'IIIIIIIIIIIIllh I I I I f ....

LIPPARY

IIIIIII III III III III IIII III IIII IIII II III IIII . ' Margin §um

University

 

This is to certify that the

. - thesis entitled

Effects of Training in Self-Evaluation
and Critiquing Skills on Changes in
Counselor Behavior

presented by

Judith Taylor

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Doctoral degree in- Education.

 

\CLWQQM

Major professor

Date Februarx 20, 1978

 

0-7 639

l- - r- ' I

 

.npvifil‘

 

4 I. ' ‘ ‘ II. p. p

 

 

EFFECTS OF TRAINING IN SELF-EVALUATION AND
CRITIQUING SKILLS ON CHANGES IN

COUNSELING BEHAVIOR

BY

Judith Taylor

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and
Educational Psychology

1978

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF TRAINING IN SELF-EVALUATION AND
CRITIQUING SKILLS ON CHANGES IN
COUNSELING BEHAVIOR

BY
Judith Taylor

The goal of counselor training programs is to
produce counselors who can apply their skills in a pro-
fessional manner in the field. Throughout the training
program trainees are provided with opportunities to
develop knowledge and competencies necessary for a founé
dation of professional and ethical practice. Counselor
educators have also stressed the importance of facili-
tating trainees in their acquisition of the ability to
examine, criticize, and improve upon their counseling
performance. Self-evaluation is seen as essential to
the continued growth and development of the counselor,
both during their training and also in the field.

The purpose of this research was to assess the
effects of self-evaluation training and the use of a
self-evaluation scale on counselor behavior and effec-

tiveness. The subjects were 32 students from the MA

Judith Taylor

counselor training program at Michigan State University.
Subjects were enrolled in a required counseling process
course.

A blocking variable was used to control for pos-
sible confounding due to prior exposure to an alternative
model of self-evaluation. Subjects were randomly assigned,
within blocks, to one of three treatments. All subjects
participated in response training prior to pretesting on
three measures of counselor skills. After this initial
training subjects received either self-evaluation training
or training in a meaningful but unrelated counselor skill.
The final phase for all three groups consisted of role-
playing exercises. In this phase the experimental self-
evaluation group and one of the control groups had access
to the self-evaluation rating scale. The other control
group only had access to the part of the self-evaluation
scale addressing profiling of counselor responses. At
the conclusion of the roleplaying phase subjects took the
posttests. Testing covered three dependent variables.
These were counselor response discrimination ability,
evaluation skill, and counselor effectiveness. The
training and testing were primarily administered indi-
vidually in three stages and lasted 10 hours. Five to
six weeks after training subjects volunteered to take
three follow-up tests and to respond to a counseling

practicum survey questionnaire.

Judith Taylor

The dependent variables used in this study were
created to assess ability to discriminate effective
counselor responses, ability to evaluate a counselor-
client interaction, counselor performance, and supervision
preparation. Counselor performance was measured by.
ratings on each subject's audiotaped responses to client
stimuli. The other dependent variables were measured
from paper-and-pencil tests. Hoyt reliability coefficients
for the three forms of the discrimination tests were .49,
.34, and .57. The reliability estimates for the three
forms of the evaluation skill test were .56, .83, and .90.
Hoyt reliability for ratings on each form of the free-
response counselor performance test were .73, .75, and .57.

Two-way multivariate analysis of covariance, with
planned comparisons within the treatment factor, was the
primary statistical model used to analyze the data and
test the hypotheses. Chi-square tests were used to test
group differences on the practicum survey questionnaire.

The tests supported the four null hypotheses.

That is, no differences were found between the two con-
trol groups on the set of three posttests or on the prac-
ticum supervision preparation. Also no time effects were
found. The tests failed to support the two hypotheses
that predicted treatment differences between the self-

evaluation group and the combined control groups.

Judith Taylor

Results of the study suggested need for revision
and further research addressing both self-evaluation
training issues as well as issues revolving around the
problem of measuring counselor effectiveness. A variety
of research methodologies and designs should be used to
determine fully if self-evaluation itself is a valuable
skill to be acquired and thus included in counselor

preparation programs.

DEDICATION

To Frank my closest friend and my husband

and

to my parents Margaret and Tom Taylor

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In the preparation of this dissertation many
people have provided stimulation, assistance, and support.
I would like to acknowledge the following people for
their contributions.

I would like to thank Dr. Norman R. Stewart, my
major professor, for his guidance and help during the
preparation of this dissertation and during my doctoral
study at Michigan State University. I would also like
to thank the other members of my committee as follows:
to Dr. Richard Johnson for his creativity and enthusiasm
in discussing ideas; to Dr. William Schmidt for his sta—
tistical expertise, support, and friendship; to Dr. Thomas
Stachnik for his stimulating thoughts and questions. I
would like to express my appreciation to this group of
people and to say how much I enjoyed our committee meet-
ings and the sharing of experiences, concerns, and ideas.

I would like to thank the following individuals
for their devoted efforts as trainers in this study:
Margaret Beahan, Bill Brooks, Dave Brown, Ken Carrico,

Anne Chandler, Bill Dowling, Mary Edens, Jerry Goodman,

iii

Jill Hirt, Ray Husband, Mike Jones, Jan Lazar, Steve
Lazar, Don MacDonald, Karen Maroda, Tony McClain, Rick
Ober, Elinor Scherl, Sandy Simmons, Claudia Sowa, Larry
Urban, wyn Wade, Bruce Walker, and Hal Weinstein. I
would also like to thank all those people who helped in
the production of the videotapes, with special mention
to Ken Carrico, Barry Greenberg, Jill Hirt, Ray Husband,
Frank Jenkins, Karen Maroda, Nancy Martin, Tony McClain,
and Sandy Simmons who contributed their talents and end-
less hours. In addition, I would like to express my
appreciation to Rick Howard, Keith Ostien, Gil Schmidt,
and Marge Zerba for their time and effort as raters of
numerous audiotapes. Without the help of these indi-
viduals, I would not have been able to conduct this study.
I am especially grateful to Barry Greenberg for
his friendship and for the countless hours of selfless
effort he gave to this research project. I would like
to particularly thank Bob Wilson for his endless support
and encouragement. Special thanks go to Linda Cooper for
her flexibility and willingness to type materials at all
hours of the day and night. Many thanks to my friends
and colleagues in the Office of Research Consultation who
put up with much chaos and confusion during the running
of my research training. My particular thanks go to

Nancy Martin for her friendship and collaboration on our

combined research efforts.

iv

Finally, my endless thanks to Frank Jenkins,

without whom I would not have survived the ordeal.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Chapter

I
1. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

I
Introduction . . . . . .

Purpose . . .
Importance . .
Generalizability
Summary . . .

Review of Related Literature.

Definition and Theoretical Concepts of

Evaluation and Self-Evaluation.

Self-Evaluation Studies and Scales

Theoretical Support for Self-Evaluation

Model Used in This Study.

Measurement of Counselor Performance

and Effectiveness . . .
Summary . . . . . . .

2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Overview . . . . .
Research Hypotheses. .
Definition of Terms. .
Research Design . . .

Design over Subjects. .
Design over Measures. . .

Procedures. . . . . . .

Schedule of Experimental Procedures.

Population and Sample . .

vi

Page
ix

xi

ax O‘U‘INH H H

15
21

25
30

31
31
32
34
35

35
36

38

38
40

Chapter

3.

4.

Trainers . . . . . . . . .
Training for the Trainers . .
Trainer Consistency and Reliability
Roleplayers . . . . . . . .
Treatments . . . . . . . .

Administration of Treatments and Tests

Instrumentation and Data Collection. .

Discrimination~Test . . . . .
Evaluation Skill Test. . . . .
Free-response Test. . . . . .
Supervision Preparation Checklist.

Data Analysis . . . . . . . . .

Hypotheses Testing. . . . . . .
Supplementary Analyses . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . .

Overview. . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses Testing . . . .

Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3 .
Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 6 .
Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4 .
Summary of Hypotheses Testing .

Supplementary Analyses . . . . . .

Transfer of Learning: Posttest Dif-

ferences . . . . . . . . .
Transfer of Learning: Time Effect .
Transfer of Learning: Summary. .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS. .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .
The Problem . . . . . . . . .

Design and Method . . . . . . .
Results . . . .

vii

Page

41
42
44
48
51
62
71

72
76

85
86

86
89

89
91

91
92

92

99
102
108
111
111
115
116
116
118
118
118

118
121

Chapter

Limitations . . . . . . . . . .

Subjects . . . .
Design and Methodology
Measures . . . . . . . . . .

Discussion of Results. . . . . . .

Group Differences . . . . . . .
Effects of Treatment over Time . . .

Implications of the Study . . . . .
Suggestions for Future Research . . .
In Retrospect . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A. RELEASE FORM . . . . . . . . . .
B. DEFINITIONS OF COUNSELING RESPONSE TYPES .
C. INSTRUCTIONS FOR TRAINERS . . . . . .
D. INSTRUCTIONAL TEXT FOR SELF-EVALUATION
TRAINING . . . . . . . . . . .
E. MODEL ANSWERS FOR SELF-EVALUATION TRAINING
F. CHECKLIST FOR SELF-EVALUATION TRAINING. .
G. DISCRIMINATION POSTTEST. . . . . . .
H. RATING FORMS FOR EVALUATION SKILL TEST. .
I. STIMULI FOR FREE-RESPONSE POSTTEST . . .
J. RATING CRITERIA FOR FREE-RESPONSE TEST. .
K. TRAINING MATERIALS FOR RATING FREE-RESPONSE
TEST . . . . . . . . . . . .
L. PRACTICUM SUPERVISION CHECKLIST . . . .
M. FOLLOW-UP SOLICITATION LETTER TO SUBJECTS.
N. SELF-EVALUATION SCALE . . . . . . .

REFEENCES O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0

viii

Page
122
122
123
124
126

126
129

130

130
132

134
135
137

142
157
160
163
171
174

178

182
187
190
192

198

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
2.1 Cell Sizes in the Two-Way Design . . . . . 36
2.2 Trainers Response Frequencies . . . . . . 45

2.3 Trainers Reliability for the Response
Categories. . . . . . . . . . . . 49

2.4 Distribution of Subjects in Response Training
Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

2.5 Distribution of Subjects in Follow-up . . . 70

2.6 Distribution of Subjects Who Returned Super-
vision Checklist. . . . . . . . . . 71

2.7 Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Dis-
crimination Test in Both Its Total and
Reduced Forms. . . . . . . . . . . 75

2.8 Item and Test Analyses for the Discrimination
Test in Its Total Form. . . . . . . . 77

2.9 Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Evalu-
ation Skill Test. . . . . . . . . . 80

2.10 Interrater Reliability Coefficients for the
Free-response Test . . . . . . . . . 85

3.1 Stepwise Regression F Statistics for the
Three Pretests on the Set of Three
Posttests . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

3.2 Univariate and Step-Down 3 Statistics for the
Free-response Pretest and the Three Post-
teStS O O O O O O O O O C O O O 94

3.3 Multivariate Tests for Blocks, Treatment

Contrasts, and Interaction Effects on the
Three Posttests (N = 32) . . . . . . . 96

ix

Table

3.4

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.11

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.15

3.16

3.17

Cell and Combined Means on the Pretests and
Posttests in Their Reduced Forms . . . .

Multivariate, Univariate, and Step-Down F
Statistics for the Block Effect on the
Posttests . . . . . . . . . . .

Multivariate Tests for Time Effect and Time
Interactions (N=22) . . . . . . . .

Cell and Combined Means on the Pretests,
Posttests, and Follow-up Tests (N=22) . .

Frequency and Percentage of Responses to
"What Did You Do with the Audiotapes to
Prepare for Supervision?" . . . . . .

Frequency Count of Activities Engaged in to
Review Cases. . . . . . . . . . .

Univariate Analysis of Variance for Total
Number of Activities Engaged in to Review
cases 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O

Multivariate Tests for Block, Treatment
Contrasts, and Interaction Effects for
Rating Estimates . . . . . . . . .

Treatment Group Means and Standard Deviations
for Rating Estimates . . . . . . . .

Tabulation of Subjects' Responses to
Questions on the Practicum Survey Check-
list Describing Their Field Settings. . .

Multivariate Tests on the Three Posttests
that Represent Transfer of Learning
(N=32) o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Cell and Combined Means on the Full Form of
the Pretests and Posttests . . . . . .

Multivariate, Univariate, and Step-Down F_
Statistics for the Block Effect on the
Posttests in Their Full Form . . . . .

Multivariate Tests for Time Effects and Time-
by-Treatment Interactions on the Tests
Representing Transfer of Learning. . . .

Page

97

98

100

101

103

105

106

107

109

110

112

113

114

115

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Research design . . . . . . . . . . 37

2.2 Schedule of activities on Tuesday

February 15 . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.3 Schedule of activities on Saturday

February 19 . . . . . . . . . .1 66
2.4 Schedule of activities for trainers on

Saturday February 19 . . . . . . . 67
2.5 Schedule of activities on Tuesday

February 22 . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.6 Roleplayers schedule . . . . . . . . 69

xi

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF

THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Purpose

The overall purpose of this study was to evaluate
the effectiveness of a method of training in self-
critiquing and self-evaluation, and the effects of the
utilization of a self-evaluation scale. The study
investigated the effects of self-evaluation on counselor
behavior and counselor effectiveness. Specifically, the
purpose of the study was to determine whether the use of
a self-evaluation scale measuring important dimensions of
counselor behavior facilitated changes in counselor
effectiveness as measured by both paper—and-pencil tests
and simulations. A secondary purpose of the study was
to investigate whether the training in self-evaluation
transferred to counseling in practicum. Specifically,
the purpose was to determine whether those trained in
self-evaluation prepared themselves differently for
meetings with their practicum supervisor than those who

had not been trained in self-evaluation.

Importance

 

The aim of counselor training programs is to pro-
duce counselors who can take the skills they have acquired
and deve10ped in training and apply them in a professional
manner in the field. The training institution provides a
program of studies and supervised practice for a minimum
of one year of graduate counselor education. Opportuni-
ties are provided for the development of understanding
and competencies necessary for a foundation of ethical
practice. Beck (1971) states that these foundations
should encompass more than just knowledge and skills.

He also includes (a) continued self-improvement and con-
cern, (b) anticipation of the future by staying in touch
with the realities of a larger social scene, (c) assump-
tion of an active role in the development of one's pro-
fession. For Beck, "professionalism is a journey, never
a destination" (p. 321).

In order to provide opportunities for trainees to
develop competencies in counseling skills, there has been
an increasing emphasis on supervised counseling practice
in counselor education programs. The primary purpose
of practicum is the opportunity for continuing exper-
iences in a series of counseling relationships with
clients in an appropriate field setting. Thus, practicum
can be viewed as an opportunity to apply the skills,

methods, and techniques that have been acquired prior to

practicum. Practicum should also provide for a growth
experience that is spread over a period of time. In the
context of practicum, if not the whole training program,
two main points of concern have been stressed by counselor
educators: (a) Counselors should develop the ability to
examine, criticize, and improve upon their counseling
performance: and (b) Counselors should receive immediate
and concrete feedback on their performance in order to
improve upon it (Martin & Gazda, 1970).

The role of the supervisor in practicum has many
facets. The supervisor has responsibility to help the
counselor develop skills and to make some evaluative
judgment about the counselor's competency. Thus, the
supervisor is a consultant, an instructor, a counselor,
and an evaluator.

In supervision there is a process of feedback
which is instructional and affects future interactions
both between the counselor and the supervisor, and also
the counselor and his clients. Feedback is directed
toward changing the behavior of the counselor. The
dimensions of feedback cover a wide domain of counselor
behaviors and skills, such as facilitative behaviors of
empathy, warmth, and genuineness; profiles of verbal
content; and involvement with client and overall rating

of interview performance. The counselor trainee,

therefore, incorporates the feedback from the supervisor
and uses the feedback as a basis for changing counseling
behavior.

The typical model of supervision, therefore,
places emphasis on the feedback and evaluative functions
of the supervisor. But as Beck and Martin and Gazda
have suggested, opportunities for the development of
self-evaluation skills should be provided in training.
Self-evaluation is essential for the continued growth
and development of the counselor. The need for a method
of counselor self-evaluation extends beyond the training
program so that counselors in the field may evaluate
their own efforts in order to facilitate personal and
professional growth.

While external evaluation by a supervisor may
be growth producing, it may also be threatening. Thus,
the threat of evaluation by a supervisor could be
lessened, and communication between trainee and super-
visor would be improved, if the trainee, to some extent,
evaluated and critiqued his own performance by systematic
analysis of his own counseling interventions. Research
measuring scales have been suggested as a way to provide
an objective means of evaluating counselor trainee
behavior (Truax, Carkhuff, & Douds, 1964). Thus, the

use of such scales would help the counselor trainee to

focus more directly upon those dimensions of counseling
behavior which would make him more effective (Lister,
1966).

