item analysis a Student's t was computed to test the significance of the point biserial correlation calculated for each item. The correlations measured the relationship be- tween subjects' responses to each item and the criterion variable. 49 groups' responses on the basis of the items which were significant in other sample groups had a changing effect on the test score criterion.3 However, this rescoring procedure did not in any way apply to the item analyses using the peer and staff ratings When these two variables were used as criteria as criteria. the item analyses calculated used all the items in each scale form. Table 3.3 Item analysis procedures Cri- Scale Statistical Sample Groups Results teria Forms Procedure 1 I A cross B .20 X .20= 2 I A validated B .20 X .20= Items 3 I A by B .20 X .20= which had a Student's t 1 II C cross D cross ~E .34 X .34 X .34= signifi- 2 II C vali- D vali- E .34 X .34 X .34= cant at 3 11 c dated D dated E .34 x .34 x .34= the .04 level by by or above against 1 III F cross G cross H .34 X .34 X .34= the criteria 2 111 F vali- G vali- H .34 X .34 X .34= 1, 2, and 3 3 III F dated G dated H .34 X .34 X .34= by by 3For example, Groups A and B were both administered Form I. The scale scores for individuals in Group A were determined by scor- ing their answer sheets using all 77 items in Form I. The resulting scale scores were then used as the criterion for the item analysis of the Group A data. From the analysis items were identified which were significant at the .20 level. The scale scores for individuals in Group B were then determined by scoring their answer sheets on the basis of these significant items, and an item analysis of the Group B data was computed using the significant item scale scores as criterion. This procedure shows why the test score criterion changed from one item analysis to the next. Group A's test scores resulted from scoring all 77 items in Form I, but Group B's test scores resulted from only scoring the significant items. SO Reliability of Peer and Staff Ratings The reliabilities of the peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness obtained from each sample group were determined by calculating a statistic known as the intraclass correlation. The procedures used in calculating this correlation are presented in an article by Ebel (1951). Hypotheses In the following section hypotheses are restated and the statistical procedures used to test them are described. Hypothesis I Multiple-choice items accompanied by scenes from actual counseling sessions can be used to reliably measure affective sensitivity. This hypothesis was tested for developmental Forms I, II, and III. Form I was administered to two sample groups. Forms II and III were each administered to three sample groups. The data resulting from each administration was used to calculate a Kuder- Richardson formula 20 (K-RZO) based on all the items in each scale form. A significant item4 K-R20 was also calculated using the data resulting from each administration of the forms. The significant items were identified by using the item analysis procedures described in Table 3.3. The answer sheets for each sample group were rescored on the basis of these significant items, and a K-R20 4Significant items refer to those items which had a Student's significant against any of the three criteria at or above the .04 t level when cross validated using two or three sample groups. was recalculated. 51 The significant item K-RZO's were added together and divided by the number of sample groups (8) to obtain an average significant item K'RZO' Since the procedures used to develop Forms I, II and III resulted in equivalent scale forms, the Spearman-Brown pro- phecy formula was applied to this average K-R20 to determine what the estimated reliability would be for a revised scale form consisting of the significant items from the three developmental forms. The estimated reliability was computed for a revised scale form which was doubled in length since the combining of the significant items from the developmental forms into a single revised form should result in a form with at least twice as many items. If the resulting estimated reliability was .70 or above, the hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis II Multiple—choice items accompanied by scenes from actual counseling sessions can be used to validly measure affective sensitivity. This hypothesis was tested for developmental Forms I, II and III. Each time a form was administered to a sample group, peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness were also obtained by using forms 1 and 2 in Appendix B. Each individual's average peer rating was computed by adding together all of the peer ratings the individual received and dividing by the total number of ratings. A comparison was then made between the average peer ratings for the individuals in each group and their scores on Forms 1, II or III of the scale. The same procedures were carried out with staff ratings. Four Pearson product-moment coefficients of correlation (g) were 52 computed on the data gathered from each group. One was computed between average peer ratings and the total scale scores. Another was calculated between average peer ratings and significant item scores. The third correlation was computed between average staff ratings and total scale scores, and the fourth was between average staff ratings and significant item scores. When the obtained g's were significant at the .05 level using a one—tailed test of significance, this hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis III Three types of items, each obtaining correct answers and distractors from different sources, will produce significantly different total numbers of significant items.5 This hypothesis was tested to determine which of the methods for constructing item types--A, B, or C as described in Table 3.1-- was a better method to follow in constructing items to measure affective sensitivity. To test this hypothesis, items were identified which were significant at the .04 level when item analyses were calculated using the total test score criterion (Table 3.3). A tabulation of these items was then made dividing them into those from item Type A, those from Type B, and those from Type C. A chi square was computed to examine the extent of the differences between the SSignificant items as used here has the same meaning given in footnote 1, that is, those items which had a Student's t signifi- cant against any of the three criteria at or above the .04 level when cross validated using two or three sample groups. 53 number of significant items coming from each item set. The same procedures were carried out with the items which were significant at the .04 level when item analyses were calculated using the peer rating criterion and also for those items identified when the staff rating criterion was used. When the resulting chi squares had values which were significant at the .01 level or higher, this hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis IV Two sets of items, one referring to the client's feelings about himself and the other referring to the client's feelings about the counselor (relationship), will produce significantly different numbers of significant items. The procedure followed in testing this hypothesis was similar to that followed in testing hypothesis III. By using the item analysis procedure described in Table 3.3, items were identified which were significant against the total test score criterion. These items were then divided into those that make reference to the client's feelings (Set 1) and those that make reference to the relationship (Set 2). The number of significant Set 1 and Set 2 items were tabulated in a chi-square table along with the Set 1 and 2 items which were not significant, and a chi-square value was computed. This same procedure was carried out with the items which were significant against peer ratings and those which were signifi- cant against staff ratings. 54 If the chi-square values reached a .01 or higher level of significance, this hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis V When Forms I, II, and III are administered using the videotape instrument, scores will be significantly higher than when the forms are administered using the kinescope instrument. 0f the eight sample groups used, four viewed the scenes of the instrument on kinescope (film), and four viewed the scenes on videotape. Table 3.4 indicates which instrument and scale form were used with each sample group. Table 3.4 Sample groups viewing the instrument on videotape and those viewing it on kinescope Kinescope Videotape Sample Group Form . Sample Group Form A I B I C II E II D II F III H III C III To test this hypothesis,the four videotape groups were treated as a single sample group. The kinescope groups were likewise combined. A'E test was calculated to determine the significance of the difference which existed between the means of the two groups. If the £_value was significant at the .05 level or higher using a one-tailed test, this hypothesis was accepted. 55 Marx The scale development processes described in this chapter resulted in three types of multiple—choice items. The correct answers and distractors for each type of item came from different sources. Each item consisted of one correct answer and two distractors. Half of the items referred to the client's feelings about himself, and the other half referred to his feelings about the counselor with whom he was working. The item types were integrated into equivalent Affective Sensitivity Scale Forms I, II, and III. These forms, accompanied by appropriate scenes of counselor-client interaction on either kinescope or videotape, were administered to eight sample groups. The groups consisted of individuals attending full-year master's degree NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institutes. Three item analysis procedures were carried out with each scale form using the criteria--total test scores, peer ratings of counselor effectiveness, and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness. These and other appropriate statistical methods were used to in- vestigate one major and several minor questions. The major one was: Can multiple—choice items accompanied by short scenes from actual counseling sessions be used to reliably and validly measure affective sensitivity? Minor questions were: 1. Was one method of constructing correct answers and distractors--Type A, B or C--c1early superior to the other two? 56 2. Was one set of items clearly superior to the other when used to measure affective sensitivity? Set 1 items refer to the client's feelings about himself and Set 2 items refer to the relationship. 3. Does the superior sound quality of the videotape as compared to the kinescope instrument result in significantly higher scores for individuals responding to the scale forms? Answers to these questions are necessary for the development of an effective multiple-choice scale for the measurement of affective sensitivity. CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA FOR DEVELOPMENTAL FORMS I, II, AND III In this chapter the results obtained with the developmental forms1 are presented, followed by an interpretation and discussion of their significance. Results of Item Analyses Data obtained from administering the developmental forms to sample groups was subjected to item analyses using three different criterion variables--total test score, peer ratings of counselor effectiveness, and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness. The item analysis procedures which were used are presented in Table 3.3, p. 49. Some of the results obtained from these analyses were used in testing hypotheses III and IV and will be presented in the appropriate sections, but the general results from the analyses are presented in this section so the reader may have an overall, concise picture of the outcomes obtained. Results of Item Analyses Using Total Test Scores as the Criterion Table 4.1 indicates the number of items which had Student's £‘s significant at the .04 level when item analyses were computed against the total test score criterion. Also indicated is the form from which the items came. 1Developmental Forms I, II, and III are equivalent forms of the scales. As explained in Chapter III, each form contains approximately an equal number of Type A, B, and C items. 57 58 Table 4.1 Number of items significant at the .04 level when total test scores were used as the criterion for item analysesa Developmental Number of Total Number Percentage of Form Significant of Items Items Which Were Items Significant on Each Form I 22 77 28.6 II 30 73 41.1 III 21 74 28.4 Totals 73 224 32.6 3Refer to Table 3.3 for procedure used in identifying significant items Seventy-three items or 32.6 percent of the total 224 items were significant at the .04 level. If chance alone had been operating, only 9 items out of the total 224 would have been expected to be significant at the .04 level. Form II produced the largest number of these significant items. Results of Item Analyses Using Peer Ratings as the Criterion Table 4.2 shows the number of items which were significant at the .04 level when item analyses were calculated using the criterion peer ratings of counselor effectiveness. The forms from which the items came are also indicated. A total of 15 items were significant at the .04 level against the peer rating criterion. This is only slightly greater than chance expectations; 9 items would have been expected to be signifi- cant on the basis of chance alone. In examining these items, it was found that 11 of the 15 were the same items which were significant 59 when the test score itself was the criterion and that the remaining four items were significant against the test score criterion with some sample groups. That is, the item would discriminate significant- ly with one or two sample groups but would not with a second or third group.2 Table 4.2 Number of items significant at the .04 level when peer ratings of counselor effectiveness were used as the criterion for item analyses Developmental Number of Total Number Percentage of Form Significant of Items Items Which Were Items Significant on Each Form I 6 77 7.8 II 5 73 6.8 III 4 74 5.4 Totals 15 224 6.7 Results of Item Analyses Using Staff Ratings as the Criterion Table 4.3 shows the number of itemS‘which were significant at the .04 level when item analyses were computed against staff ratings of counselor effectiveness. The forms from which the items came are also indicated. A total of 21 items were significant against the staff rating criterion as opposed to nine items which would have been 2Form I was administered to two groups. Items were identified which hadStudent's,ghssignificant at the .20 level with both groups (.20 X .20 = .40). Forms II and III were each administered to three sample groups, and items were identified which had Studenfls 5's significant at the .34 level across all three groups (.34 X .34 X .34 = .04). ' 60 expected to be significant had chance alone been operating. Six of these 21 items were also significant against the total test score criterion, and all of the remaining 15 items were significant against this criterion for one or two sample groups. However, when the items were cross validated on a second or third group, they did not "hold up.‘' Table 4.3 Number of items significant at the .04 level using staff ratings of counselor effectiveness as criterion for item analyses Developmental Number of Total Number Percentage of Form Significant of Items Items Which Were Items Significant on Each Form I 6 77 7.8 II 8 73 11.0 III 7 74 9.5 Totals 21 224 9.4 Results of Calculatinngntraclass Correlations for Peer and Staff Ratings Table 4.4 shows intraclass correlations indicating the reliability of individual ratings and of average ratings for_ each set of peer and staff ratings obtained from the various sample groups administered the three developmental forms. Reliabilities of both individual and average ratings were calculated, but the latter is more applicable to the manner in which peer and staff ratings were used in this study. The peer and staff ratings which each ratee received were added together and averaged. The average ratings were used as the criterion 61 variables in the item analysis procedures and also in the computation of validity 3'5 for testing hypothesis II. Table 4.4 Intraclass correlation formula reliability estimates of individual and average ratings calculated for peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness Intraclass Correlations Sample Peer Ratings Staff Ratings Group Individual Average Individual Average A .21 .88 .35 .73 B .21 .88 b b C .25 .91 .51 .88 D .23 .90 .70 .92 E .27 .91 b F .17 .85 C C G a a .57 .90 H .24 .82 .23 .68 aOriginal ratings were returned to the institute and only the resulting total averages were retained; therefore, an intra- class correlation could not be calculated for this data. bFor these two sample groups most staff members each rated different subgroups of students within the two main groups, thus making it impractical to calculate intraclass correlations. COnly one staff member rated the members of this sample group. - Results Obtained From Testing Hypotheses In this section results are presented in the same order in which the hypotheses were stated in Chapter 1. Each hypothesis is restated and the results obtained in testing it are presented, followed by a statement either accepting or rejecting the hypothesis. Hypothesis I Multiple-choice items accompanied by scenes from actual counseling sessions can be used to develop a reliable measur- ing instrument. 62 Table 4.5 shows the Kuder-Richardson formula 20's (K-RZO) calculated on the basis of all the items in each of the developmental scale forms. Also shown are the K-Rzo's obtained when the develop- mental forms were rescored using only the significant items.3 Table 4.5 Kuder-Richardson formula 20's calculated for original developmental forms and those calculated for developmental forms rescored on the basis of significant items Developmental Sample Group N Total Item Significant Form K-RZO Item K- R20 I A 30 .45 .76 B 30 .42 .59 C 29 .74 .78 II D 27 .64 .72 E '29 .23 .62 F 34 .47 .55 III C 23 .43 .61 H 16 -.16 .46 The developmental Scale Forms I, II, and III contained 77, 73, and 74 items respectively. After rescoring the forms on the basis of the items which were significant or very close to significant on one or more of the three criterion variables; Form I contained 32 items, Form II contained 38 items, and Form III con- tained 31. The average significant item K-R20 was .636. The Spearman-Brown prophecy formula was applied to this figure and an 3The procedure used in identifying significant items is presented in Table 3.3. These items had Student's E's significant at the .04 level or above against one or more of the three cri- teria when item analyses were computed and results were cross validated using two or three sample groups for each scale form. 63 estimated reliability was computed for a scale with twice as many items. The resulting estimate was .777. Therefore, this hypothesis was accepted. Hypothesis II Multiple-choice items accompanied by scenes from actual counseling sessions can be used to validly measure affective sensitivity. Stated in more testable terms, the hypothesis is: a significant positive relationship exists between each sample group's scores on the developmental forms of the Affective Sensitivity Scale and peer and staff ratings of each group member's counseling effectiveness. Table 4.6 contains the Pearson product-moment coefficients of correlation calculated between each group's scale scores and the two criterion variables of peer and staff ratings. The table indicates how these variables correlated with total scale scores, and also how they Correlated with the scores obtained when the forms were rescored on the basis of the items which were significant against one or more of the three criteria. For Sample Groups E and H all four of the correlations calculated were significant at or above the .05 level. The hypothesis as stated was accepted for these groups. The hypothesis was partially supported for Sample Groups G, D, and C in that Group G's scale scores correlated significantly with staff ratings, and scale scores for Groups D and C correlated significantly with peer ratings. The hypothesis received some support from Sample Group 64 F's data in that this group's scale scores correlated positively with both criterion variables, but only one significant correla- tion was found; that was between significant item scores and peer ratings. No support for the hypothesis was found with Sample Groups A and B. The hypothesis as stated was rejected for these sample groups. Table 4.6 Pearson product-moment coefficients of correlation between each group's scale scores and peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness Forms Scored Forms Rescored on Using all Basis of Signifi- Items cant Items Develop- Sample N Peer Staff Peer . Staff mental Group Ratings Ratings Ratings Ratings Form ' I A 30 .36b .42C .47C .50C B 30 -.06 .10 .05 .24 c 29 .35a .39b .31a .46C II D 27 .06 .32a .12 .40b E 29 .45C -.05d’ .36a .00d F 34 .28a .168 .28a .22e III C 23 .12 -.14 .26 .21 H 16 .32 .23 .44a .36 aSignificant at the .05 level. bSignificant at the .025 level. CSignificant at the .01 level. dOnly partial ratings from five staff members were obtained for Group E. Four of the five each rated five different group mem- bers. The other staff person rated ten group members. eCounselor effectiveness ratings were obtained from one staff member for Group F. Four out of eight sample groups had total item scores on the developmental forms which significantly correlated (.05 level 65 or higher) with peer ratings of counselor effectiveness. Two of the same sample groups and one additional one had significant correlations between staff ratings and total item scores. When the developmental forms were rescored on the basis of significant items (.04 level), five sample groups had scores which correlated significantly with peer ratings, and three groups had scores which correlated significantly with staff ratings. Most correlations were positive. The scales scored for all items correlated slightly negative with the criterion variables three times, but the rescored forms had no negative correlations with either of the variables. This data provides partial support for the general hypothesis that multiple-choice items accompanied by scenes from actual counseling sessions can be used to validly measure affective sensitivity. Hypothesis III Three types of items, each with correct answers and distractors from different sources, will produce significantly different total numbers of items which are significant at the .04 level when item analyses are calculated against the three criterion measures--tota1 scale score, peer ratings, and staff ratings. The number of significant items and nonsignificant items which obtained their correct answers and distractors from each of the three different sources are shown in Table 4.7. The significant items are those which obtained a .04 level of significance when item analyses were computed against the total test score criterion. The chi square calculated to determine the extent of the differences between the numbers of significant items from each item 66 Type--A, B, and C--was not significant at the .01 level sz = 2.00, df = 2). A chi square of 9.21 was necessary for the differences to be significant at the .01 level. Hypothesis III was not supported by this data. Table 4.7 The number of items from Types A, B, and C which were significant and nonsignificant against the total test score criterion Types of Itemsa (Correct Answer and Distractor Sources)b A B C Correct Correct Correct Total Answers Answers Answers From From From Judges Informed Protocol Judges Significant Items 31 26 16 73 Nonsignificant Items 51 56 44 151 Total 82 82 60 224 aTypesof Items A, B, and C are described in Chapter III, pp. 38-4?. Table 3.1 indicates the source of the correct answers and distractors which were used to construct each type of item. Table 4.8 indicates the number of items from eaCh Type-- A, B, and C--which were significant and nonsignificant using the peer ratings of counselor effectiveness criterion. Table 4.8 shows that the number of items which were significant against the peer rating criterion was so small (total = 15) that it was impractical and unnecessary to test hypothesis III using this data. The hypothesis was not supported. 67 Table 4.8 The number of items from Types A, B, and C which were significant and nonsignificant against the peer rating criterion Types of Items (Correct Answer and Distractor Sources) A B C Correct Correct Correct Total Answers Answers Answers From From From Judges Informed Protocols Judges Significant Items 4 8 3 15 Nonsignificant Items 78 74 57 209 Total 82 82 60 224 The number of items which were significant and nonsignificant against the staff rating criterion and which obtained their correct answers and distractors from each of the three different sources are shown in Table 4.9. Table 4.9 Number of items from Types A, B, and C which were significant and nonsignificant against the staff rating criterion Types of Items (Correct Answer and Distractor Sources) A B C Correct Correct Correct Total Answers Answers Answers From From From Judges Informed Protocol Judges Significant Items 8 7 6 21 Nonsignificant Items 74 75 54 203 Total 82 82 60 224 68 The number of significant items in each cell was so similar (8, 7, 6) that it was unnecessary to test hypothesis III using this data. The hypothesis was not supported. None of the three sets of data gave any support to hypothesis III; therefore, the hypothesis as stated was rejected. Hypothesis IV Two sets of items--one referring to the client's feelings about himself (Set 1) and the other referring to the client's feelings about the counselor (Set 2)--wi11 produce sig- nificantly different numbers of items which are significant when item analyses are calculated using three different criteria--tota1 scale score, peer ratings, and staff ratings of counselor effective- ness. Table 4.10 shows the number of items from each of the two sets which were significant and nonsignificant when item analyses were computed using the total test score criterion. Table 4.10 The number of Set 1 and Set 2 items which were significant and nonsignificant against the total test score criterion Sets of Items Set 1 Set 2 Client Feeling Relationship Total Significant Items 40 33 73 Nonsignificant Items 76 75 151 Total 116 108 224 A chi square calculated to determine the significance of 69 the difference between the numbers of Set 1 and Set 2 items as indicated in Table 4.10 was not significant (x2 = .23, df = l). A chi square of 6.64 was necessary for the differences to be significant at the .01 level. Hypothesis IV received no support from this data. The number of Set 1 and Set 2 items which were significant and nonsignificant when item analyses were computed using the criterion of peer ratings of counselor effectiveness are shown in Table 4.11. Table 4.11 The number of Set 1 and Set 2 items which were significant and nonsignificant against the peer rating criterion Sets of Items Set 1 - Set 2 Client Feeling Relationship Total Significant Items 9 8 17 Nonsignificant Items 107 100 207 Total 116 108 224 By inspection the data presented in Table 4.11 was obviously not significant; thus hypothesis IV was not supported by this data. Table 4.12 shows the number of Set 1 and Set 2 items which were significant and nonsignificant when staff ratings of counselor effectiveness were used as the criterion for the item analyses. The chi square calculated for the cells of Table 4.12 was not significant ()62 = 1.18, df = 1). AXZ of 6.64 was necessary for significancean the .01 level; the hypothesis was not supported. 70 Table 4.12 The number of Set 1 and Set 2 items which were significant and nonsignificant against the staff rating criterion Sets of Items Set 1 Set 2 Client Feeling Relationship Total Significant Items 8 13 21 Nonsignificant Items 108 95 203 Total 116 108 224 Since the hypothesis was not supported by any of the three sets of data, hypothesis IV was rejected. Hypothesis V The administration of the developmental forms using videotape will result in significantly higher scores than the administration of the forms using kinescope (film). Table 4.13 presents the statistical data for the sample groups that were shown the scenes of the instrument on kinescope (film) and also for the groups that were shown the scenes using videotape. A'E test calculated to determine the degree of difference between the overall kinescope group mean (36.0) and the overall videotape group mean (41.7) was significant above the .001 level (L = 7.25, df = 216). Therefore, the hypothesis as stated was accepted. 71 Table 4.13 Descriptive statistical data for groups that were administered the instrument on kinescope and those that were administered the instrument on videotape - Kinesc0pe Videotape Sample Group N M S.D. Sample Group N M S.D. A 30 36.9 5.3 B 30 41.1 5.1 C 29 31.5 7.1 E 29 39.4 4.2 D 27 39.2 6.2 F 34 42.6 5.2 H 16 37.2 3 4 G 23 44.2 4.8 Totals for Totals for Kinescope 102 36.0 6.6 Videotape 116 41.7 5.1 Groups Groups Interpretation and Discussion of Results Two conclusions can be drawn from the results of the item analysis procedures used in this study. The most important is that a sufficient number of items (73 of 224) were significant (.04 level) against one or more of the three criterion variables. Because the number of significant items is large enough,these items could be used as a basis for further developing and refining a revised form of the Affective Sensitivity Scale. Second, the smaller numbers of items which were found tolxasignificant at or beyond the .04 level against the criteria of peer and staff ratings is an indication of the weak but positive relationship which was found to exist between scores on the developmental forms of the scale and subjective measures of counselor effectiveness. This relationship was further substantiated by testing hypothesis II. Fifteen of the thirty-two correlations calculated between the sub- jective ratings and scale scores were significant at the .05 level 72 (See Table 4.6).4 There are two possible factors which could account for this low positive relationship. First, even though many counseling theorists and practitioners proclaim that a strong relationship exists between empathy and counseling effectiveness, in actuality this may not be true, or it may be that the strength of the rela- tionship depends on the definition of empathy used. If the def- inition used requires that a subject not only be able to accurately identify the emotions of another but also that he accurately and therapeutically communicate his understanding of these emotions to the client, then the relationship may well be found to be strong. However, if the subject is only required to accurately identify the emotions of another as with the Affective Sensitivity Scale, then the relationship between empathy and effectiveness may well be found to be a weak one; that is, this type of empathy may be necessary for a person to function as an effective counselor, but there might also be individuals who are high in this empathy but who are unable to accurately or therapeutically communicate this sensitivity to the client. Such individuals may even use their high sensitivity to defend against or even hurt or punish the client. 4The process used to rescore Forms I, II, and III on the basis of items which were significant against any of the three criteria would naturally tend to increase the size of the correla- tions calculated between any such scale scores and the peer and staff ratings. However, considering just the correlations between the ratings and total scale scores, 7 out of 16 were significant at the.05 level, and only 3 of the correlations were slightly negative (See Table 4.6). 73 The relationship implied here is that individuals who are effective as counselors should score high on the sensitivity scale, but individuals who are ineffective may score either high or low on the scale. A second factor which may partially cause the low positive relationship between counselor effectiveness ratings and scale scores is the subjectivity of the ratings themselves. The problem is that valid, objective and feasible measures of counseling effectiveness are not available, so more subjective measures such as those used in this study must be employed. The coefficients in Table 4.4 indicate that ratings of counselor effectiveness obtained from a single peer or staff member were not very reliable. However, when the ratings used in this study were obtained by averaging a large number of such individual ratings, the reliability greatly increased. The co- efficients ranged from .82 to .91 for average peer ratings and from .68 to .92 for average staff ratings.’ In most cases the reliabilities were substantial and quite acceptable; however, the validity of such ratings is presently unknown. It is possible that the ratings are more a measure of some other psychological characteristic than a measure of the individual's effectiveness as a counselor. If the ratings are not valid, this would be a factor which could have depressed the size of the 5's calculated between such ratings and the forms of the Affective Sensitivity Scale. The testing of hypothesis I indicated that the combining of items which were significant against one or more of the three 74 criteria into a single scale should produce an instrument with reliability of approximately .70 to .80. For a developmental research instrument which is somewhat unique in its measurement approach,this reliability seems to be acceptable until methods are found of further improving it. The procedures used to test hypothesis I had one limitation which could have affected the resulting estimated reliability. The calculation of K'RZO'S based upon significant items would be expected to artifically inflate the reliabilities. Significant items were identified and K-Rzo's were calculated for each sample group on the basis of these items (See Table 4.5). This is a somewhat circular process and would be expected to produce higher reliabilities than what would probably be obtained if the significant items were readministered to new sample groups.5 Nevertheless, the pro- cedure provided an approximation of revised form reliability. The results obtained in testing hypothesis III indicated that no one method of constructing items was superior to the other two. Yet there was a trend in the data. This trend was especially evident in the data presented in Table 4.7. The items reported in the table were those which were significant (.04 level) against the total test score criterion. This was the largest group of significant items. Type A provided the largest number of these and 5Since the revised forms were administered to new sample groups, this artificial inflation was not a serious limitation. In addition, the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula was computed for a revised scale which would have twice as many items, when in actuality each revised form consisted of almost three times as many items. 75 Type C, the smallest. One reason for this trend could be that judges when providing the correct answers for Type A items were in a situation very similar in nature to the position in which subjects would find themselves when actually taking the scale. The judges were provided with no additional information. They just viewed each scene of the instrument and attempted to accurately state what the client was feeling. On the other hand, Informed Judges were provided with a large amount of additional information and were more familiar with the personality dynamics of the clients. This may have caused the Informed Judges to formulate correct answers more on the basis of clinical insight or knowledge rather than on the basis of being sensitive to what the client was feeling at the moment. Another possibility is that the Informed Judges may have produced correct answers which only a very sensitive and experienced counselor would accurately perceive. If this was the case, items from Type B would be good items for groups which in- cluded highly sensitive and experienced individuals, but they would not work as well for homogeneous groups which consisted only of people at the master's degree level, such as the sample groups which were administered the developmental forms. The number of significant items coming from Type C may have been influenced by a number of factors. One major one could have been that some clients used in producing the instrument had exper- ienced a number of counseling and recall sessions, and most of these sessions were with individuals who had extensive experience 76 in the counseling and recall or interrogation processes. These clients tended to be very productive and were quite open in identifying and discussing their emotions during client recall sessions: Other clients experienced only a limited number of counseling and recall sessions and worked with individuals who had a minimal amount of experience in the counseling and recall processes. Some of these clients were not very productive or sincere during recall sessions and did not openly identify and discuss their emotional reactions. Answers taken from the typed protocols of such client's recall sessions were probably not very valid correct answers. The data used to test hypothesis IV indicated that the two sets of items, one set referring to the client's feelings about himself (Set 1) and the other referring to the client's feelings about the counselor (Set 2), functioned equally well. This might have been expected because, in one sense, there was very little difference in the two sets of items. Both required that the sub- ject be sensitive to the feelings the client was experiencing. Still, in another sense, there was a real difference in the require- ments which the two sets of items made on subjects, and it seems quite possible that this difference could have influenced some of the subject's responses. For example, some subjects may have been able to accurately identify a client's feelings about himself; however, certain of these same subjects may have had difficulty in accurately identifying the client's feelings when they were directed towards the counselor. This would have been particularly true if 77 these subjects had strongly identified with the screen-image counselor and if the client's feelings toward the counselor were negative. The slight trend in the data of Table 4.10 could be explained by such an operating factor. The number of significant Set 1 items was greater than the number of signifi- cant Set 2 items. However, the differences were far from significant so any such explanation, though interesting, must be regarded as conjecture. The testing of hypothesis V indicated that the instrument with the superior sound quality (videotape) provided subjects with more accurate cues, thus they were able to more accurately identify the feelings experienced by the clients. There was some concern after this data had been gathered that the significant results may have been due to the operation of a cultural or geographical variable. Because of the need for appropriate equipment, the videotape instrument was administered to four sample groups located in the Midwest and Nertheast. The kinescope instrument was administered to three southern groups and one 6 The northern sample group (Group D, Table northern sample group. 4.13) had the highest mean (39.2) of any of the kinescope sample groups. Because of this, a further statistical analysis was com- 5Most clients used in producing the scenes of the instrument were from the'Midwest or East. This may have been another variable which could have influenced the results obtained from administering the developmental forms to southern sample groups. However, there was no way of controlling or measuring the effects of this variable in this study. 78 puted to determine, in so far as possible, whether or not the significant difference obtained in testing hypothesis V was caused by cultural and/or geographical variables. The statistical data for Group D was multiplied by four. This was done so that the resulting figures would theoretically represent the results which could have been obtained had the scale been administered using kinescope to four groups which were equivalent to Group D. This procedure assumed that if the overall mean of this theoretical group, consisting of one actual and three hypothetical sample groups, was still significantly lower than the overall mean of the videotape sample groups, this would support the contention that the significant difference obtained in testing the original hypothesis was not caused by cultural and/or geographical factors. The £_test computed between the overall means of the two groups was significant beyond the .005 level (5 8 3.1, df = 222), so the results obtained in testing hypothesis V do not seem to be influenced by a cultural or geographical factor. However, there is still some possibility that uncontrolled intervening variables may have influenced the results to some extent, thus the results must be regarded with a certain degree of caution. Nevertheless, the results do indicate that subjects responding to the kinescope with its poor sound quality were able to identify clients' feelings with some degree of accuracy. When the sound quality was improved, as with the videotape, the accuracy improyed. It improved significantly, but not greatly. 79 General Summary Results of the item analysis procedures used in this study were that 32.6 percent of the 224 items in developmental Forms I, II, and III were significant (.04 level) when total scale scores were used as criterion.7 When peer ratings of counselor effectiveness were used as the criterion, 6.7 percent of the items were significant, and 9.4 percent of the items were significant against staff ratings of counselor effectiveness. A large enough number of items were significant against one or more of the three criteria so that these items could be combined and used as a basis for developing and refining a revised form of the Affective Sensitivity Scale. Intraclass correlations calculated to determine the reliability of counselor effectiveness ratings indicated that ratings obtained from a single peer or staff member were not 'very reliable. However, the ratings used in this study were obtained by averaging a large number of suCh individual ratings, .and the reliability coefficients for these average ratings were substantial. The coefficients ranged from .82 to .91 for average jpeer ratings and from .68 to .92 for average staff ratings. Five hypotheses were tested with the three developmental forms. Hypotheses I and V were accepted. Hypothesis II was ‘partially supported, and hypotheses III and IV were rejected. 'The results obtained in testing these hypotheses can be summarized 7See Table 3.3 for item analysis procedures used. 80 as follows:8 ,1. If the significant items from the developmental forms were combined into a revised form, the resulting scale would have acceptable reliability. The average significant item K-R20 for eight sample groups was .64. The Spearman-Brown prophecy formula estimate of the reliability of a revised form was .78. 2. The validity of a revised form consisting of the significant items from the developmental forms was partially supported. Seven of the sixteen correlations (g) calculated between total developmental scale scores and the two ratings of counselor effectiveness, peer and staff, were significant (.05 level, one-tailed test). The same seven relationships plus an additional one were significant when correlations were calculated between the two ratings and significant item scale scores. For all correlations calculated, three were negative with the lowest being -.l4; the highest positive was .50. 3. Of the three different methods used to obtain correct answers and distractors for items, no one method was significantly superior to the others. A chi square calculated to determine the extent of the difference 8The Arabic numbers correspond with Roman numerals used to designate the hypotheses throughout the text of these chapters. 81 between the number of significant items produced by each method was not significant. 4. No significant difference was found between the number of significant items which referred to the client's feelings about himself (Set 1) and those which referred to the client's feelings about the counselor (Set 2). Chi squares calculated to determine the extent of the differences between the number of Set 1 and Set 2 items which were significant against the three criterion measures--total scale scores, peer ratings, and staff ratings--were not significant. 5. Showing the scenes of the instrument using videotape resulted in significantly higher scores than showing the scenes using kinescope (film). The audio quality of the film instrument was inferior to that of the videotape. A,£ test calculated between the average mean of the four videotape sample groups and the four kinescope sample groups was significant beyond the .001 level. The item analysis procedures and the testing of the five hypotheses suggested that it was feasible to develop revised forms of the Affective Sensitivity Scale based upon the results obtained with the three developmental forms. The promising results stimulated an expansion of the present study to include 82 the development and further testing of two revised forms. The procedures used to develop these forms and the results obtained with them are presented in the next chapter. (SHAPTER V: REVISED FORMS A AND B OF THE AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE . In this chapter the processes used to develop and revise forms of the Affective Sensitivity Scale are described. Following the explanation of each developmental process, reliability and validity data is presented for the scale form resulting from the process. A discussion of the results concludes each section. Revised Form A Form A was constructed by pooling significant developmental form items which were identified through the item analysis procedures outlined in Table 3.3. Because of their level of difficulty, some of these items were modified before inclusion in the revised scale. The average difficulty index of the developmental forms was 47.5;1 whereas, the ideal difficulty index for a multiple-choice scale consisting of items with three alternative choices is approximately 23 (Lord, 1952). During the process of modifying items to make them easier, it was found that many of the difficult items had distractors which were too close in meaning to the correct answer. In these cases the distractors for such items were either replaced or modified. Additional modifications of items were necessary for Form A because some instrument scenes did not have accompanying items from any of the three developmental scale forms which were significant (.04 level). To provide items for these scenes, new items were constructed by using various subparts from the nonsignificant items. 1Percent of sample group incorrectly answering each item. 83 84 'This could be done because frequently subparts of nonsignificant items would be found to "pull" high or low scorers. For example, as correct answer in one developmental form would consistently eattract high scoring subjects, and a distractor from another form xdould consistently attract low scoring subjects. By this process (3f examining nonsignificant items, properly functioning subparts c>f items were located and new items were constructed. Revised Form A was administered using videotape to 26 members <)f an NDEA master's degree Counseling and Guidance Institute at a bdidwest university (Sample Group I). The scale was administered and peer ratings of counselor effectiveness were collected near the beginning of the group's academic year institute experience. An item analysis was computed using the resulting total test scores as the criterion, and a Pearson product-moment correlation (r) was calculated between scale scores and peer ratings. Results The mean item difficulty for Revised Form A was 36. The Kuder-Richardson reliability formula 20 was .57. Of the total 86 items, 39 had Student's Efs significant above the .20 level, and 17 others had Student's E's significant beyond the .35 level, but not reaching the .20 level. A rescoring and item analysis of the scale on the basis of these 56 items resulted in the same mean item difficulty of 36 and a K-Rzo of .81. The g calculated between individuals' scores on Revised Form A and peer ratings obtained near the beginning of the institute 85 was not significant (5 = -.02). Discussion One of the main goals in developing Revised Form A was to construct items which were easier to answer. This was accomplished but at the cost of producing many items which no longer discriminated (items with a nonsignificant Student's E) between high and low scorers as they had in the previous developmental forms. In examin- ing the data, it was found that most of the items which did not differentiate failed because they were too easy for the sample group, and both the high and low scoring individuals correctly answered the items. Apparently, in the process of changing sub- parts of items to make them easier, many items had been made too easy. The nonsignificant, slightly negative correlation obtained between scale scores and peer ratings was not completely unexpected since Revised Form A was administered to individuals in Sample Group I at the beginning of their institute experience. The institute members had been together for only four weeks, and it is very possible that they did not know each other well enough to provide accurate and valid ratings of counselor effectiveness. Additional Observations In studying the data from the original developmental forms and Revised Form A, items which were discriminating between high and low scorers fell into a pattern. In almost all cases, correct answers which differentiated between high and low scoring individuals were those which described strong feelings. 86 Distractors which tended to draw the low scorers were almost always those which described weak or neutral feelings. For example, if the correct answer was the statement, "This scares me; I feel frightenedl", the majority of the high scorers would be attracted to it. The majority of the low scorers would be drawn to distractor statements describing weak or neutral feelings such as, "I feel a little uneasy and self-conscious, but not much." For those items which described the relationship between counselor and client, the distractors which contained negative statements about the client's feelings toward the counselor were usually the ones which attracted the low scoring individuals. For example, if a correct answer for a relationship item was, "He (counselor) really understands me! He's with me now," this would tend to attract the high scoring individuals. The low scoring individuals would be attracted to the distractor, "I wish I could get out of here; I don't like him (counselor)," which is a statement of negative client feelings toward the counselor. It appears that the low scorer (low empathizer) is a person who avoids recognizing any strong emotion in the client and has a propensity to believe the client is rejecting the counselor. These insights into the workings of correct answers and distractors pro- vided a systematic means of improving and correcting items in Form A, items which were not discriminating. These insights and various statistical information were used in constructing a second revision of the Affective Sensitivity Scale, Revised Form B. 87 Revised Form B , This scale was constructed to contain all of the items which worked well, discriminated between high and low scorers, in Revised Form A. Additional items that were too easy in Form A but had worked well in the developmental scales were returned to their original forms. Some items that had not worked well in the develop- mental forms or in Form A were rewritten using as guidelines the previously described observations and insights. Sample Groups In order to explore the reliability and validity of Revised Form B, it was administered to 9 sample groups. Five of the groups, hereafter referred to as Groups I, J, K, L, and M, consisted of members of NDEA master's degree Counseling and Guidance Institutes. Groups I, J, and K were at universities located in the Midwest. The members of the other two groups, L and M, were attending institutes at southeastern universities. Sample Group I was the same group which had received Revised Form A at the beginning of the academic year on a pretest basis. Seven months later, toward the end of the institute program, Group I was administered Form B which had been developed by then. Groups J and K were each administered Form B on a pretest and posttest basis at a time interval of approximately six months. Individuals in Groups L and M were administered Form B on a posttest basis near the end of their institute experience. The scale was also taken by Group N, a group of 24 practicing school counselors in the Michigan area. To obtain an 88 indication of test-retest reliability, Form B was administered and then readministered one week later to Group P, 50 undergraduate students at a Midwest university. For validity purposes the scale was given to Group 0, 16 doctoral students who had just finished their first quarter of counseling practicum, and to Group Q, 26 master's degree students who had just completed taking part in a group counseling experience. Both groups of students were attending a Midwest university. Item Analysis Results An item analysis was computed using a combined total sample group of 232 individuals from the various groups that were administered Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale. This group was referred to as Group J-Q because it consisted of individuals from Groups J, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q, along with a few other master's degree counseling and guidance students who were administered Form B but ‘were not included in any of the main sample groups. For those ,groups that were administered Form B on a pretest and posttest basis, the pretest data was used in the analysis. Total scale scores were used as the criterion for the analysis. The item analysis of Sample Groups J-Q's scale responses indicated that 73 of the total 89 items had point biserial correla- tions which were significant at or above the .05 level when tested for significance using a Student's E value. Fifty-one of these items had Student's £_values significant at the .01 level. A summary of the item analysis results is presented in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 89 Summary of item analysis data for Revised Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale Criterion = Total Scale Scores N = 232 Summary Data Distribution of item difficulty Distribution of discrimination indicesa indicesb Difficulty Number of Percent Discrim- Number of Percent Indices Items ination Items Indices 81 - 100 2 2 81 - 100 O 0 61 - 80 17 19 61 - 80 0 0 41 - 60 25 28 41 - 6O 10 ll 21 - 40 33 37 21 - 40 40 45 00 - 20 12 13 00 - 20 38 43 less than 0 1 1 Mean Item Difficultya --------- 42 Mean Item Discriminationb -------- 23 Mean Point Biserial Correlation - - - -.20 Standard Error of Measurement ----- 4.23 Mean ----------------- 51.8 Standard Deviation ---------- 8.26 Range --------------- 25 - 74 aDifficulty indices or item difficulty is the percentage of the total group marking a wrong answer. bDiscrimination indices are the difference between the percent of the highest scoring one-third marking the right answer and the percent of the lowest scoring one-third marking a wrong answer. Similar summary data, including item analysis results and .other related statistical data for each individual sample group that was administered Form B, is presented in Appendix E. Reliability related data obtained from administering Form B to 7 sample groups Kuder-Richardson formula 20 (K'RZO) coefficients and other are presented in Table 5.2. 90 Table 5.2 Kuder-Richardson formula 20 reliability coefficients and other related data for 7 sample groupsa Sample Number of Subjects Standard Deviation Kuder-Richard- Groups son Formula 20 Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest J 34 27 6.71 7.35 .62 .70 K 31 31 6.37 6.97 .58 .68 P 50 26 8.02 6.08 .73 .53 I 27 6.39 .61 L 27 8.35 .76 M 24 8.83 .77 N 24 8.36 .76 aData obtained from administering Form B to sample groups on only one occasion are listed in columns headed posttest. Since the obtained KPRZO coefficients are someWhat dependent on the size (N) and especially on the variance (S2) of the sample populations, this data is also presented in Table 5.2. A test-retest reliability coefficient was calculated for Form B using the data from Group P. Twenty-six undergraduate students were administered the form on a test-retest basis separated by a weeks time interval. A Pearson product-moment correlation (5) was calculated between the two sets of scores; the resulting,£ was .75. A K-Rzo was calculated using the responses of the 232 individuals in Sample Group J-Q.2 The obtained K-Rzo was .74. 21f a group was administered Form B on both a pretest and post- test basis, the pretest data was used in computing the combined group K-RZOO 91 An indication of the stability of the scale scores over a more extended period of time was determined by calculating an E. between the pretest and posttest scores for Sample Groups J and K. The resulting E's were .58 and .67 respectively.3 Validity The validity of Revised Form B was investigated by a number of studies. These studies are classified in this section according to the type of validity examined--concurrent, predictive, or con- struct. The categories used are those provided by the APA Committee on Psychological Tests (1954).4 Concurrent Validity Studies Sample Group Q, a group of students enrolled in a master's degree program in counseling and guidance at a Midwest university, was administered Form B after completing three months of a group counseling experience. The larger group had been divided into three subgroups (Q1, Q2, Q3) which met once each week for one hour. When the scale was administered at the end of the experience, the therapist was asked to rank the members of 3The individuals in these two sample groups, J and K, were undergoing institute experiences which resulted in significantly higher posttest scores for both sample groups. Data supporting this is pre- sented in the "Validity" section of this chapter. Therefore, the resulting,£'s are not a true indication of stability over time, but a restricted or minimal one. 4These categories contain a certain amount of overlap, and it could be argued that certain studies should be in other categories or in more than one category. This was recognised; however, for pre- sentation purposes the studies were placed in the category which seemed most descriptive of the validation procedures used. 92 each subgroup on the basis of their affective sensitivity. She ranked the subgroup members putting the person who was most sensitive to the feelings expressed by others first, and the person who was least sensitive to such feelings last. A Spearman rank correlation coefficient (Egg) was computed between the therapist's rankings and the group members' scale scores. The resulting £22 coefficients are presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 Spearman rank correlation coefficients (Egg) calculated between therapist's affective sensitivity rankings of group members and the individuals' scale scores Group N Rho Q1 9 .35 Q2 9 ' .59 . Q3 8 .64 The Egg coefficients reported in Table 5.3 are not in themselves significant. However, significance at the .01 level was obtained when the coefficients were averaged and tested for significance using a procedure described by McNemar (1962, p. 140). It was permissible to average the Egg coefficients because the same therapist ranked the members of all three subgroups and also because the members of the larger Group Q were randomly assigned to the three subgroups. Following the McNemar procedure, the coefficients were converted to a,g, and an average g_was obtained. The average g,value was .59. The equivalent average Egg would be .53. The average 5 was divided by its standard error, and the resulting value was tested for significance 93 using a table of normal curve functions. The value, 2.43, was found to be.significant at the .01 level. Another criterion variable was obtained from Sample Group Q by asking each member of the subgroupstHJrank all the other individuals in his subgroup on the basis of how sensitive he felt they were to the feelings being expressed by the other group members. This was the same type of affective sensitivity ranking the therapist was asked to make. An average ranking was obtained for each subgroup member by adding all the rankings the member received from other individuals in the subgroup and dividing by the number of such rankings. Each person's average ranking was used to place the members of each subgroup in rank order. A.EE2 was calculated for each sub- group between the resulting sensitivity rank order and'the rank order of the Form B scale scores. The resulting Egg coefficients are shown in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 Spearman rank correlation coefficients calculated between group member's average sensitivity rankings of each other and Form B scale scores Group N 339 Q1 9 -.10 Q2 9 .51 Q3 8 .59 The coefficients in Table 5.4 were not averaged and tested for significance because of the large difference in value between the rho for Group Q1 and for Groups Q2 and Q3. 