The topic of self-evaluation and its relevance
to counselor training is an area that requires research.
It appears that self-evalPation is a necessary skill for
counselors in the field, and as such should be learned

along with other counselor skills.

Generalizability

 

The findings of this study might have impact
beyond the present situation, though there are limits
on the extent of generalization. It would appear that
generalization: (a) would be limited to MA counselor
trainees who are in the initial stages of their training
and have not had a practicum experience, (b) may be
limited to MA counselor trainees who are students in a
behaviorally oriented training program, and (c) would be
limited to counseling effectiveness as defined by the
set of counseling behaviors and standards of effective-
ness used in this study. Within the population as
described above, replications would be possible to
explore whether self-evaluation by means of a self-rating

scale is a valuable counselor education learning technique.

Summary

The present study utilized training in self-
evaluation as a means to facilitate changes in counselor
trainee effectiveness. The efficacy of the self-evaluation
training package was tested using both paper-and-pencil
tests and simulations to provide measures of counselor
behavior and effectiveness. Results may be of interest

to both future researchers and counselor educators.

Review of Related Literature

 

Definition and Theoretical Concepts
of Evaluation and Self-Evaluation

 

 

Evaluation. Webster's dictionary defines

 

"evaluate" as follows: (a) to determine or fix the
value of, and (b) to examine and judge. That is, evalu-
ation involves examination against some criteria in order
to place some value on the object being evaluated. Stuf-
flebeam et al. (1971) stated that evaluation is "the pro-
cess of delineating, obtaining, and providing useful
information for judging decision alternatives" (p. xxv).
Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus (1971) view evaluation as the
attempt to describe, appraise, and in part influence the
changes which take place. Similarly Mannello (1964)
agrees that evaluation is a process which involves the
appraising of work or objects according to pre-established
criteria.

Evaluation is thus viewed as a tool and as such

it must be done for some purpose. Evaluation presupposes

a purpose or goal of the evaluation process which in edu—
cational settings is itself dependent on the purpose of
education (Remmers, Gage, & Rummel, 1960). One also
presumes that some action will result from the evaluation,
even if it is the decision to retain the status quo.
Otherwise, the activity of evaluating would be pointless.
Evaluation is thus a decision tool (Bloom et a1., 1971).
Hansen and Smith (1972) consider that evaluation should
"reflect the objectives of the experience" (p. 158) be

it recitation of facts, creativity, individual develop-
ment, or self-actualization. Hansen and Smith (1972)
delineate three purposes of evaluation: (a) diagnosis,
(b) motivation, and (c) reinforcement. If evaluation is
skillfully used it can be the means of concentrating and
emphasizing experiences that ought to be remembered and
utilized. Evaluation is, therefore, an intrinsic part
of education which, if appropriately used, can influence
the nature of learning.

Bloom et a1. (1971) have identified two classes
of evaluation: (a) summative evaluation and (b) formative
evaluation. Summative evaluation is the customary mode
of educational evaluation where final outcomes or results
are determined. It is the determination of the degree to
which ends have been accomplished. Formative evaluation
is the determination of in-process or on-going activities

and results. Formative evaluations are made during the

learning process, covering smaller units of learning,
and thus pointing to areas of remediation. Frequent
evaluations are made in order to diagnose and pace learn-
ing. Formative evaluation serves as an aid to the stu-
dent and a reinforcement for mastery. Thus "formative
evaluation provides information relative to whether we
are 'on target' and if we are not, it gives information
for midcourse corrections to assure that we will eventually
be successful" (Kaufman, 1972, p. 141). Thus, the type of
evaluation is inextricably associated with the purpose of
evaluation (Georgiades, 1970).

Underlying the concept of evaluation are the con-
cepts of quality and standards since, as Mannello (1964)
points out, evaluation involves comparison against pre-
established criteria. The goals of evaluation require
judgments of merit and worth against some standard. Rich
(1966) states that "educational standards are formulated
in the form of rules, principles or measures for use in
making quantitative and qualitative evaluations about
educational phenomena" (p. 160). A11 evaluations involve
possible comparison which presumes the use of criteria
to indicate the characteristics or considerations to be
taken into account in making an evaluation. Hare (1952)
has formulated the concept of classes of comparison as
a basis for philosophical discussion of evaluation. A
class of comparison is a class for which there are cri-

teria, and belonging to a class of comparison is a

necessary and sufficient condition for being susceptible
to evaluation. Thus, to decide a standard for judging
the merits of an object of a class is to decide on the
principle for choosing between objects of that class.

In summary, evaluation is a process involving
description and appraisal of work or objects against pre-
established criteria. Evaluation presupposes a definition
of the goals and purpose of evaluation, which in turn is
determined by the purpose of education. The type of
evaluation is thus inextricably connected to the purpose

of education.

Self-evaluation. Evaluation plays a major role

 

in education. The concept of evaluation has received
attention from philosophers. The techniques of evaluation
are addressed by measurement specialists and educational
psychologists. The use and misuse of evaluation has
received attention from educators and the public. On
the other hand self-evaluation, although discussed phil-
osophically and psychologically in the context of self-
awareness and self-understanding, has received little
attention from the educational field. Little research,
especially in the area of counselor education, has spe-
cifically addressed self-evaluation and consequently few
definitions or interpretations of self-evaluation have
been posited. In fact even Webster's dictionary does

not give a definition of self-evaluation. However, the

10

only major theoretical difference between evaluation

and self-evaluation is the agent of the activity of
evaluating. Thus, borrowing from Bloom et a1. (1971)
self-evaluation would be the attempt to describe and
appraise one's own work or activities, and thus in part
influence the changes which take place. Self-evaluation
thus presupposes a purpose of the activity and the avail-
ability of criteria or a standard for comparison.

Turning from the general concept of self-evalu-
ation to its particular application in the field of
counseling, one finds that it has long been assumed that
self-awareness and understanding are important ingredients
in effective counseling. Martin and Gazda (1970) defined
self-evaluation as the ability to examine, criticize,
and improve upon one's own counseling performance.
Erickson (1950) stresses the importance of self-evaluation
for "unless the counselor has evaluated his work, he will
be unable to take the correct steps to improve the ser-
vices he renders" (p. 141). Erickson indicates that
the evaluation must necessarily be related to the pur-
poses and objectives of the service. Hewer (1974) also
emphasizes the importance of "helping the beginning coun-
selor to be aware of what he is doing in the interview,
thus giving him insight into his own personal and profes-
sional development and helping him to form his own personal
style" (p. 66). Hewer, however, points out that often if

trainees listen to their tapes alone they find the

11

experience unproductive because they are unaware of
specifics to which they should be attending. Similarly
Hackney and Nye (1973) state that "self-evaluation is
more than listening to a re-run of the session" (p. 147).
They indicate that self—evaluation involves a self-
critiquing of counseling.skills and a self-assessment of
the conditions operating within the counselor as they
counsel. Self-evaluation is intended to be used if no
other person is available to provide supervision, and
thus it is a more global evaluation aimed at examining
the counselor's personal input into the session. Hackney
and Nye (1973) state that "awareness and sensitivity to
the kinds of messages present is an important prerequisite
for counselor effectiveness" (p. 6), and hence the coun-
selor needs to attend to and assess their own impact on
their clients. Thus self-evaluation involves: (a) the
identification of the counselor's own behaviors that need
attention or are trouble spots, (b) the identification of
a goal to alleviate the problem, and (c) the listing of
action steps that will permit the counselor to achieve
the goal.

Other writers and practitioners in the field of
counseling have addressed counselor self-evaluation but
in a more general fashion. Coombs and Soper (1963) pro-
posed that "what makes an effective professional worker

is a question, not of what methods he uses, but of how

12

well he has learned to use his unique self as an instru-
ment for working with other people" (p. 45). Carkhuff
(1968) echoes this idea when he states "the student must
be able to trust his own experience, for in the end his
own experience is all that he has to offer another"
(p. 260). Carkhuff (1971) outlined a three-phase cycle
for problem—solving with clients which is equally
applicable as a model for self—evaluation. The three
phases are: (a) self-exploration, (b) better self-
understanding, and (c) more appropriate action or
direction. Similarly, Gazda (1973) states "an obvious
first step in improving one's perceptual skills is to
achieve a more comprehensive understanding of oneself"
(p. 40). Gazda (1973) believes this understanding can
be accomplished to some degree by introspection and/or
by participating in a counseling or training experience
where feedback is given and received.
Counselor experiencing has been proposed by

Lister (1966) as an important variable in counselor-
client communication.

Counselors have focused on clients' experiencing

as a guide to their behavior during an interview.

. . . It seems that experiencing can also provide

the counselor with a kind of intrapersonal com-

munication which aids him in detecting and modifying

within the immediate present subtle, moment-by-

moment nuances of feelings within himself which

disrupt his communication with his client. (p. 55)

Thus Lister (1966) emphasizes the importance of the

counselor listening to himself and being in touch with

13

both his internal and external physical or emotional
discomfort. Lister (1966) further states that opportuni-
ties should be provided which are designed to enable the
trainee counselor to examine his subjective experience
during interviews. The standards for the preparation

of secondary school counselors indicate that opportuni-
ties for self-evaluation and the further development of
self-understanding should be provided for the counselor
candidate. The standards suggest that such opportunities
could be provided through activities such as laboratory
experience, supervised counseling, and self-analysis
through audio- and videotape recordings.

The importance of self-examination and personal
growth is emphasized in the literature and in the training
objectives of most counselor education programs. As
Johnston and Gysbers (1967) state,

. . . programs are typically organized toward a goal
which ultimately permits the counselor to separate
himself from institutionalized or formal learning
and arrive at a point of professional self-develop-
ment and continual learning which can be carried
out independently. (p. 335)
The need for a method of self-evaluation extends beyond
the training program. As Toffler (1970) states, "edu- v/
cation's prime objective must be to increase the indi-
vidual's 'c0pe-abi1ity'--the speed and economy with which
he can adapt to continual change" (p. 357). Customarily,

the in-service supervision of counselors is conducted

through staff meetings, review of audio- or videotape

14

recorded counseling sessions and consultation with
available counselor educators, supervisors, or colleagues.
There are many instances, however, when counselor super-
vision is impractical or impossible. As Martin and Gazda
(1970) state, "thus, self-evaluation is needed to enable
counselors to evaluate their own efforts, and such a
system should facilitate personal and professional growth"
(p. 88).

Practicum is seen as a vital element of counselor
training. Hansen (1965) indicates that the purpose of
practicum is to give trainees experience in the practical
application and integration of the principles and methods
which they have studied. However, as Johnston and Gysbers
(1967) suggest, since trainees know that the practicum
course on their transcripts connotes a level of competence
to prospective employers and colleagues, feelings of.
threat in the practicum experience are instilled. Thus,
as Emener (1973) states: "A prepracticum experience
early in the counselor candidate's program could minimize
this threat and initiate a self-evaluative process rather
than an external-evaluative (game) process" (p. 214). A
prepracticum experience thus offers an early initiation
to the process of self-supervision that will continue
even after the formal training program has been completed.

Self-supervision is not, however, intended to

minimize the importance of supervision in job settings

15

or the importance of colleague supervisory techniques or
practicum supervision. Indeed, as Gust (1970) suggests,
there is probably a continuum of counseling supervisory

experiences including the campus practicum, internship,

and on-the-job.

Self-Evaluation Studies
and Scales

 

 

Lister (1966) suggests that counselors have

tended to focus on clients' experiencing as a guide to
their own counseling behavior during an interview. Lister
proposed that research measuring scales would help the
counselor to focus more directly on the dimensions of
their own counseling behavior and thus enable the coun-
selor to understand and utilize his inner experience more
effectively. Truax, Carkhuff, and Douds (1964) suggested
that the use of scales as providing an objective means

of evaluating trainee behavior would also improve the

nature of supervision.

Studies. There are a few counselor education
research studies that have proposed a method of self-
evaluation utilizing counseling interaction scales.
Altekruse and Brown (1969) used a modification of the
interaction analysis instrument developed by Amidon
(1965). This instrument, the Counselor Self-Interaction
Analysis (CSIA), is used to identify responses that con-

stitute interaction between a counselor and client. Each

‘16

response is classified into one of ten categories. In

the final analysis, the counselor can determine who
dominated the session, how many direct responses versus
indirect responses the counselor used, the type of coun-
selor responses used most often, and the type of counselor
response made following specific counselee responses.
Results indicated that the self-analysis group who used
the scale changed significantly toward the use of more
indirective than directive responses.

A second study by Martin and Gazda (1970) used )K
four psychotherapeutic scales for evaluation and self-
evaluation of counseling performance. The dimensions of
interest were nonpossessive warmth, accurate empathy,
intensity and intimacy of interpersonal contact, and
therapist self-congruence. They were concerned with
questions of whether counselors can make valid self-
evaluations, whether the use of these scales improves
the nature of therapeutic conditions offered by counselors,
and whether the ability to self-evaluate is related to
gross personality orientations such as self-concept
strength and defensiveness. Results indicated that
self-evaluations had high concurrent validity compared
to supervisor evaluations, that significant gains were
only made in empathy, and that persons who tended to be
more self-critical were significantly more able to achieve

higher levels of intensity and intimacy.

17

The Altekruse and Brown (1969) study used a method
involving systematic analysis of audiotape recorded coun-
seling sessions. The assumption is that by critically
listening to one's counseling behavior "after the fact,"
one can achieve increased self-awareness and understanding.
Thus, the counselor would be more in touch with certain
aspects of their behavior actually during counseling
sessions which, as Gendlin (1962) has suggested, would
result in more clarity, more explicit meaning, and hence
improved counselor effectiveness. The Martin and Gazda
(1970) study used a method of evaluating the counseling
session as a whole in retrospect immediately after each
session. In both studies the self-evaluations were
independent of any other ongoing practicum supervision

evaluations or experiences.

Scales. There is a more extensive coverage in
the counselor education literature of scales to be used
by the trainee and supervisor together to evaluate the
trainee's counseling performance. One of the most well-
known set of scales for evaluating counseling performance
is that develOped by Carkhuff and his associates (1969).
There are eight scales based on the original scales of
Truax and Carkhuff (1967), covering the following
dimensions of the interpersonal process: empathic
understanding, respect, genuineness, facilitative self-

disclosure, concreteness, confrontation, immediacy of

18

relationship, and helpee self-exploration. These scales
are not only used for assessing interpersonal functioning
but are also an integral part of Carkhuff's training for
the helping professions. Thus, trainees learn to use
these scales to evaluate their own counseling performance
within the model of faciIItative counseling proposed by
Carkhuff. The scales have a five-point rating continuum
with a five representing a very high level of functioning.
The trainees should be aiming to function at a minimum

of a level three on each of the scales. Thus the scales
are used as a way to self-monitor counseling performance
and as a framework for improving performance. Gazda
(1973) modified the Carkhuff scales for use primarily in
the educational setting. He eliminated Carkhuff's
highest level of reSponding, since he had found that

a level five response was extremely rare in such settings.
Intensive long-term counseling relationships are not
usually feasible in educational settings.

Hewer (1974) developed a form to be used as an
aid to practicum supervision. Using the aid, the inter-
view process is analyzed by a supervisor into primary
and secondary dimensions as formulated by Carkhuff (1969).
The primary dimensions cover seven of the Carkhuff
dimensions and are divided into facilitative, action-
facilitative, and action. The secondary dimensions are

action-oriented toward behavioral changes addressing

19

major areas of functioning of the developmental stage
of young adulthood. Counselor responses are profiled,
thus revealing the "swing back and forth between the
facilitative and action dimensions" (p. 67). By keeping
the forms and reviewing them in sequence, trainees can
note their development and progress and the changes in
the flow of an individual interview. Hewer (1974)
cautions that analysis of interviews by responses may
lead to fragmentation that detracts from an evaluation
of overall effectiveness but this should not happen if
the supervisor spends time also discussing the global
aspects of the interview. Hewer does not indicate
whether the form could also be used by the trainee to
profile their own performance.

Wittmer (1971) developed a scale which was
directed more at exploring the time use of counselors.
The Counselor Activity Profile is a content analysis
scale that can be used objectively and systematically to
quantify and profile interview behavior according to the
amount of interview time devoted to 16 discrete counselor
responses. The profile analysis, according to Wittmer,
should be used in conjunction with supervision. Ini-
tially a supervisor performs the analysis, but Wittmer
indicates that trainees can learn to accurately analyze
and profile their own taped interviews preceding super-

visory sessions. Thus "this self-profiling permits the

20

counselor candidate to analyze and scrutinize his tech-
niques and procedures and profit more from the supervisory
discussion because of his ability to ask intelligent
questions about his interview behavior" (p. 289).

Poling (1968) develOped the Interview Rating Form
which consists of 11 concepts believed to be important
for counselors to consider as they listen to their
recorded interviews. The 11 concepts are as follows:
Opening, Rapport, Interview Responsibility, Interaction,
Acceptance/Permissiveness, Reflection of Feelings, Coun-
selor Responses, Value Management, Counseling Relationship,
Closing Techniques, and General. Each concept is rated
on a five-point scale, with space available on the form
for comments to assist a counselor in more general ways.
Poling (1968) found that counselors had little difficulty
in critically examining their interviews through the use
of the form, but he indicates that considerable time is
needed for orientation to the form "since it was felt
that the concepts were indicative of a particular and
perhaps unique orientation" (p. 35).

Hackney and Nye (1973) developed a Counselor 'K
Self-Rating Form that is to be used by a counselor to
assess ”the conditions operating within you as you
counsel” (p. 147). The form is divided into three parts:
Fear of Failure, Fear of Losing Control, and Need for

Structure. The items under each dimension are scored

 

21

on a ten-point scale for the first and fifth client.
Thus, a counselor can identify areas that need attention.
A goal for dealing with the problem is identified and
also action steps that will lead to achievement of the
goal. The goal and action steps are written down on the
form. Thus the form has a component for influencing
changes in counseling behavior. Hackney and Nye (1973)
also developed a counseling strategies checklist to be
used by the supervisor. Again the trainee, together with
the supervisor, identifies goals and action steps to
remediate any problems reflected in the ratings.

Several other checklists have been developed for
use by counselors and supervisors to evaluate counseling
interviews (Erickson, 1950; Porter, 1950; Snyder, 1945;
Markey, Frederickson, Johnson, & Julius, 1970; Walz &
Johnston, 1963).

Theoretical Support for Self-Evaluation
Model Used in This Study

 

 

The rating forms described in the previous
section are based on concepts that the developer of the
rating system considers to be important ingredients of
effective counseling. Thus, the rating forms reflect
the counseling model or orientation of its developer.
The criteria used to evaluate the counselor are those
that the counseling model holds to be indicators of

good counseling.

22

For the purposes of this study a model for the
counselor role during the beginning stages of a counseling
relationship was developed. The model was based on the
model of the counseling process that was developed at
Michigan State University. Systematic Counseling is an
"approach in which the various aspects of the counseling
process are clearly identified and organized into a
sequence designed to resolve the clients' concerns effi-
ciently as well as effectively“ (Stewart, Winborn, Johnson,
Burks, & Engelkes, 1978, p. 50). The model used in this
study represents an adaptation of those subsystems
addressing the initial stages of a counseling relation-
ship, while also incorporating elements from the Carkhuff

(1969) and Gazda (1973) model of facilitative counseling.

Systematic Counseling: The counselor's role.

 

In this approach, counseling is viewed as a learning
process. Within this sequential model the counselor is
seen as the central point around which counseling occurs.
The counselor is viewed as a professional who provides
direction, continuity, support, encouragement, and
positive reinforcement. The counselor is expected to
demonstrate certain attitudes towards clients and towards
themselves. As stated in the Performance Criteria Manual

for Systematic Counseling:

 

The counselor must work to develop a sound relation-
ship with the client. He must remember that he has
the responsibility for developing a counseling

23

relationship which has additional qualities beyond

those of trust, understanding, and respect. It is

a relationship in which the counselor's professional

skills and knowledge are utilized in order to help

the client attain personal goals. (p. 336)
Another skill emphasized in the Systematic Counseling
model is the ability to identify a client's important
concerns through listening and questioning. Counselors
are expected to check out their awareness of the client's
concerns by means of restatement, reflection, and summari-
zation. The counselor is also expected to identify the
specifics of a client's concern, namely the response,
temporal, and situational aspects of the problem. Thus
during the beginning stages of counseling emphasis is
placed on establishing a sound counseling relationship

and helping the client to express problems, concerns,

feelings, and goals.

Carkhuff model. Carkhuff (1969) has outlined a

 

two-phase helping process. The first phase is the facili-
tation phase and is directed toward establishing a base
for building a good relationship with the client. The
second phase is the action or initiative phase. The

first phase is the one of concern to this study. In

the facilitative phase the counselor builds his base

with the client by responding with empathy, respect, and
warmth. This should lead to client self-exploration,

which is the first goal of helping.

24

Counselor role model. An outline of the counselor

 

role model used in this study is as follows:

I. The counselor is expected to communicate core
conditions for counseling.

During the first few sessions the counselor's
objectives should primarily be: (a) to create an
atmosphere in which the client can feel safe to
say the things he wants to say, and (b) to help
the client realiZe that the counselor is listen-
ing and understanding what the client is saying.
Thus, the first goal of the counselor should be
to provide and communicate facilitative core
conditions for counseling.

II. The counselor is expected to help the client
explore problems, concerns, and feelings.

The second goal of the counselor is to facili-
tate client self-exploration which usually leads
to a better self-understanding of concerns, which
in turn makes possible a more successful course
of action. This exploration of problems, con-
cerns, and feelings provides the foundation on
which the rest of the counseling process is based.

The role model was operationalized into ten behavioral
dimensions to be utilized by counselor trainees in
evaluating their own counseling performance. The format
for making the self-evaluation was an adaptation of the
Counselor Self-rating Form developed by Hackney and Nye
(1973), incorporating the selection of action steps to
modify behavior within each dimension. The self-evaluation
instrument included as a first task an analysis of coun-
selor performance by profiling counselor responses using
an adaptation of the Counselor Activity Profile (Wittmer,
1971). This task was followed by the rating of behavioral

dimensions and the selection of action steps to modify

counselor behavior.

25

Measurement of Counselor Performance
and Effectiveness

 

Patterson (1969) in writing about issues of
counselor selection and effectiveness stated, "it is the
failure to define and delimit counseling which perhaps has
contributed to the problem of determining what those who
are called counselors shohld be expected to do" (p. 81).
He goes on to present a definition of counseling as
follows:
Counseling is a relationship, involving verbal
interaction, between a professionally trained
person and an individual or group of individuals
voluntarily seeking help with a problem which is
psychological in nature, for the purpose of
effecting a change in the individual(s) seeking
help. (p. 82)

Thus Patterson emphasizes the characteristics of the

counselor in the counseling relationship as important

variables for measuring counseling effectiveness.

An alternative view is raised by Krumboltz
(1966, 1969) who considers that the behavior of the
client, not the behavior of the counselor, is the impor-
tant variable to be explored, measured, and researched.
Thus effective counseling is measured by changes in
client behavior.

Since this study was aimed at effecting changes
in counselors' performance at only one stage of the
counseling process, and not the totality of counseling

effectiveness, the measurement of counselor performance

was limited to evaluation of counselor communication.

26

Most judgments of counselor communication have been made
in the following types of situations: (a) discriminating
various counselors' responses, (b) communicating responses
to various client stimuli expressions, (c) rating inter-
actions between counselors and clients via audiotape
recordings or videotapes,,or (d) ratings of counselors

> by clients (Carkhuff, 1969; Truax & Mitchell, 1971;
Wallston & Weitz, 1975). The use in this study of
counselor trainees in a prepracticum course excluded

the possibility of using client ratings of counselor per-
formance. Client rating, although useful as a source of
evaluation and feedback for the counselor, would also be
lacking in standardization.' Thus, three alternative
sources of evaluation of counselor communication will

be addressed.

Discriminating counselor responses to client
stimuli. Discrimination is described by Hargrove and
Porter (1971) as "discerning what would be helpful for
the helper to do or say in the particular situation"
(p. 28). Carkhuff (1969) explored the possibility of
using discrimination as a predictor of counseling
effectiveness. Carkhuff's discrimination procedure
involves presenting the counselor with examples of
varying levels of counselor-offered conditions, and
asking the counselor to identify or discriminate the

level at which the counselor in the excerpt is functioning.

27

Carkhuff's hope and expectation was that persons dis-
criminating at high levels would be able to "translate
their discrimination into communicative skills" (p. 113).
However, studies relating the discrimination assessments
to meaningful indexes of training and counseling outcome
were not very fruitful (Carkhuff, Kratochvil, & Friel,
1968; Anthony & Carkhuff, 1969). Carkhuff demonstrated
that a high-level communicator is also capable of high
levels of discrimination, but that the ability to dis-
criminate accurately does not guarantee that one can or
will communicate or respond accurately. Thus, as Hargrove
and Porter (1971) state,

It is important to note, therefore, that measures

of discrimination are not accurate predictors of

interpersonal communication skills and should not

be used as sole criteria for selection of par-

ticipants in training programs. Other relevant

measures, such as communication indices, should

be used to insure accuracy in assessing inter-

personal communication skills. (p. 29)

Carkhuff concludes that the dimension of dis-
crimination is one of potentially critical significance
as "at a very minimum we must select [trainees] to
discriminate effective from ineffective helping pro-
cesses" (p. 113). Similarly, Hargrove and Porter state,
"in the helping process, helper discriminations provide
the basis for communication" (p. 29). Emener (1973)
used the Carkhuff Discrimination Index as one measure

to evaluate the effectiveness of a prepracticum laboratory

training experience.

28

Communicating responses to client stimuli. Cark-

 

huff (1969) states, "the best index of communicative
functioning is an assessment of the level of responses
to standardized and representative helpee stimulus
expressions" (p. 94). Carkhuff developed a set of brief
client stimulus expressions to which the helper responds
in a manner they consider most appropriate and helpful.
The helpee stimuli may be on audiotape or in written
form, and similarly the helper may reSpond verbally or
in writing. The responses are then rated within Cark-
huff's model of facilitative functioning. Carkhuff
(1969) summarizes the research on this method of assess-
ing counselor functioning as follows:
While the best index of future functioning in the
helping role remains present functioning in the
helping role, written helper responses to standard,
audio helpee stimulus expressions yield fairly
accurate and efficient estimates of the helper's
functioning in the helping role, particularly
when ratings on the written form are high. (p. 110)
Several research studies have employed a free-
response test as a measure of counselor performance.
Wallston and Weitz (1973) used a Tape Excerpt Response
Procedure which consisted of eight videotaped simulated
interview segments. Respondents wrote down the response
they felt would be most helpful, and these responses
were scored for empathy by trained judges. Emener (1973)

used written responses to written stimuli. The responses

were rated using Carkhuff's Rating Scale (1969). Thayer,

29

Peterson, Carr, and Merz (1972) developed a critical
incidents videotape consisting of 35 simulated segments.
This was basically developed as a training technique, but
has been used to assess the responses of teacher and
counselor trainees. Thayer et a1. (1972) suggest that
the tape could be used as'a tool for continuous evalu-
ation or retraining of counselor trainees. Also, they
suggest that it may assist in the selection or self-
selection process for counselor education programs.

Other people have used a simulated format as a
training technique. Spivack (1973) developed a simulated
critical incidents videotape to which trainees either
write their responses or answer the clients' statements
verbally. Kagan, as part of his Interpersonal Process
Recall training package, has a series of vignettes-pro-
viding affect simulation (Kagan & Schauble, 1969). A
video simulation approach has been used by others to
help trainees develop an effective repertoire of coun-
seling reSponse leads in specific instances (Delaney,

1969; Eisenberg & Delaney, 1970).

Rating interactions between counselors and
clients. With the increasing use of audio and video
recording techniques, more studies have been using inter-
actions between counselors and clients to provide.
measures of counselors' performance. The interactions

may be in the form of roleplays with coached clients or

30

actual interviews with clients (Markey et al., 1970;
Martin & Gazda, 1970; Altekruse & Brown, 1969; Emener,
1973; Spivack, 1972). The procedure generally involves
selecting several segments from an interview which are
then rated using one of the many rating systems available.
This method of evaluationkrepresents a high-fidelity
measure of counselor performance (Stone, 1975). The
problems with this method of evaluation lie in the area
of standardization of assessment. Even with roleplaying
coached clients the researcher cannot control the role-
player's performance or ensure that the role is consis-

tently sustained (Prusok & Felker, 1972).

Summary

In reviewing research and theoretical writings
on evaluation and self-evaluation, and their relevance
for counselor training, it appears that the topic and
its techniques need further study. Evaluation is a
process involving description and appraisal according
to pre-established criteria. Formative evaluation can
be used to influence changes in learning. Thus, evalu-
ation presupposes a goal or purpose of the activity
which should be based on the model of counseling being
used. Various methods of measuring counseling performance

and effectiveness have been explored.

CHAPTER 2
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Overview

Experimental procedures were used in this study
to assess the effects of self-evaluation training and the
use of a self-evaluation rating scale on counselor
behavior and counselor effectiveness. The self-evaluation
training was presented in a multi-media package involving
an instructional text, a videotaped concept presentation
with accompanying exercises, discrimination tasks with
feedback from a trainer, and roleplaying practice sessions
to apply the rating scale to counselor performance. Two
control conditions were also utilized in order to control
for the two variables considered crucial in the self-
evaluation training package: namely, (a) training in
self-evaluation and (b) use of the self-evaluation rating
scale. In place of the self-evaluation didactic training,
these two control groups received training in a meaningful
but unrelated counselor skill that would be considered
more traditionally a part of the counselor training pro-

gram.

31

32

All subjects were tested at three points in
time: pretest, posttest, and a follow-up after approxi-
mately six weeks' time. All measures were devised espe-
cially for this study and the parallel study (Martin,
1978). Two measures were pencil-and-paper tests assess-
ing response discrimination and evaluation ability. The
third measure involved the recording of each subject's
actual responses made in simulated dyadic interactions
with a client. The audiotaped responses were rated by
trained raters for counseling effectiveness. The fourth
measure was a checklist addressing activities trainees
engage in to prepare for supervisory sessions.

This chapter will outline the experimental design
and procedures used to administer treatment, collect

data, and analyze results.

Research Hypotheses

 

The primary purpose of this study was to examine
the effects of training in self-evaluation and the utili-
zation of a self-evaluation rating scale on various coun-
selor behaviors. Specifically, it was questioned whether
students trained in self-analysis and evaluation do
better on three discrete measures than students who lack

this training. Briefly, the contrasts may be stated as:

ggestion l:

 

Do those trained perform better on measures of
counselor performance and effectiveness?

33

Question 2:

 

Do those trained perform better on measures of
evaluation skill?

Question 3:

 

Do those trained prepare themselves differently for
meetings with the supervisor?
Because of the exploratory nature of this research, it
was difficult to develop expectations of results, since
such expectations would involve extrapolating from studies
using different training techniques and measures. How-
ever, two hypotheses are stated directionally because
it was predicted that one treatment was superior to the

other two combined together. These hypotheses are:

H1:

The experimental self-evaluation group mean scores
will exceed the combined control groups' mean scores
on (a) the two measures of counselor performance

and effectiveness, and (b) the measure of evaluation
skill, at the posttest.

H2:

The experimental self—evaluation group will respond
differently from the combined control groups on the
measure of preparedness for supervision.
In formulating two hypotheses insufficient evidence
existed to predict that one treatment would be superior

to the other and they are therefore stated in null form.

These hypotheses are:

The

34

No posttest differences will be found between the
two control groups on (a) the two measures of
counselor performance and effectiveness and (b) the
measure of evaluation skill.

H4:

6
No differences will be found between the two control
groups on the measure of preparedness for supervision.

final hypotheses are stated in the null form.

There will be no time effect, between posttest and
follow-up, on level of performance on (a) the two
measures of counselor performance and effectiveness
and (b) the measure of evaluation skill, for all
those subjects who were present for both the post-
tests and follow-up tests.

6:

There will be no time-by-treatment interaction on
(a) the two measures of counselor performance and
effectiveness and (b) the measure of evaluation
skill, for those subjects who were present for
both the posttests and follow-up tests.

Definition of Terms’

 

The following terms were used consistently

throughout this study. To facilitate understanding they

were defined as follows:

Action Steps.--a list of possible options for

 

modifying counselor behavior within a behavioral

dimension.

35

Charting.--recording the frequencies of 11

counselor response categories.

Counselor Response Profile.--the tally sheet

 

section of the Self-Evaluation Scale used for recording

counselor response frequencies.

Counselor response.--verbal statements made by

 

a counselor when responding to a client.

Self-Evaluation Scale.--the self-evaluation

 

package consisting of the two tasks of charting and
rating. The scale was used by the subjects to evaluate

their own audiotaped counseling performance.

Specific Ratings.--the section of the self-

 

evaluation scale addressing 10 behavioral dimensions
considered important during the first few counseling
sessions. Each dimension was rated on a three-point

scale: Exceptional-Adequate-Inadequate.

Research Design

 

Design over Subjects

 

An experimental design with one treatment factor
and one blocking variable was used. Subjects were
blocked on the basis of their enrollment in another
class since one section of this class had been exposed

to another self-evaluation model. After blocking,

36

subjects were randomly assigned to one of the three

treatment groups. Cell sizes are shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1

Cell Sizes in the Two-Way Design

 

 

 

Blocking
Treatment Group . A Total
Prior Exposure Nonexposure
N = 14 N = 18

Self-Evaluation n = 7 n = 9 n = 16
Charting and

Rating Control n = 4 n = 4 n = 8
Charting Control n = 3 n = 5 n = 8

 

Design over Measures

 

The study employed a posttest and follow-up test
design with multiple dependent measures. Pretest measures
were taken for possible use as covariates. The design
is illustrated in Figure 2.1.