94 A second concurrent validity study involved Sample Group 0, 16 individuals who had just completed their first quarter (three months) of practicum experience in a counselor education program at the doctoral level. These individuals met four hours a week with two staff members. The experience was similar to group coun- seling, with the individuals exploring their own feelings and their affective reactions to other group members. Some time was usually spent toward the end of the experience listening and reacting to audio tapes of group members' individual counseling sessions with clients. The 16 individuals in Group 0 took part in the practicum experience at different times during the academic year--some the first quarter, some the second, and the rest the third. At the end of each quarter those who had just finished the practicum experience were administered Revised Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale. At the end of the third quarter the two staff members were asked to rank each member of the total group of 16 on the basis of the member's sensitivity to feelings experienced by others and also on the basis of the member's effectiveness as a counselor. A Spearman rank correlation coefficient (Egg) was computed between each of these rank orders and the rank order of the Group's Form B scale scores. The resulting coefficients are reported in Table 5.5. The correlations reported in Table 5.5 are not by themselves significant. However, since both supervisors ranked members of the same group, it was feasible to average the resulting coefficients using the procedure outlined by McNemar (1962, p. 140). For the two correlations resulting from the sensitivity rankings, an average 95 ,5 was obtained and divided by its standard error. The resulting value, 1.58, was found to be significant at the .06 level using a table or normal curve functions. The same procedure was used with the two correlations resulting from the effectiveness rankings. The obtained value, 1.68, was significant at the .05 level. fi Table 5.5 Spearman rank correlation coefficients calculated between Form B scale scores and supervisors' rankings of affective sensitivity and counseling effectiveness Sample N Supervisor 1 Supervisor 2 Group Affective Counselor Affective Counselor Sensitivity Effectiveness Sensitivity Effectiveness O 16 .32 .31 .28 .32 A third concurrent validity study was carried out using 13 members of Group 0 and 3 members of Group N. These 16 individuals are hereafter referred to as Group ON. Audio tapes of counseling sessions were obtained from these counselors,and 20 counselor responses from each tape were rated by three judges using the IPR Counselor Verbal Response Scale (CVRS).5 The scale provides four subscores labeled Affect, Understanding, Specific, and Exploratory, along with a more general counselor response evaluation score labeled Effective. The five scores provide a measure of counselor effectiveness.6 5Copies of the scale and its manual can be found in Appendix E. The manual defines each dimension of the scale and indicates how judges are to use the scale in rating video or audio tapes of counseling sessions. 6For further information concerning the development, validity and reliability of the CVRS; see Interpersonal Process Recall Tech- nique Project (NDEA Title VII Grant No. 7-32-0410-270) quarterly re- ports for April-July, 1965; December l965-March 1966; April-July, 1966; August-November, 1966. 96 Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients (E) were calculated between the sample group's scores on each dimension of the scale and the group's scores on Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale. The resulting E's were Affect .16, Understanding .26, Specific .18, Exploratory .28, and Effective .21. All of the 373 were positive, but none of them were significant. Sample Groups I, M, and L were used in a fourth concurrent validity study. Form B of the scale was administered to the three groups toward the end of their academic year institute experiences. At the same time peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness were collected using the forms in Appendix B. Correlation coefficients (E's) were calculated between scale scores and the two variables, peer and staff ratings. Table 5.6 presents the coefficients obtained. Table 5.6 Correlation coefficients (5's) between Form B scale scores and the two variables, peer and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness Sample Correlations Groups N Peer Ratings Staff Ratings I 27 .428 M 24 .17 .20 L 26 .32b .23 8Significant at the .025 level. bAn; of .33 was needed for significance at the .05 level. No staff ratings were obtained for Group I. Two complete and four partial staff ratings of Group M members were collected. Ratings of all group members were obtained from 4 staff members for Group L. 97 Predictive Validity Study Sample Group I (N = 26) was administered Revised Form A at the beginning of the institute, and seven months later this same group was given Revised Form B. Both times the scales were administered peer ratings of counselor effectiveness were collected using Form 1 in Appendix B. Because of this, it was possible to calculate a correlation coefficient (E) between Form A scale scores obtained at the beginning of the institute and peer ratings of coun- selor effectiveness collected at the end of the institute. The re- sulting E was .49 (df = 24, 5 of .45 is significant at the .01 level). Construct Validity Study Sample Groups J and K consisted of individuals attending academic year master's degree NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institutes. Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale was administered to both groups at the beginning of the institutes. Six months later the scale was again administered. A.E test for correlated means was computed between the pretest and posttest means of both sample groups to determine if there was a significant increase in the posttest means. This procedure investigated the hypothesis that experiences provided by a full academic year NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institute would cause significant increases in individuals' affective sensitivity. The pretest and posttest means, the mean differences, and the obtained £_values for Groups J and K are pre- sented in Table 5.7 The data in Table 5.7 indicates that the mean scores for Groups J and K did significantly increase during the training period. Within each sample group there was a large difference in 98 the amount of growth shown by various individuals. The largest growth for an individual in Group J was + 15 scale points; the least was -10. The largest individual growth in Group K was + 11 scale points; the least was -6. Table 5.7 Data resulting from the administration of Form B on a pretest and posttest basis to Sample Groups J and K Sample Pretest Posttest Mean ,E Groups N Mean Mean Difference Value J 26 51.35 54.08 2.73 2.218 K 30 54.26 57.03 2.77 2.80b aSignificant at .025 level, one-tailed test (df - 25, value of 2.06 = .025 level). bSignificant at .005 level, one-tailed test (df a 29, value of 2.76 = .005 level). In In Group P, 26 undergraduate students at a large Midwest university, was also administered Form B on a pretest and posttest basis separated by a one week time interval. The two purposes for this procedure were to obtain a test-retest,£ for Form B7 and to determine if the practice effect involved in pretesting and post- testing the same sample group would cause an increase in the mean posttest score. The pretest mean was 52.00 and the posttest mean was 51.88 with a mean difference of -.12. 7This test-retest E value has been previously reported in this chapter in the section labeled "Reliability." 99 Interpretation, Discussion, and Conclusions In this section the results obtained with Revised Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale are interpreted and discussed. Reliability When the sample was large enough and especially when the var- iance within the group was great enough, the K-Rzo coefficients cal- culated for Form B (Table 5.2) were generally above .70. Coefficients lower than this value were always directly associated with lower, more restricted standard deviations (SD). The homogeneity of some groups may have been due to the selection procedures used by some universities sponsoring NDEA Coun- seling and Guidance Institutes. Smme universities had many more applicants than they could possibly accept; therefore, their selection requirements were high and quite restricted in range. This could have feasibly resulted in institute groups with very narrow ranges of ability, experience, and personality factors. This was especially evident for the institute groups at large northern universities lo- cated in the Midwestern states (Sample Groups I, K, and J). This contention was further supported when the scale was administered to groups assumed to consist of individuals with a wider range of ability, experience, and other psychological characteristics (Groups N and P). Group N was composed of practicing school counselors. Even though its,N was small (24), its,§2 was large (8.36), and the resulting K-R20 was one of the higher ones (.76). Group P consisted of 50 undergraduate students when the scale was administered on a pre- 100 test basis. The §2 was 8.02 and the KPRZO was .73. When the post- test was administered, the SD and the K-Rzo markedly dropped (6.08 and .53); however, this large drop was probably caused by the big decrease in the size of the group, 50 to 26, from pretest to posttest. Groups L and M with small 3'3, 27 and 24, had substantial SQ values of 8.35 and 8.83 and produced K-Rzo's of .76 and .77, two of the higher ones obtained. The main identifiable difference be- tween these two institute groups and those previously mentioned was that these were located at universities in southern states. It may have been that these institute groups, because of the locations and selection procedures of the universities, consisted of more hetero- geneous papulations. This effect of varying K'RZO values is not entirely the result of the various sample groups used. It must be regarded as the result of two interacting variables, the variance within the sample groups and the discriminating ability of the scale items. If the discriminating ability of the scale could be further improved, its ability to measure individuals' true variance on the trait of affective sensitivity would be likewise improved, and this would re- sult in higher reliability coefficients regardless of the sample groups. It can be concluded that for somewhat heterogeneous groups the reliability of Revised Form B can be expected to be above .70. This would include most groups of practicing school counselors and probably most groups of individuals entering counselor training pro- 101 grams. This conclusion is further supported by the test-retest,£ for Group P of .75 and the K'RZO for the combined Sample Group J-Q (13 = 232) of .74. Item Analyses Table 5.1, p. 89, gives a rather complete internal statistical analysis of scale Form B based on the responses of 232 individuals who varied greatly in their relevant training and experience. At one extreme were individuals who were undergraduate students with no training in counseling; at the other extreme were individuals en- gaged in counselor training programs at the doctoral level. The mean scale score for Group J-Q was 51.8. The flieal mean score for the scale would be near the midpoint of the range between the highest possible and the expected chance score.8 This value would be approximately 59. The data in Appendix E indicates that most institute groups when tested toward the end of their training had a mean score near this value. The posttest means for Groups I, J, K, and L were 58.7, 54.1, 56.8, and 53.9 respectively. The one exception was the mean of Group M, 48.8. The mean of Group J-Q was lower because of this Group M mean, and the means of Group N, practic- ing school counselors, and Group P, undergraduate students. The mean level of item difficulty is directly related to the obtained mean scores. The mean item difficulty for Group J-Q was -_-_—-__3AII_;f_the ideal statistical standards used for comparison purposes in this section come directly or indirectly from an article by Ebel (1966). 102 42; the ideal value would be 33 or 1ess.9 Appendix E indicates that the mean item difficulty for the posttested institute groups, with the exception of Group M, approached this value. The mean item discrimination was 23 (Table 5.1). The ideal would be 30 or more. Of the indices, 45 percent were between 21 and 40 which is satisfactory. However, too few, 11 percent, were above 41 and too many, 43 percent, between 0 and 20. The standard deviation was 8.26. The ideal would be in the area of one-sixth of the range between the highest possible scale score and the expected chance score. For Form B this would be 9.88. Validity The description of the procedures used to develop the Affective Sensitivity Scale given in Chapter III and the internal analysis data just discussed give some indication of the content validity of the scale. Data from studies investigating other types of validity are discussed in this section according to.the validity classifications used in previously presenting the data. Concurrent Validity The yhg's calculated between the therapist's affective sensitivity rankings of members of subgroups Q1, Q2, and Q3 and the members' Form B scale scores were among the highest cor- relations obtained in any of the validity studies (See Table 5.3, p. 92). Perhaps one logical reason for this would be that the thera- pist worked closely with individuals in each subgroup for a minimum *9Lotd (1952) suggested 23 as the ideal difficulty level for a three choice multiple-choice test. 103 of fifteen, one hour group counseling sessions. Consequently, the therapist was very familiar with the personality dynamics of each person and was able to quite accurately assess each person's ability to be sensitive to the feelings expressed by others. The Egg values shown in Table 5.4 between group members' average sensitivity rankings of each other and scale scores were substantial for the two subgroups Q2 and Q3. The correlation for the other group, Q1, was slightly negative, -.10. The reason for the substantial correlation with the two subgroups and the slightly negative correlation for the other group is not clear from the pre- sent data shown in Table 5.3 and 5.4. However, there is some con- sistency in the results because subgroup Q1 also had the lowest correlation when therapist's rankings were the criterion. The correlations obtained from the second concurrent validity study involving Group 0 were significant at the .06 and .05 levels when averaged together, but they were not as substantial as those obtained with Group Q. The reason.for this could be that the individuals in Group 0 took part in the practicum experience at different times--some the first three months of the academic year, some the second three months, and some the third. The two staff members who worked with all three of the subgroups were not asked to rank any of these individuals until after the end of the third three month period. By that time it was very possible that the staff members' judgments concerning the first and second quarter people could have been somewhat altered due to the intervening time 104 period. For example, the first quarter people were not ranked until approximately six months after they had completed their first quarter of practicum. During this time period the staff members' judgments could have been affected by forgetting or by additional contacts and experiences whflflithey had with the practicum students. In spite of these adverse conditions, significant correlations were obtained, and raddngs of both staff members correlated equally well with the scale scores. There was little difference between the correlations obtained with affective sensitivity rankings and those obtained with counselor effectiveness rankings. Most individuals seem to view the two variables as highly related. The correlations between the two rankings made by each staff member in this study were .98 for Super- visor l and .79 for Supervisor 2. The third concurrent validity study using individuals in Group ON indicated the Form B scale scores had a low but positive relationship with the subscores of the IPR Counselor Verbal Response Scale (CVRS). It was expected that the highest,£ would be found between scale scores and the Understanding dimension of the CVRS, since this dimension comes closest to describing a type of affective sensitivity. The obtained,£ of .26 was one of the highest; however, the Exploratory dimension had a slightly higher,£ of .28. This may be due to a chance fluctuation in the scores, or it may be that these two dimensions of the CVRS are more highly interrelated than the others. One factor which could have limited all of the correlations obtained using the responses of Group ON could have been the homogeneous- 105 ness of the group. Thirteen of the sixteen individuals in the group had approximately the same level of training and experience. All thirteen had just finished their first quarter of counseling practicum at the doctoral level. The other three individuals were practicing school counselors. Ideally, to obtain the maximum possibleIE's be- tween Form B and the CVRS, the sample group should have contained individuals from all levels of training and experience. Both variables, Form B scores and CVRS scores, would then have maximum variation, and the obtained gfs would give a truer indication of the relation- ship between them. The fourth concurrent validity study provided results similar to those obtained with the developmental forms of the scale. A positive but low relationship was found between scale scores and staff or peer ratings of counselor effectiveness. It can be concluded from these validity studies that there exists a positive relationship between Form B scale scores and other, usually more subjective, measures of counselor effectiveness or affective sensitivity. The strength of the relationship varied from study to study depending on a number of factors. The average correla- tion obtained across all studies that dealt with the relationship between scale scores and counselor effectiveness was + .26, with a high correlation of + .42 and a low of + .16. The average correla- tion across all the studies that dealt with the relationship between scale scores and subjective measures of affective sensitivity was + .38, with a high correlation of + .64 and a low of - .10. 106 Predictive Validity The one predictive validity study using Sample Group I indicated that there was a substantial relationship ( + .49) between Revised Form A scale scores and later evaluations of counselor effectiveness. However, this result must be regarded with some degree of caution for two reasons. First, the result was obtained using the scores from Form A. Approximately 50 of the items on Form B are the same as those on Form A, but the remaining Form.A items were revised, some slightly and some substantially, before they were included in Form B. Second, there was only one study, so the result needs to be substantiated by others. For these two reasons the result, before it can be accepted with a great deal of certainty, needs to be substantiated by other similar studies using Revised Form B. Construct Validity The validity study using Group K and J in- dicated that groups of individuals taking part in a counselor educa- tion program did increase in their affective sensitivity. That this increase was not caused by the practice effect of pretesting and posttesting was shown by the study using Group P. The group can not be equated with the other two groups because it consisted of under- graduate students, while Groups J and K consisted of graduate students attending counselor training institutes. waever, if there was any practice effect inherent in administering Form B on a pretest and posttest basis, it should have especially influenced Group P's posttest scores because the pretest and posttest were only one week apart; whereas, Groups J and K had a six month time span between tests. 107 The mean change for Group P from pretest to posttest was slightly negative. The size of such increases would be a direct function of the type and duration of experiences the training program provided. The more the program provided the individual with experiences which would help him to understand and be sensitive to his own and others feelings, the more he would increase in affective sensitivity. The amount and depth of such experiences provided for Groups J and K are not known, but they were provided with some such experiences, and they did show increases on the scale. The increases were not great, but they were large enough to be significant gains, thus indicating that Form B will measure change in individuals' affective sensitivity due to counselor education programs. mi Revised Form A.was constructed largely from the discriminating items in developmental Forms I, II, and III. Some items were par- tially and some extensively revised to lower the average difficulty index of Form A. The form.was administered to a sample group. The mean item difficulty was 36. The KrRzo'was .57. Thirty-nine items had Student's,§'s significant above the .20 level. Scale scores correlated slightly negative (E = -.02) with peer ratings of counselor effectiveness. In reducing the difficulty level of Form A, many items had been made too easy, and both the high and low scoring individuals correctly answered them. It appeared that the negative,5 obtained 108 with peer ratings resulted from the administration of the scale at the beginning rather than the end of the institute. From the item analyses of the three developmental forms and Form A, patterns emerged which permitted certain generalizations concerning the type of items which differentiated between high and low empathizers. This information was used in constructing Revised Form B. The form mainly consisted of the items which had worked well in Form A. Additional items which had discriminated well in the original forms, but not in Form A, were returned to their former content. Some items which had not discriminated at a satisfactory level on any of the forms were revised using the generalizations derived from the study of the previously discriminating items. Form.B was administered to a number of sample groups designated as I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q. The form was given to some groups on a pretest and posttest basis and to others only once. If it was administered once and the group was a counseling and guidance institute, it was administered near the end of the experience. The sample groups and resulting K'RZO'S were I .61; J .62, .70; K .58, .68; L .76; M .77; N .76; and P .73, .53. A test-retest E calculated for Group P was .75. A minimum estimate of scale score stability over a six month time period was determined by calculating,£'s between pretest and posttest scores for Groups J and K. The 5's were .58 and .67 respectively. A K'RZO calculated for Group J-Q, a combination group consisting of many of the previously mentioned groups, was .74. An item analysis and further internal analysis of Group J-Q's 109 responses to the scale resulted in a mean item difficulty of 42, a mean item discrimination of 23, a mean point biserial correlation of 20, a standard error of measurement of 4.23, a mean score of 51.8, a standard deviation of 8.26, and a range of 25-74. Validity studies were carried out with Form B, and the results were presented and discussed using the validity classifications of concurrent, predictive and construct. In the concurrent validity studies, correlations (ghg's) of .35, .59, and .64 (when added together and averaged, significant at .01 level) were obtained between therapist's rankings of group members' sensitivity to feel- ings and members' scale scores. Correlations (ghg's) of -.10, .51, and .59 were obtained between scale scores and group members' average sensitivity rankings of each other. In a second study correlations (Ehg's) of .32 and .28 (when added together and averaged, significant at .06 level) were obtained between supervisors' rankings of doctoral practicum students' sensitivity to feelings and student's scale scores. Correlations of .31 and .32 (when added and averaged, significant at .05 level) were obtained for the same group between ranked scale scores and supervisors' rankings of group members according to coun- selor effectiveness. A third study correlated scale scores with subscores of the IPR Counselor Verbal Response Scale (CVRS). The dimensions of the CVRS and the resulting gfs were Affect .16, Under- standing .26, Specific .18, Exploratory .28, and Effective .21. A fourth study resulted in {'3 of .42, .17, and .32 between scale scores and peer ratings of counselor effectiveness, and 3's of .20 and .28 110 between scale scores~and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness. The predictive validity study resulted in an £.of .49 (significant at .01 level) between Form A scale scores and later peer ratings of counselor effectiveness. The construct validity study indicated mean scores for Groups J and K significantly increased during a pretest to posttest training period of six months. Group J's increase was significant at the .025 level and Group K's was significant at the .005 level. To determine if increases in scale scores could be attributed to a practice effect, Group P was administered the scale on a pretest and posttest basis separated by a one week time interval. The mean change from pretest to posttest was slightly negative ( - .12). The results obtained with Form B were interpreted, discussed, and the following were concluded. 1. For most somewhat heterogeneous groups the reliability of Form B is above .70. This should include most groups of practicing school counselors and probably most groups of individuals entering counselor training programs. The procedures used in deve10ping the scale, along with the results of various item analyses and other internal analysis data, provides some indication of the content validity of the scale. A low but positive relationship exists between scale scores and the usually more subjective measures of counselor effectiveness. The average correlation obtained 111 across all studies was + .26, with a high of + .42 and a low of + .16. A somewhat more substantial relation- ship exists between scale scores and subjective measures of affective sensitivity. The average correlation obtained across all studies was + .38, with a high of + .64 and a low of - .10. These values are an indication of the scale's concurrent validity. A substantial relationship exists between Form A scores obtained at the beginning of a full academic year coun- selor training program and peer ratings of counselor effectiveness obtained seven months later. Form B measures change in individuals' affective sensitivity resulting from counselor training programs. Form B is unaffected by the practice effect often evident in procedures involving pretesting and posttesting. CHAPTER VI: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter a summary of the entire study is presented, followed by a general discussion section and a section in which theoretical implications of the study are presented. The chapter is concluded with suggestions for future research. Summary The problem of this research was to determine if various types of multiple-choice items when used with videotape or film scenes of counselor-client interaction could measure a person's affective sensitivity with adequate reliability and validity. As part of this effort the following sub-problems were also studied: (1) a comparison of three methods of obtaining correct answers and distractors, (2) a comparison of the functioning of two differ- ent sets of items--one constructed to reflect the client's feelings about himself and the other constructed to reflect the client's feelings about the counselor, (3) the influence of poor sound quality on individuals' abilities to respond accurately to the instrument. Affective sensitivity as used in this research refers to a person's ability to detect and describe the immediate affective state of another. The definition was operationalized by a situational approach to empathy measurement which provided subjects with audio and video stimuli from real-life counselor-client interaction situations, thus giving subjects a standard experience to which they 112 113 could attempt to respond empathically. The scale development procedures resulted in three types of multiple-choice items. The correct answers and distractors for each type of item came from different sources. Each item consisted of one correct answer and two distractors. Half the items referred to the client's feelings about himself, and the other half referred to his feelings about the counselor with whom he was working. The items were integrated into equivalent scale Forms I, II, and III. The forms, accompanied by relevant scenes, from actual counseling sessions on either kinescope or videotape, were administered to 8 sample groups. Each of these 8 groups con- sisted of approximately 30 individuals attending full academic year master's degree NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institutes. Three item analysis procedures were carried out with the data from each developmental scale form using the criteria--total scale scores, peer ratings of counselor effectiveness, and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness. These and other statistical methods were used to investigate five hypotheses related to the major and minor problems of this study. Results of the item analyses indicated that 32.6 percent of the 224 items in the developmental forms were significant (.04 level) when total scale scores were used as the criterion. Fewer items were significant against peer and staff ratings, 6.7 and 9.4 percent respectively. Since 32.6 of the items were significant against the total test score criterion, this suggested that these 114 significant items could be used as a basis for further developing and refining forms of the scale. Of the five hypotheses tested two were accepted, one was partially supported, and two were rejected. The results for each hypothesis were as follows: (1) The combining of the significant items from the developmental forms into a revised form would result in a scale with acceptable reliability in the area of .70 to .80. (2) The validity of a revised form consisting of the same significant items was partially supported. Seven of the sixteen correlations (g) calculated between total scale scores and the two ratings of counselor effectiveness (peer and staff) were significant (.05 level, one-tailed test). (3) Of the three different methods used to obtain correct answers and distractors, no one method was significantly superior to the others. (4) No significant difference was found between the items which referred to the client's feelings about himself and those which referred to the client's feelings about the counselor. (5) Showing the scenes of the instrument using videotape (better sound) resulted in significantly higher scores than showing the scenes using kinescope (poorer sound). The item analysis procedures and the testing of the five hypotheses suggested that it was feasible to develop revised forms of the scale based on the results obtained with the three develop- mental forms. These results indicated that such revised forms might have high internal consistency, as well as acceptable validity. A revised form, Form A, was constructed using the discriminating 115 items from developmental Forms I, II, and III. To lower the average difficulty index of Form A, some items were partially and some extensively revised. The form was administered to 26 members of a master's degree NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institute at a Midwest university. The mean item difficulty was 36. The KERZO was .57. Of the total 86 scale items 39 had Student's 5 values significant above the .20 level. A slightly negative correlation (E - -.02) was found between scale scores and peer ratings of counselor effectiveness obtained near the beginning of the institute experience. In reducing the difficulty level of Form A, many items had been made too easy so that both the high and low scoring individuals correctly answered them. It appeared that the negative E obtained between scale scores and peer ratings resulted from administering the scale at the beginning rather than the end of the institute. From studying the results of item analyses calculated for the three developmental forms and Revised Form A, patterns emerged which permitted certain generalizations concerning the types of items which differentiated between high and low empathizers. For items which dealt with the client's feelings toward himself, high scorers were almost always attracted to correct answer statements which described strong feelings. Low scorers were drawn to dis- tractor statements describing weak or neutral feelings. For those items which described the relationship between counselor and client, the distractors which contained negative statements about the client's 116 feelings toward the counselor were usually the ones which attracted the low scoring individuals. These generalizations were used in constructing Revised Form B. Form B mainly consisted of the items which had worked well, discriminated between high and low scorers, in Form A. Items which had not worked well in Form A but had in the three developmental forms were returned to their original content. Some items which had not worked well on any of the forms were re- vised using the generalizations derived from the study of the pre- viously discriminating items. Form B was administered to a. variety of new groups referred to as Sample Groups I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, and Q. The form was given to some groups on a pretest and posttest basis and to others only once. If it was administered only once and the group was a counseling and guidance institute, it was given near the end of the institute experience. The sample groups and the resulting K-R20 values were I .61; J .62, .70; K .58, .68; L .76; M .77; N .76; and P .73, .53. A test-retest E calculated using Group P data was .75. A minimum estimate of scale score stability over a six month time period was determined by calculating E coefficients between pretest and posttest scores for Groups J and K. Thai; values were .58 and .67 respectively. A K-Rzo calculated for Group J-Q (a group of larger N created by combining many of the previously mentioned groups) was .74. An item analysis and further internal analysis of Group J-Q's responses to the scale resulted in a mean item difficulty of 42, a 117 mean item discrimination of 23, a mean point biserial correlation of 20, a standard deviation of 8.26, and a range of 25-74. Results of validity studies using Form B were presented and discussed under the classifications of concurrent, predictive and construct validity. In a concurrent validity study ghg values of .35, .59, and .64 were obtained between therapist's rankings of group members' sensitivity to feelings expressed by others and members' scale scores. When these values were added together and averaged, they were significant at the .01 level. Correlations (EEQ'S) of -.10, .51, and .59 were found between scale scores and group members' average sensitivity rankings of each other. In a second study £22 values of .32 and .28 were obtained between supervisors' rankings of doctoral practicum students' sensitivity to feelings expressed by others and the students' scale scores. When added together and averaged, these values were significant at the .06 level. With the same group ,Egg coefficients of .31 and .32 were found between supervisors' rankings of group members according to counseling effectiveness and members' scale scores. When these coefficients were added together and averaged, they were significant at the .05 level. A third study correlated scale scores with subscores of the IPR Counselor Verbal Response Scale (CVRS). The dimension of the CVRS and the resulting E values were Affect .16, Understanding .26, Specific .18, Exploratory .28, and Effective .21. All correlations were positive but none were significant. 