The dependent variables were:

1. Discrimination ability.--measured by multiple

 

choice responses to a pencil-and-paper measure designed
to test discrimination of appropriate counselor response
in situational client contexts. The three alternate
forms of this measure used at the three testing occasions
were parallel in form and content. The posttest form is
reproduced in Appendix G as a representative sample of

the Discrimination Test.

37

Measures
Follow-up
Posttests Tests
M1 M2 M3 M2 M3

 

Self-Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Group 16
Charting and Rating 8
Control Group
Charting Control 8
Group

Legend: M1 = Free-Response Test

M2 = Evaluation Skill Test

M3 = Discrimination Test

M4 = Supervision Preparation Checklist

Figure 2.1. Research design

38

2. Evaluation skill.--measured by the discrepancy

 

between the subject's ratings and expert ratings on
various dimensions of an audiotaped counselor-client
interaction. The rating sheet used for the evaluation
skill test is located in Appendix H. The pretest used

a shortened form of the rating sheet employed in the post-
test and follow-up test. The shortened rating sheet is

also found in Appendix H.

3. Counselor effectiveness.--measured by ratings

 

of the subject's verbal responses in the free-response
test. The criteria used by the raters to measure this

variable are in Appendix J.

4. Supervisiongpreparation.--measured by a

 

pencil-and-paper self-report checklist. This measure

is located in Appendix L.

Procedures

 

Schedule of Experimental
Procedures

 

 

The various functions of the experiment were
completed according to the following schedule during

the period January 1977 through May 1977:
1. Research proposal approved, January 14, 1977.

2. Students enrolled in the two sections of
Ed 8190 taught by Dr. N. R. Stewart informed that an

intensive skill integration workshop would be offered

39

in February 1977. Obtained students' schedules and
decided that the workshop would be offered in three
sections:
(a) February 15, in lieu of the regular class
meeting; 3 hours.
(b) February 19, a Saturday workshop; 4 hours.
(c) February 22, in lieu of the regular class

meeting; 3 hours.

3. Recruited trainers and conducted training

for trainers, early February 1977.

4. Pilot tested discrimination instrument in
an M.S.U. off-campus MA counseling class at Grand Rapids,

Michigan, February 1977.

5. Expert validation of discrimination instru-

ment, February 1977.

6. Arranged schedules for subjects and trainers.
Assignment of subjects to treatment groups was random.
Assignment of subjects to trainers was random except in
three cases where the subject had a prior commitment,

February 1977.

7. Administered response training unit and pre-

tests on a staggered starting schedule, February 15, 1977.

8. Administered response training unit and pre-

tests to one student who was absent on February 15. Due

40

to scheduling problems, the training was given by the

researcher, February 18, 1977.

9. Ran the experimental and control treatments

on a staggered starting schedule, February 19, 1977.

10. Administered experimental treatments to two
students who were unable to be present for the Saturday
workshop. Training was given by the researcher,

February 20 and 21, 1977.

11. Concluded administration of final unit of
treatments, administered posttests, and collected release

forms, February 22, 1977.

12. Contacted subjects for six weeks' follow-up,

April 1977.

13. Administered follow-up measures on an indi-

vidual basis, April 1977.

14. Collected supervision data, April 1977.

POpulation and Sample

 

Subjects were selected from the Michigan State
University MA counselor training program. Students
enrolled in either the morning or afternoon sections of
a required course for counseling majors, ED 819D, The

Counseling Process, participated in the Intensive Skill

 

Integration Workshop. The Counseling Process class is

a pre-practicum course that is offered in the winter

41

term at which time most of the students are in the second
term of their counseling program. Within the MA counselor
training program there are students specializing within
one of five different areas: school-elementary, school-
secondary, community college, urban, and rehabilitation.

All students in the morning and afternoon sections
of ED 819D participated in the training workshops. At
the end of the training, students were given the option
of signing the release form allowing the data to be used
in this study and the parallel study (Martin, 1978).
Thirty-three students involved in this study consented
to release the data. One member of one of the control
groups did not consent to release the data. Because of
the need for equal E's per cell, one subject was randomly
discarded from the self-evaluation treatment group, and
the usable 2 reduced to 32.

At the end of the winter term and at the beginning
of the spring term, students were contacted to solicit
their participation in the follow-up measures. Students
agreed to participate and release the data to the
researcher. A copy of the release forms used in this
study and the parallel study is found is found in

Appendix A.

Trainers
A total of 24 trainers participated in the study.

All of the trainers held an MA degree in counseling,

42

counseling psychology, or a related discipline, and all
but three of the trainers were currently enrolled in a
PhD counseling proqram at Michigan State University.
Most of the trainers had experience as a counseling
practicum supervisor. Twenty of the trainers were
involved in the initial response training unit, and
depending on schedules and random assignment, worked
with one to four subjects. Seventeen of the trainers
were involved in the Saturday training workshop. The
same trainers were used in all treatment groups, thus
controlling for personal-social and professional charac-
teristics. Within schedule limitations, trainers were
randomly assigned to subjects at all phases of the

training.

Training for the Trainers

 

Training for the trainers was held in two two-hour
units. Because of schedules several training sessions
were held for each training unit. Training encompassed
the experimental and control treatments for this study,
and also a third treatment which was part of the parallel
study (Martin, 1978). Training was given by both
researchers working as a team.

The first training unit addressed an introduction
to the whole project, and the definition and discrimi-
nation of the 10 counselor responses that were the basis

for both of the research studies. Each trainer received

43

a list of the 10 definitions (Appendix B). The defi-
nitions, similarities, and differences of the 10 response
modes were discussed, and examples presented in order

to train the trainers to be able to identify types of
responses. A 30-item audiotaped exercise of counselor
reSponses to be identified and categorized was given to
the trainers and then discussed. The first training
session included distribution of materials relevant to
the parallel study.

The second training session for the trainers
primarily addressed the treatment packages for the
Saturday workshop. First, however, the trainers were
given a lS-item audiotaped counselor response identifi-
cation test. The purpose of this test was to establish
consistency of trainer identification of the 10 response
types. Then the trainers were informed of (a) the overall
plan for the activities of the Saturday workshop, (b) the
three different treatments that they were to be involved
with, and (c) the general nature of the tasks they were
to perform.

The primary focus of the training for the self-
evaluation package was to familiarize the trainers with
the two components of the self-evaluation scale. Written
instructions and materials were distributed (Appendix C).
During the training session each participant became

familiar with the self-evaluation instructional text and

44

discussed the use of the self-evaluation scale. Examples
and amplification of the constructs underlying the chart-
ing and rating tasks were given.

At the time of the second training session for
the trainers, materials for the control groups treatment
phase on writing behavioral objectives were not available.
The nature of this treatment was outlined and briefly
discussed. Trainers were informed about the tasks they
were to perform. At the conclusion of the training, the
trainers were provided with a summary of their role in
the Saturday workshop.

Trainer Consistency and
Reliability

 

 

The trainers' responses to the 15-item response
identification test were analyzed in two ways. First, a
frequency table of items by categories was computed.
Second, intraclass correlation coefficients were calcu-
lated. The first method provides a means for exploring
patterns across the categories. It indicated which cate-
gories presented some difficulty to the trainer and also
showed the nature of the difficulty. The intraclass
correlations provide information about the reliability

of each category by itself.

Consistengy. The frequency of the 24 trainers'

 

categorization of counselor responses on the lS-item

response identification test is shown in Table 2.2.

45

 

 

 

mEmuH

N ON H OH OH NH H H COHUMDmHmHchH
N MH m H m H m N m coHHMOHMHHMHU
v m .mM N m mm COHuomHmmm
mm m N H mm coHumucoumcou
H N oH 0>HumsHm>m
mm b H ucmEmoHomchm
H «M COHummmmSm
«M. 0>HuosuomcH
H .wm ocHsoHHmmso
m N m .wm ucmfimuoummm
mH vH NH NH HH 0H m m h w m e m N H
mmHHommuou

 

mOHocmsqum mmcommmm mnmchHB

N.N OHQMB

46

Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, ll, 14, and 15 were each
identified by over 80% of the 24 trainers as belonging
to one response category. The categories consistently
distinguished over these 10 items were restatement,
questioning, informative, suggestion, reinforcement,
confrontation (twice), reflection (twice), and inter-
pretation. On the remaining five items there was little
agreement between trainers as their answers covered
several categories. On item 5 there was confusion
between the categories of reinforcement and evaluation.
However, item 11 was identified by 23 out of the 24
trainers as reinforcement. This suggests that the
trainers could identify reinforcement except when pitted
against an evaluation categorization. Also, they could
not consistently identify evaluative responses. Item 6
indicates that there was a lack of distinction, across
trainers, between the categories of evaluation, reflec-
tion, and interpretation. Reflection was consistently
identified by over 80% of the trainers on two other
items, while interpretation was only clearly identified
once. InSpection of item 9 suggests that there was one
lap between the categories of clarification and inter-
pretation. No single item was clearly identified as
clarification, suggesting that the trainers could not
identify this category with any consistency. Items 12
and 13 both indicate confusion between the categories of

reflection, clarification, and interpretation.

47

In summary, four categories presented difficulty
to the trainers. These were evaluation, reflection,
clarification, and interpretation. In discussion the
trainers indicated that they felt that reflection and
interpretation were on a continuum, since additive
reflection is of an interpretive nature. Also, clarifi-
cation could just be a brief summarization, thus being
more similar to restatement or reflection, or clarifi-
cation could be more interpretive by drawing content
together in a meaningful manner. Only seven out of these
10 categories were utilized in this study, with primary
emphasis being on restatement, questioning, informative,
reinforcement, and reflection. Interpretation and sug-
gestion were subsumed under a heading of "leading responses
made by the counselor." These five main categories, with
the possible exception of reflection, were consistently
identified by the trainers. Reflection was consistently
identified twice, the confusion occurring when it was

pitted against interpretation.

Reliability. An intraclass correlation coefficient

 

of reliability was computed for each response category.

The formula used was

_ EEItems - MSItems x Trainers
r " MS + (t-l) MS

Items Items x Trainers

48

where t is the number of trainers, and the mean squares

are computed from a data matrix where trainers' responses
were recoded to either zeros or ones. The recoding was
done for each category on the basis of presence or absence
of a response for that category. Thus, for example, in
category 4, suggestion, every time a trainer had identified
a response as suggestion their answer was recoded to one,
and all other answers were recoded to zero. The resulting
correlations for each response category are shown in

Table 2.3. Of the 10 response categories, only seven were
of primary interest to this study. The lowest reliability
coefficient for these seven categories was for interpreta-
tion at .48. A reliability coefficient of over .75 is con-
sidered good. Thus, five of the remaining categories met
this criteria. An average reliability across all seven
categories was obtained using a Fisher's r to z transfor-
mation on the square roots of the reliability coefficients.
This resulted in an overall reliability estimate for the
trainers of .89. A second overall reliability estimate

of .80 was obtained by averaging the reliability coef-

ficients.

Roleplayers

 

A total of 15 roleplayers volunteered to partici-
pate in the final phase of training for all subjects in
this study. Thirteen of the roleplayers were undergraduate

residence hall advisors from one of the major dormitories

49

Table 2.3

Trainers Reliability for the Response Categories

 

 

Category Reliability Coefficient
Restatementa .77
Questioninga .96
Informativea 1.00
Suggestiona .96
Reinforcementa .79
Evaluative .45
Confrontation .72
Reflectiona .63
Clarification .22
Interpretationa .48

 

aResponse categories used by the trainers in the
self-evaluation training.

50

on the Michigan State University campus, with experience
in interpersonal skills. They were paid at the rate of
$3.00 per hour. Volunteers were solicited by a graduate
advisor from the dormitory. The researcher then made
telephone contact with each of these 13 roleplayers to
arrange schedules and met ggth 10 of them on Sunday,
February 20. In this session the roleplayers were informed
of the details of their activities and given their indi-
vidual schedules and provided with written copies of the
roles they were to play. The roles were discussed and
embellished to indicate the limits of each of the two
types of roles, namely that the first role was to be
played openly and straight forwardly, whereas the second
role was to be portrayed with more reticence and withhold-
ing of the basic concern. The other three undergraduate
roleplayers met with the graduate advisor at a later time
in order to receive instructions and written materials.
Due to schedule problems and overlapping treatment
times, two other roleplayers were required for need times.
One of these was a student in the Counselor Education
doctoral program at Michigan State University, and the
other was a graduate philosophy student with experience
in interpersonal skills. Both of these roleplayers re-
ceived instruction similar to that given to the under-
graduate roleplayers. There were 11 males and four

females involved.as roleplayers.

51

Treatments

 

Subjects received one of three treatments. The
first was the experimental self-evaluation treatment.
The other two treatments were control procedures. Both
of the control groups initially received the same treat-
ment. The differences between the two control groups
treatment comes in the last phase of the training involv-
ing the roleplaying. At that time one of the groups was
to roleplay and then listen to the audiotaped recording
of the roleplay with access to the complete self-
evaluation scale. The other control group was required
to roleplay and then listen to the audiotaped recording
performing only the charting task using the Counselor

Response Profile.

Self-evaluation treatment. The goal for the

 

experimental training procedure was the mastery of self-
evaluation as defined in this study. Thus, the aim of

the training was that subjects would be able to systemati-
cally and objectively analyze their counselor performance
along dimensions considered important to effective coun-
seling.

The training procedure was based on a four-phase
process. In phase I, the subjects were exposed to a
counselor response training package which had two main
components. The inclusion of the response training was

0.

primarily done to accommodate the parallel study which

52

required that all subjects had the same basic knowledge
of different types of counselor responses.

The first component of the response training was
of a didactic nature, and consisted of a 45-minute video-
tape presentation on the 10 counselor reSponse modes,
preceded by a brief introduction. The videotape response
concept procedure was presented to small groups of 10 sub-
jects and monitored to discourage interaction between the
subjects. The videotape was preceded by a brief overview
of the nature of the day's activities and the overall aim
of the response training. The stated aim was the elabor-
ation of response types that the subjects had already met
in their counselor training program, the expansion of
their response repertoire to include other types of
responses, and teaching skills to make finer discrimi-
nations between response types. Written materials,
including definitions of the 10 counselor response types
and exercises to be completed during the viewing of the
videotape were distributed. Subjects were encouraged to
take notes during the videotape presentation.

The videotape consisted of 10 units, one for
each response type, with the format for each unit being
basically the same. The 10 responses addressed, in order
of presentation, were: restatement, questioning, informa-
tive, suggestion, reinforcement, evaluative, confrontation,
reflection, clarification, and interpretation. The format

used for each unit was as follows:

53

1. Definition and description of response type

by narrator.

2. Roleplayed examples of counselor responses
that would be identified as the response type for that

unit.

3. Following each example the narrator would
briefly discuss the response highlighting the elements
of the response and explaining why it was categorized as

that type.

4. Exercise client stimulus, with instructions
to write down an appropriate counselor response that
would be an example of the type of response being pre-

sented.

After each exercise stimulus the videotape was stopped
for about a minute to give the subjects time to write
down a response.

Following the didactic component of the response
training, the subjects met with a trainer on an indi-

vidual basis. The format of this component was as follows:

1. Feedback, by the trainer, on the written

exercises from the videotape.

2. Further discussion of the concepts underlying

the 10 response types, as needed by the subject.

3. Additional examples and roleplaying as

needed by the subject.

54

At the conclusion of the response training phase
the subjects took the set of three pretests.

The second phase of the treatment package con-
sisted of the didactic portion of the self-evaluation.
This phase of the treatment package was administered to
groups of eight subjects. In this portion of the treat-
ment, emphasis was placed on the subjects being introduced
to the concept of self-evaluation, its relevance to coun-
selor training, and its application to the counseling
process. This phase of the treatment was presented
through a multi-media package including (a) instructional
text (Appendix D), (b) videotape, and (c) written exercises
supplementing the videotape presentation.

The outline of the instructional text was as
follows:

I. Overview

A. Statement of Purpose
B. Background information on self-evaluation
C. Overview of the day's activities
II. Basic Concepts
A. Models
1. Systematic Counseling
2. Model for the beginning stages of a
counseling relationship
B. Evaluation

C. Methods of evaluation

III.

55

Self-evaluation package

A.

General Instructions
Charting Counselor responses
Specific ratings of 10 behavioral

dimensions

The instructional text was designed to provide both a

preliminary introduction to the concept of self-evaluation

prior to the viewing of the videotape and also to provide

an expansion on the material presented in the videotape.

Thus, the text, through to the final section on the

specific ratings, was read before viewing the videotape

presentation, while the final section was read after the

videotape.