118 A fourth study resulted in,£ coefficients of .42 (signifi- cant at the .025 level), .17 and .32 (significant at the .06 level) between scale scores and peer ratings of counselor effectiveness, and £.coefficients of .20 and .28 between scale scores and staff ratings of counselor effectiveness. In the predictive validity study an'g value of .49 (signifi- cant at the .01 level) was found between Form A scale scores obtained from group members at the beginning of an institute experience and peer ratings of counselor effectiveness obtained seven months later. The construct validity study indicated mean scores for Groups J and K significantly increased during a six month training period. The pretest to posttest increase in Group J's scores was significant at the .025 level. The increase for Group K was significant at the .005 level. To determine if increases in scale scores could be attributed to a practice effect, Group P was administered the scale on a pretest and posttest basis separated by a one week time inter- val. The mean change from pretest to posttest was a slightly negative -.12. The results obtained from administering Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale to the various sample groups were interpreted, dis- cussed, and the following conclusions were stated: 1. For most somewhat heterogeneous groups the reliability of Form B is above .70. This should include most groups of practicing school counselors and groups of individuals entering counselor education programs. 119 The procedures used in developing the scale, along with results from item analyses and other internal analyses of the scale, provide some evidence of the scale's con- tent validity. A low, positive relationship exists between scale scores and more subjective measures of counseling effectiveness. The average correlation obtained between these two variables across all studies was + .26, with a high of + .42 and low of + .16. A more substantial, moderate relationship exists between scale scores and subjective measures of affective sensitivity. The average correlation between these two variables across all studies was + .38, with a high of + .64 and a low of - .10. This relationship and the rela- tionship indicated in 3 (above) give an indication of the scale's concurrent validity. A substantial relationship exists between Form A scale scores obtained at the beginning of a full academic year counselor training program and peer ratings of counselor effectiveness obtained seven months later. This indice- tion of predictive validity must be regarded with some degree of caution until it is substantiated by similar studies using Form B. Form B measures significant changes in individual's affective sensitivity associated with participation in a 120 counselor training program. 7. Form B is unaffected by the practice effect often evident in procedures involving pretesting and posttesting using the same measuring instrument. Discussion Questions could be raised concerning the reliability of Revised Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale. The lowest reliability coefficient obtained in any of the studies was .53; the highest was .77, with the preponderance of evidence indicating that for most somewhat heterogeneous groups the coefficient will be above .70. However, even if the highest obtained value of .77 is used, then scale scores only account for 59 percent of the variance within a sample group. This is far from ideal. Yet, it must be kept in mind that the scale and instrument represent an unique approach to the measurement of the psychological variable, affective sensitiv- ity. As such, even with the present reliability, it would seem that the scale and instrument have some practical and certainly a great deal of theoretical value. Questions could also be raised concerning the validity of Form B. For example, what does the scale actually measure? In one sense this is a question of content validity, and as such, it is a question which every potential user would have to answer for himself considering his own special needs and purposes. The procedures used to develop the scale, along with the results of item analyses and other internal analysis data, have been fully presented. The 121 potential user should acquaint himself with this material, take the scale himself, and then decide whether or not the measurement pro- cedures are valid for his needs and purposes. However, one aspect of content validity, the stimuli repro- duction procedures used in this scale development research, could be legitimately questioned. Any situational approach to sensitivity measurement requires that the subject be provided with a testing procedure which is as close to the real-life situation as possible. Ideally the subject could be confronted with live people, and some procedure could be used to measure his sensitivity to their feelings. Yet this procedure would present obvious measurement problems of scoring and standardization. Still, the validity of the procedure used in this research can be questioned. Would the subject react to the videotape scenes of counselor-client interaction in the same manner as he would to the same counselor and client in the same situation if he was confronted with their actual, not videotaped, presence? The probable answer is that the subject would not react in exactly the same way; but, then the important question becomes, is the difference great enough to seriously distort the validity of the measurement results? The answer to this question should be determined more definitely by future research. Nevertheless, the use of videotape scenes of real clients has obviously enabled a better transfer from a theoretical to an operational definition of affective sensitivity (or its related, if not identical concept, empathy) than that achieved by most previous studies. Also the reliability and 122 validity evidence presented in this study seems to support this contention; however, there is still much room for improvement. A number of concurrent validity studies were carried out with Form B,but did the criterion variables which were used really measure affective sensitivity (empathy) and counselor effectiveness? If a reliable, valid and otherwise feasible criterion measure of affective sensitivity were available, there would be little need for this research. When adequate criteria are available against which a new test can be correlated, there is usually little need for the new test. This would be the case unless the new test made some contribution which went beyond the older approaches. The criterion variables used in this study provided some indication that the scale scores were related to other approaches of measuring similar or related traits. It was assumed in this research that the scale would be related to, but not perfectly correlated with, the criteria. In some cases the reliabilities of the criterion variables were found to be somewhat higher than that of the scale, but it is most doubtful that they are measures which could be used instead 2f the Affective Sensitivity Scale. Evidence of the predictive validity of Form B is significant, but the predictive utility of the scale is far from adequately 'established. The one study did indicate that Form A predicted with a moderate degree of accuracy peer ratings of counselor effectiveness obtained after a seven month training experience. If this finding were to be substantiated using Form B and other criterion measures, 123 the scale would probably have value to counselor education programs as both a research and selection instrument. If the scale and instrument were further refined and combined with other measurement procedures, it might be found that an accurate prediction of post- training counselor effectiveness would be possible. Various correlational validity studies were carried out using counselor effectiveness criteria. An interesting aspect of these studies was that the obtained correlations seemed to be de- pressed by a particular phenomenon. Persons ranked or rated high in counselor effectiveness usually scored high on the scale, but persons rated low seemed to score either high or low. This observa- tion was examined using the data from two sample groups, I and L.1 Individuals from these two sample groups were assigned to the categories of a two-by-two contingency table according to two variables, Form B scale scores and average peer ratings of counselor effectiveness. The high and low values for each variable were determined by each sample group's mean score for that measure. The results of this pro- cedure are shown in Table 6.1 A chi square calculated using the entries in Table 6.1 was 4.92 which is significant beyond the .05 level (chi-square value of 3.84 is significant at the .05 level, df = 1). This chi-square IThe statistical treatment and examination of this data in the manner used here could not be used to directly test either of the major hypotheses of this study, so it was not presented in earlier chapters. The data is presented in the discussion section ofthis chapter because it gives objective statistical support to one of the main implications or theoretical understandings derived from this study. 124 value was expected because a significant or close to significant correlation was found for both groups between the two variables used in this comparison (See Table 5.6). However, the interesting aspect of this comparison was that there were few individuals in the low scale score, high peer rating category. It was also observed that these few individuals seemed to be borderline cases. To examine this, a similar comparison was made using 12 individuals from each sample group, the 6 with the highest and the 6 with the lowest scale scores. This approximated the highest and lowest scoring quartile in each sample group. Table 6.2 shows the results of this procedure. Table 6.1 Individuals from Groups I and L classified according to high-low Form B scale scores and high-low peer ratings of counselor effectiveness Peer Ratings High 50 Percent Low 50 Percent Form B Scale High 50 percent 18 13 Scores Low 50 percent 6 ' 15 Table 6.2 Individuals from Groups I and L with Form B scale scores in the top or bottom quartile categorized according to high-low peer ratings of counselor effectiveness Peer Ratings High 50 Percent Low 50 Percent Fm: B High Quartile 6 6 Sca e Low Quartile l 11 Scores 125 The entries in Table 6.2 show that when individuals with scale scores in the highest and lowest quartile were used, the low scale score, high peer rating category came close to being empty. Data from both Table 6.1 and 6.2 support the previously mentioned observation that individuals ranked high in counselor effectiveness usually score high on the scale and that those ranked low may score either high or low on the scale. If these findings were to be supported by other studies,the implication would be clear. High affective sensitivity would not assure counselor effectiveness, but a certain degree would be a prerequisite for it. The construct validity study indicated scale Form B did measure change where change was expected. However, even though the mean changes in the groups during the training period were significant, they were not very large (approximately 3 points). There could have been two reasons for this. First, the scale may not have been accurate enough to measure the change which actually took place. There is undoubtedly some element of truth in this first possibility because the measurement procedure is clearly not perfect. However, in a number of individual cases increases from pretest to posttest did indicate large degrees of growth. Because change in scale scores for some individuals was as much as 15 scale points, it seems quite possible that had the group gain been large the scale would have measured it, especially since the individual gains did not seem to be related to a practice 126 or regression effect. Second, there might not have been any more change than the scale measured. If this second possibility is true, it could be caused by one of two factors. Either the program did not provide all individuals with experiences which would increase their sensitivity, or the affective sensitivity of individuals is a stable, unchangeable trait. The individual growth variance as measured by the scale would argue against this latter statement. Therefore, it seems most likely that the other is true. This is probably more an indication of our present knowledge concerning adequate counselor preparation than it is a criticism of any particular program. If this reasoning is sound, it contains some important implications for counselor education programs and any other training programs concerned with effective interpersonal interaction (See "Theoretical Implications," the next section of this chapter). In summary, given our present state of knowledge in developing procedures to measure interpersonal sensitivity and given that the face validity of the procedures used in this research are accepted, then it can be generally stated that scale Form B is presently the "best" means available for measuring the psychological trait of affective sensitivity. This trait should be a relevant component, if not the major aspect, of most conceptual understand- ings of empathy and the empathic process. Theoretical Implications It has been implied throughout various aspects of this study 127 that affective sensitivity is a psychological trait which is measurable, that individuals have this trait in varying degrees, and that this degree is subject to change through training pro- cedures. By definition, the person high in affective sensitivity accurately perceives the affective states of others and identifies them without distortion. He is able to associate verbal, nonverbal, and perhaps even other types of cues with certain emotional states, and he can accurately describe them. He may even associate certain cues with unique meanings which they have for an individual. The person low in affective sensitivity either does not accurately per- ceive affective states in others, or he somehow distorts them in the identification process. If the first is true, it means that the person has not learned through experience what the various cues mean. Except in a very few cases this seems unlikely. It is more likely that he does accurately perceive the cues, but then the individual's various defensive mechanisms, peculiar in content and strength to the personality structure of the individual, change the perception and the result is a distorted identification. For example, a person who has found through past interpersonal interaction that anger is a hurtful and threatening experience may tend to dis- tort his identification of this feeling. He may feel that anger in others is always directed toward him and so react by not recognizing anger in others or by projecting onto the other some distorted or entirely different affective state. Thus, if he viewed a videotape 128 scene of a client experiencing anger, he might distort his identifi- cation and attribute to the client a feeling of mild irritation or even the entirely different feeling of confusion. This process assumes two states of perception, a sensory one and an interpretive or labeling one. Anger is thus perceived (sensed) but identified (labeled) as irritation. Some evidence for this conceptualization was obtained from the observations concerning items which discriminated well between those scoring high and low on the various developmental scale forms. The items usually contained correct answer statements describing fairly strong emotions which the client was experiencing. The highly sensitive person accurately identified the statement, but the person low in affective sensitivity was attracted to a moderate or neutral statement of client feelings. This implies that the person low in sensitivity may be threatened by strong emotional states and needs to distort them to neutral or low levels of affect. If true, the greater the number of feelings he would need to distort and defend against, the lower would be his affective sensitivity. The stronger the feeling state, the greater would be his anxiety, and the more he would need to defend against it. If so, the person high in affective sensitivity would need to defend against and dis- tort his perceptions of very few, if any, emotions. Another trend was evident with items which described the relationship between counselor and client. The distractors which were negative statements about the client's feelings toward the coun- 129 selor were usually the ones which attracted the low scoring individual. This trend was not nearly as strong as the previously discussed one, but perhaps it is an indication that low scorers often expect to be rejected by clients, and therefore they projected that clients in the videotape scenes were feeling negative toward the counselors. Another theoretical aspect of affective sensitivity is its degree of relationship to effective counseling. If one accepts the counselor effectiveness criteria used in this research, then the implication is that the relationship is positive, but not necessarily highly so. Of course, since both the scale and criteria contain a degree of error variance, the true relationship is probably some- what different (higher or lower) than indicated in this research. Even allowing for the depressing effect of the error variance would not produce as strong a relationship as many believe should be found to exist between the two variables. The cause of this seems to be in the design of the measurement procedure. The procedure used in this research measures an individual's ability to accurately identify the feelings of another; it does not measure his ability to use this knowledge or understanding to effectively promote positive client growth in a counseling relationship. A highly sensitive person may be afraid of using this understanding or knowledge in the counseling relationship. He may have high affective sensitivity but be a slow learner of counselor role and skills. He may be afraid he will hurt the client or scare him away. He may have high affective 130 sensitivity and yet not be liked by his peers or supervisors. He may be highly sensitive but be unable to use this aptitude in any or most of his interpersonal relationships. The data in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 give objective evidence that a person can be high in affective sensitivity and still not be effective as a counselor; whereas, the reverse does not usually seem to be true. If the previous theoretical thoughts are true or even partially true, they have some important implications for counselor education programs. One implication is that a certain degree of affective sensitivity is necessary for effective counseling. If this is the case, only those who have the necessary sensitivity should be admitted to training programs, or the experiences necessary to develop this required degree of sensitivity should be provided by the programs. At the present time the first alternative is not feasible because of the lack of knowledge concerning the degree of sensitivity and the degree of other traits which may be necessary for effective counseling. The second alternative implies that affective sensitivity is a psychological trait which can be increased through training procedures. A related theoretical implication is that certain types of experiences are more effective than others for promoting an individual's growth in affective sensitivity. According to the theory outlined in this section, the person low in sensitivity may be a person who is threatened by emotional communica- tions from others. He distorts certain of these communications and identifies them inaccurately. Thus, he does not readily recognize 131 certain emotional states in himself or in others. It is possible that an effective affective sensitivity growth-producing experience for such a person would be one which would provide him with a means of assessing and reorganizing his own personality structure. He would need to recognize his own emotions and his distortions of the communications from others. He might then need practice in using his new, less distorted, perceptual labels. It is doubtful that such experiences can be provided in the typical academic classroom. What is implied is that if the potential counselor needs an exten- sive experience involving individual and group counseling for him- self, then these procedures would have to be added to most existing counselor education curricula. Research would then be needed to determine if such experiences would be effective for improving the potential counselor's sensitivity to the affective states of others and for improving his effectiveness as a counselor. Implications for Future Research Any improvement in the sound or picture quality of the instrument would probably lead to improvements in the reliability and validity of the measurement procedure. If the scenes of the present videotape instrument could be transferred to a film (kine- scope) without much loss of quality, the convenience of using the instrument would also be greatly increased. Even though videotape equipment is becoming quite commonplace, it is still not as readily available or as easy to use as motion picture equipment. If the transfer could not be made without a noticeable loss in quality, then 132 the only other alternative for improving this aspect of the instrument would be to produce a new one. This would be an expensive and time-consuming process, but since the results ob- tained with the present instrument are quite promising, the expense and time might be worthwhile. In developing a new instrument, two different procedures could be followed. One would involve a new series of counseling sessions recorded on motion picture film rather than television videotape. Appropriate scenes could be selected and the resulting instrument would be on the most convenient media and would have the very good sound and picture quality one normally obtains via filming. A second possible approach would involve the use of actors. Actors could study the present instrument scenes and possibly portray them with enough accuracy, thus eliminating the need to film new counseling sessions. This procedure would have the added advantage of eliminating the need to develop new scale items. If the actors could portray the present instrument scenes accurately enough, the portrayed scenes could be filmed, and the items from Form B could be used with the resulting instrument. The present instrument contains scenes of both the counselor and client. An interesting and easy study could be done to find out if the elimination of the counselor's image produces any differ- ences in subjects' responses to the instrument. Individuals could be randomly assigned to two groups. One group would view the instrument in its present form, and the other group would view the 133 same instrument scenes, except that the image of the counselor would be eliminated. Results obtained with the instrument may be improved if the subjects only had to concentrate on the client, not on both the client and the counselor. The item analyses of various sample groups' responses to Form B have indicated that a number of scale items and some instrument scenes could possibly be eliminated from the present measurement process without any loss of reliability or validity. The elimination of at least 16 and maybe as many as 30 items from the present scale could even result in a more reliable instrument. These eliminated scale items and instrument scenes could be used as practice scenes and items. Since the measurement procedure was quite unfamiliar and sometimes seemed confusing to sample groups, the use of such practice items and scenes just prior to the actual administration of the instrument and scale might result in a more reliable and valid test. There was some indication in the data of this study that the first items in the scale were often the poorest discriminators. The use of practice scenes might eliminate this. A number of correlational studies could be done with Form B. Scale scores could be correlated with other measures of personality, aptitude, counselor effectiveness, achievement, and intelligence. Such information would be valuable in describing the trait of affective sensitivity and its relationship to other psychological variables. It would also be useful to correlate scale scores with other sensitiv- ity or empathy scales which purport to measure various theoretical 134 and operational definitions of the general concept of empathy and its component parts. Buchheimer's gg ‘31. (1965) research is an example of a measurement approach which would be interesting to study in relation to the approach used in this research. Various factor analysis studies could be done using Form B. A factor analysis of responses to scale items would be valuable for exploring many questions. Does the scale measure a single factor or a number of separate factors? Do certain types of instrument scenes produce recognizable factors? Do certain types of items cluster into identifiable factors? Perhaps the items which refer to the client's feelings about himself measure one type of affective sensitivity and the items which refer to the client's feelings about the counselor measure another type.' Both types of items may just be different approaches to measuring the same factor. Factor analysis could also be used as an approach to identifying the different psychological characteristics of individuals responding to the scale. A factor analysis across people in a sample group would be used for this purpose. Factors consisting of individuals who respond to the scale items in the same way would be identified. These factor groups of individuals could then be studied using numerous methods to identify the common psychological characteristics that they share. This procedure could lead to an accurate description of the person who is high in affective sensitiv- ity and the person who is low in the trait. Such information could be very valuable for theory verification and development. 