The outline for the videotape was as follows:

I.

II.

Introduction by narrator

A.

Components of self-evaluation
1. Analysis

2. Rating

3. Action steps
Self-evaluation scale

1. Charting

2. Specific ratings

Presentation on task of charting responses

A.

Introduction by narrator

l. Counselor Response Profile

2.

3.

56

Definitions of responses

Use of Profile

Demonstration of use of profile

1.

2.

3.

Two counselor-client roleplays
Identification and recording of
responses on the profile

Two exercise roleplays

III. Presentation on task of specific ratings of

counselor performance

A.

Introduction by narrator

1.

2.

4.

5.

Purpose of task

Overview of 10 dimensions considered
important characteristics of counseling
during initial stages of counseling
relationship

General instructions for use of Spe-
cific ratings

a. Rating

b. Selecting action steps

Rating task instructions

Action steps instructions

Demonstration of specific ratings using

10 behavioral dimensions

1.

2.

Group 1: Dimension 1

Group 2: Dimensions 4, 5, and 6

57

3. Group 3: Dimensions 2 and 7
4. Group 4: Dimensions 3, 8, 9, and 10

IV. Summary by narrator

Discussion and questions were discouraged. The
videotape was stopped several times to give subjects time
to complete the supplementary exercises.

The third phase of the treatment package con-
sisted of the application of the concepts of self-evalu-
ation, as presented in the didactic portion, to various
discrimination tasks, with feedback provided in either
written form or by the trainers. The first two tasks
consisted of charting and rating two audiotaped counselor-
client interactions. Written model answers were supplied
and discussed with the trainer (Appendix E). The third
task involved the application of the specific rating
scheme to a brief counseling tape that the subjects had
previously made. To aid the subjects in this task, a
checklist was provided to help focus the subjects'
attention on behaviors relevant to the 10 dimensions
(Appendix F). While the subjects were making their self-
evaluation of their own counseling performance, their
individual trainer also made an evaluation using the
same materials. After the evaluations had been made,
the trainer and subject compared ratings and choices of
action steps and then compared their evaluations to a

written evaluation made by the researcher prior to the

58

training. The fourth discrimination task was based on

Ian audiotaped roleplay of a counselor-client interaction,
with the subject roleplaying the counselor and the trainer
acting as the client in a predefined role. The audiotape
was played back with both the subject and trainer making
an evaluation of the subject's counseling performance.
Evaluations were compared and discussed.

The fourth and final phase of the treatment
involved the simulation of brief counseling situations
using roleplayers as clients. The purpose of the practice
sessions was the active application of the self-evaluation
skills. The procedures for these practice sessions
involved the roleplaying of a counselor task, followed
by an interval during which the subject analyzed their
audiotaped counseling performance using the self-evalu-
ation scale. The process of roleplaying and self-evalu-
ation was repeated with a different client and role. The
counseling task in these practice sessions Was to encourage
the client to discuss their problems, concerns, and feel-
ings, and for the counselor to identify a tentative model
of the client's concerns.

At the conclusion of the roleplaying practice

sessions the subjects took the set of three posttests.

Control treatments. There are two variables

 

considered crucial in the self-evaluation treatment

package: (a) the didactic and experiential training in

59

self-evaluation and (b) the use of the self-evaluation
scale to rate practice counseling sessions. Thus, two
control treatment packages were devised. In order to
accommodate the parallel research study, the control
groups also received Phase 1 of the treatment package,
namely, the response training. Also, to control for the
effects of the repeated practice of the roleplayed coun-
selor task, the control groups also had three practice

roleplay sessions.

1. Charting and Rating Control Treatment. This

 

treatment was administered in order to control for the
didactic and experiential training in self-evaluation.
Thus, this group of subjects received both Phase 1 and
Phase 4 of the self-evaluation treatment. In place of
Phases 2 and 3 this control group received training in
another meaningful but unrelated counselor skill, namely,
the writing of behavioral learning objectives. This
training was particularly relevant to the stage of the
counseling process that the class had been studying
immediately prior to the study. The training in writing
learning objectives had two phases which paralleled the
comparable phases of the self-evaluation treatment. Thus,
Phase 2 for the control treatment consisted of a videotape
presentation with supplementary written exercises and

materials.

60

The outline for the videotape was as follows:

I.

II.

Introduction and Overview by narrator

A.

Overview of components of a learning

objective

1. Terminal behavior

2. Conditions

3. Criteria

Terminal Behavior component

1. Explanation by narrator

2. Exercise on acceptable terminal
behaviors

3. Exercises in writing terminal behavior
components

Conditions component

1. Explanation and discussion

2. Exercise on discriminating acceptable
conditions

3. Exercises in writing conditions com-
ponent

Criteria component

1. Explanation

2. Discrimination exercise

3. Writing exercise

Demonstration on improving learning objectives

A.

B.

Focus on conditions

Focus on terminal behavior

61

C. Focus on criteria component

D. Summary

Discussion and questions during the showing of the video-
tape were prohibited in order to maintain independence
between subjects.

The next phase paralleled Phase 3 of the self-
evaluation treatment package and consisted of exercises
and tasks, the receiving of feedback from trainers, and
then roleplaying a counselor-client interaction. The
first task involved analyzing written information about
clients, identifying a model of the client's concerns,
and formulating an appropriate learning objective.
Trainers provided feedback on the subjects' answers and
discussed model answers. The final task of this phase
was the same as that of the self-evaluation treatment
group, except that after the roleplay subjects were left
to complete the self-evaluation scale by themselves. To
aid the subjects in this task, written instructions were
provided.

The fourth and final phase was exactly the same

as the fourth phase of the self-evaluation treatment.

2. Charting Control Treatment. This treatment

 

was administered in order to control for the use of the
self-evaluation scale in rating simulated counseling
sessions. This group of subjects received the same

treatment as the charting-and-rating control group except

62

for one modification in the three practice sessions. In
listening back to these audiotaped roleplays, this group
only had access to the ounselor Response Profile. To
aid them in this task the subjects were provided with
written instructions defining the responses to be charted
and explaining how to use.the tally sheet. The choice of
the Counselor Response Profile as the scale to be used
while listening to the roleplays was made to accommodate
the parallel study.

Administration of Treatments
and Tests

 

 

Tuesday February 15. The administration of the

 

response training phase and the three pretests was per-
formed on a staggered starting schedule in order to make
best use of facilities and trainers. The schedule
employed is shown in Figure 2.2. The videotaped response
concept procedure was presented to small groups of about
10 students which included subjects from all of the
treatment groups. The mixing of treatment groups was
done for two reasons: (a) The response training phase
was common to the three treatment groups of this study
and to the experimental discrimination treatment of the
'parallel study; and (b) This procedure would ease schedul-
ing. The distribution of subjects in each of the video-
tape presentation groups is shown in Table 2.4. One

subject from the charting and rating control group

63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AM PM
8 9 10 ll 12 4 5 6 7 8
l L l l 1 1 l I L
6
I l
n = 11 A :B 1 C
L I T
n = 10 A :B : C
J L
I I
n = 9 A :B I C
I
r I
n = 10 A :B' C
n = 10 A :B: C
J P
Legend: A = Videotape presentation
B = Laboratory session with trainer
C = Three pretests

Figure 2.2. Schedule of activities on Tuesday February 15.

64

(Control I) received treatment on the following Friday
because of a family emergency that prevented her par-

ticipation on February 15.

Table 2.4

Distribution of Subjects in Response Training Groups

__9

 

 

Response Treatment Group
Training n
Group Self— afigafiztgg Charting Discrim-
evaluation 9 Control ination
Control

8-11 AM 11 3 3 0 5

9 AM-12 PM 10 3 l 3 3

4-7 PM 9 l 2 2 4

5-8 PM 10 6 l l 2

6-9 PM 10 4 1 2 3

 

At the conclusion of the videotape presentation,
the subjects were instructed to go to their assigned
room in order to work individually with their trainer.
The trainer worked with individual subjects on the second
component of the response training, as defined in the
section dealing with treatment. After completing the
response training the trainer helped to administer the
pretests, in particular the free-response test which
involved manipulation of two tape recorders. The trainer
then gave the subject instructions on the other two

tests and left the subjects to work at their own pace.

65

At the conclusion of the day's activities all materials

were collected from the subjects.

Saturday February 19. Phases 2 and 3 of the

 

treatments of this study and the experimental treatment

of the parallel study were administered to the 49 students
who were available on Febiuary 19. Treatments were given
on a staggered starting schedule in order to preserve
independence between groups and to make best use of
facilities and trainers. The treatments were adminis-
tered in five blocks according to the schedule in

Figure 2.3.

All of the 17 trainers involved in the day's
activities worked with subjects from all of the treatments.
During the exercise sessions (Unit C as shown in Figure 2.3)
the trainers each worked with two subjects. During the
individualized tasks and roleplays (Unit D as shown in
Figure 2.3) the trainers worked with only one subject,
except for the roleplaying practice sessions for the
control groups. Here, to ease scheduling, trainers role-
played individually with one subject and then roleplayed
with another subject. Thus all treatment groups exper-
ienced approximately the same trainer contact. The
schedule of activities for trainers is shown in Figure 2.4.
At the end of the day's activities all materials were col-

lected from the subjects.

66

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AM PM
9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5
L— l l l l 1 1. L l
- ' _ I I u
iiifningI::§?? IIA EB I S I D
Brigham * A 3ng I D
Sigiggiggifigfiz,' A EB; e I D
2:223:33; A E. If I. .
iii§3§X§1?§:§?n A IB IC I D

 

 

 

Legend: A = Videotape presentation
B = Exercises: subjects working alone
C = Exercises: subjects working alone, trainers

helping two subjects
D = Exercises and Roleplay: subjects working

individually with
trainers

Figure 2.3. Schedule of activities on Saturday February 19.

67

.mH Susannah xcousumm co mumchuu now mmHuH>Huom uo stpmnom

.v.~ moose»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

muomnnam N- eHe
uownnsm HI mmmHuuoxm uoanSm HI uumnn5m HI
NONHUHOXG GOMHM mmmHOHOXO aflmfiohwxm mHMMHOUME
GOflufl5Hm>OIMH0m I5Hm>0ludmm HON-LEGO COHHMGflEfl-flomfln— 00>..n000m VH8
MHe
uumflnsm H- uomnnam H- unannsm H- muounnsm -
mmwflouwxw mmmflUHUXO mmmfloumxw mmmwohflxm mHMHHOHME
soHumsHm>mIMme Houucoo COHuocHEHHomHQ GOHumcHEHHOmHQ 00>Hmomm oHB
me
uomflnsm H- muumnnsm N- muomflnsm m- oomflnam H-
mflmwohwxm mwmwoumxm mOmHOHGXO mmflohmxm MHMHHOUME
cOHuocHEHuomHn GOHuocHEHuomHo Houucoo COHumsHm>OIMHom pm>Hmomm me
«e
uuoHnsm H- muommnsm N- unmhnsu H- muumnnsu -
mmmdoumxm mflmHUHOXO mmmHOHOxm ammHOHUXO manna—"mum:— H
:oHumcHEHuomHo Houusou coHuMSHm>mIMHom QOHumsHm>mIMHom co>Hoomm a
v «H HH za cH

 

68

Tuesday February 22. The administration of the
final phase of the treatment packages and the three post-
tests was given on a staggered schedule as shown in

Figure 2.5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AM PM
8 9 10 ll 12 4 5 6 7 8 9
L, L I, l l I l I L, l J
age
L
I
AIB
. fi
A I B
A 2 B
1'
Age
Legend: A = Final phase of treatment
B = Posttests

Figure 2.5. Schedule of activities on Tuesday February 22.

Since treatment in this phase was individualized
and to ease scheduling each block was a mixture of sub-
jects from different treatment groups. However, room
schedules were arranged so as to minimize interaction
between groups, especially for those subjects involved in
completely different tasks.

The roleplayers' schedule is shown in Figure 2.6.
All roleplayers played each of the two roles at least once,
and worked with different subjects. After the roleplay

the roleplayer provided brief feedback to the subject

69

 

 

 

AM PM Number of roles played
8 9 a0 11 4 5 6 7 8 A B Total
RPl AA 3 2 5
RP2 A A 2 3 5
RP3 A B 1 2 3
RP4 A B AA B 5 2 7
RPS A B A B A B 4 4 8
RP6 A B A B A BBA 4 5 9
RP7 AA B 2 l 3
RP8 A B l 1 2
RP9 A BB 1 2 3
RP10 A ah I 2 3
RP11 A B A B 2 2 4
RP12 A TA W 2 2 4
RP13 A BA 2 2 4
RPM A B-A 2 2 4
RPlS AA B 2 2 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legend: RP Roleplayer

A Role A played

B

Role B played

Figure 2.6. Roleplayers schedule.

70

on how they felt as a client. The feedback was not
intended to be evaluative or prescriptive.

At the conclusion of the roleplays the subjects
picked up the materials for the free-response test and
worked alone on this task. After completing the free-
response test the subjects took the other two posttests.
Finally all materials were collected from the subjects
including the consent to release data form if the sub-

ject so wished.

Follow-up testing procedures: April—May. In a
class meeting near the end of the winter term materials
were distributed describing the follow-up test and
soliciting participation (Appendix M). During the first
week of the spring term subjects were contacted either
through classes or by telephone, asking for their consent
to participate in the follow-up and arranging schedules.
Table 2.5 shows the distribution of subjects in the three

treatment groups who consented to take part.

Table 2.5

Distribution of Subjects in Follow-up

 

 

Treatment Group E
Self-Evaluation 12
Charting and Rating Control 4

Charting Control 6

 

71

Follow-up tests were administered on an individual basis
during April, with most subjects being seen during the
period of April 4 to April 15. The order of tests was
the same as in previous testings. Again subjects were
asked to sign a release of data form.

During the latter part of April the supervision
preparation checklist was distributed to those subjects
who were enrolled in the counseling practicum. Addressed
envelopes were provided so that completed checklists
could be returned easily to the researcher. Table 2.6

shows the response returns.

Table 2.6

Distribution of Subjects Who Returned Supervision Checklist

 

 

Treatment Group B
Self-Evaluation 9
Charting and Rating Control 5
Charting Control 3

 

Instrumentation and Data Collection

 

Four measurement procedures were used to yield
data for the four dependent variables. Two measures
were paper-and-pencil tests to assess response discrimi-
nation and evaluation ability. The third procedure was
a behavioral test which measured counselor effectiveness

in a series of simulated dyadic interactions with a

72

client. The fourth measure was a checklist addressing
activities trainees engage in to prepare for supervisory

sessions.

Discrimination Test

 

The discrimination test was a four-foil multiple
choice measure with correct responses scored as one point
and incorrect responses scored as zero. An item pool was
generated. Question stems covered a wide range of situ-
ations from the following counseling settings: elementary
school, junior-high/middle school, high school, community
college, college, community agency, and private clinic.
Three stages of the counseling process were represented
in order to accommodate the parallel study. The stages
were (a) establishing counseling relationship, (b) problem
identification, and (c) problem-solving.

The pool of 90 items was divided into two sets
which were pilot tested on a population of 15 MA counselor
trainees enrolled in the Michigan State University off-
campus counseling program at Grand Rapids, Michigan. The
pilot testing provided preliminary feedback on how well
items discriminated between people. The same two sets of
items were given to 16 of the trainers, after they had
received training, and also to two counselor education
faculty. These responses were used to provide expert
validation of correct responses. On the basis of

feedback from the experts and analysis of the answers

73

obtained from the off-campus counselor trainees, 30 items
were rewritten and again pilot tested at Grand Rapids.
The same 30 items were given to eight trainers to vali-
date correct reSponses.

Using the information from the two pilot test
administrations and from the expert validations, poor
items were deleted. That is, either items which did not
discriminate between people, or items on which there was
no expert consensus, were omitted. Two 25-item discrimi-
nation tests were constructed from the remaining items.
These were used for the pretest and posttest measures of
discrimination. The test used in the follow-up was
similar to the posttest. Situations and foils were
rewritten in a parallel form to those in the posttest,
with only minor alterations to the contexts.

‘ Two scores were obtained from the discrimination
test. The first score was the total number of correct
choices on those items that related to the stage of the
counseling process addressed in the self-evaluation train-
ing. The second score was the total number of correct
choices on all 25 items, thus representing a transfer of
learning to other stages of the counseling process. The
first score was obtained from 15 items on the pretest
and 13 items on both the posttest and follow-up test.

Reliability analyses and item analyses were per-

formed on each form of the discrimination test. Hoyt

74

reliability coefficients were computed for each form of
the test used in this experiment. The reliability co-
efficients were computed for both the total sample and
also for each group within the sample. The coefficients
for the total sample being of major interest since they
would be the most stable. The coefficients for the other
groups were computed to provide additional information
and understanding about the reliability of the discrimi-
nation tests. The reliability coefficients are reported
in Table 2.7.

A reliability coefficient of less than zero was
considered indeterminate; a coefficient of 0-.40 was
considered very weak; .40-.60 was considered poor; .60-.80
was considered fair to good; and .80-1.00 was considered
good to excellent. The reliability coefficients obtained
for the total sample revealed that none of the three
forms of the discrimination test had good reliability.
The pretest, with coefficients of .54 and .49 for the
total and reduced forms, had poor reliability. The post-
test, with coefficients of .30 and .34, had very weak
reliability, while the follow-up test, with coefficients
of .66 and .57, had fair reliability. Examination of
the coefficients for the subgroups revealed that one
group, the charting control group, was a major source
of unreliable data. The other control group was the

most consistent in its responses on all three tests.

75

 

 

 

 

 

mumcHE mumcHE mumsHE
me. we. lumumch lumumch lumumch Hm. Houucou mcHuHmnu
so. mm. Hm. am. he. mm. Houucoo oceans
was mcHuHmno
mm. mm. N4. mm. He. mm. coHumsHm>m-MHmm
pm. we. em. cm. as. em. «Hosea
Hence
msmuH mH msmuH mm msmuH mH msmuH mm msmuH mH msmuH mm
macaw
Home msI3OHHom ummuumom ummpmnm

 

menom owosomm can
Hmuoe muH nuom cH Home GOHumcHEHHomHo one How mucmHonmmoo MUHHHQMHHmm who:

NHN OHQMB

76

Item analyses were performed on the three 25-item
tests both for the total sample and also for each group.
The item difficulty, item discrimination, Kuder Richardson
(K-R 20), and standard error of measurement were computed
for each test. These test analyses are reported in
Table 2.8. The K-R 20 reliability correlations for each
of the three tests for the total sample were .58 for the
pretest, .32 for the posttest, and .68 for the follow-up
test. These results are consistent with the Hoyt relia-
bility analyses and reveal that none of the three tests
had good reliability. The only discrimination test that
approached an adequate reliability for this total sample

was the follow-up test.

Evaluation Skill Test

 

The evaluation skill test was a paper-and-pencil
test designed to assess the discrepancy between the sub-
ject's ratings and expert ratings of an audiotaped
counselor-client interaction. The dimensions to be
rated were develOped based on the 10 dimensions used in
the self-evaluation scale. Twenty-eight dimensions were
developed which fell into three categories: (a) general
behaviors, (b) counselor responses, and (c) counseling
process. Each of these dimensions were rated on a six-
point scale for quality. The 11 dimensions in the
counselor response category were also rated for quantity,

using a five-point scale ranging from seldom/never to

2

 

77

 

 

.ucmEmusmomE mo uouuw oncogene one mH mmm
mucsHE

mo.N we. we we NN.N IncumocH «H me mH.N mm. Nm ow Houusou
meeuumno
Ho.N we. we mm mH.N No. vm be mH.N mm. mm ov Houucoo
mcHumm can
mcHuuoso
NN.N om. em vv mm.N ov. Hm Hv mH.N ow. mm ov cOHumsHm>m
, anom
m~.~ we. H4 we mm.~ Nm. on me m~.~ mm. mm. as oedema
- Hmuoe

coHumc wstw coHumc NNst coHumc thsw

2mm ONZIK IHEHHOmHQ l.ww.0 2mm ONKIM IHEHHUmHD I.MM.Q 2mm ONMIK IHEHHOmHQ I.MM.Q

m EmuH m . EouH m . . EmuH
EmuH com: com: EmuH com: com: EmuH com: com: msouu
.umma aslonHom ummuumom ammumum

 

Snow Hmuoe muH CH umme coHumcHEHuomHo on» Now mmmaHmsd node was EwuH

m.N OHQMB

78

excessively. A shortened rating form, omitting the
dimensions in the counseling process category, was used

for the pretest. Three 10- to lS-minute audiotaped
interactions between a female counselor and a male client
were developed. Scripts were used to ensure representation
of the dimensions to be rated.

The expert rating was determined by using a com-
posite rating obtained from the ratings made by eight
doctoral students in counselor education or rehabilitation
counseling. All of these raters had had at least one
term's experience as a counseling practicum supervisor
and also in rating counseling audiotapes. The training
for these raters consisted of: (a) introduction to the
task, (b) explanation and discussion of the concepts and
dimensions, and (c) explanation of the form and the
scales to be used. The composite expert rating was
obtained by taking the consensus of the ratings from
the raters. Items were eliminated if there was wide
disagreement in the ratings assigned by the raters. The
composite rating on the remaining items was obtained by
averaging across the scores given by the raters for each
item.

Scores for the subjects on this test were obtained
by first calculating the discrepancy between the rating
assigned by the subject and the expert rating. Totals

were then computed for (a) items rated higher than the

79

experts and (b) items rated lower than the experts,

within each of the three categories of dimensions. Com-

posite totals across the three categories were computed,

and finally the total discrepancy score. Thus, the

scoring procedure produced the following set of scores

for analysis and exploration:

1.

2. a.

(ii)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

c. (i)

(ii)

Total discrepancy score for all items.
Total score for items scored higher than
the expert.

Total score for items scored lower than
the expert.

Total for general behavior items scored
higher.

Total for general behavior items scored
lower.

Total for response items scored higher

on quality.

Total for response items scored lower on
quality.

Total for response items scored higher

on quantity.

Total for response items scored lower on
quantity.

Total for counseling process items scored
higher.

Total for counseling process items scored

lower.

80

Hoyt reliability coefficients were computed on
each form of the evaluation skill test. The reliability
coefficients were computed for the discrepancy scores for
all items in each test. The reliability coefficients
are reported in Table 2.9. The values obtained indicate
that the pretest had onlygmoderate reliability (.56),
while the posttest and follow-up test had good reliability

with coefficients of .83 and .90 respectively.

 

 

Table 2 .9
Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the Evaluation
Skill Test
Test Reliability Coefficient
Pretest .56
Posttest .83
Follow-up test .90

 

Free-response Test

 

The behavioral free-response test consisted of
25 stimulus audiotape situations. Each client stimulus
was introduced by a statement made by a male narrator
explaining the counseling setting, information on the
client, and stage of counseling reached. A variety of
settings and counseling problems were covered with both
male and female clients being represented. After the
narrator had defined the situation, the client made a

verbal statement. After each client stimulus subjects

81

responded into a second audiotape recorder with a coun-
seling response they considered to be most effective for
the client and situation. Three parallel forms of the
stimulus audiotape were produced, each for the pretest,
posttest, and follow-up test. The posttest stimuli are
presented in Appendix 1..

Following the collection of follow-up measures
the subjects' responses were transferred to master tapes
for rating by trained raters. Ideally, to eliminate all
sources of bias and systematic rater variance the sub-
jects' responses should have been randomly ordered both
with respect to subjects and also by type of test. How-
ever, it was felt that to have the three types of tests
all randomly mixed together would have made the rating
task very difficult. Thus, subjects blocks of 25
responses were randomly ordered within each test, and
the tests were color-coded so as to decrease the likeli-
hood of the raters identifying which test was which.

The raters were also not given the sets of similar
colored tapes in any particular order and, in fact,
were not informed that the tapes came from the same
set of subjects three times. Thus, there was control
for keeping the raters blind as to which subjects
belonged to the experimental and control groups, and
which tests were the pretest, posttest, and follow-up

test. [It was not possible to totally control for raters

82

bias toward or against a given subject, as this could
only have been accomplished by separating subjects'
individual responses to each stimulus and randomly order-
ing stimulus responses. After transferral of responses
there was a total of 10 1/2 60-minute audiotapes to be
listened to and rated by the raters.

Four raters were used to rate the audiotape
recordings for effectiveness of counselor response. None
of these raters had been trainers, thus increasing rater
blindness to the experimental situation. Two of the
raters, one male and one female, held doctoral degrees
in counseling psychology and were currently employed
full time in two community mental health agencies in
Michigan. The other two raters, both male, were doctoral
candidates in rehabilitation counseling. Both were
employed part time as counselors at the Probate court
in Lansing, Michigan. One of these raters also worked
as a counselor in private practice and the other was
involved in an international rehabilitation project.

A rating system was developed based on the 10
dimensions used in the experimental self-evaluation
package. The Counselor Free-response Scale was a four-
point global scale of counselor effectiveness. The
general descriptors for each of the four levels was as

follows:

83

Level 1 - Lacks basic understanding of client's
concerns; may be detrimental to client
growth

Level 2 - Neutral response that neither measurably
affects progress nor inhibits it

Level 3 - Response is appropriate but not among
the best

Level 4 - Response is among the most appropriate

possible

Criteria were developed for each of the four levels
(Appendix J). The scale incorporated elements from the
Counselor Verbal Response Scale (Kagan, 1969), Carkhuff's
Scales of counselor functioning (Carkhuff, 1969), Gazda's
global scale of counselor facilitativeness (Gazda, 1973),
and the Systematic Counseling Performance Criteria
(Stewart et al., 1978).
The training of the raters was based on a train-
ing package schema developed by Wilson (1976) as follows:
1. Introduction
a. Introduction to the task
b. Instruction on the format of the coun-
selor free-response test
c. Instruction on the criteria for the
counselor free-response scale

d. Discussion of the criteria

84

2. Series of graduated approximations to the

final task

a. Written examples of the four levels of
the concept

b. Individual audiotaped examples of
responsesIto be rated and discussed

c. Series of audiotaped examples of responses
to be rated and then discussed at the end
of the series

d. Reliability check using 20 responses from

two different counselors

Materials used in the training are in Appendix K.

The raters rated the subjects' audiotapes by
giving a score between one and four to each audible
counselor response. Similar to the discrimination test
two scale scores per subject were obtained from each
free-reSponse test. The first score was the total
across ratings from the 14 stimuli that related to the
stage of the counseling process addressed in the self-
evaluation training. The second score was the total
rating from all 25 stimuli. Finally, scores for each
subject were obtained by averaging scores across the
four raters.

Inter-rater reliability was assessed by comput-
ing Hoyt reliability coefficients. The initial training

interrater reliability was determined by computing a

85

reliability coefficient on ratings assigned by the four
raters to the 20 individual counselor responses used in
the reliability check. This yielded a Hoyt coefficient
of .67. Interrater reliability for the actual study
was determined by computing a Hoyt coefficient for each
of the three free—response tests using subjects scale
scores. The reliabilities obtained are reported in
Table 2.10. The pretest and posttest had reliability
coefficients over .70. Thus the interrater reliability
on these two tests was considered good. The follow-up
test had reliability coefficients of .60 and .57 for its
total and reduced forms respectively. Thus, the inter-
rater reliability on the follow-up test was only fair

to moderate.

Table 2.10

Interrater Reliability Coefficients for the
Free-response Test

 

Pretest Posttest Follow-up Test

 

 

25 Items 14 Items 25 Items 14 Items 25 Items 14 Items

 

.73 .73 .71 .75 .60 .57

 

Supervision Preparation
Checklist

 

 

A practicum supervision survey questionnaire was
developed. The purpose of the checklist was to determine

what MA counselor trainees do to prepare to meet with

86

their supervisors for individual counseling supervision.
The survey instrument and letter that accompanied it is

in Appendix L.

Data Analysis

 

Hypotheses Testing

 

The data were analyzed in order to test the
hypotheses through the use of three different data

matrices and analytical procedures as follows:

1. The hypotheses addressing posttest differences
were tested using data from all 32 subjects in a multi-

variate analysis of variance.

2. The hypotheses addressing changes in per-
formance across time were tested using data only from the
22 subjects who volunteered to participate in the follow-
up tests. A repeated measures multivariate analysis pro-

cedure was used.

3. The hypotheses addressing differences in
supervision preparation were tested using data from the
17 subjects who returned the survey questionnaire. A

variety of analytical procedures was used.

Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3. A two-way multi-

 

variate analysis of covariance was performed to test the
two hypotheses addressing group differences on the post-
test. The analysis was also used to investigate (a)

whether there was a covariate effect on the posttests

a.

87

and (b) if there was an effect due to the blocking
variable. The blocking variable had two levels, one
level being prior exposure to an alternative self-
evaluation model and the second level being nonexposure
to the alternative model. The two factors were entered
into the analysis with blocks as the first factor and
treatment as the second factor. This order was chosen
in order to accommodate an unbalanced two-way design.
Thus, unless there was an interaction between the treat-
ment and blocking variables, the effect due to treatment
could be tested independently of any blocking effect.
Planned comparisons employing Helmert contrasts were
used to test each hypothesis. The alpha level for
treatment effect was set at .05 which was then evenly
distributed between each contrast. Thus each hypothesis
was tested at an alpha level of .025. This division of
the alpha level controls for overall experimental error
rate.

The three dependent variables were arranged for

the step-down F procedure in the following order:
1. Discrimination ability on the posttest
2. Evaluation skill on the posttest

3. Counselor effectiveness on the free-response

posttest

88

The three variables used for exploring covariate effects
were the three pretest scores. The scores used in this
analysis were those obtained from the items and stimuli
that related to the stage of the counseling process

addressed in the self-evaluation training.

Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 6. A two-way repeated
measures multivariate analysis of covariance was per-
formed to test the two hypotheses addressing time effects.
This more complex analytical procedure involving both
the blocking factor and the three covariates was used
in order that this analysis be consistent with the
analysis procedure used to test the hypotheses on post-
test differences. The alpha level for each of these

hypotheses was set at .025.

Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4. The practicum

 

survey instrument contained a variety of items. Some
items provided descriptive information about the sub-
ject's counseling practicum experiences. The data from
these items were tabulated and appropriate summary sta-
tistics computed. Three questions were designed to
provide data necessary to test the hypotheses addressing
differences in supervision preparation. The three
questions addressed (a) audiotape preparation prior to
supervision, (b) the number of case review activities

engaged in prior to supervision, and (c) rating estimates

89

' of 13 dimensions of counselor performance. The responses
to the audiotape preparation item were categorical and
thus a chi-square test was used to test for group dif-
ferences. The other two questions were analyzed using,
respectively, univariate and multivariate analyses of
variance. The alpha level for each of these hypotheses
was set at .025 which was then distributed evenly over
each of the three sub-questions dealing with supervision

preparation.

Supplementary Analyses

 

Supplementary analyses were run to provide addi-
tional information about the data. The supplementary
analyses addressed the scores on the discrimination and
free-response tests that represented transfer of learn-
ing, namely the scores obtained from the tests using all
25 items. Multivariate analyses parallel to those used
to test the hypotheses addressing posttest differences

and time effects were performed.

Summary

This study assessed the effects of self-evaluation
training and the use of a self-evaluation rating scale
on counselor performance. The subjects were counselor
trainees enrolled in a pre-practicum counseling process
class. A three-group experimental design was used

toqether with a blocking factor. Data were collected

90

at three points in time: pretest, posttest, and follow-
up. The four measures used yielded scores on (a) response
discrimination ability, (b) evaluation ability, (c) coun-
selor effectiveness, and (d) supervision preparation.
Multivariate analysis of covariance was the main statis-

tical model used to analyze the data.

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Overview

An analysis of the data is presented in this
chapter. The data, analysis, and results relevant to
each hypothesis are discussed. Hypotheses, as presented
in chapter 2, are grouped as directional, null, and time
effects (also null). Within the current chapter they
are presented according to analyses of data performed
and this has resulted in their nonsequential ordering
on the pages which follow. Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3
were tested by a multivariate analysis of covariance with
planned comparisons. Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 6 were
tested by a repeated measures approach to multivariate
analysis of covariance. Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4
were tested by chi-square test of independence, and
multivariate and univariate analyses of variance. Sup-
plementary analyses were run to provide additional

information about the data.

91

92

Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3

H01:

No posttest differences will be found between the
self-evaluation group and the combined control
groups on (a) the two measures of counselor per-
formance and effectiveness and (b) the measure

of evaluation skill.

Hal:

The experimental self-evaluation group mean scores
will exceed the combined control groups mean scores
on the three posttests.

H22:

No posttest differences will be found between the

two control groups on (a) the two measures of

counselor performance and effectiveness and (b) the

measure of evaluation skill.
These two hypotheses were both tested within the same
two-way multivariate analysis of covariance design. The
scores used in the analysis were those derived from the
shortened forms of the tests. Namely, those scores that
represented counselor skills relevant to the stage of the
counseling process addressed in the self-evaluation
training. Prior to the examination of the multivariate
analysis of variance the relation between the three pre-
tests and the three posttests was explored. The
regression analysis was used to determine whether the
inclusion of the three pretests as covariates was

warranted.

93

The overall multivariate test of the hypothesis
of no association between the three posttests and the
three pretests indicated that there was a significant
relationship (§_= 4.92, p < .0001). The stepwise
regression was used to analyze the contribution of each
covariate. The results are presented in Table 3.1.
Neither the evaluation pretest nor the discrimination
pretest made a significant contribution when conditioned
on the free-response pretest. The only significant con-
tribution was due to the free-response pretest (H = 18.33,
p < .0001). The univariate and step-down H statistics
testing the relationship between the free-response pre-
test and each of the posttests indicated that the major
relationship was that between the free-response pretest
and the free-response posttest.