135 Factor analytic studies could also be done using correlation- al matrices consisting of individuals' Form B scale scores and their scores on a number of other measuring instruments. Resulting factors would be useful for identifying and describing affective sensitivity and its relationship to other variables. Such procedures would also be an exploration of the construct validity of Form B. Form B will measure change over time associated with training, so it would be very feasible to conduct a series of studies dealing with this aspect of affective sensitivity. A hypothesis suggested by the theoretical implications of this research is that individual and group counseling or therapy experiences may be one effective means of improving individuals' affective sensitivity. This, along with a number of other related implications, could be readily tested. A final possibility, although one of considerable magnitude, would be to develop a similar scale to measure counselor effectiveness. A possible approach would be to use scenes of clients taken from actual counseling sessions. The subject would be required to view the scenes, and at the end of each he would choose from a number of alternative responses a statement which he felt was the most effective counselor response. This approach is similar to that used by Buch- heimer,g£ ‘31. (1965), but there is a difference. His approach is designed to measure empathy or confluence. The approach advocated here would be strictly designed as a measure of counselor effective- ness. Qualified experts could be used to provide the best counselor responses. However, an even better approach would make use of the IPR 136 process. A number of counseling sessions would be conducted with each client. These could be accompanied by recall sessions in which the recall person would view the videotaped counseling session with the client and help the client identify the most effective counselor responses. A more productive method might be to wait until the client had terminated counseling and then have him go through a series of recall sessions viewing the videotapes of his previous counseling sessions and identifying the most effective counselor responses. In addition, the client's choices could then be verified by a panel of experts. Distractors could be obtained by using other less effective counselor responses from other parts of the counseling interviews. Such an instrument should provide an adequate measure of counselor effectiveness. Undoubtedly, the instrument would also measure some aspect of counselor sensitivity because many of the correct answers would probably also reflect a high degree of empathy. However, if the affective sensitivity scale were used in conjunction with such a counselor effectiveness scale, this degree of similarity could be isolated. The two scales could be used in a number of studies to provide valuable knowledge concerning empathy, effective counseling, and their interrelatedness. List of References Allport, G.W. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt, 1937. . "The Historical Background of Modern Social Psychology." In G,A. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1954. Arbuckle, D.S. and E.A. Wicas. "The Development of an Instrument for the Measurement of Counseling Perceptions." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1957, 4, 304-312. Astin, H.S. "Assessment of Empathic Ability by Means of a Situa- tional Test." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14, 57-60. Bender, I.E. and A.H. Hastorf. "The Perceptions of Persons: Fore- casting Another Person's Responses on Three Personality Scales." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1950, 45, 556-561. "On Measuring Generalized Empathic Ability (Social Sensitivity)." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 503-506. Borgatta, E.F. "The Stability of Interpersonal Judgments in Independent Situations." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 60, 188-194. Buchheimer, A. "The Development of Ideas About Empathy." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1963, 10, 61-70. , J. Goodman, and G. Sircus. "Videotapes and Kinescope Recordings as Situational Tests and Laboratory Exercises in Empathy for the Training of Counselors." Hunter College of the City University of New York, 1965. A technical report submitted to the U.S. Office of Education, NDEA Grant No. 7-42- 0550-1670. Buros, O.K. The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon, 1959. . The Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, New Jersey: Gryphon, 1965. Cartwright, R.D. and B. Lerner. "Empathy, Need to Change, and Improvement with Psychotherapy." Journal of Consulting Psy- chology, 1963, 27, 138-144. 137 138 Chessick, R.D. "Empathy and Love in Psychotherapy." American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1965, 19, 205-219. Cowden, R.C. "Empathy or Projection." Journal of Clinical Psy- cholo , 1955, 11, 188-190. Cronbach, L.J. "Processes Affecting Scores on 'Understanding of Others' and 'Assumed Similarity'." Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 177-193. Dymond, Rosalind F. "A Preliminary Investigation of the Relation of Insight and Empathy." Journal of ConsultingyPsychology, 1948, 12, 228-233. "A Scale for the Measurement of Empathic Ability." Journal of ConsultingyPsychology, 1949, 13, 127-133. Ebel, R.L. "Estimation of the Reliability of Ratings." Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 407-424. "Obtaining and Reporting Evidence on Content Validity." In Clinton Chase and H. Glenn Ludlow (Eds.),Readiggs in Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966. English, N.B. and Ava C. English. A Comprehensive Dictionaryyof Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1958. Fenichel, O. The Psychoanalytic Theoryiof Neurosis. New York: W.W. Norton, 1945. Gage, N.L. and L.J. Cronbach. "Conceptual and Methodological Problems in Interpersonal Perception." Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 411-421. Gilbert, O.E. "The Relationship of Schizophrenia and Paranoia to Empathy." Unpublished master's thesis, Louisiana State University, 1953. Cited by Orlo Strunk, "Empathy: A Review of Theory and Research," Psychological Newsletter, 1957, 9, 50. Gompertz, Kenneth. "The Relation of Empathy to Effective Communica- tion." Journalism Quarteriy, 1960, 37, 533-546. Gorden, Kate. "A Device for Demonstrating Empathy." Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1934, 17, 892-893. Hall, H.E. and G.B. Bell. "The Relationship Between Two Tests of Empathy: Dymond's and Kerr's." American Psychologist, 1953, 8, 361-362 (Abstract). 139 Halpern, H.M. "Empathy, Similarity, and Self-Satisfaction." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955, 19, 449-452. "Predictive Empathy and the Study of Values." Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 104. Hastorf, A.H. and I.E. Bender. "A Caution Respecting the Measure- ment of Empathetic Ability." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 574-576. , and D.J. Weintraub. "The Influence of Response Patterns on the Refined Empathy Score." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 341-343. Hawkes, G.R. and R.L. Egbert. "Personal Values and the Empathic Response: Their Inter-Relationships." Journal of Educational Psychology, 1954, 45, 469-476. Jackson, W. and A.C. Carr. "Empathic Ability in Normals and Schizophrenics." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 79-82. Johnson, P.E. Personality and Religion. New York: Abingdon, 1957. Kagan, N., D.R. Krathwohl, and W.W. Farquhar. "Developing a Scale to Measure Affective Sensitivity." Educational Research Series, Number 30, March 1965, Michigan State University. A report submitted to the U.S. Office of Education, NDEA Grant No. 7-32-0410-216. Katz, B. "Predictive and Behavioral Empathy and Client Change in Short-Term Counseling." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education, New York University, 1962. Kerr, W.A. and B.J. Speroff. "Validation and Evaluation of the Empathy Test." Journal of General Psychology, 1954, 50, 269-276. Lindgren, H.E. and J. Robinson. "Evaluation of Dymond's Test of Insight and Empathy." Journal of Consultingyngcholggy, 1953, 17, 172-176. Lipps, T. Leitfaden der Psychologie. Leipsig: W. Englemann, 1909. Cited by A. Buchheimer, "The Development of Ideas about Empathy," Journal of Counseling:Psychology, 1963, 10, 62. Lord, F.M. "The Relation of Multiple-Choice Tests to the Distribution of Item Difficulties." Psychometrika, 1952, 17, 191-193. 140 McNemar, Q. Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Marwell, G. "Problems of Operational Definitions of 'Empathy', 'Identification' and Related Concepts." Journal of Social Psychology, 1964, 63, 87-102. May, R. The Art of Counseling. New York: Abingdon Press, 1939. Meehl, P.E. "The Cognitive Activity of the Clinician." American Psychologist, 1960, 15, 19-27. Meerloo, J. M. "Why Do We Sympathize with Each Other?" General Psychiatry, 1966, 15, 390-397. Murray, H.A., g£.,§1. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. Norman, R.D. and P. Ainsworth. "The Relationship Among Projection, Empathy, Reality,and Adjustment, Operationally Defined." Journal of ConsultingiPsychology, 1954, 18, 54-55, 58. , and W.C. Leiding. "Relationship Between Measures of Individual and Mass Empathy." _iournal of Consulting Psycholggy, 1956, 20, 79-82. O'Hern, J.S. and D.S. Arbuckle. "Sensitivity: A Measurable Con- cept?" The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1964, 42, 572-576. Rank, R.C. "Counseling Competence and Perceptions." The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 45, 359-365. Reid, D.K. and W.V. Snyder. "Experiment on"Recognition of Feeling' in Non-directive Psychotherapy." Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1947, 3, 128-135. Robinson, F.P. "The Dynamics of Communication in Counseling." Journal of CounselingyPsychology, 1955, 2, 163-169. Rogers, G.R. Counselingyand Psychotherapy. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1942. . "The Attitude and Orientation of the Counselor." Journal of Consulting Psycholpgy, 1949, 13, 82-94. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951. . "A Theory of Therapy, Personality, and Interpersonal Relationships,as Developed in the Client-Centered Framework." In S.Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study oiya Science. Vol. 11;; Formulations of thg Person in the Social Context. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959, 184-258. \ 141 Speroff, B.J. "Empathy and Role Reversal as Factors in Industrial Harmony." Journal of Social Psychology, 1953, 37, 117-120. Stefflre, Buford. "Client Understanding Test (first version)." Unpublished, Michigan State University, 1962. Stewart, D.A. "The Personal Treatment of Alcoholism." Bulletin of the Maritime Psychological Association, 1953, 34-37. . "Psychogenesis of Empathy." Psychoanalytic Review, 1954, 41, 216-228. . "Empathy, Common Ground of Ethics and Personality Theory." Psychoanalytic Review, 1955, 43, 131-141. Preface to Empathy. New York: Philosophical Library, 1956. Strunk, Orlo. "Empathy: A Review of Theory and Research." Psy- chological Newsletter, 1957, 9, 47-57. Sullivan, H.S. Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry. Washington, D.C.: William Alanson White Psychiatric Foundation, 1947. The Psychiatric Interview. New York: W.W. Norton, 1954. Taft, Ronald. "The Ability to Judge People." Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 1-23. "Technical Recommendations for Psychological Tests and Diagnostic Techniques," Psychological Bulletin Supplement, 1954, 51, 2, Part 2, 1-38. Tyler, L.E. The Work of the Counselor. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts Inc., 1953. Warren, H.C. Dictionary of Psycholpgy. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1934. Weiss, J.H. "Effect of Professional Training and Amount and Accuracy of Information on Behavioral Prediction." Journal of Consultipg Psychology, 1963, 27, 257-262. Woodson, J.F. "The Meaning and Development of Empathy." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 1954. APPENDIX A AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE FORMS I, II AND III AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE Instructionsl You will be viewing short scenes of actual counseling sessions. You are to identify what feelings the clients have toward themselves and toward the counselors they are working with. Although in any one scene a client may exhibit a variety of feelings, for the purposes of this instrument you are to concentrate on identi- fying his last feelings in the scene. On the following pages are multiple-choice items consisting of three responses each. Most scenes have two items, but a few have only one. After you view each scene, you are to read the items and ask your- self the following question: If the client were to view this same scene, and if he were open and honest with himself, which of these responses would he use to describe his feelings? After you decide which response the client would use, indicate your choice on the answer sheet. Here is a sample item: CLIENT V Scene 5 Item 16 1. I feel angry; whenever I talk about my stepfather like this it makes me angry, mad. 2. I wish he wouldn't do that to Mother, but it's really all her fault. 3. I really love my stepfather, but I don't like what he does to us. A After you had viewed Scene five for Client V, you would read these three statements (Item sixteen) and would then decide which one best states what the client would say about his own feelings after view- ing the same scene. For example, if you decide number two best states what the client would say, you would then find the number 16 on your answer sheet and darken in the space for number two. 16. 1---- 2|... 3---- 4:22: We will only make use of the first three answer spaces following each item on your answer sheet. Remember you are to concentrate on the latter part of each scene in determining the most accurate description of the client's feelings. CAUTION: The item numbers on your answer sheet go across the page, not down the page as you would usually expect. lThisinstructhmnsheet was used with all three forms of the scale. 143 AFFECT IVE SENSITIVITY SCALE FORM I AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE I CLIENT I Scene 1 Item 1 1. This exploring of my feelings is good. It makes me feel good. 2. I feel very sad and unhappy. 3. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it all together. Item 2 1. You're (counselor) trying to understand what I'm feeling, but I'm not sure you're completely with me. 2. He is really understanding me. He's with me. I like that. 3. The counselor really doesn't understand what I'm saying. CLIENT I Scene 2 Item 3 1. I don't want to think about that-~let's get off the subject. 2. I can feel this kind of relaxing in my body, and I was thinking, now I feel like getting on. 3. I actually feel the hurt and the crying although I mustn't cry. I must hold it in. Item 4 1. Does this sound reasonable, counselor? 2. He's reassuring me; he agrees with me. He approves of my statement; I like that. 3. I really don't care what he thinks. CLIENT I Scene 3 Item 5 l. I feel confident. Now we can really get somewhere. 2. It feels good to talk about my anger like this, I like this! 3. I just can't face the anger that I really feel. It scares me! Item 6 1. He's (counselor) on the track with me; let's go on; this feels good. 2. I'm impatient; let's not go back. Let's go on. 3. I've gained insight; I wonder if the counselor's pleased with me. 145 CLIENT Scene 4 146 I Item 7 CLIENT Scene 5 l. I feel irritated, confused, frustrated. 2. I don't feel angry; I'm comfortable because I don't have any loss or hurt involved. 3. If I wanted to get angry, I could easily, but I would have to have a good reason first. Item 8 1. He (counselor) isn't leveling with me, so why should I level with him? 2. He thinks I may be angry with him, but I'm not. 3. I just can't tell him the truth--he might leave me. I Item 9 1. I am trying to figure out what is going on; I don't understand. 2. Yes, he's (counselor) right. I'm real pleased that we're getting some place. 3. I'm overwhelmed by the warmth of my feeling for him (counselor). Item 10 1. I'm feeling very distant--1ost in thought. 2. I like the questions he (counselor) asks. I respect him and have confidence in him. 3. He (counselor) doesn't help me at all; he just confuses me, so I'm escaping him. CLIENT II Scene 1 Item 11 1. I'm happy to tell him (counselor) about this. These things don't bother me at all. 2. I feel trapped; I've been caught. 3. I feel I'm pretty cute, and if I talk fast enough maybe I can get through this without him finding out too much about me. Item 12 1. Well you know, that's just--that's right. The counselor is right. 2. That makes me angry; he's being so smart about it all. 3. He doesn't understand me at all. 147 CLIENT II Scene 2 Item 13 l. I feel a little bit embarrassed, but that's all right as long as I can keep my composure. 2. I have a feeling of sadness. 3. I feel flustered and embarrassed. Item 14 l. I really like him (counselor) and what he's doing. It makes me feel good. 2. I'm ashamed of my feelings towards him. 3. He's being argumentative. That really makes me mad at him. CLIENT II Scene 3 Item 15 l. I feel very comfortable now, I'm glad I'm here. 2. I feel embarrassed and threatened, I feel this when- ever we talk about sexuality. 3. This bothers me a little to talk about sex, but I'm kind of glad too. Item 16 1. Maybe he's (counselor) not so bad after all. I'm starting to enjoy him. 2. He's too perceptive; he's looking right through me. 3. He's getting a little sticky; I'm not sure I like that. CLIENT III Scene 1 Item 17 1. I feel inferior. What I really want is to be somebody. 2. I feel "so-so" about this whole thing, but maybe it will help. 3. I'm bored; I wish this was over. CLIENT III Scene 2 Item 18 l. I really feel that working with younger people would give me a feeling of accomplishment. It makes me feel good to think about it. 2. I'm feeling unhappy and slightly uncomfortable. 3. I'm bored, irritated--what's all this for? 148 CLIENT III Scene 2 Item 19 l. I feel no emotion towards the counselor at all. 2. This counselor seems a little bit ill at ease and unsure of himself at times. This bothers me a little bit. 3. I'm fed up. I've had enough of him (counselor). CLIENT IV Scene 1 Item 20 1. She's real cute--I like her (counselor). 2. I want pity. I want her to think "Oh you poor boy." 3. I want to talk about the kinds of things she wants to talk about. Item 21 1. I don't like the idea of such a young woman counseling me. 2. Hey, she's listening; she really understands me. 3. I wonder if I can impress her. CLIENT IV Scene 2 Item 22 1. My parents are really proud of me. I enjoy that feeling. 2. I hate their guts! 3. I've had a rough time. I feel a little resentful. Item 23 1. She (counselor) doesn't understand me at all; I don't like that. ' 2. She really understands me; I think we're getting some place. 3. Be on my side; give me a little pity for what I'm going through. CLIENT IV Scene 3 Item 24 1. This whole thing just makes me feel very, very sad and unhappy. 2. It kind of angers me that they don't appreciate me when I feel I did my best. I wish I could tell them off. 3. No matter how well I do, I'm always criticized. It doesn't bother me too much though beCause I know that I did my best. 149 CLIENT IV Scene 3 (continued) Item 25 1. She (counselor) understands me now. She's really with me. 2. I want her to agree with me. 3. She doesn't understand me. She's dull. CLIENT IV Scene 4 Item 26 1. Actually I'm convinced that I'm very good in track; this is my way of letting you know it. 2. That makes me feel kind of sad, unhappy. I don't want to believe that it's true--I want to be good. 3. I'm not sure what I feel here. It's all very confusing. Item 27 1. How could a girl (counselor) understand? 2. She's pushing me; I'm not sure I want to think about it. 3. I like her; she asks some good questions which really help me understand my problems. CLIENT V Scene 1 Item 28 1. I'm not sure I dare talk about it yet. 2. I wonder what he means. I don't have any idea about what he's talking about. 3. I'm not going to talk about any deep problems. I don't want to. Item 29 l. I wish he (counselor) would quit pushing me. He always goes deeper than I want to go. 2. He always digs deeper than what I say. This is good; I'm glad he does this. 3. He doesn't really understand me, I don't like that. CLIENT V Scene 2 Item 30 l. I feel very, very antagonistic. 2. I'm insecure and angry at myself. 3. I feel sorry for myself; I'm neglected. CLIENT V Scene 2 (continued) Item 31 1. I want the counselor to know how awful this makes me feel. 2. I hope he doesn't think there's something wrong with me for saying that. 3. He doesn't understand me completely, but then I don't really care. CLIENT V Scene 3 Item 32 1. I'm afraid of marriage--insecure; it might not work out and I'd be lost. 2. If he did go out on me, I couldn't accept him back, but I could always find someone else. 3. I'm really not too worried; it'd all work out in the end even if we have to go to a marriage counselor. Item 33 l. I don't care if he (counselor) can help me or not. I'm not sure I want his help. 2. He's so sympathetic. That makes me feel good. 3. Can you help me? CLIENT V Scene 4 Item 34 l. I feel I have some need to be liked, but it's not real strong. 2. I'm not lovable; I don't really like myself. 3. I'm a good person; I'm lovable. I'm expressing my true feelings at this point. Item 35 l. I hate that. He (counselor) has no right to ask me that. 2. That dumbfounded me--bothered me. I can't understand why he would say that. 3. I like it when he asks questions like that. They make me think about deeper things. CLIENT V Scene 5 Item 36 1. It's all really confusing. I'm somewhat irritated. 2. I'm irritated at my stepfather, but the situation at home is slightly amusing--it's so ridiculous. 3. I'm trying to understand my stepfather. I would like to have his approval. 151 CLIENT V Scene 5 (continued) Item 37 1. Boy, I'm happy that he (counselor) agrees with me. He sympathizes with me. I feel completely accepted. 2. I'm embarrassed to tell the counselor how strong my feelings really are. 3. I'm not sure he'll be able to help me much after all. I'll just have to work this out by myself. CLIENT V Scene 6 Item 38 1. This doesn't bother me too much; I want to leave anyway. 2. I hate to feel like I'm being pushed out. This makes me feel like I want to stay. 3. I don't really want revenge. I don't hate him; I just want to kind of get even. Item 39 1. He's (counselor) going along with me. He understands. 2. I like the counselor very much. I know now that I can trust him completely. 3. The counselor is there, but that's about all I can say about him. CLIENT VI Scene 1 Item 40 l. Disapprove! She'd kill me! 2. She would be a little upset, but she wouldn't mind too much. 3. I'm not sure how she would feel but the whole idea of her finding out excites me. Item 41 l. I want to cover up--put on a front; I don't want to get serious with him (counselor)- 2. I'm bored with all this; I wish I were someplace else. 3. I like him; I feel all giddy about it. CLIENT VI Scene 2 Item 42 l. I feel sad. I feel real sad when I think of my brother. 2. I feel a little upset about this--kind of guilty. 3. I feel warm and understanding towards my brother. 152 CLIENT VI Scene 2 (continued) Item 43 1. I don't care much for this counselor. He doesn't understand me. 2. I'm not even aware of the counselor's presence. 3. The counselor is really a nice guy; I like him. CLIENT VI Item 44 1. This is very confusing for me. I'm not sure I under- stand what is going on. 2. This is how I really feel, I'm kind of starting to be myself. 3. I'm just talking to be talking here; this really doesn't mean much to me. Item 45 l. I guess he's all right, but I'm still not sure I can trust him (counselor). 2. Let's get going. I'm impatient! I want to move into more important matters. 3. I feel comfortable with him. He understands me. CLIENT VI Scene 4 Item 46 1. I'm fond of Doug. We have a good relationship. 2. I feel better about my relationship with Doug now. It helps to get it out in the open but I'm still a little mixed up. 3. I get such strange feelings when I think of Doug. Item 47 1. Wow, he (counselor) understood exactly what I was try- ing to say, that amazed me and made me happy. 2. This makes me nervous and uneasy; I'm ready to stop. I don't like what he's doing to me. 3. I kind of like him, but I'm not real sure yet. CLIENT VI Scene 5 Item 48 1. She's a bitch! 2. I feel kind of concerned and upset by this situation, but it really isn't a big deal with me. 3. I feel inferior to Donna Sue. I want to get back at her for making me feel this way. 153 CLIENT VI Scene 5 (continued) Item 49 1. He (counselor) feels she's a bad person too. I can tell; he agrees with me. 2. Don't you agree with me? I want to know what you think, Mr. Counselor. 3. He thinks this all sounds petty. He doesn't understand. CLIENT VII Scene 1 Item 50 l. I felt angry with my mother, but this makes me feel guilty. I needed to make an excuse for her. 2. I'm really not angry with mother. It's not her fault. 3. I'm bored with all this; I don't feel I'm talking about anything important. Item 51 1. This counselor is all right. I can talk to him freely. 2. I feel uncomfortable. I'm not sure how wise it is to really level. 3. I'm not sure what I feel about this guy, but he seems okay so far. CLIENT VII Scene 2 Item 52 1. I'm very sensitive; I'm very easily hurt. 2. I'm somewhat sensitive and easily hurt, but not deeply so. 3. I'm not sensitive or easily hurt at all. I just like to make people think I am. CLIENT VIII Scene 1 Item 53 1. Say, this is all right. I like this. 2. I'm low in reading, but otherwise I'm quite good. 3. It's embarrassing and difficult. Item 54 1. How do I convince this guy (counselor) that all I want is help with my reading. 2. This is a pretty nice fellow; I like him. 3. I feel I can rely on this guy, so I'll let him talk and I'll just answer his questions. 154 CLIENT VIII Scene 2 Item 55 l. I don't know what I feel; I'm confused about what I 2. I'm just kind of talking to fill up space-~I'm just answering questions. I feel blah about it all. 3. I feel good, happy, I'm glad I'm here. Item 56 1. He's (counselor) missing the point. Why does he have to know all that? 2. I can't really tell about this guy. I don't know how I feel about him. 3. He seems like a good guy. He asks nice questions. CLIENT IX Scene 1 Item 57 1. That's good information to have, but I can take college or leave it. I don't know whether I want to go or not. 2. That's nice to know, but I feel that I kind of want to go to college. 3. That was terrific news; it made me feel good. Item 58 1. He (counselor) helped me to relax. I'm not as nervous anymore. 2. I'm just kind of talking with him. I really don't have anything important to say. 3. I wish I had a different counselor. CLIENT IX Scene 2 Item 59 l. I have kind of neutral feelings here. I'm just talking to pass the time. 2. I'm kind of feeling unsure of myself and what I can accomplish. 3. This is fun; I feel important. Item 60 1. He (counselor) is quite an adventure for me, something new like a "toy" which gives advice. 2. I like the counselor very much--he makes me feel good. 3. He understands me pretty well and is trying to help. feel. I guess I kind of like him. 155 CLIENT IX Scene 3 Item 61 1. I'd like to change their feelings about me. I like to change pe0p1e. 2. That disgusts me. It's unfair, why can't they be nice to me? 3. I pity them because of the way they act toward me. They don't know any better. Item 62 1. Tell me it's not right for them to act that way, reassure me. 2. I don't notice the counselor much. I know how I feel, so it's not so important how he feels. 3. I know he likes me. He agrees with me. He doesn't think they should act that way either. CLIENT IX Scene 4 Item 63 1. I feel insignificant, and this makes me a little unhappy. 2. I'm a nobody. I'm always left out. 3. I'm unhappy with school. That's what is really bothering me. CLIENT X Scene 1 Item 64 1. I'm feeling scared, concerned. Is this for me? 2. I just feel uncertain about what to talk about. If I once get started, I'll be all right. 3. I feel very, very depressed. Item 65 1. ‘He (counselor) keeps butting in; he doesn't understand at all. 2. IPlease, counselor, be kind to me. Don't hurt me. 3. “This talk probably seems ridiculous to him, but I don't care what he thinks. CLIENT X Scene 2 Item 66 1. I'nljust talking for the hell of it--trying to kill time. I'm really bored. 2.. I'rn confused here. I really don't have any definite feelings. 3. I'm admitting things here--I'm talking about how I really feel , I'm leveling. 156 CLIENT X Scene 2 (continued) Item 67 1. It really doesn't matter what he (counselor) says or does; I don't care. 2. He's impressed with me. He believes me. 3. Reassure me; pat me on the back. CLIENT X Scene 3 Item 68 1. Actually it scares me. 2. I'm facing it like a man. This makes me feel good. 3. I'm resigned to it; it can't hurt me now. CLIENT X Scene 4 Item 69 l. I feel somewhat unhappy. I don't like to feel this way. 2. There's something about me; I just don't fit in, in any way. 3. In some instances, I'm unsure of myself. I'm afraid I'll do the wrong thing, but I can handle this just by avoiding these situations. Item 70 1. This guy (counselor) thinks this is corny; he doesn't really understand. 2. I want him to feel pity for me--to know that it's not really my fault. 3. What can I do about it? I'm asking the counselor for help. CLIENT XI Scene 1. Item 71 l. I hate school. I feel real angry towards it. 2. I don't know what I want to do. I'm afraid to make decisions, but I don't want to go to school. 3- I really like school quite a bit. I enjoy going there. Item 72 1. He (counselor) may look down on me; he may not. I'm not sure what he'll do or feel. 2. He'll think less of me for saying this. I know he will! 3. He doesn't care what I say. He'll like me anyway, regardless. «31.1135rr 1K]: Scene 2 157 Item 73 1. I say I'll stick with it, but actually I don't stick with much of anything. I never have. 2.. This really concerns me. It's important to me. .3. I'm just making idle chit-chat to fill the time. I'm CHJIERTT )(I Scene 3 not too concerned with any of this. Item 74 1. I've found some new dimensions. I like to feel that I can have some excitement. 2. I'm not sure what I want, but this makes me nervous, I'm mixed up - confused. 3. This makes me feel very guilty; I'm very ashamed. Item 75 l. I wonder if he (counselor) finds me attractive; I guess I'm flirting with him a little bit. 2. He seems to approve of my saying I'm a little bit wild. That makes me feel good. 3. I really don't feel anything towards the counselor. What he thinks isn't important to me. CLIENT XI Scene 4 Item 76 1. In some ways I don't want to get away, but in other ways I do. 2. What I really want is to stay with my mother--I can't live without her. 3. I really want to get away, to get out on my own and be independent. Item 77 1. He (counselor) doesn't approve of me. I know he doesn't. 2. He's right with me, so I'm not concerned about what he feels or thinks about me. 3. I'm afraid of what he'll think. AFFECT IVE SENS IT IV ITY SCALE FORM II AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE II CLIENT I Scene 1 Item 1 1. I'm not real sure where I am at this point. I think I know, but I'm not real sure. 2. I'm just a little confused because I always have trouble expressing myself. 3. I feel glum, confused, bothered. I'm almost on the verge of tears. Item 2 l. I feel that I am telling him (counselor) quite objective- ly what my problems are, and I hope that he can help me. 2. I don't want the counselor to think I was moving away from him. I want to stay in the relationship. 3. This counselor moves so slowly, I'm not sure I like that. CLIENT I Scene 2 Item 3 1. I feel sorry for my husband and the relationship we have. 2. I don't really understand what I feel. Yet, I do feel guilty about creating pain in others which returns to me. 3. I feel pleased at seeing a possible relationship between my feelings of anger and pain. Item 4 1. He (counselor) doesn't have to like me. I just want him to agree with me and tell me I'm right. 2. I'm trying to please you. Do you like me? 3. He's really understanding me now. CLIENT I Scene 3 Item 5 1. I'm mad at this point. I'm angry. 2. I'm not sure what I feel; I'm confused, mixed up. 3. I feel good, relaxed, but I'm thinking hard. Item.6 1. He (counselor) makes me feel very insecure with myself. I wish he wouldn't keep going. 2. I feel good about this guy. He's really with me now! 3. Can't he see what I see? Why does he have to ask? 159 160 (31.1]EFKF ‘1 Scene 4 Item 7 1.. The very thought of my getting angry at anyone scares me! 2. ]?n1angry and that makes me feel guilty. :3. It frightens me to think about being completely honest about any of my feelings. Item 8 1. I feel much warmer toward the counselor now. I think he understands me better. 2. He isn't with me; he doesn’t understand. I don't like him. 3. Mentally, I know this is not so, but in the feeling area it's still there. I'm not sure I can trust him (counselor) yet. CIJJHWT I Scene 5 Item 9 l. I feel calm and collected. I just want to think for a while. 2. Yes, that is when I get angry. I can see it all clearly now. 3. I feel anxious and stimulated. Item 10 1. I'll pretend I'm agreeing with him (counselor), but I don't see the connection at all. 2. I like what he's doing. I don't feel as uncomfortable now. 3. I wish he would stop pushing me in this direCtion. CLIENT II Scene 1 Item.ll 1. I'm pleased, happy; I feel good all over! 2. It was brought right back, that amazes me, but it hits quite bad too. It hurts! 3. I'm not bothered by this much, maybe a little bit, but I can handle it. I'm confident. Item 12 1. He's (counselor) caught me; careful, I'm not sure I want that. 2. I like him. He's trying to make the situation a little lighter and make me feel better about it. 3. I don't feel he understands. He's uncomfortable with me. I don't like him. 161 CLIENT II Scene 2 Item 13 l. I feel a little uneasy and self-conscious, but not much. 2. This scares me. I feel frightened! 3. I feel flirtatious. I like this! Item 14 1. I can't look at him (counselor) when he talks about tha I'm embarrassed and frightened. I may lose my controls. 2. Why doesn't he leave me alone and stop asking those questions? 3. I enjoy talking about this with him. It makes me feel good all over. CLIENT II Scene 3 Item 15 l. I have the feeling that what I wanted was wrong, and I'm a little ashamed of myself. 2. I'm scared by what I'm feeling and thinking. 3. I'm angry - I feel very uncomfortable. Item 16 l. I feel hostile towards this guy (counselor). I don't like him. 2. He thinks I'm seductive, I can keep him "coming on" if I keep trying. 3. I just can't tell him how deeply I feel. CLIENT III Scene 1 Item 17 1. I'm very comfortable now; I like this. 2. We're getting down to business now - this makes me feel better. 3. I'm not thinking too clearly; I'm uneasy; I can't grasp what is going on. Item 18 1. I'm not sure about this guy (counselor). I don't feel anything towards him - kind of neutral. 2. He's just like all the rest - a typical adult. What the hell is he trying to get at? 3. This counselor is all right. He's helping me to make some tentative decisions. 162 CLIENT III Scene 2 Item 19 l. I feel protective and defensive of what peOple may think about my family. 2. All this seems so pointless! 3. We're having a nice conversation. Some of these things really make me think. Item 20 1. I'm a little embarrassed about my father's work - I wonder what he (counselor) thinks of it. 2. That's a good question. He's doing a pretty good job with the questions he asks. 3. I can't follow this guy's line of thought. What's he trying to do? CLIENT IV Scene 1 Item 21 l. I really want to talk about my physical condition. I'm concerned about it. 2. I think I'm pretty great. 3. I feel bad about the fact that I can't play well, so I'm covering up by making myself feel important. Item 22 1. She's too young to be counseling, and she's a girl. I'm not sure I like this. 2. She likes me; I know she does. 3. I'd like her to think I'm great. CLIENT IV Scene 2 Item 23 l. I really wish so desperately I could play better football. 2. I want to be independent. I don't want peOple telling me what to do. 3. I'm getting rather sick and tired of people telling me, "You did a good job - but!" Item 24 1. She (counselor) really understands me! She's with me now. 2. I don't feel much either way towards the counselor; she's not important to me. 3. I wonder if you appreciate the pressure that's put on me? 163 CLIENT IV Scene 3 Item 25 l. I feel real bitter. What the hell do they want from me? 2. In a way I feel father's right, and in a way he's wrong. I'm not sure how I feel towards him. 3. My father demands too much from me. This makes me a little mad at times. Item 26 1. She (counselor) really understands me; now we're getting some place. 2. I wish I could get out of here; I don't like her. 3. Understand what I'm saying; I want her to know how I feel. CLIENT IV Scene 4 Item 27 l. I really want to be successful, and somehow I know that I can be. 2. I'm really not that good. It's not worth the effort. 3. I feel I want to make my own decisions, but I'm not sure that Dad will let me. Item 28 1. Boy, she (counselor) doesn't understand about us athletes. I don't like her at all. 2. Please feel sorry for me and try to help me. I wish she would praise me. 3. I like talking to her. She can be trusted even to the point of telling her how I really feel about myself. CLIENT V Scene 1 Item 29 1. I'm just angry at the school. Can't we leave it at that? 2. Yeah, there are other connections. I can see them now. 3. I'm angry at the school, but that question surprised me. I'm kind of confused; I'm trying to understand, but I don't see any other connections. Item.30 1. He's (counselor) completely wrong! I dislike him for questioning me! I told him.what was bothering me; cadt he accept what I say? . He's O.K. I like him real well. He asks good questions. What's be driving at? I don't quite understand his question. UN 164 CLIENT V Scene 2 Item 31 l. I feel a little lonely. I want my boyfriend to pay a little more attention to me. 2. Why doesn't he (boyfriend) love me? Am I unlovable? 3. This makes me very mad at myself. I feel angry. CLIENT V Scene 3 Item 32 l. I know I'm right! I'm very positive about my feelings. I know what they are. 2. I'm afraid I don't trust him (boyfriend). 3. I just couldn't stand it if he went out on me. If he did though, I know it wouldn't be my fault. Item 33 l. I feel I'm beginning to trust the counselor now. 2. I want him to accept me, but he's not accepting me now. 3. I don't care what the counselor thinks. He doesn't need to understand me because I don't care. CLIENT V Scene 4 Item 34 l. I want him (counselor) to like me no matter what I'm like - without even knowing what I'm like. 2. I don't want him to like me. He asks too many personal questions, and he tries to get too close. 3. I want him to like me, but I'm not too concerned about it. I'll live either way. CLIENT V Scene 5 Item 35 1. I wouldn't want to be treated like he treats Mother, but I don't mind him (stepfather) too much. 2. I feel very little emotion about anything at this point. 3. I hate him (stepfather)! CLIENT V Scene 6 Item 36 l. I really feel I want to get out of the house, but I'm not sure I can handle the responsibilities. 2. 1 just feel good and angry when I think about it. That's .11, just angry! 3. I feel kind of cut off and hurt. 165 CLIENT V Scene 6 (continued) Item 37 l. I don't feel he's (counselor) helpful at all, and if he can't help me and see my side, I'm not going to like him either. He's got me in a spot, but I feel I can still get him to see me as a good girl who is persecuted. I wish the counselor were my father. He wouldn't do that to me. CLIENT VI Scene 1 Item 38 1. He (counselor) understands me completely. He certainly is relaxed and comfortable. 2. I really don't care what he feels about me. I just want someone to talk to - anyone will do. 3. I was wondering how he would feel about me and what I'm saying. CLIENT VI Scene 2 Item 39 l. I think my brother is O.K. We have fun together. 2. I'm confused about my feelings towards Doug. I'm not sure what they are. 3. I'm sold on Doug - he's just so great! CLIENT VI Scene 3 Item 40 l. I feel irritated when I think of his inability to understand me (brother). 2. I don't like Darrell because he has changed so much. He's different than I am now. 3. I don't feel much of anything. This doesn't really bother me as much as I pretend it does. Item 41 1. He (counselor) listens to my family problems, so I'm not concerned with how he feels. 2. I'm not sure he understands me and what I'm getting at. 3. I want the counselor to see me as an adult, not as a child. 166 CLIENT VI Scene 4 Item 42 l. I know he (counselor) doesn't understand what I'm really saying, so I can talk freely. 2. He made it easy for me. 3. This guy thinks I'm a little out of it. I don't like that. CLIENT VI Scene 5 Item 43 1. I'm not feeling much of anything here. I'm just kind of talking to be talking. 2. I'm mad at everyone at this point and don't know which way to turn; I guess I'm mad at myself too. 3. Now I'm talking about things that are real. I'm not on stage anymore. She is a louse! CLIENT VII Scene 1 Item 44 l. I feel understanding of my mother. I disapprove of her working, but I try to understand. 2. I feel tense; I don't know how much I can say. 3. I'm in a very passive mood. I'm just relaxing and talk- ing about things that interest me. Item 45 1. I'm not sure what this counselor wants me to do. 2. I feel he wants me to talk about myself, so that's what I'll do. 3. I feel I can confide in this counselor. CLIENT VII Scene 2 Item 46 1. That makes me mad, I can do it - I know I can, but things just keep getting in my way. 2. It's really all his fault, if he just wouldn't have been such a joker. 3. This makes me feel guilty; I need to blame someone else instead of blaming myself. Item 47 1. I'm neutral towards the counselor. I don't care what he feels about me. 2. I'm afraid he doesn't like me and what I'm saying about myself. 3. He's easy to talk to. He understands what I'm like, and he still likes me. 167 CLIENT VIII Scene 1 Item 48 1. I'm not feeling anything deeply. I know what I need! 2. I think I know myself and my problems, but now I'm beginning to wonder if I really do. 3. I'm beginning to feel annoyed, kind of irritated. Item 49 l. The counselor's a nice guy, I like him. 2. I'm not sure what I feel about the counselor. My feelings about him are mixed up. 3. I'm just waiting for him to ask the questions. CLIENT VIII Scene 2 Item 50 l. I feel very unhappy about what I may eventually have to do. 2. I'm a little worried because I don't know what I want to do or what I'm good at. I feel I should have decided this already - other kids have. 3. I'm dammed uncomfortable; it's so confusing. Item 51 1. I'm not sure what this guy (counselor) wants exactly, but I guess he knows what he's doing. 2. I'm glad this guy asks a lot of questions because that takes the pressure off me. 3. This guy bugs me! CLIENT IX Scene 1 Item 52 1. That makes me feel stupid. 2. I was surprised, shocked; that's something nice to hear. 3. I'm trying to act real grown up, but I'm not very com- fortable with it. Item 53 1. Who's counseling who here? I'm not sure what's going on with him (counselor). 2. I like him for helping me. 3. I wonder if he knows what he's talking about. I'm kind of questioning his statements in my mind. 168 CLIENT IX Scene 2 Item 54 1. I'm really enjoying this; this is all fun and laughs. 2. I feel that I want to act like I'm grown up, but it's real tough for me to do. 3. I feel uneasy, slightly insecure, and unsure of where I'm going. CLIENT IX Scene 3 Item 55 1. I feel sorry for them; they just don't realize what they're doing to people like me. 2. I know I'm not as good as they are, but it really hurts when people act that way. 3. It makes me angry. I'm every bit as good as they are. Item 56 1. This guy (counselor) is listening to me. I'm having fun with him. 2. I feel the counselor understands me to some extent, and I think he's trying to help me, but I'm not sure yet. 3. I'm not ashamed. I feel I can level with this counselor. CLIENT IX Scene 4 Item 57 1. That disgusts me, but there's nothing that I can do. 2. I'm confused here - mixed up - I don't know what I'm feeling. 3. I really don't resent them, because they don't run the school bad. Item 58 1. It really doesn't matter much to me how he (counselor) feels, just so he listens to me. 2. He's just like all the rest. He looks down on me too. 3. I wonder what he can do about that. I like him, so maybe he can help me. CLIENT X Scene 1 Item 59 1. I feel very inferior to my peers. 2. I feel frightened and alone. 3. I'm just a little nervous when I first talk with new people - that's all. 169 CLIENT X Scene 1 (continued) Item 60 l. I feel warm and comfortable with this guy (counselor)-- I like him. 2. I want to impress this guy - he doesn't know me well yet so I want him to know the good things. 3. I'm uncertain and unsure about my relationship with this guy. I'm not sure we're on steady ground. CLIENT X Scene 2 Item 61 1. I'd like to think I could make it, but I'm not sure. 2. I just have an I-don't-care feeling; that's my real attitude toward all of this. 3. I'm confident that I'll do well; I'm sure of myself. Item 62 1. I want to impress the counselor; I want him to believe I can do it. 2. He believes me; he thinks I can do it; I can tell. 3. I really don't care what the counselor thinks. It's not important to me. CLIENT X Scene 3 Item 63 l. I live for today - I don't care what happens tomorrow. 2. I'm very serious about this, but I'm also uncertain, tense. I'm not sure about very many things in my life. 3. Really things aren't so bad. I'm bothered a little by all this, but not much. Item 64 1. He's (counselor) all right. He really understands me. 2. Nobody can really understand this. I don't think he will be any different. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; he's not impor- tant to me anyway. CLIENT X Scene 4 Item 65 1. I'm thinking about another time I was really turned down. Girls just don't like me! 2. I could really cry - nothing ever goes right for me! 3. People shouldn't expect so much from me. If they didn't, I wouldn't fail so often. 170 CLIENT X Scene 4 (continued) Item 66 1. Why did they send me - I don't want to be here. I don't like this guy (counselor). 2. I really like this guy. He really understands me. He's with me all the way! 3. I'm more relaxed with this guy now - I feel more at ease. CLIENT XI Scene 1 Item 67 1. I'm unhappy about all this, but I'm afraid to make a change. 2. I really feel rather happy and gay. 3. I'm not the student type; it embarrasses me. Item 68 1. The counselor is a nice guy. He likes me, and I like him. 2. I wonder what the counselor thinks of me. 3. I'm going to do what I want; I don't care what you think of me. CLIENT XI Scene 2 Item 69 1. I'm kind of afraid of what I might find out; but other than that, this doesn't bother me. 2. I'm very unhappy about all this. It really bothers me. 3. I'm very confident here; this doesn't bother me at all. Item 70 1. I'm not sure how I feel about this counselor; I'll have to wait and see. 2. His values are showing - he's making it seem worse than it is. 3. He's all right; he's giving me some interesting information. CLIENT XI Scene 3 Item 71 l.\ I'm not sure if I want excitement, but I feel that it's expected of me. 2. I feel insecure. 3. I feel flushed and giddy when I talk like that. 171 CLIENT XI Scene 4 Item 72 1. I'm concerned about whether I can handle this situation. I want to leave, but at the same time I want to stay. 2. I really want to stay at home, but I'm afraid Mother doesn't love me enough. 3. I really feel I want to leave, but this makes me feel guilty. Item 73 l. I want to know what the counselor thinks of me; it's important to me. , 2. I'm not even aware of the counselor. I don't care what he thinks. 3. He's understanding me pretty well here, and he's not evaluating me any more either. AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE FORM III AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE FORM III CLIENT I Scene 1 1222.1 1. I'm pushing myself. I can feel it even now; I'm impatient. 2. I feel not wanting to get into it,‘but wanting to get into it. Both are going on pretty strong. 3. I'm feeling glum at this point; kind of sad feeling; I could just cry. Item 2 1. He's (counselor) trying, but there's more to it. 2. He's a nice fellow; I know he's going to be able to help me. 3. That's it; he's really with me now. He understands. CLIENT I Scene 2 Item 3 1. I'm trying to figure it out, but deep down it really hurts. 2. I feel apologetic. 3. I feel depressed at the thought of my anger. CLIENT I Scene 3 Item 4 1. I'm not afraid to discuss this anger, but I become tense when discussing it. 2. It's pretty damned hard to understand what is going on in me. I'm impatient and angry with myself. 3. I'm kind of pleased with what just went on because I think insight is going to help. Item 5 1. He's (counselor) on the right track now. He likes me. 2. He isn't following me, but I'll answer his question so that he will be happy. 3. See how I'm gaining insights; I want him to be pleased with me. CLIENT I Scene 4 Item.6 1. I feel very depressed, glum, unhappy. I know he (counselor) is going to leave me. 2. This is very embarrassing. I feel foolish talking about my relationship with him. 3. I'm covering; I'm not sure if I got mad he might leave me. 173 174 CLIENT I Scene 4 (continued) Item 7 l. I like him (counselor). I don't feel threatened by him; I feel safe with him. 2. He's helping me; I want that, so why should I have any feelings of anger towards him? Besides, I really feel rather neutral towards him at this point. 3. I feel strained with him. CLIENT I Scene 5 Item 8 1. This really hurts. It's painful and frightening. 2. I have to collect my thoughts. I'm not sure how I feel at this point. 3. He's getting down to the root of my problem. I like that. Item 9 l. I want to pull back, but not really - I really want to stay with him (counselor) but this is real tender, real tender. 2. This whole thing doesn't make much sense to me. I'd like to get out of here.- 3. I'm confused and sick of all this. Can't he be nice to me? CLIENT II Scene 1 Item 10 1. I'm just talking now. I kind of like this; it's fun. 2. I feel apprehensive, nervous; I don't know what to expect. 3. I feel inferior and insulted by all this. Item 11 1. He's being sarcastic with me - I don't like that. 2. I'm not sure about him (counselor) yet, so I'm kind of testing him to see how he feels about me. 3. You son of a bitch, why'd you pounce on me like that? CLIENT II Scene 2 Item 12 1. I'm really tense and tight at this point - anxious. 2. I feel glum and unhappy about this whole thing. 3. This is really quite pleasant. I'm kind of enjoying it. 175 CLIENT II Scene 2 (continued) Item 13 1. He's asking for some touchy material, but that's all right. It's about time he knew. 2. He's being very frank and open! I'm not sure I want that. 3. I find him attractive; I'm teasing him. He thinks I'm attractive too. CLIENT II Scene 3 Item 14 l. I feel very depressed, unhappy. 2. It's true, but I can't accept it. It makes me feel uneasy and tense. 3. I'm getting so much attention. I really enjoy this. It makes me feel good. Item 15 1. He (counselor) seems so smart; I feel inferior to him. 2. I feel self-conscious. When is this thing going to be over? I'm looking for an escape or something. 3. This is good. We're really moving into my feelings. CLIENT III Scene 1 Item 16 1. I'm unhappy and uncomfortable with my whole life. 2. What's this leading to? I'm kind of bored. 3. I feel I need to make decisions. All my indecisions have made me depressed. Item 17 l. I don't feel any emotion towards the counselor - just kind of neutral. 2. He's asking the questions. I'll give him some answers, but I don't see any sense to all this. 3. The counselor is nice. He's trying to understand me. CLIENT III Scene 2 Item 18 1. I've never discussed my future plans with anyone so much before. This is good. 2. Now I'm puzzled - a little tense and uneasy, but I'll just follow along. 3. I feel depressed and glum about this whole thing. 176 CLIENT III Scene 2 (continued) Item 19 l. I guess he's (counselor) helping a little, but he sure asks a lot of questions. 2. This isn't doing any good - he's no help at all! 3. He understands how I feel on this. CLIENT IV Scene 1 Item 20 l. I feel no emotion - I'm not feeling anything. 2. I want sympathy. I want people to feel sorry for me. 3. I want to be liked. Item 21 l. I feel like a little boy. I want her (counselor) to kind of lead me around. 2. I want her to know that I'm a hard worker - I'm a good guy. 3. I'm talking in circles - nothing really bothers me, I'm just talking to her for the heck of it. CLIENT IV Scene 2 Item 22 1. I'm disgusted and angry with my family's ambitions for me. I really don't feel they are important at all! 2. That's a hell of a lot to ask! It makes me mad! 3. I feel sorry for myself, and I want others to feel the same. Item 23 l. The counselor is pretty blah. She is just someone to listen to me rave. 2. She feels I'm somebody now. It makes me feel good. That's how I want her to feel. 3. I really want her to feel for me, to give me sympathy. CLIENT IV Scene 3 Item 24 1. Their comments really helped me, but I can't help feeling a bit annoyed when they do criticize me. 2. I'm annoyed, angry - why don't they get off my back. 3. Basically I feel quite proud that I can play football as well as I can. 177 CLIENT IV Scene 3 (continued) Item 25 1. She (counselor) doesn't understand me. She's just a young girl. I don't think I like her. 2. She makes me feel so comfortable and at ease. She makes it so easy to talk. 3. She hasn't said much, but I think she understands. CLIENT IV Scene 4 Item 26 1. My father picks on me. He's wrong. I know he is. It makes me mad. 2. I feel kind of inadequate. I want to be good, but I'm not sure how good I am. 3. I feel discontent. My father made the decision for me, and I'm not sure I agree. Item 27 1. Maybe by saying something about Michigan State and a scholarship, maybe I'll get an in this way. She (counselor) might help me out. 2. I feel neutral towards her here. I'm not paying any attention to her. 3. I'm just saying all this to kill time. I wonder when all this will be over. I'm tired of her. CLIENT V Scene 1 Item 28 1. If there is, I'm not really sure; I'm confused! 2. It's just that I'm not happy in school. I don't feel comfortable there, and that's all there is to it! 3. I feel angry and depressed about the situation; that's all! Item 29 1. He (counselor) really understands me. I trust him. 2. I don't feel he likes me. 3. I don't trust you enough yet. CLIENT V Scene 2 Item 30 l. I feel rejected and empty inside. 2. This makes me mad to even think about what he (boyfriend) does to me. 3. I really don't feel much here; I'm just kind of talking to fill up space. 178 CLIENT V Scene 2 (continued) Item 31 1. Please say it isn't fair, Mr. Counselor. 2. He really understands me completely. I can tell him anything. 3. I don't care what he says. It's unimportant to me what he feels about me. CLIENT V Scene 3 Item 32 1. I'm not good enough to have someone really love me. 2. I really can give him all the affection he needs, I feel I'm a worthwhile person to be desired. He wouldn't dare step out on me. 3. I'm confused about my feelings at this point. I really don't know what I feel. Item 33 1. He's (counselor) really with me here, and I know he is. He understands. 2. I want him to understand what I'm really saying here, but I don't want to have to tell him directly. 3. He's not listening; I wish this were over. CLIENT V Scene 4 Item 34 l. I feel dejected, kind of insecure. I want to be likeable! 2. My main concern is that it's hard for me to take criticism. I usually think of myself as perfect. 3. I feel a little sad about all this; I do kind of want people to like me. Item 35 l. I don't feel anything towards the counselor; I'm neutral about him. 2. He thinks well of me; I know he does, I can tell. 3. I want the counselor to really like me, but I'm afraid he doesn't. CLIENT V Scene 5 Item 36 l. I feel angry whenever I talk about my stepfather like this. It makes me angry, mad! 2. I wish he wouldn't do that to mother, but it's really all her fault. 3. I really love my stepfather, but I don't like what he does to us. 179 CLIENT V Scene 5 (continued) Item 37 l. I don't like him (counselor). He just doesn't seem to understand me. 2. I really trust him completely now. He's with me all the way. He understands exactly what I mean. 3. I feel better about that guy sitting over there now. CLIENT V Scene 6 Item 38 1. I'm kind of feeling sorry for myself, but I'm not really too worried. 2. I want to move out of the house as soon as possible. I feel I would be better off on my own. 3. My own parents don't want me; I could just cry! CLIENT VI Scene 1 Item 39 1. I'm very happy and comfortable, but maybe just a little nervous. 2. I'm uncertain and uncomfortable. 3. I feel jovial; this is real interesting. Item 40 l. I feel flirtatious. I'm kind of flirting with this guy (counselor). 2. I don't feel any emotion towards the counselor. I'm just having a good time. 3. I feel uncertain about him, and I'm afraid of what he may find out. CLIENT VI Scene 2 _I_t_em_fl l. I wish I could get out of here, I'm so uncomfortable! 2. I don't know what I'm saying here. I'm mixed up and confused! 3. I've been just talking to talk, now it seems like I'm really saying something that is important to me. Item 42 1. He's (counselor) evaluating me. He thinks I'm bad! 2. I feel comfortable with him. 3. This counselor is fun, but I'm not sure I can trust him yet, so I'm kind of evading him. 180 CLIENT VI Scene 3 Item 43 1. This really bothers me. I'm confused and mixed up about my feelings for Darrell. 2. I feel some resentment towards Darrell. 3. Dammit, Darrell! I'm not a little girl! CLIENT VI Scene 4 Item 44 l. I love my brother, but not romantically. We just have a good brother-sister relationship. 2. I don't know whether I like feeling this way about Doug; I'm embarrassed. 3. I feel reminiscent; I enjoy thinking about Doug and how we like each other. Item 45 l. The counselor really reads me. 2. I feel no emotion towards the counselor. I'm too wrapped up in my own feelings. 3. He's seeing me in a good light, and he understands how fine I am. CLIENT VI Scene 5 Item 46 1. I'm not sure how I feel about her, but I know I don't like her very much. 2. She makes me so angry! I hate her! 3. That's not a very nice thing to say, but she probably didn't really mean it. Item 47 1. I'm not sure how I feel about him (counselor), but I do wish he would say something more often. 2. I like this attention. It makes me feel good. 3. He's evaluating me. I don't like that. CLIENT VII Scene 1 Item 48 1. This is all kind of embarrassing. 2. I don't know what I feel; I'm confused and mixed up. 3. I feel very bitter about this whole thing. 9 1 181 CLIENT VII Scene 2 Item 49 1. I'm embarrassed at the kind of person I am. 2. I like the kind of sensitive person I am. 3. Other people are always upsetting me. They should be more careful around me. It's not my fault. Item 50 1. He (counselor) doesn't accept what I'm saying, but I don't care. ' 2. I'm pleading with the counselor not to be harsh with me. 3. I can confide in this counselor. He's easy to talk to. CLIENT VIII Scene 1 Item 51 1. I can't really tell about this guy (counselor). I don't feel one way or the other about him. 2. I wonder what you think about this - please respond. Give me some help! 3. The counselor is a good guy. I like his questions; they make it easier for me. CLIENT VIII Scene 2 Item 52 1. All this isn't getting me anywhere! 2. He's (counselor) carrying the ball, so I'll keep answering the questions. I enjoy this. 3. I feel stupid about all the things we're talking about, so I don't want to say anything. CLIENT IX Scene 1 Item 53 1. That upset me! I want to go to college and get an education. 2. I don't know what I want. I feel helpless because I don't know what to do about my situation. 3. I'm surprised and pleased. Item 54 l. The counselor is a nice guy - I like him. 2. I feel kind of neutral towards the counselor. 3. I'm not sure this guy can help me, but maybe he can. CLIENT IX Scene 2 Item 55 1. I feel embarrassed; I really don't know why I came. 2. That's the truth - that's just the way I feel. 3. I feel dumb. I should have a better reason. Item 56 1. He's (counselor) really not much help. He talks a lot, but he doesn't say much! 2. I wonder if he can help me with this? I hope he can. 3. I really don't care if he helps me with this or not. I just enjoy talking to him. CLIENT IX Scene 3 Item 57 1. I'm actually better than they are. I'm the one who's good. They think they're better than they really are. _ 2. I kind of wished they liked me, but I can live without being a member of their group. 3. Those smart kids make me feel stupid. I hate them. Item 58 l. Goody, goody people don't really know any better, so I can't be too disgusted with them, but it does make me angry. 2. I don't really mind people feeling superior to me. It just makes me a little angry. 3. It tears me up inside when people think they're better than I am. I want people to be the same as me. CLIENT IX Scene 4 Item 59 1. I feel defeated now, but I'm going to keep on trying. I'll succeed some day. 2. The leaders of the school don't pay attention to people like me, and I resent it. I have as much right to have my say as they do. 3. Nobody pays any attention to pe0ple like me; I'm discouraged and resigned. Item 60 1. He (counselor) doesn't quite understand, but I don't care. Right now, I'm interested in me. 2. I want him to tell me it's unfair, but he won't. I'm not sure I like that. 3. For a change, somebody is really listening to me. 183 CLIENT X Scene 1 Item 61 1. This is interesting; I'm glad I came. 2. This all seems so useless - a waste of time. 3. This isn't too bad. I'm not sure I like it real well, but I'm kind of enjoying myself. Item 62 1. He (counselor) seems to be listening 9 can he understand how I feel? 2. He's really with me. I can tell he understands me. 3. He doesn't keep things moving enough. I don't like that. CLIENT X Scene 2 Item 63 l. I say this, but really I feel inadequate; I might flunk out. 2. I feel a little inferior, but paying for college myself will inspire me to get good grades. 3. I'm sure I could do well; I could do anything, if I really tried. ° CLIENT X Scene 3 Item 64 1. What's the use of looking ahead? I'm scared to think about it. 2. I'm unhappy, but I can accept my situation. Why should I look ahead; it won't get me anywhere. 3. I enjoy just living for today. Item 65 1. He (counselor) wouldn't know about how I feel. He doesn't understand me at all. 2. I want this fellow to pity me and to feel sorry for me. 3. Really I'm confused. I want him to help me straighten my feelings out about this. CLIENT X Scene 4 Item 66 1. Sometimes I feel a little inadequate, but it's not something that bothers me a lot. 2. I really don't feel inadequate. I just talk that way to have something to say. 3. Sometimes I haven't been too successful, and I've felt real inadequate. 184 CLIENT X Scene 4 (continued) Item 67 1. He (counselor) just sits there - just like the others, I get no response. 2. I don't care what he does or thinks; I'm concerned about my own feelings now. 3. I can trust him now; he's with me; he understands. CLIENT XI Scene 1 Item 68 1. I'm just a little tired of school. It's usually O.K., but now I'm tired of it. 2. It bores hell out of me really; I'm bored with it all. 3. It's not that I don't like school, it's just that I want to do the things I like most. CLIENT XI Scene 2 Item 69 l. I feel I should make a decision, but I feel insecure and uncertain about what I should do. 2. I could care less; I feel blah about the whole thing. 