In summary, the regression analysis indicated
that a covariate adjustment was warranted. The major
relationship was that between the pretest and posttest
of the free-response counselor performance variable.

A two-way multivariate analysis of covariance
was used to test the two hypotheses addressing treatment
group differences on the posttests. Planned comparisons
within the main effect due to treatment were used to
test each hypothesis. The alpha level for treatment
effect was set at .05 which was then evenly distributed

between each contrast. Thus, each hypothesis was tested

94

Table 3.1

Stepwise Regression 3 Statistics for the Three
Pretests on the Set of Three Posttests

 

 

 

Covariate E} p
Free-response pretest 18.33 .0001
Discrimination pretest 1.41 .266
Evaluation pretest 0.88 .468

Table 3.2

Univariate and Step-Down 2 Statistics for the Free-
response Pretest and the Three Posttests

 

 

 

 

Univariate Step-down
Variable
E. P. F. P.
Discrimination posttest .02 .904 .02 .904
Evaluation posttest 3.53 .072 5.21 .032

Free-response posttest 48.44 .001

41.06 .0001

 

95

at an alpha level of .025. This method of dividing the
alpha level controls for the overall experimental Type I
error rate. In the event that a multivariate test was
significant, the alpha level for the univariate analyses
of variance was partitioned for the three dependent
measures. Each was tested at the .008 alpha level.

The results of the multivariate tests on the
three posttests, adjusting for any differences on the
three pretests, are presented in Table 3.3. The cell
means and combined means for groups are reported in
Table 3.4. Inspection of the multivariate tests revealed
no significant effect for the interaction of treatment
and blocks (3,: 0.67, B.‘ .671). The first hypothesis
predicted that there would be a difference between the
experimental self-evaluation group and the combined
control group. No significant difference was found
(3 = 1.73, p'< .192). The third hypothesis predicted
that there would be no difference between the two con—
trol groups. This hypothesis was supported by the
failure to reject the null form hypothesis (H = 0.19,

E < .899).

There was, however, a significant effect due to
the blocking variable (H = 4.46, p_< .014). Thus there
was a difference between the two blocks on the set of
three posttests, after any differences on the pretests

had been adjusted for and thus controlled. Post hoc

96

Table 3.3

Multivariate Tests for Blocks, Treatment Contrasts,

and Interaction Effects on the Three Posttests

 

 

(N = 32)

Sources of Variance E_ R
Block 4.46 .014
Self-evaluation v Controls 1.73 .192
Charting and Rating Control v

Charting Control 0.19 .899
Block by Treatment Interaction 0.67 .671

 

97

 

 

 

 

me.~m ~m.o~ mm.» oH.~m _~H.m~ mm.a a Houucoo meHuumno
mo.Nm hm.mN mm.w oo.Hm om.NN mN.m m Houucoo
mcHumm can mcHuuan
mm.Hm hm.mN NN.N NH.Nm vv.HN mw.m mH coHucsHm>m-MHmm
Nv.Nm om.NN NN.N NH.Nm oo.MN om.m mH N xoon
Hv.Hm no.mN vw.w om.Hm vH.NN om.h «H H xoon
mN.Nm ov.Nm oo.m mv.Hm oo.oN oo.¢ m N xoon
Nv.mm oo.5H NN.N mm.mm oo.mN oo.m m H xOOHm
Houucoo mcHuuono
m>.Nm oo.mN mn.h mn.Hm om.MN mp.0H v N xuon
Hm.Hm mn.NN om.m mN.om om.HN mn.h v H xoon
Houucoo
ocHumm one ocHuunnU
mm.Nm mm.mN mm.m mh.Nm mm.oN NN.N m N xuon
Hw.om mm.mN oo.n mv.Hm vH.NN mm.n h H xuon
GOHumsHM>NIMHom
oncommwu-mmum coHuosHm>m coHumcHEHuomHo concedes-womb coHumsHm>m coHuocHEHuomHo
m msouw

mflmwuumom mummumhm

 

meuom pwospom “Hone cH mummuumom paw mumoumum on» so made: pmcHnEou paw HHoo

v.m mHnma

98

analyses for the block effect are presented in Table 3.5.
The step-down Es indicated that there was no block effect
on the adjusted free-response test but that there was

a significant difference on the adjusted evaluation
ability posttest (§_= 10.19, p < .004). Since this test
was significant the step-down §_could not be used to
explore block differences on the discrimination test.
However, the univariates indicate that there were no
block differences on the discrimination test. The
adjusted estimate of the block effect on the evaluation
posttest for the difference between Block 1 and Block 2
was -8.52 with a standard error of 3.86. Thus, the group
that had not been previously exposed to the alternate
self-evaluation model performed better on the evaluation

posttest than the group that had had prior exposure.

Table 3.5

Multivariate, Univariate, and Step-Down H Statistics
for the Block Effect on the Posttests

 

 

 

 

Univariate Step-Down
Variable
E B .12". 2
Discrimination 2.01 .170 2.01 .170
Evaluation 3.81 .063 10.19 .004
Free-response .01 .925 .62 .442

 

Note. Multivariate F = 4.46 with 3,21 HE,
E < .014.

 

99

In summary, the null hypotheses addressing
treatment differences on the posttest measures failed
to be rejected. Thus, the hypothesis tests supported

Hypothesis 3 but failed to support Hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 6

Both of these hypotheses were stated in the null

form.

H05:

There will be no time effect, between posttest and
follow-up, on level of performance on (a) the two
measures of counselor performance and effectiveness
and (b) the measure of evaluation skill, for all
subjects who were present for both the posttests
and follow-up tests.

H06:

There will be no time-by-treatment interaction on

(a) the two measures of counselor performance and '

effectiveness and (b) the measure of evaluation

skill, for those subjects who were present for

both the posttests and follow-up tests.

These two hypotheses were both tested within

the same two-way repeated measures multivariate analysis
of covariance design. The three dependent variables used
in the MANCOVA were formed from linear combinations of
the posttest and follow-up test for each of the three

measures. The reduced forms of the tests were used.

Thus, the dependent variables reflected a time dimension.

100

The overall multivariate test of no association
between the three pretests and the three dependent
variables indicated that there was no significant relation
(5.: .64, E.< .751). The results of the multivariate
tests for group differences on the three dependent
variables are presented in Table 3.6. The cell means
and combined group means are reported in Table 3.7. No
differences were significant. Hypothesis 5 predicted
that there would be no time effect. Thus, Hypothesis 5
was supported (§.= 1.28, p < .329). Hypothesis 6 pre-
dicted that there would be no time by treatment inter-
actions. Hypothesis 6 was also supported (2 = 1.62,

p < .242; g = 0.28, p_ < .838).

Table 3.6

Multivariate Tests for Time Effect and Time
Interactions (N=22)

 

 

Sources of Variance g df p
Time 1.28 3,11 .329
Time x Block 1.58 3,11 .251
Time x Self-evaluation v Control 1.62 3,11 .242
Time x Control .28 3,11 .838

Time x Treatment x Block .53 6,22 .781

 

101

 

 

 

mm.om no.mm mm.o NN.Nm hm.vN mm.m om.Nm hm.mN NH.m w Houucoo mcHuHmnu
vm.om om.om mh.m om.om oo.hN om.n mH.om oo.NN om.m v Houucoo
mcHumm pom mcHuuozu
mv.Nm mo.mN mm.h mo.Hm oo.hN no.n mm.Hm mo.0N NN.N NH coHuMSHc>mIMHmm
Ho.Nm mm.mN mm.h om.Hm om.mN hm.h NN.Nm mN.HN mm.m «H N xoon
vm.mN om.om mm.o mh.om Nm.NN NH.N mh.om NH.NN mh.h m H xuon

hw.Nm oo.Hv oo.o MH.Nm oo.mN om.m NH.NN oo.mN m.m v N xoon

NH.om oo.vm om.w mN.vm oo.mH om.h mN.mm oo.HN m.m N H xoon
Houucoo mcHuumno

hm.mm NN.NN hm.m mo.Nm mm.om oo.h mm.Hm oo.NN oo.HH m N xoon

mh.NN oo.ov oo.m mh.mN oo.mH oo.m oo.wN oo.wN oo.m H H xoon
Houucou
mcHumm can mcHuumao

mm.mm nm.m~ mm.m Ho.Hm mm.NN mv.m em.Nm em.mH hm.m n N xoon

mH.Hm om.mm ov.o mm.om om.mN ow.o mn.om om.HN oo.m m H xoon
:OHuoSHm>mnuHmm

oncommmm :oHum GOHumc oncommmm cOHum coHumc mucommmm GOHum coHumc
locum Ich>m IHEHuomHo locum IsHm>m IHEHuomHo locum IsHm>m IHEHuomHQ I
: macaw
mamas msnonHom mummuumom mumwumum

 

HNNqu momma mouonHom was .mummuumom .mummumnm we» so mono: vmanfiou can HHwo

h.m OHQMB

102

Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4
These two hypotheses referred to group differences
in preparation for supervision as measured by the survey

checklist.

02'
t
No differences will be found between the self—

evaluation group and the combined control groups
on the measure of preparedness for supervision.

Haz:

The experimental self-evaluation group will respond
differently from the combined control groups on the
measure of preparedness for supervision.

H04:

No differences will be found between the two control

groups on the measure of preparedness for supervision.
These two hypotheses were tested by analyzing the data
obtained from the 17 respondents to three items in the
survey checklist. The data from the other items was
tabulated.

Subjects were asked a question regarding what
they did with the audiotapes of their counseling sessions
prior to meeting with their supervisor. Frequency counts
are presented in Table 3.8.

Chi-squares were computed to test each of the
hypotheses. A chi-square of .008 was found for dif-

ferences between the two control groups, and a chi-square

103

Table 3.8

Frequency and Percentage of Responses to "What Did You
Do with the Audiotapes to Prepare for Supervision?"

 

Response Categories

 

 

Groups
Not Listened Listened gigiihidy
Listen To Part To All To All

. 0 1 0 8
Self-Evaluation % 11 89
Charting and # 0 l 0 4
Rating Control % 20 80
Charting # 0 0 0 3
Control % 100
# 0 2 0 15

 

104

of .686 was found for differences between the experimental
and combined control groups. Neither of these chi-square
results were significant.

Subjects were also asked a question regarding the
number of activities they engaged in to review client
cases before a supervision session. Frequency counts and
summary statistics are presented in Table 3.9. A two-
way univariate analysis of variance, with planned com-
parisons within the treatment effect, was performed to
test the two hypotheses. The results are presented in
Table 3.10. No differences were significant.

Subjects were asked to make rating estimates of
13 dimensions of counseling performance. The 13 dimen-

sions fell into three groups as follows:

1. Five dimensions addressed overall estimates

of counselor responses.

2. Two dimensions addressed global estimates

of counselor performance.

3. Six dimensions addressed specific response

types and counselor behaviors.

Multivariate analyses were performed on each of these
three groups of ratings using a two—factor design with
planned comparisons within the treatment factor. The

multivariate tests are presented in Table 3.11. The

 

105

NN.N hm.m 0N.v hm.m cH ocmmwam
mcHuH>Huc¢ mo amneaz cmmac><

N o H H aceuo .OH
NH N m m acmH>acmam nqu ccha
cu muchm OHMHccmm wcucz .m
m o o m 3cH>acuaH ac mcuoz .m
HH H v m 3cH>acucH mo 3cH>ca House: .h
v N H H umHacmacau
cmacmmcalmnwcmacmmcm .o
n H m m ccHumaHm>cIMHcm ccuuHaS .m
m H N N pacuccc 30H>acuaH
mo mamfifiam ccuuHaB .e
n m H m Eacw waHuma m.acmH>acmam
\acuccHwaccc wmuchEcw .m
m o . o m cHacuHaU coaceacmacm
. ea emaaau maamauamm .~

oH H v m ococmca ccHucaam mm amm

mm MHamUHaU cosmeacmacm
ea omaaaa samumamsoo .H

 

 

v.5 31:
HhHuzv Am Amuav
Hcauacw Hcauccw wsaumm
Hmuca we a m . coHamaHo>cIMHcm
. Ha new can aHuaoow mcHuH>Huc¢
macaw

 

mcmcw 3cH>cm cu 2H ocwmmcm mcHuH>Huc< mo uaacw moccawcam

m.m OHDMB

106

Table 3.10

Univariate Analysis of Variance for Total Number of

Activities Engaged in to Review Cases

 

 

Sources of Variance E, Hf p
Block 1.29 1,11 .281
Self-Evaluation v Controls 0.09 1,11 .772
Controls 0.21 1,11 .656
Block x Treatment 0.77 2,11 .485

 

107

 

How. NH.NH mo.H mom. omev mm.o Nmo. vH.¢H Hm.o ucmfiummaa x xoon
mmm. m.m mm.o omw. 0H.N mH.o Hmm. h.m mm.o mHoaucOU

mam. m.m Hm.o omH. 0H.N NN.N MHN. b.m om.H Hoauaou > aowpmaHm>mIMHmm

 

 

 

 

mNH. m.m mm.N 5mm. 0H.N N¢.H mmN. h.m mm.H mMOOHm
N mm M N mm m m mm m.
MHIm mmcHumm N .m mmcHucm mIH meHucm cOGMHam>

mo mccaacm

 

mmacaw mcHuwm

 

mmucEHumm waHumm acm
maccmmm GOHucoacucH paw .mummauccw uccsumcae .xcch acm momma cHMHam>HuHaS

HH.m MHQMB

108

treatment groups' means and standard deviations are
reported in Table 3.12. None of the multivariate tests
were significant.

In summary, Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 4 were
tested by analyzing the data from three questions on the
survey checklist. No differences were significant in
any of the three statistical models used. Hypothesis 2
predicted differences between the self-evaluation group
and the combined control groups. Thus, this hypothesis
failed to be supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted no dif-
ferences between the two control groups. Thus, Hypothe-
sis 4 was supported.

The subjects' responses to the other questions
from the survey checklist were tabulated and are reported
in Table 3.13. The self-evaluation group had more
trainees placed in a rehabilitation field setting than
for the other two groups combined. The three groups did
not differ in their client case load per week, though
the subjects in the charting and rating control group

had a smaller total case load.

Summary of Hypotheses Testing

 

The hypothesis tests supported four hypotheses
and failed to support two hypotheses. Namely, four
hypOtheses that had been stated in the null form were
supported. The tests failed to support the two hypotheses

addressing differences between the self-evaluation

Table 3.12

Treatment Group Means and Standard Deviations for Rating Estimates

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Groups
Rating Items Evalfiiiion REZIhgiggnzggl C2§:::23 Total
Group (n=9) Group (n=5) (:23? (N317)
i so i so i so if so
Rating Group 1
1. Balance of Counselor-
Client talk 3.56 .53 3.80 .45 3.33 .58 3.58 .51
2. Best mode used 3.11 .60 3.40 1.34 3.00 0 3.18 .81
3. Modes that need
improvement 3.11 .33 3.40 .55 3.33 .58 3.24 .44
4. Modes overused 3.25 .46 3.60 .55 '4.00 0 -3.50 .52
5. Modes underused 3.00 .00 3.40 .55 3.33 .58 3.20 .41
Rating Group 2
6. Counseling strengths 3.22 .44 3.40 .55 3.33 .58 3.29 .47
7. Counseling weaknesses 2.89 .78 3.40 .55 3.67 .58 3.18 .73
Rating Group 3
8. Level of rapport 3.44 .73 3.60 .55 3.33 .58 3.47 .62
9. Use of voice and
nonverbal behavior 3.44 .73 3.40 .89 3.33 .58 3.41 .71
10. Control pace and
direction 2.89 .93 3.80 .45 3.33 .58 3.24 .83
ll. Verbal reinforcement 3.56 .53 4.00 0 3.67 .58 3.71 .47
12. Empathy level 3.56 .73 3.60 .55 3.33 .58 3.53 .62
13. Open-ended questions 3.22 .44 4.00 0 3.33 .58 3.47 .51

 

110

 

 

w w m b pmcH cmmo Hmucu ommao><
we me we av mouacHE cH .GOHmmom
mo camcoH ommao>¢
vN.m hm.m oo.m ON.m x003 aom comm mucoHHo
mo amneac ommao>¢
cmoq ommw
v H o m hocmw< GOHuMUHHHnmnwm
m o H N mmmHch >UHcaEEow
o H N m 30:8 :3:
v .H N H Hconcm zmHm acHaah
maHuucm SacHucoam_
AFHHZV Am-IIAHV AmHCV Amp-CV
Hcaucow Hcauccw wcaumm ccaamch>m
HMUOH. mad . .
.uamew was mcHuamsw Imem

 

mmacaw

 

mmaHuuom onHm aHosa mcHoHacmoQ umHchmzw
>c>aam SacHucmam on» so mccHamoaO cu momccmmom .muccnnam mo ccHucHant

MH.m OHQMB

111

experimental group and the two combined control groups.
Analysis of variance techniques were the primary statis-
tical model used for the tests of all the hypotheses.