3. I'm sure of myself; I feel I know what I'm doing. Item 70 1. He's (counselor) giving me good advice - I probably should consider following it. 2. This counselor is a pain! He's a drag! 3. The counselor understands me pretty well, but he is also evaluating me. CLIENT XI Scene 3 Item 71 l. I want to live it up, but it scares me. I may not be able to stop. 2. I'm just talking to take up time here. This doesn't really mean much. I'm not feeling much of anything. 3. I just want to live it up from now on. I don't care what happens to me. Item 72 l. I suppose he'll (counselor) tell me that's wrong too. 2. He's O.K.; he's listening to what I have to say. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; it's not important. 185 CLIENT XI Scene 4 Item 73 1. My mother doesn't love me - that's what really bothers me. 2. I want to get out of the house - away from mother. 3. I don't really mean that; I'm not as sure about that as I sound. Item 74 1. She really doesn't love me, that's why I want to go away - to be independent. 2. My mother wouldn't care if I stayed, would she? I want him to know that she loves me - she loves me as much as my sister. 3. I would really like to spend my whole life with mother. She's so nice and I know that she loves me. APPENDIX B FORMS USED TO COLLECT PEER AND STAFF RATINGS OF COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS Form 1 - Peer Ratings Form 2 - Staff Ratings Form 1 PEER RATINGS This question is designed to reveal your reaction to the other members of the Institute as potential counselors. On the next page you will find a list of all the members of the Institute with a number in front of each name. First find your name and number and draw a line thru them. Next notice that underneath the list of names is a normal curve made up of a number of squares--one for each remaining number in the list. You are to fill in the square with the numbers in your list to indicate the extent to which you would be apt to go to the various members of the Institute for counseling if you were a student in a school where they were working as counselors. The number of the person you would be most apt to consult should be placed in the square at the extreme right. The numbers of the people you would be next most apt to consult should be placed in the squares in the next column. (Only one number goes into each square and the order in which you place the names in any one column does not matter since all the squares in a column represent the same position.) Continue placing numbers remembering that the farther to the left you place the number the less apt you would be to consult him for counseling. The last square to the left‘will have the number of the person you would be least apt to go to for counseling. You may find it easier to do this task if you draw a line thru each name when you place its number in a square. Make sure you fill all the squares and use all the numbers. Least apt to Most apt to go to go to 187 Form 2 STAFF RATINGS Instructions: Would you rate each person in the group in terms of his ability as a counselor. We are not concerned here with his ability as a general pupil personnel worker. We are interested only in counseling ability and skill. As you rate, would you keep the following question in mind: "If I were to refer someone dear to me to a counselor, and needed to find a highly sensitive, skilled person, how likely would I be to choose each of the members of this group?" Least Ability Most Ability 188 APPENDIX C AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE REVISED FORM A AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE Instructions You will be viewing short scenes of actual counseling sessions. You are to identify what feelings the clients have toward themselves and toward the counselors they are working with. Although in any one scene a client may exhibit a variety of feelings, for the purposes of this instrument you are to concentrate on identifying his last feelings in the scene. On the following pages are multiple-choice items consisting of three responses each. Most scenes have two items, but a few have only one. After you view each scene, you are to read the items and ask yourself the following question: If the client were to view this same scene, and if he were completely open and honest with him- self, which of these three responses would he use to describe his feelings? After you decide which response accurately describes what the client is actually feeling either about himself or the counselor he is with, indicate your choice on the answer sheet. Here is a sample item: CLIENT I Scene 1 Item 1 1. This exploring of my feelings is good. It makes me feel good. 2. I feel very sad and unhappy. 3. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it all together. After you had viewed Scene 1 for CLIENT I, you would read these three statements (Item 1) and would then decide which one best states what the client would say about his own feelings after view- ing the same scene. For example, if you decide number two best states what the client is feeling, you would then find the number 1 on your answer sheet and darken in the space for number two. 1. 1:::: ZIIII 3:::: 4:33: We will only make use of the first three answer spaces following each item on your answer sheet. Remember you are to concentrate on the latter part of each scene in determining the most accurate description of the client's feelings. CAUTION: The item numbers on your answer sheet go across the page, not down the page as you would usually expect! 190 AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE REVISED FORM A CLIENT I Scene 1 Item 1 1. This exploring of my feelings is good. It makes me feel good. 2. I feel very sad and unhappy. 3. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it all together. Item 2 1. You're (counselor) trying to understand what I'm feeling, but I'm not sure you're completely with me. 2. You really understand me. I like that. 3. You really don't understand. CLIENT I Scene 2 Item 3 l. I feel sorry for my husband and the relationship we have. 2. I feel depressed at the thought of my anger. 3. I feel pleased at seeing a possible relationship between my feelings of anger and pain. Item 4 1. He (counselor) doesn't have to like me. I just want him to understand. 2. I'm trying to please you. Do you like me? 3. He's really understanding me now. CLIENT I Scene 3 Item 5 l. I feeI confident. Now we can really get somewhere. 2. It's pretty damned hard to understand what is going on in me. I'm angry with myself. 3. I just can't face the anger that I really feel. It scares me! Item 6 1. He's (counselor) on the right track now. He likes me. 2. I'm impatient; let's not go back. Let's go on. 3. He (counselor) makes me feel very insecure with myself. I wish he wouldn't keep going. Item 7 1. See how I'm gaining insights; I want you to be pleased with me. 2. I don't care whether you're pleased with me or not; it doesn't matter. 3. You're pleased with me - I can tell you really like what I'm doing. 191 CLIENT Scene 4 192 I Item 8 1. I feel kind of irritated, confused, frustrated. 2. I'm feeling very comfortable because I don't have any loss or hurt involved. 3. If I wanted to get angry, I could easily, but I would have to have a good reason first. Item 9 CLIENT Scene 5 CLIENT Scene 1 1. This is embarrassing, I feel embarrassed. 2. I'm angry and that makes me feel guilty. 3. It frightens me to think about being completely honest about my feelings. Item 10 1. He (counselor) isn't leveling with me, so why should I level with him? 2. I feel much warmer toward the counselor now. He understands me. 3. I just can't tell him the truth - he might leave me. I Item 11 1. I feel calm and collected. 2. Yes, that is when I get angry, and I'm feeling angry now. 3. I feel anxious and stimulated. Item 12 l. I want to pull back, but not really - I really want to stay with him (counselor) but this is real tender, real tender. 2. This whole thing doesn't make much sense to me. I'd like to get out of here. 3. I respect him and have confidence in him. I like him. II Item 13 1. I'm pleased, happy; I feel good all over! 2. It was brought right back, that amazes me, but it hits quite bad too. It hurts! 3. I'm not bothered by this. I can handle it. I'm confident. m 1. He's (counselor) caught me; careful, I'm not sure I want that. 2. I like him. He's trying to make the situation a little lighter and make me feel better about it. 3. I don't feel he understands. He's sarcastic. I don't like that. 193 CLIENT II Scene 2 Item 15 l. I feel a little uneasy, but not much. 2. This scares me. I feel frightened and somewhat embarrassed. 3. I feel flirtatious. I like this! Item 16 1. He's asking for some touchy material, but that's all right. I want him to know. 2. He's being very frank and open! I'm not sure I want that. 3. I want him to leave me alone - I want out of here. I don't like this. CLIENT II Scene 3 Item 17 1. I'm getting so much attention. I really enjoy this. It makes me feel good. 2. I'm scared by what I'm feeling. 3. I have the feeling that what I wanted was wrong, and I'm a little ashamed of myself. Item 18 1. This is good. We're really moving into my feelings. 2. He's too perceptive; he's looking right through me. 3. He's getting a little sticky; I'm not sure I like that. CLIENT III Scene 1 Item 19 1. I'm unhappy and uncomfortable with my whole life. 2. I feel "so-so" about this whole thing, but it will probably help. 3. I'm bored; I wish this was over. Item 20 . l. I don't feel any emotion towards the counselor - just kind of neutral. 2. He's asking the questions. I'll give him some answers, but I don't see any sense to all this. 3. The counselor is nice. He's trying to understand me. 194 CLIENT III Scene 2 Item 21 l. I feel protective and defensive of what people may think about my family. 2. All this seems so pointless! I'm puzzled and bored. 3. We're having a nice conversation. Some of these things really make me think. Item 22 1. This guy (counselor) embarrasses me with the questions he asks. 2. That's a good question. He'8 doing a pretty good job with the questions he asks. 3. I can't follow this guy's line of thought. What's he trying to do? CLIENT IV Scene 1 Item 23 1. I'm concerned about my physical condition. I'm worried about it. 2. I think I'm pretty good. I want others to know it and like me. 3. I feel good - nothing's bothering me, but I enjoy talking. Item 24 1. She's too young to be counseling, and she's a girl. I'm not sure I like this. 2. She likes me; I know she does. 3. I'd like her to think I'm great. CLIENT IV Scene 2 Item 25 l. I feel good. My parents are proud of me. I enjoy that feeling. ‘2. I hate that; it makes me mad. 3. I feel a little resentful. Item 26 1. She (counselor) really understands me! She's with me now. 2. I don't feel much either way towards the counselor; she's not important to me. 3. I wonder if she appreciates the pressure that's put on me? 195 CLIENT IV Scene 3 Item 27 1. This whole thing just makes me feel sad and unhappy. 2. It kind of angers me that they don't appreciate me when I feel I did my best. I wish I could tell them off. 3. Basically, I feel quite proud that I can play football as well as I can. Item 28 l. I can tell she understands what I'm saying. She's really with me. 2. I wish I could get out of here; I don't like her. 3. Understand what I'm saying; I want her to know how I feel. CLIENT IV Scene 4 Item 29 l. I really want to be successful, and somehow I know that I can be. 2. That makes me feel kind of sad, unhappy. I don't want to believe that it's true - I want to be good. I 3. I don't know what I feel here. It's all very confusing. Item 30 CLIENT Scene 1 1. Boy, she (counselor) doesn't understand about us athletes. I don't like her at all. 2. Please feel sorry for me and try to help me. I wish she would praise me. 3. I like talking to her. She can be trusted even to the point of telling her how I really feel about myself. V Item 31 1. I'm just angry at the school. Can't we leave it at that? 2. Yeah, there are other connections. I can see them now. 3. I'm angry at the school, but that question surprised me. I'm kind of confused; I'm trying to understand, but I don't see any other connection. Item.32 1. He's (counselor) completely wrong! I dislike him for questioning me! I told him what was bothering me; can't he accept what I say? He's O.K. I like him real well. He asks good questions. 3. What's he driving at? I don't quite understand his question. N o 196 CLIENT V Scene 2 Item 33 l. I feel rejected and empty inside. Am I unlovable? 2. I feel a little lonely. I want my boy friend to pay a little more attention to me. 3. I really don't feel much here; I'm just kind of talking to fill up space. Item 34 1. Please say it isn't fair, Mr. Counselor. 2. He really understands me completely. I can tell him anything. 3. I don't care what he says. It's unimportant to me what he feels about me. CLIENT V Scene 3 Item 35 1. I'm afraid of marriage - insecure; it might not work out, and I'd be lost. 2. I really can give him all the affection he needs, I feel I'm a worthwhile person to be desired. He wouldn't dare step out on me. 3. I'm really not too worried; it'd all work out in the end even if we have to go to a marriage counselor. Item 36 l. I don't care if he (counselor) can help me or not. I'm not sure I want his help. 2. He's so sympathetic. That makes me feel good. 3. Can you help me? CLIENT V Scene 4 Item 37 l. I feel I have some need to be liked, but it's not real strong. 2. I'm not lovable; I don't really like myself. 3. I'm a good person; I'm lovable. Down deep I know I am. Item 38 l. I feel dejected, kind of insecure. I want to be likeable! 2. My main concern is that it's hard for me to take criticism. I usually think of myself as perfect. 3. I feel a little sad about all this; I do kind of want people to like me. 197 CLIENT V Scene 4 (continued) Item 39 1. He thinks well of me; I know he does, I can tell. 2. I want the counselor to really like me, but I'm not sure he does. 3. I like it when he asks questions like that. They make me really think about deeper things. CLIENT V Scene 5 Item 40 l. I wouldn't want to be treated like he treats Mother, but I don't mind him (stepfather). He doesn't bother me much. I feel very little emotion about anything at this point. 3. I hate what he (stepfather) does! What he does to mother really irritates me! N Item 41 1. Boy, I'm happy that he (counselor) agrees with me. He sympathizes with me. 2. I'm embarrassed to tell the counselor how strong my feelings really are. 3. I'm not sure he'll be able to help me much after all. I'll just have to work this out by myself. CLIENT V Scene 6 Item 42 1. I'm kind of feeling sorry for myself, but I'm not really too worried. 2. I want to move out of the house as soon as possible. I feel I would be better off on my own. 3. My own parents don't want me; I feel cut off and hurt. Item 43 l. I don't feel he's (counselor) helpful at all, and if he can't help me and see my side, I'm not going to like him either. 2. He's got me on the spot, but I feel I can still get him to see me as a good girl who is persecuted. 3. I wish the counselor were my father. He's listening; he understands how I feel. CLIENT VI Scene 1 Item 44 l. Disapprove! She'd kill me! 2. I feel jovial; this is real interesting. 3. I'm not sure how she would feel but the whole idea of her finding out excites me. 198 CLIENT VI Scene 1 (continued) Item 45 1. He (counselor) understands me completely. I feel I can talk about anything with him. 2. I really don't care what he feels about me. I just want someone to talk to - anyone will do- 3. I'm wondering how he feels about me and what I'm saying. I'm not sure how serious I want to get. CLIENT VI Scene 2 Item 46 l. I think my brother is O.K. We have fun together. 2. I don't know what I'm saying here. I'm mixed up and confused! 3. I'm saying something that's important to me. I like Doug. Item 47 1. He's (counselor) evaluating me. He thinks I'm bad! 2. I'm feeling more comfortable with him now. 3. I don't care much for this counselor. He doesn't understand me. CLIENT VI Scene 3 Item 48 1. This is very confusing for me. I'm not sure I understand what is going on. 2. This is how I really feel, I'm kind of starting to be myself. 3. I'm just talking to be talking here; this really doesn't mean much to me. Item 49 l. I guess he's (counselor) all right, but I'm still not sure he understands me. 2. Let's get going. I'm impatient! I want to move into more important matters. 3. I feel comfortable with him. He understands me. CLIENT VI Scene 4 Item 50 l. I love my brother, but not romantically. We just have a good brother-sister relationship. 2. I don't know about feeling this way about Doug; it feels so good, but it concerns me too. 3. I feel better about my relationship with Doug now. It helps to get it out in the open. Now I feel it's all right. 199 CLIENT VI Scene 4 (continued) Item 51 1. WOw, he (counselor) understood exactly what I was trying to say, that amazed me and made me happy. 2. I'm ready to stop. I don't like what he's doing to me. 3. I kind of like him, but I'm not real sure yet. CLIENT VI Scene 5 Item 52 1. I'm not feeling much of anything here. I'm just kind of talking to be talking. 2. I'm mad at everyone at this point and don't know which way to turn; I guess I'm mad at myself too. 3. Now I'm talking about things that are real. I'm not on stage anymore. She is a louse! Item 53 1. He (counselor) feels she's a bad person too. I can tell; he agrees with me. 2. Don't you agree with me? I want to know what you think. 3. He thinks this all sounds petty. He doesn't understand. CLIENT VII Scene 1 Item 54 l. I felt angry with my mother, but this made me feel guilty. I needed to make an excuse for her. 2. I'm really not angry with mother. It's not her fault. It doesn't bother me. 3. I'm in a very passive mood. I'm just relaxing and talking about things that interest me. Item 55 1. This counselor is all right. I feel I can confide in him. 2. I feel uncomfortable. I'm not sure what this counselor wants me to do. 3. I feel he wants me to talk about myself, but I don't care. I'm going to talk about what I want to talk about. CLIENT VII Scene 2 Item 56 1. I'm very sensitive; I'm very easily hurt. 2. I'm somewhat sensitive and easily hurt, but not deeply so. 3. I'm not sensitive or easily hurt at all. I just like to make peOple think I am. 200 CLIENT VII Scene 2 (continued) Item 57 1. That makes me mad, I can do it - I know I can, but things just keep getting in my way. 2. It's really all his fault, if he just wouldn't have been such a joker. 3. This makes me feel guilty; I need to blame someone else instead of blaming myself. Item 58 1. I'm neutral towards the counselor. I don't care what he feels about me. 2. I'm afraid he doesn't like me and what I'm saying about myself. I don't want him to be harsh with me. 3. He's easy to talk to. He understands what I'm like, and he still likes me. I can confide in him. CLIENT VIII Scene 1 Item 59 1. Say, this is all right. I like this. 2. I think I know myself and my problems, but now I'm beginning to wonder if I really do. . 3. It's embarrassing and difficult. I feel a littl annoyed. Item 60 l. I feel I can rely on this guy, so I'll let him talk and I'll just answer his questions. 2. I wonder what you think about this - please respond. Give me some help! 3. The counselor is a good guy. I like his questions; they make it easier for me. CLIENT VIII Scene 2 Item 61 l. I feel very unhappy about what I may eventually have to do. 2. He's carrying the ball, so I'll keep answering the questions. I enjoy this. 3. I'm dammed uncomfortable; it's so confusing. I feel kind of 'blah' about it all. Item 62 1. He's (counselor) missing the point. He bugs me. 2. I can't really tell about this guy. I don't know how I feel about him. 3. He seems like a good guy. He asks nice questions. I like him. 201 CLIENT IX Scene 1 Item 63 1. That's good information to have, but I can take college or leave it. I don't know whether I want to go or not. 2. That's nice to know, but I feel that I kind of want to go to college. 3. That was great news; it made me feel good because I really don't want to go to college. Item 64 1. He (counselor) helped me to relax. I'm not as nervous anymore. He's all right. 2. I'm just kind of talking with him. I feel neutral towards this counselor. 3. I'm not sure this guy can help me. I'm not sure I believe what he's saying. CLIENT IX Scene 2 Item 65 l. I have kind of neutral feelings here. I'm just talking to pass the time. 2. I feel embarrassed; I really don't know why I came. 3. This feels good, I feel important and grown up. Item 66 1. I'm not sure how I feel about this counselor. I don't feel one way or the other about him. 2. I like the counselor very much - he makes me feel good. 3. He understands me pretty well and is trying to help. I guess I kind of like him. CLIENT IX Scene 3 Item 67 l. Goody, goody people don't really know any better, so I can't be too disgusted with them, but it does make me angry. 2. I don't really mind people feeling superior to me. It just makes me feel a little angry. 3. It tears me up inside when people think they're better than I am. I want people to be the same as me. Item 68 1. Tell me it's not right for them to act that way, reassure me. 2. I don't notice the counselor much. I know how I feel, so it's not important how he feels. 3. I know he agrees with me, he doesn't think they should act that way either. CLIENT IX Scene 4 Item 69 l. I feel a little insignificant, and this makes me a little unhappy. 2. I'm a nobody. I'm always left out. 3. I'm unhappy with school. That's what is really bothering me. Item 70 1. He (counselor) doesn't quite understand, but I don't care. It doesn't matter. 2. I don't feel one way or the other towards the counselor, we're just having a nice talk. 3. He (counselor) is really listening to me, and I feel he understands what I'm feeling. CLIENT X Scene 1 _It_62n__7l 1. I'm feeling scared, concerned. Is this for me? 2. I just feel uncertain about what to talk about. If I once get started, I'll be all right. 3. I feel very, deeply depressed. Item 72 1. He (counselor) seems to be listening - can he understand how I feel? 2. He's really with me. I can tell he understands me. 3. He doesn't keep things moving enough. I don't like that. CLIENT X Scene 2 Item 73 1. I'd like to think I could make it, but I'm not 202 sure. 2. I just have an I-don't-care feeling; that's my real attitude towards all of this. 3. I'm confident that I'll do well; I'm sure of myself. Item 74 l. I want to impress the counselor. I want him to believe I can do it. 2. He believes me; he thinks I can do it; I can tell. 3. I really don't care what the counselor thinks. It's not important to me. 203 CLIENT X Scene 3 Item 75 1. What's the use of looking ahead? I'm scared to think about it. 2. I can accept my situation. Really, things aren't so bad. Things may bother me a little, but really not much. 3. I enjoy just living for today. Item 76 1. He's (counselor) all right. He really understands me. 2. Nobody can really understand this. I don't think he will be any different. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; he's not important to me anyway. CLIENT X Scene 4 Item 77 l. I feel somewhat unhappy. I don't like to feel this way. 2. There's something about me; I just don't fit in, and that makes me feel real inadequate. 3. In some instances, I'm unsure of myself. I'm afraid I'll do the wrong thing, but I can handle this just by avoiding these situations. Item 78 1. Why did they send me - I don't want to be here. I don't like this counselor. 2. I really like this counselor. He really understands me. 3. I'm more relaxed with this counselor now - I feel more at ease. CLIENT XI Scene 1 Item 79 1. I'm unhappy about all this, but I'm afraid to make a change. 2. I really feel rather happy and gay about all this. 3. I'm not the student type; it embarrasses me. Item 80 l. The counselor is a nice guy. I like him, and I think he likes me. 2. I wonder what the counselor thinks of me. I'm not sure what to think of him. 3. I don't care what he thinks of me. It doesn't really matter to me at all. 204 CLIENT XI Scene 2 Item 81 l. I feel I should make a decision, but I feel insecure and uncertain about what I should do. I'm very unhappy. I could care less; I feel 'blah' about the whole thing. I'm just filling the time with idle chit- chat. 3. I'm sure of myself; confident, I feel I know what I'm doing. Item 82 1. He's (counselor) giving me good advice - I probably 2. 3. The counselor understands me very well, but he is also evaluating me. CLIENT XI Scene 3 Item 83 1. I've found some new dimensions. I like to feel that I can have some excitement, but this kind of scares me too. 2. This doesn't really mean much. I'm not feeling much of anything. 3. This makes me feel very guilty; I'm very ashamed. Item 84 1. I suppose he'll (counselor) tell me that's wrong too. I'm not sure he understands me very well. 2. He's O.K.; he's listening to what I have to say. He really understands me and my feelings. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; it's not impor- tant. I don't have any feelings towards the counselor. CLIENT XI Scene 4 Item 85 1. I'm concerned about whether I can handle this situation. I want to leave, but at the same time I want to stay. 2. I really want to stay at home, but I know Mother doesn't love me enough. 3. I really feel I want to leave, but this makes me feel guilty. Item 86 1. He's really with me; he understands just how I'm feeling. 2. I'm not concerned about what he feels or thinks about me. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. 3. I'm afraid of what he'll think or feel about what I'm should consider following it. This counselor is a pain! His values are showing. That makes me uncomfortable. saying. APPENDIX D AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE REVISED FORM B AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE Instructions You will be viewing short scenes of actual counseling sessions. You are to identify what feelings the clients have toward them- selves and toward the counselors they are working with. Although in any one scene a client may exhibit a variety of feelings, for the purposes of this instrument you are to con- centrate on identifying his last feelings in the scene. On the following pages are multiple-choice items consisting of three responses each. Most scenes have two items, but a few have three. After you view each scene, you are to read the items and ask yourself the following question: If the client were to view this same scene, and if he were completely open and honest with himself, which of these three responses would he use to des- cribe his feelings? After you decide which response accurately describes what the client is actually feeling either about himself or the counselor he is with, indicate your choice on the answer sheet. Here is a sample item: CLIENT I Scene 1 Item 1 1. This exploring of my feelings is good. It makes me feel good. 2. I feel very sad and unhappy. 3. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it all together. After you had viewed Scene 1 for CLIENT I, you would read these three statements (Item 1) and would then decide which one best states what the client would say about his own feelings after viewing the same scene. For example, if you decide number two best states what the client is feeling, you would then find the number 1 on your answer sheet and darken in the space for number two. 1. 127-'23 2a. 3:::: :2: 522:: We will only make use of the first three answer spaces following each item on your answer sheet. Remember you are to concentrate on the latter part of each scene in determining the most accurate description of the client's feelings. After you view the appropriate scenes, you will have thirty seconds to answer each of the first twelve items. For each of the remain- ing items, you will be allowed twenty seconds. CAUTION: The item numbers on your answer sheet go across the page, not down the page as you would expect! 206 AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE REVISED FORM B CLIENT I Scene 1 Item 1 1. I'm just a little confused, I always have trouble expressing myself. 2. I'm feeling glum at this point, kind of a sad feeling. 3. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it all together. Item 2 1. You're (counselor) trying to understand what I'm feeling, but I'm not sure you're completely with me. 2. You really understand me. I like that. 3. You're just not with me today. Please try. CLIENT I Scene 2 Item 3 l. I feel sorry for my husband and the relationship we have. 2. I don't really understand what I feel. Yet, I do feel guilty about creating pain in others which returns to me. 3. I feel pleased at seeing a possible relationship between my feelings of anger and pain. Item 4 1. He (counselor) doesn't have to like me. I just want him to agree with me and tell me I'm right. 2. I'm trying to please you. Do you like me? 3. He's really understanding me now. CLIENT I Scene 3 Item.5 1. I'm not sure what I feel; I'm confused, mixed up. 2- It's Pretty damned hard to understand what is going on in me. 3. I'm pleased with this insight, but I'm afraid to face the anger I really feel. It scares me! Item 6 1. He's (counselor) on the track with me. Let's go on. This feels good. 2. I'm impatient; let's not go back. Let's go on. 3. He (counselor) makes me feel very insecure with myself. I wish he wouldn't keep going. 207 208 CLIENT I Scene 4 Item 7 l. I feel irritated, confused, frustrated. 2. I don't feel angry; I'm feeling comfortable because I don't have any loss or hurt involved. 3. If I wanted to get angry, I could easily, but I would have to have a good reason first. Item 8 1. This is embarrassing, I feel embarrassed. 2. I'm angry and that makes me feel guilty. 3. It frightens me to think about being completely honest about my feelings. Item 9 1. He thinks I may be angry with him, but I'm not at all. I really feel very good about him (counselor) right now. 2. He (counselor) isn't leveling with me so why should I level with him? 3. I just can't tell him the truth-~he might leave me. CLIENT I Scene 5 Item 10 l. I feel calm and collected. I just want to think for a while. 2. Yes, that is when I get angry. I see it all clearly now. 3. I feel anxious and stimulated. Item 11 1. I'm feeling very distant - lost in thought. 2. I like the questions he (counselor) asks. I respect him and have confidence in him. 3. He (counselor) doesn't help me at all; he just confuses me, so I'm escaping him. Item 12 1. I'll pretend I'm agreeing with him (counselor), but I don't see the connection at all. 2. I like what he's doing. I don't feel as uncomfortable now. 3. I wish he would stop pushing me in this direction. CLIENT II Scene 1 Item 13 1. I'm pleased, happy; I feel good all over! 2. It was brought right back, that amazes me, but it hits quite bad too. It hurts! 3. I'm not bothered by this. I can handle it. I'm confident. 209 CLIENT II Scene 1 (continued) Item 14 1. He's (counselor) caught me; careful, I'm not sure I want that. 2. I like him. He's trying to make the situation a little lighter and make me feel better about it. 3. I don't feel he understands. He's sarcastic. I don't like that. CLIENT II Scene 2 Item 15 l. I feel a little uneasy and self—conscious, but not much. 2. This scares me. I feel frightened! 3. I feel flirtatious. I like this! Item 16 1. I feel a little bit embarrassed, but that's all right as long as I can keep my composure. 2. I have a feeling of sadness. 3. I feel flustered and embarrassed. Item 17 1. He's asking for some touchy material, but that's all right. It's about time he knew. 2. He's being very frank and open! I'm not sure I want that. 3. I want him to leave me alone--I want out of here. I don't like this. CLIENT II Scene 3 Item 18 1. I'm getting so much attention. I really enjoy this. It makes me feel good. 2. I'm scared by what I'm feeling. I feel embarrassed and threatened. 3. I have the feeling that what I wanted was wrong, and I'm a little ashamed of myself. Item 19 1. This is good. We're really moving into my feelings. 2. He's too perceptive; he's looking right through me. 3. He's getting a little sticky; I'm not sure I like that. 210 CLIENT III Scene 1 Item 20 1. I'm unhappy and uncomfortable with my whole life. 2. I feel "so-so" about this whole thing, but it will probably help. 3. I'm bored; I wish this was over. Item 21 l. I don't feel any emotion towards the counselor--just kind of neutral. 2. He's asking the questions. I'll give him some answers, but I don't see any sense to all this. 3. The counselor is nice. He's trying very hard to understand me, but I'm not sure I want him to really know me. CLIENT III Scene 2 Item 22 l. I feel protective and defensive of what people may think about my family. 2. All this seems so pointless! I'm puzzled and bored. 3. We're having a nice conversation. Some of these things really make me think. Item 23 1. This guy (counselor) embarrasses me with the questions he asks. 2. The questions he asks really make me think. I'm not sure I like that. 3. I can't follow this guy's line of thought. What's he trying to do? CLIENT IV Scene 1 Itgg 24 l. l m concerned about my physical condition. I'm worried about it. 2. I want pity. I want her to think "Oh, you poor boy." 3° I feel 800d"nothing's bothering me, but I enjoy talking. Item 25 1. She's too young to be counseling, and she's a girl. I'm not sure I like this. 2. She likes me; I know she does. 3. I'd like her to think I'm great. 211 CLIENT IV Scene 2 Item 26 1. I'm a little annoyed with my family's ambitions for me. 2. That's a hell of a lot to ask! It makes me mad! 3. I feel sorry for myself, and I want others to feel the same. Item 27 1. She (counselor) really understands me! She's with me now. 2. I don't feel much either way towards the counselor; she's not important to me. 3. I wonder if she appreciates the pressure that's put on me. CLIENT IV Scene 3 Item 28 1. This whole thing just makes me feel sad and unhappy. 2. It kind of angers me that they don't appreciate me when I feel I did my best. I wish I could tell them off. 3. No matter how well I do, I'm always criticized. It doesn't bother me too much though because I know that I did my best. Item 29 l. I can tell she understands what I'm saying. She's really with me. 2. I wish I could get out of here; I don't like her. 3. Understand what I'm saying; I want her to know how I feel. CLIENT IV Scene 4 Item 30 l. I really want to be successful, and somehow I know that I can be. 2. That makes me feel kind of sad, unhappy. I don't want to believe that it's true--I want to be good. 3. I don't know what I feel here. It's all very confusing. Item 31 l. I feel neutral towards her here. I'm not paying any attention to her. 2. Please feel sorry for me and try to help me. I wish she would praise me. 3. I like talking to her. She can be trusted even to the point of telling her how I really feel about myself. 212 CLIENT v Scene 1 Item 32 1. It's just that I'm not very happy at school. I feel a little uncomfortable there. 2. I'm not sure how I feel about that question. I guess I just feel kind of neutral now. 3. I'm angry at the school, but that question surprised me. I'm kind of confused; I'm trying to understand, but I don't see any other connections. Item 33 1. He's (counselor) completely wrong! I dislike him for questioning me! I told him what was bothering me; can't he accept what I say? He's O.K. I like him real well. He asks good questions. 3. What's he driving at? I don't quite understand his N question. CLIENT V Scene 2 Item 34 l. I feel rejected and empty inside. Am I unlovable? 2. I feel a little lonely. I want my boy friend to pay a little more attention to me. 3. I really don't feel much here; I'm just kind of talking to fill up space. Item 35 1. Please say it isn't fair, Mr. Counselor. 2. He really understands me. I can tell him anything. 3. I'm not sure I care what he says. It's kind of unim- portant to me what he feels about me at this time. CLIENT V Scene 3 Item 36 1. I'm afraid of marriage--insecure; it might not work out and I'd be lost. 2. I really can give him all the affection he needs; I feel I'm a worthwhile person to be desired. He wouldn't dare step out on me. 3. I'm really not too worried; it'd all work out in the end even if we have to go to a marriage counselor. ‘1: Item 37 l. I don't care if he (counselor) can help me or not. I'm not sure I want his help. 2. He's so sympathetic. That makes me feel good. 3. Can you help me? 213 CLIENT V Scene 4 Item 38 l. I feel I have some need to be liked, but it's not real strong. 2. I'm not lovable; I don't really like myself. 3. I'm a good person; I'm lovable. Down deep I know I am. Item 39 l. I feel dejected, kind of insecure. I want to be likeable! 2. My main concern is that it's hard for me to take criticism. I usually think of myself as perfect. 3. I feel a little sad about all this; I do kind of want people to like me. Item 40 1. He thinks well of me; I know he does, I can tell. 2. I want the counselor to really like me, but I'm not sure he does. 3. I like it when he asks questions like that. They make me really think about deeper things. CLIENT V Scene 5 Item 41 l. I wouldn't want to be treated like he treats Mother, but I don't mind him (stepfather) too much. 2. I feel very little emotion about anything at this point. 3. I hate him (stepfather)! Item 42 1. Boy, I'm happy that he (counselor) agrees with me. He sympathizes with me. I feel completely accepted. 2. I'm embarrassed to tell the counselor how strong my feelings really are. 3. I'm not sure he'll be able to help me much after all. I'll just have to work this out by myself. CLIENT V Scene 6 Item 43 1. I'm kind of feeling sorry for myself, but I'm not really too worried. 2. I want to move out of the house as soon as possible. I feel I would be better off on my own. 3. My own parents don't want me; I feel cut off and hurt. CLIENT V 214 Scene 6 (continued) Item 44 1. I don't feel he's (counselor) helpful at all, and if he can't help me and see my side, I'm not going to like him either. 2. He's got me in a spot, but I feel I can still get him to see me as a good girl who is persecuted. 3. I wish the counselor were my father. He's listening; he understands how I feel. CLIENT VI Scene 1 Item 45 l. Disapprove! She'd kill me! 2. I feel jovial; this is real interesting. 3. I'm not sure how she would feel but the whole idea of her finding out excites me. Item 46 1. He (counselor) understands me completely. He certainly is relaxed and comfortable. 2. I really don't care what he feels about me. I just want someone to talk to--anyone will do. 3. I was wondering how he would feel about me and what I'm saying. CLIENT VI Scene 2 Item 47 l. I think my brother is O.K. We have fun together. 2. I don't know what I'm saying here. I'm a little mixed up and confused. 3. I'm saying something that's important to me. I like Doug. Item 48 1. He's (counselor) evaluating me. He thinks I'm bad! 2. I'm feeling more comfortable with him now. 3. I don't care much for this counselor. He doesn't understand me. CLIENT VI Scene 3 Item 49 1. This is very confusing for me. I'm not sure I under- stand what is going on. 2. This is how I really feel, I'm kind of starting to be myself. 3. I'm just talking to be talking here; this really doesn't mean much to me. 215 CLIENT VI Scene 3 (continued) Item 50 l. I guess he's (counselor) all right, but I'm still not sure he understands me. 2. Let's get going. I'm impatient! I want to move to more important matters. 3. I feel comfortable with him. He understands me. CLIENT VI Scene 4 Item 51 l. I love my brother, but not romantically. We just have a good brother-sister relationship. 2. I don't know about feeling this way about Doug; it feels so good, but it concerns me too. 3. I feel better about my relationship with Doug now. It helps to get it out in the open. Now I feel it's all.right. Item 52 l. The counselor really reads me. 2. I feel no emotion towards the counselor. I'm too wrapped up in my own feelings. 3. He's seeing me in a good light, and he understands how fine I am. . CLIENT VI Scene 5 Item 53 1. I'm not feeling much of anything here. I'm just kind of talking to be talking. 2. I'm mad at everyone at this point and don't know which way to turn; I guess I'm mad at myself too. 3. Now I'm talking abOut things that are real. I'm not on stage anymore. She is a louse! Item 54 1. He (counselor) feels she's a bad person too. I can tell; he agrees with me. 2. Don't you agree with me? I want to know what you think. 3. He thinks this all sounds petty. He doesn't understand. CLIENT VII Scene 1 Item 55 l. I felt angry with my mother, but this made me feel guilty. I needed to make an excuse for her. 2. I'm really not angry with Mother. It's not her fault. 3. I'm in a very passive mood. I'm just relaxing and talking about things that interest me. 216 CLIENT VII Scene l(continued) Item 56 1. This counselor is all right. I feel I can confide in him. 2. I feel uncomfortable. I'm not sure what this counselor wants me to do. 3. I feel he wants me to talk about myself, but I don't care. I'm going to talk about what I want to talk about. CLIENT VII Scene 2 Item 57 1. I'm very sensitive; I'm very easily hurt. 2. I'm somewhat sensitive and easily hurt, but not deeply so. 3. I'm not sensitive or easily hurt at all. I just like to make pe0ple think I am. Item 58 1. That makes me mad, I can do it--I know I can, but things just keep getting in my way. 2. It's really all his fault, if he just wouldn't have been such a joker. 3. This makes me feel guilty; I need to blame someone else instead of blaming myself. Item 59 1. I'm neutral towards the counselor. I don't care what he feels toward me. 2. I'm afraid he doesn't like me and what I'm saying about myself. I don't want him to be harsh with me. 3. He's easy to talk to. He understands what I'm like, and he still likes me. I can confide in him. CLIENT VIII Scene 1 Itgm 60 . Bay, this is all right. I like this. 1 2. I'm not feeling anything deeply. I know what I need! 3. It's embarrassing and difficult. I feel a little annoyed. Item 61 l. I feel I can rely on this guy, so I'll let him talk and I'll just answer his questions. 2. I wonder what you think about this--please respond. Give me some help! 3. The counselor is a good guy. I like his questions; they make it easier for me. 217 CLIENT VIII Scene 2 Item 62 l. I feel very unhappy about what I may eventually have to do. 2. I don't know what I feel; I'm confused about what I feel. 3. I'm damned uncomfortable; it's so confusing. I feel kind of 'blah' about it all. Item 63 1. He's (counselor) missing the point. He bugs me. 2. I can't really tell about this guy. I don't know how I feel about him. 3. He seems like a good guy. He asks nice questions. I like him. CLIENT IX Scene 1 Item 64 1. That's good information to have, but I can take college or leave it. I don't know whether I want to go or not. 2. That's nice to know, but I feel that I kind of want to go to college. 3. That was great news; it made me feel good because I really don't want to go to college. Item 65 1. He (counselor) helped me to relax. I'm not as nervous anymore. I like him. 2. I feel neutral towards this counselor. 3. I'm not sure this guy can help me. I'm not sure I believe what he's saying. CLIENT IX Scene 2 Item 66 l. I have kind of neutral feelings here. I'm just talking to pass the time. 2. I feel embarrassed; I really don't know why I came. 3. This feels good, I feel important and grown-up. Item 67 1. I'm not sure how I feel about this counselor. I don't feel one way or the other about him. 2. I like the counselor very much--he makes me feel good. 3. He understands me pretty well and is trying to help. I guess I kind of like him. 218 CLIENT IX Scene 3 Item 68 l. Goody, goody peOple don't really know any better, so I can't be too disgusted with them, but it does make me angry. . 2. I don't really mind people feeling superior to me. It just makes me a little angry. 3. It tears me up inside when people think they're better than I am. I want peOple to be the same as me. Item 69 1. I'm every bit as good as they are. I really feel I am. I know I am. 2. I kind of wished they liked me, but I can live without being a member of their group. 3. Those smart kids make me feel stupid. Item 70 l. I feel sorry for them; they just don't realize what they're doing to people like me. 2. I feel I'm not as good as they are, and it really hurts when people act that way. 3. It makes me a little angry. I'm every bit as good as they are. / CLIENT IX Scene 4 .It_em_7.l l. I feel a little insigifnicant, and this makes me a little unhappy. 2. I'm a nobody. I'm always left out. 3. I'm unhappy with school. That's what is really bothering me. Item.72 CLIENT Scene 1 1. He (counselor) doesn't quite understand, but I don't care. It doesn't matter. 2. I don't feel one way or the other towards this counselor, we're just having a nice talk. 3. He (counselor) is really listening to me, and I feel he understands what I'm feeling. X Item 73 1. I'm feeling scared, concerned. Is this for me? 2. I just feel uncertain about what to talk about. If I once get started, I'll be all right. 3. I feel very deeply depressed. 219 CLIENT X Scene 1 (continued) Item 74 1. This is interesting; I'm glad I came. 2. This all seems so useless--a waste of time. 3. This isn't too bad. I'm not sure I like it real well, but I'm kind of enjoying myself. Item 75 1. He (counselor) seems to be listening--can he under- stand how I feel? 2. He's really with me. I can tell he understands me. 3. He doesn't keep things moving enough. I don't like that. CLIENT X Scene 2 Item 76 1. I'd like to think I could make it, but I'm not sure. I feel inadequate. 2. I just have an I-don't-care feeling; that's my real attitude towards all of this. 3. I'm confused here. I really don't have any definite feelings. Item 77 l. I want to impress the counselor. I want him to believe I can do it. 2. He believes me; he thinks I can do it; I can tell. 3. I really don't care what the counselor thinks. It's not important to me. CLIENT X Scene 3 Item 78 1. What's the use of looking ahead? I'm scared to think about it. 2. I can accept my situation. Really, things aren't so bad. Things may bother me a little, but really not much. 3. I enjoy just living for today. Item 79 1. He's (counselor) all right. He really understands me. 2. Nobody can really understand this. I don't think he will be any different. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; he's not important to me anyway. 220 CLIENT X Scene 4 Item 80 l. I feel somewhat unhappy. I don't like to feel this way. 2. There's something about me; I just don't fit in, and that makes me feel real inadequate. 3. In some instances, I'm unsure of myself. I'm afraid I'll do the wrong thing, but I can handle this just by avoiding these situations. Item 81 1. Why did they send me--I don't want to be here. I don't like this counselor. A 2. I really like this counselor. He really understands me. 3. I'm more relaxed with this counselor now--I feel more at ease. CLIENT XI Scene 1 Item 82 1. I'm unhappy about all this, but I'm afraid to make a change. 2. It's not that I don't like school, it's just that I want to do the things I like most. 3. I'm not the student type. School bores me, but it ' embarrasses me when I say it. Item 83 l. The counselor is a nice guy. I like him, and I think he likes me. 2. I wonder what the counselor thinks of me. He'll probably think less of me for saying this. 3. I don't care what he thinks of me. It doesn't really matter to me. CLIENT XI Scene 2 Item 84 l. I feel I should make a decision, but I feel insecure and uncertain about what I should do. 2. I could care less; I feel 'blah' about the whole thing. I'm just filling the time with idle chit-chat. 3. I'm somewhat sure of myself. I think I know what I'm doing. 221 CLIENT XI Scene 2 (cont inued) Item 85 1. He's (counselor) giving me good advice-~I probably should consider following it. 2. This counselor is a pain! His values are showing. That makes me uncomfortable. 3. The counselor understands me very well, but he is also evaluating me. CLIENT XI Scene 3 Item 86 1. I've found some new dimensions. I like to feel that I can have some excitement, but this kind of scares me too. 2. This doesn't really mean much. I'm not feeling much of anything. 3. This makes me feel very guilty; I'm very ashamed. Item 87 l. I suppose he'll (counselor) tell me that's wrong, too. I'm not sure he understands me very well. 2. He's O.K.; he's listening to what I have to say. He really understands me and my feelings. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; it's not important. I don't have any feelings towards the counselor. CLIENT XI Scene 4 Item 88 1. I'm concerned about whether I can handle this situation. I want to leave, but at the same time I want to stay. 2. I really want to stay at home, but I know Mother doesn't love me enough. 3. I really feel I want to leave, but this makes me feel guilty. £23232 1. He's really with me; he understands just how I'm feeling. 2. I'm not concerned about what he feels or thinks about me. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. 3. I'm afraid of what he'll think or feel about what I'm saying. APPEND IX E SUMMARY DATA FROM ADMINISTERING FORM B TO SAMPLE GROUPS I, J, K, L, M, N, AND P 223 Summary data, including item analysis results and other statistical data, from administering Revised Form B of the Affective Sensitivity Scale to Sample Groups I, J, K, L, M, N, and P. Statistical Testing Sample Groups Identification Time Ja Ka Pb Ic LC Mc NC Mean Item Pre 44 39 42 Difficulty Post 39 36 42 34 39 45 43 Mean Item Pre l7 16 20 Discrimination PCst 19 17 14 16, 22 23 22 Mean Point Bi- Pre 20 19 21 serial Correla- tion Post 24 21 20 22‘ 25 27 25 Standard Error Pre 4.14 4.12 4.16 of Measurement Post 4.01 3.95 4.17 4.00 4.11 4.22 4.16 Standard Pre 6.71 6.37 8.02 DBV18t10n Post 7.35 6.97 6.08 6.39 8.35 8.83 8.36 Pre 34-62 41-68 36-73 Range Post 41-67 42-72 34-67 40-68 37-70 32-65 37-74 Mean Pre 50.4 54.0 51.26 Post 54.1 56.8 51.73 58.7 53.9 48.8 50.7 Number in Pre 34 31 50 Gmup PM 27 31 26 17 W aTime interval between pretest and posttest was six months. bTime interval between pretest and posttest was one week. CWhen the scale was administered to a group only once, the results are reported in the row labelled "Post." Description of Sample Groups I, J, and K Individuals attending master's degree full-year NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institutes at large univer- sities located in midwestern states. P - Undergraduate students attending a large northern midwestern university. ‘ L and M_- Individuals attending master's degree full-year NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institutes at large univer- sities located in southern states. N - Group of practicing school counselors in a northern midwestern state. APPENDIX F IPR COUNSELOR VERBAL RESPONSE SCALE AND MANUAL The scale was developed as part of a project supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, "Exploration of the Potential Value of Interpersonal Process Recall Technique (IPR) for the Study of Selected Educational Problems" (Project Nos. 7-32- 0410-216 and 7-32-0410-270). 225 Hmuoe Awuoomwm|coz m>wuomwmm HNMx‘I’MONCUO‘O .-4 mace IMHOHme %H0u Icoz nmuonxm somaumam scoz uamaoeam wan nocmum wag numocs loosen Icoz names: o>wu nwcwoo Lummu< momcoamom cofiumoflm>m uncommom uofiomcsoo mZOHmZMZHQ "some "mooneom MA MOAMmZDOU mmH "owosm IPR COUNSELOR VERBAL RESPONSE SCALE The Counselor Verbal Response Scale is an attempt to describe a counselor's response to client communication in terms of four dichotomized dimensions: (a) affect-cognitive; (b) understanding-nonunderstanding; (c) specific-nonspecific; (d) exploratory-nonexploratory. These dimensions have been selected because they seem to represent aspects of counselor behavior which seem to make theoretical sense and contribute to client progress. A fifth dimension--effective-noneffective-- provides a global rating of the adequacy of each response which is made independently of the four descriptive ratings. The unit for analysis is the verbal interaction between counselor and client represented by a client statement and coun- selor response. A counselor response is rated on each of the five dimensions of the rating scale, with every client-counselor interaction being judged independently of preceding units. In judging an individual response the primary focus is on describing how the counselor responded to the verbal and nonverbal elements of the client's communication. Description of Ratinngimensions I. Affect-cognitive dimension The affective-cognitive dimension indicates whether a counselor's response refers to any affective component of a client's communication or concerns itself primarily with the cognitive component of that communication. 226 227 A. Affective responses-~Affective responses generally make reference to emotions, feelings, fears, etc. The judge's rating is solely by the content and/or intent of the counselor's response, regardless of whether it be reflection, clarification, interpretation. These responses attempt to maintain the focus on the affective component of a client's communication. Thus they may: (a) Refer directly to an explicit or implicit reference to affect (either verbal or nonverbal) on the part of the client. Example: "It sounds like you were really angry at him." (b) Encourage an expression of affect on the part of the client. Example: "How does it make you feel when your parents argue?" (c) Approve of an expression of affect on the part of the client. Example: "It doesn't hurt to let your feelings out once in a while, does it?" (d) Presents a model for the use of affect by the client. Example: "If somebody treated me like that I'd really be mad." Special care must be taken in rating responses which use the word "feel." For example, in the statement "Do you feel that your student teaching experience is helping you get the idea of teaching?", the phrase "Do you feel that" really means "do you think that." Similar- ly the expression "How are you feeling?" is often used in a matter- of-fact, conversation manner. Thus, although the verb "to feel" is used in both these examples, these statements do not represent responses which would be judged "affective." B. Cognitive Responses--Cognitive responses deal primarily with the cognitive element of a client's communication. Frequently 228 such responses seek information of a factual nature. They generally maintain the interaction on the cognitive level. Such responses may: (a) Refer directly to the cognitive component of the client's statement. Example: “80 then you're thinking about switching your major to chemistry?" (b) Seeks further information of a factual nature from the client. Example: "What were your grades last term?" (c) Encourage the client to continue to respond at the cognitive level. Example: "How did you get interested in art?" II. Understanding-nonunderstanding dimension The understanding-nonunderstanding dimension indicates whether a counselor's response communicates to the client that the counselor understands or is seeking to understand the client's basic communica- tion, thereby encouraging the client to continue to gain insight into the nature of his concerns. A. Understanding responses--Understanding responses communicate to the client that the counselor understands the client's communica- tion--the counselor makes appropriate reference to what the client is expressing or trying to express both verbally and nonverbally-- or the counselor is clearly seeking enough information of either a cognitive or affective nature to gain such understanding. Such responses: (a) Directly communicate an understanding of the client's communication. Example: "In other words, you really want to be treated like a man." 229 (b) Seek further information from the client in such a way as to facilitate both the counselor's and the client's under- standing of the basic problem. Example: "What does being a man mean to you?" (c) Reinforce or give approval of client communications which exhibit understanding. Example: Cl: "I guess then when peOple criticize me, I'm afraid they'll leave me." Co: "I see you're beginning to make some connection between your behavior and your feelings." B. Nonunderstanding responses--Nonunderstanding responses are those in which the counselor fails to understand the client's basic communication or makes no attempt to obtain appropriate information from the client. In essence, nonunderstanding implies misunderstanding. Such responses: (a) Communicate misunderstanding of the client's basic concern. Example: C1: "When he said that, I just turned red and ' clenched my fists." Co: "Some people don't say nice things." (b) Seek information which may be irrelevant to the client's communication. Example: Cl: "I seem to have a hard time getting along with my brothers." C0: "Do all your brothers live at home with you?" (c) Squelch client understanding or move the focus to another irrelevant area. Example: Cl: "I guess I'm really afraid that other pe0ple will laugh at me." Co: "We're the butt of other people's jokes some- times." Example: Cl: "Sometimes I really hate my aunt." Co: "Will things be better when you go to college?" III. Specific-nonspecific dimension The specific-nonspecific dimension indicates whether the counselor's response delineates the client's problems and is central to the client's communication or whether the response does 230 not specify the client's concern. In essence, it describes whether the counselor deals with the client's communication in a general, vague, or peripheral manner, or "zeros in" on the core of the client's communication. NB: A response judged to be nonunderstanding must also be nonspecific since it would, by definition, misunderstand the client's communication and not help the client to delineate his concerns. Responses judged understanding might be either specific (core) or non- specific (peripheral) i.e. they would be peripheral if the counselor conveys only a vague idea that a problem exists or "flirts" with the idea rather than helping the client delineate some of the dimensions of his concerns. A. Specific responses--Specific responses focus on the core concerns being presented either explicitly or implicitly, verbally or nonverbally by the client. Such responses: (a) Delineate more closely the client's basic concerns. Example: "This vague feeling you have when you get in tense situations--is it anger or fear?" (b) Encourage the client to discriminate among stimuli affecting him. Example: "Do you feel in all your classes or only in some classrooms?" (c) Reward the client for being specific. Example: Cl: "I guess I feel this way most often with someone who reminds me of my father." Co: "80 as you put what others say in perspective, the whole world doesn't seem so bad, it's only when someone you value, like Father, doesn't pay attention that you feel hurt." B. Nonspecific responses-~Nonspecific responses indicate that the counselor is not focusing on the basic concerns of the client 231 or is not yet able to help the client differentiate among various stimuli. Such responses either miss the problem area completely (such responses are also nonunderstanding) or occur when the coun- selor is seeking to understand the client's communication and has been presented with only vague bits of information about the client's concerns. Thus such responses: (a) Fail to delineate the client's concern and cannot bring them into sharper focus. Example: "It seems your problem isn't very clear--can you tell me more about it?" (b) Completely miss the basic concerns being presented by the client even though the counselor may ask for specific details. Example: Cl: "I've gotten all A's this year and I still feel lousy." Co: "What were your grades before then?" (c) Discourage the client from bringing his concerns into sharper focus. Example: "You and your sister argue all the time. What do other people think of your sister?" IV. Exploratory-nonexploratory dimension The exploratory-nonexploratory dimension indicates whether a counselor's response permits or encourages the client to explore his cognitive or affective concerns, or whether the response limits a client's exploration of these concerns. A. Exploratory responses--Exploratory responses encourage and permit the client latitude and involvement in his response. They may focus on relevant aspects of the client's affective or cognitive concerns but clearly attempt to encourage further exploration by the client. Such responses are often openrended and/or are delivered in a manner permitting the client freedom and flexibility in response. 232 These responses: (a) Encourage the client to explore his own concerns. Example: Cognitive--"You're not sure what you want to major in, is that it?" Affective--"Maybe some of these times you're getting mad at yourself, what do you think?" (b) Assist the client to explore by providing him with possible alternatives designed to increase his range of responses. Example: Cognitive--"What are some of the other alternatives that you have to history as a major?" Affective--"In these situations do you feel angry, mad, helpless, or what?" (c) Reward the client for exploratory behavior. Example: Cognitive--"It seems that you've considered a number of alternatives for a major, that's good." Affective--"So you're beginning to wonder if you always want to be treated like a man.” B. Nonexploratory responses--Nonexploratory responses either indicate no understanding of the client's basic communication, or so structure and limit the client's responses that they inhibit the exploratory process. These responses give the client little oppor- tunity to explore, expand, or express himself freely. Such responses: Discourage further eXploration on the part of the client. Example: Cognitive--"You want to change your major to history." Affective-~"You really resent your parents treating you like a child." V. Effective-noneffective dimension Ratings on the effective-noneffective dimension may be made independently of ratings on the other four dimensions of the scale. This rating is based solely on the judge's professional impression of the appropriateness of the counselor's responses, that is how ’. adequately does the counselor's response deal with the client's verbal and nonverbal communication. This rating is not dependent on 233 whether the response has been judged affective-cognitive, etc. A rating of 4 indicates that the judge considers this response among the most appropriate possible in the given situation while a 3 indicates that the response is appropriate but not among the best. A rating of 2 indicates a neutral response which neither measurably affects client progress nor inhibits it, while a rating of 1 indicates a response which not only lacks basic understanding of the client's concerns but which in effect may be detrimental to the specified goals of client growth. "Illllllllllllllllllf