In addition to the results of the hypothesis tests,

relevant observed cell and group means were reported.

SupplementaryAnalyses

 

Transfer of Learning:
Posttest leferences

 

 

This analysis explored treatment group differences
on the tests that represented transfer of learning. That
is, the scores from the total forms of the discrimination
test and free-response test were used in the analysis.

A two-way multivariate analysis of covariance design,
with planned comparisons within the treatment factor,
was used. The regression analysis used to explore the
effects of the three pretests on the posttests indicated
that there was a significant relationship between the
pretests and the posttests (2.: 5.31, p_< .0001). Thus,
the three pretests were used as covariates in the multi-
variate analysis of variance. The results of the multi-
variate tests on the three posttests in their full forms,
adjusting for differences on the pretests, are presented
in Table 3.14. The cell means and combined group means

are reported in Table 3.15.

112

Table 3.14

Multivariate Tests on the Three Posttests that Represent
Transfer of Learning (N=32)

 

 

Sources of Variance E p
Block 5.21 .008
Self-evaluation v Control .91 .454
Control .23 .873

Block x Treatment 2.18 .064

 

3113

 

NH.mN

 

 

mumcuumcm

mumoucam

Hm.wm ~o.m~ am.mH vq.mm NH.mH a aouueoo mcaoamno
mm.mm hm.MN hm.MH nv.¢m om.NN NH.mH, m Hcaucow
mcHumm can mcHuacnw
wo.wm hm.mN oo.mH ov.wm vv.HN oo.mH mH ccHucaHo>MIwHom
mm.mm om.NN oo.mH mo.mm oo.mN NN.oH mH N xcch
vm.om no.mN mv.MH Nm.mm vH.NN hm.mH VH H xcch
mm.mm ov.Nm ow.mH mN.vm ov.oN ov.mH m N xcch
so.mm oo.~H mm.vH Nv.vm oo.mN no.vH m H xoon
Hcaucow mcHuaonw
NH.mm oo.mN mh.mH oo.om om.mN mN.NH v a N xoch
mN.wm m>.NN oo.HH em.Nm om.HN oo.mH v H xoch
Hcauccw
mCHumm can maHuacnw
vo.nm mm.mN vv.mH mo.nm mm.0N NN.mH m N xoch
mm.mm om.mN mv.vH mn.mm vH.NN vv.mH n H xcch
coHucaHm>meHom
cmaomwcancmam coHuoaHm>m :cHuocHEHacmHo oncommcalooam ccHuoaHm>m coHumcHEHacmHo I
c macaw

wumcuumom was mumcumam on» no Eacm HHam can :0 name: pccHnEcw was HHow

mH.m OHQMB

114

The test for interaction between blocks and
treatment (5 = 2.18, p < .064), although not significant
at .05 alpha level, was approaching significance. Thus,
the other tests in the analysis were viewed cautiously
because of confounding in an unbalanced design. Neither
of the tests for treatmept group differences were sig-
nificant. As before, the test for differences between
the two blocks was significant (H = 5.21, p < .008).
Post hoc analysis using the univariates and step-down H
indicated that the block differences were on the evalu-
ation ability posttest. The post hoc analysis results
are reported in Table 3.16. The combined cell means
for-blocks indicated that the group that had not been
exposed to the alternate model of self-evaluation per-

formed better on the evaluation skill posttest.

Table 3.16

Multivariate, Univariate, and Step-Down E Statistics for
the Block Effect on the Posttests in Their Full Form

 

 

 

 

Univariate Step-Down
Variable
F P F P
Discrimination 1.54 .228 1.54 .228
Evaluation 4.80 .039 8.93 .007

Free-response .43 .517 3.42 .079

 

115

Transfer of Learning: Time
Effect

This analysis explored for time by treatment
effects and time effects on the transfer of learning
scores. The data were analyzed in a two-way repeated
measures multivariate analysis of covariance design.
The overall multivariateatest of no association between
the three pretests and the dependent variables indicated
that there was no significant relation (2 = .73, p_< .676).
The results of the multivariate tests are presented in
Table 3.17. No differences were significant. These
results parallel those found in the analyses using

scores for the tests based on the reduced forms.

Table 3.17

Multivariate Tests for Time Effects and Time-by-
Treatment Interactions on the Tests
Representing Transfer of Learning

 

 

Sources of Variance E. p
Time .95 .448
Time by Block 2.25 .140
Time by Self-Evaluation v Controls 1.47 .277
Time by Controls .59 .633
Time by Block by Treatment .61 .715

 

116

Transfer of Learning: Summary

 

The supplementary analyses addressing the scores
representing transfer of learning produced results similar
to those obtained in the major analyses for hypothesis
testing. That is, no differences were found between
treatment groups on the set of three posttests. However,
differences were found on the set of three posttests
between those that had and not had previous exposure to
the alternative model of self-evaluation. No time effects
were found on the transfer of learning variables. Thus,
examining the measures within a transfer of learning
model did not provide any additional information about

the treatment factor.

Summary

Multivariate tests with planned comparisons were
performed to test mean score differences for treatment
on the three posttest measures of counselor performance
and counselor evaluation skill. A two-way design was
used so as to control for the possible confounding
factor of prior exposure to an alternative model of
self-evaluation. Three covariates were also included
in the analysis. Two planned comparisons within the
treatment factor were used to test the two hypotheses
addressing treatment group differences. Each treatment
contrast was tested by a multivariate test at the .025

alpha level. Neither contrast was significant (§’= 1.73,

117

p_< .19; E = 0.19, E.< .90). However, the multivariate

tests indicated that there was a difference between the

two blocks (H 4.46, p < .014). In a post hoc explor-
ation of the block effect it was found that the group
who had not been exposed to the alternate model of self-
evaluation performed better on the posttest measure of
evaluation skill than those who had been exposed.

A repeated measures approach to multivariate-
analysis of covariance was used to test the two hypothe-
ses addressing time effects. Each hypothesis was tested
at .025 alpha level. Neither test was significant.

The three questions on the practicum survey
checklist that addressed supervision preparation were
analyzed by three different statistical models. None
of the analyses indicated significant group differences.

Thus, the hypothesis testing supported the four
null hypotheses but failed to support the two hypotheses
that predicted treatment differences. The supplemental
analyses using scores desired from the full forms of
the discrimination and free-response tests produced
similar results. 'The interpretation, discussion, and

implications follow in chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary
The Problem

 

The goal of counselor training programs is to
produce counselors who can apply their skills in a pro-
fessional manner in the field. Throughout the training
program trainees are provided with opportunities to
develop knowledge and competencies necessary for a
foundation of professional and ethical practice. Coun-
selor educators have also stressed the importance of
facilitating trainees in their acquisition of the ability
to examine, criticize, and improve upon their counseling
performance. Self-evaluation is seen as essential to
the continued growth and development of the counselor,
both during their training and also in the field. How-
ever, although recognized as important to counseling,

little research has been directed toward self-evaluation.

Design and Method

 

The purpose of this research was to assess the

effects of self-evaluation training and the use of a

118

119

self-evaluation rating scale on counselor behavior and
counselor effectiveness. The subjects were 32 graduate
students from the MA counselor training program at
Michigan State University. Subjects were enrolled in a
required course for counseling majors, ED 819D, THE

Counseling Process.

 

A blocking variable was used to control for pos-
sible confounding due to prior exposure to an alternative
model of self-evaluation. Subjects were randomly assigned,
within blocks, to one of three treatments. All subjects
participated in response training prior to pretesting on
three measures of counselor skills and knowledge. After
this initial phase of training subjects received either
self-evaluation training or training in a meaningful but
unrelated counselor skill. The final phase for all three
groups consisted of roleplaying exercises. In this phase
the experimental self-evaluation group and one of the
control groups had access to the self-evaluation rating
scale. The other control group only had access to the
part of the self-evaluation scale addressing profiling
and tallying of counselor response modes. At the con-
clusion of the roleplaying phase subjects took the post-
tests. Testing covered three dependent variables. These
were counselor response discrimination ability, evaluation

skill, and counselor effectiveness.

120

The training lasted approximately 10 hours and
was received in three stages. The total span of training
was eight calendar days. Training was primarily adminis-
tered on an individual basis. However, for practical
reasons videotapes were shown in small groups with inter-
action between subjects minimized. Five to six weeks
after completion of training, subjects volunteered to
take the three follow-up tests. Subjects were also asked
to respond to the counseling practicum survey question-
naire in order to assess supervision preparation.

The dependent variables used in this study were
created to assess ability to discriminate effective
counselor responses, ability to evaluate a counselor-
client interaction, counselor performance, and supervision
preparation. Counselor performance was measured by
ratings on each subject's audiotaped responses to client
stimuli. The other dependent variables were measured
from paper-and-pencil tests. All of the measures, except
for the supervision preparation checklist, were adminis-
tered three times; that is, at pretest, posttest, and
follow-up. Scores on the discrimination tests and
counselor performance tests were derived from reduced
forms of the tests. That is, scores were obtained from
only those items that related to the stage of the counsel-
ing process addressed in the self-evaluation training.

Hoyt reliability coefficients for the three forms of

121

the discrimination tests in their reduced form were .49,
.34, and .57. The reliability estimates for the three
forms of the evaluation skill test were .56, .83, and
.90. Hoyt reliability for ratings on each of the three
reduced forms of the free-response counselor performance

test were .73, .75, and :57.

Results

Two-way multivariate analysis of covariance, with
planned comparisons within the treatment factor, was the
primary statistical model used to analyze the data and
test the hypotheses. Chi-square tests were used to test
group differences on the practicum survey checklist.
Supplementary analyses were performed to explore covariate
effects and treatment effects on scores derived from
the discrimination and free-response counselor perfor-
mance tests in their full form.

The tests supported the four null hypotheses.
That is, no differences were found between the two con-
trol groups on the set of three posttests or on the
practicum supervision preparation. Also no time effects
were found. The tests failed to support the two hypothe-
ses that predictedtreatment differences between the
self-evaluation group and the combined control groups.
Similar results were found in the supplemental analyses
using the extended forms of the discrimination test and

the free-response test.

122

Limitations

 

Three major areas of limitation were considered
relevant to understanding this research. These limitations
concern the characteristics of the subjects, the design
and methodology of the study, and the nature of the

measures 0

Subjects

Since it was not possible to secure a random
sample of counselor trainees, the results cannot be
generalized beyond the sample in this study. Subjects
in this study were MA counselor trainees who were in the
initial stages of their training program and had not yet
had a practicum experience. The subjects represented a
variety of counseling program specializations, both
within school and rehabilitation settings. The program
in which the subjects were enrolled has a behavioral
emphasis. By applying the Cornfield-Tukey (1956) bridge
argument, the reader may generalize these findings to
other populations with similar characteristics.

The study was integrated into the counseling
process pre-practicum class. Thus, the subjects were
essentially nonvolunteers, although they did have the
option to not release their data. The study also
required attendance at the Saturday workshop. This
raises questions about the motivation of the subjects,

particularly during the major phases of the training

123

packages. Several subjects reported that this factor
did affect their level of participation in the training
as well as their effort on the posttests.

Another sample limitation was the number of sub-
jects used in the study. Thirty-two subjects were used
for the posttest group cgmparisons. With the inclusion
in the analysis of a blocking variable the cell sizes
were small. Only 22 subjects could be used for the post-
test to follow-up test comparisons. Thus, the statistical
power of the multivariate tests used to analyze the data
was reduced. A larger number of subjects would have been

preferable.

Design and Methodology

 

Some limitations are inherent in the pre- and
posttest design. The primary limitations address the
effects of the pretest. The pretest could introduce both
a practice effect as an internal threat to validity, and
also a reactive effect as an external threat to generali-
zation. Another test limitation addresses the fact that
three tests were administered to the subjects. The
tests were ordered so as to minimize carryover from one
test to a later one. However, responses to the second
and third tests of evaluation skill and discrimination
ability respectively may have been affected by a pre-

ceding test.

124

Another potential source of invalidity is time.
The study spanned eight calendar days. Thus, although
interaction between subjects was minimized during the
three workshop phases, subjects were able to interact
at other times. A limitation inherent in most educational
research applies to this study. The research was con-
ducted in an experimental setting with a large number of
trainers available. Therefore, results cannot be legiti-
mately generalized to individuals receiving training in
nonexperimental settings and conditions, or to groups

receiving training as an integral part of their program.

Measures

The dependent measures used in this study also
had specific limitations. Three of the measures were
designed to assess certain counseling skills. The coun-
seling characteristics were operationalized in a specific
manner as determined by the form, content, and scoring
schema of the tests. This was further complicated by
the fact that the instruments had to be designed for dual
purposes in order to accommodate both this research study
and the parallel study (Martin, 1978).

Although a performance measure was used to assess
counselor effectiveness, it was only a simulation of
actual dyadic client-counselor interactions. Having
situations presented via audiotape with the trainee

making counselor responses into a tape recorder was

125

artificial and not an accurate representation of the way
in which a counselor interacts. However, this procedure
was chosen in order to standardize counselor performance
situations. Since subjects came from various training
specialty areas, the client stimuli represented a wide
spectrum of type of client, nature of problem, and
setting. This variety of stimuli does not represent

the reality of any one counselor's workload. The sub-
jects reported feeling overwhelmed by the rapid succession
of client stimuli and had difficulty focusing on each
stimulus. The artificial nature of the simulation may
have affected the accuracy of assessing subjects' response
skills at some gain in control and standardization.

A validity question relates to all the instru-
ments. Although reliability analyses were performed,
none of the measures were tested for concurrent or pre-
dictive validity. The research literature reviewed in
chapter 1 indicated that the ability to discriminate
effective responses does not guarantee that the subject
or trainee can or will communicate or respond accurately
in a counseling situation. With this question of the
validity of the instruments or measurement techniques
unresolved, it is hard to completely interpret results
as to how they relate to counselor effectiveness in the

work setting.

126

The limitations of this study include possible
threats to validity as well as problems associated with
subjects and the design. These limitations, which may
have decreased power and precision, may be partially
responsible for the failure to achieve statistical sig-

nificance.

Discussion of Results

 

Group Differences

 

The results indicated that no differences were
detected between the three groups on either the posttest
measures of counselor skills or the measure of supervision
preparation. The results thus supported the hypotheses
of no differences between the two control groups but
failed to support the hypotheses of predicted differences
between the experimental self-evaluation group and the

combined control groups.

Controlpgroups. The training received by the

 

two control groups only differed in the roleplaying
phase. The difference was in the feedback instrument
used while playing back the audiotaped roleplay. In
order to accommodate the parallel study, the difference
between the two feedback instruments used by the two
groups was minimized, since both focused on counselor

response types. Thus, the task performed by the second

127

control group was not as neutral as intended, as it
included a self-analysis component with a focus on

counselor behavior.

Experiment versus control groups. There are two

 

major explanatory sources for the failure to detect differ-
ences between the experimental self-evaluation group and
the combined control groups. One source is the treatments.
Namely, the treatments may not have been sufficiently potent
to create any differences. Secondly, the measures and
analysis may not have been sensitive or precise enough to
detect any treatment effects that may have been present.
Under the first source, treatment potency, three
factors will be considered; namely, the length of treatment,
the nature of the treatments, and the subjects' character-
istics. The general research hypothesis was that by
increasing counselor self-evaluation skills trainees'
counseling performance would improve. Thus, two components
are involved: (a) learning to become an accurate self-
evaluator and (b) consequent improvement in performance.
The treatment package may not have been potent or long
enough for both of these components to occur. The
actual length of training allocated to these components
was approximately five and one-half hours. This
included only three roleplay sessions where self-

evaluation was intended to have its greatest effect.

128

This phase of learning was probably not long enough for
any real changes in counseling performance to occur.

Another factor to be considered was the nature
of the treatment packages with respect to their dif-
ferences and similarities. In order to accommodate the
requirements of the parallel study, all three groups
received response training with its focus on counselor
behavior. Thus, even the control groups had a cue to
focus on and thus, to some extent, self-evaluate their
own counseling responses and performance. This was rein-
forced in the roleplay phase where again both control
groups, through the use of the counselor response pro-
file, focused on their own counseling performance.

A third factor related to treatment potency was
the motivation and involvement of the subjects. Although
demonstrations and exercises were provided to facilitate
the increase of self-evaluation skills, it is likely
that there was a wide diversity in actual 1eufl.of subject
participation. ‘This may have been exacerbated by the
experimental nature of the workshop whereby subjects
could not be completely informed as to the goals and
nature of the workshop experience.

The second explanatory source of the failure to
detect treatment group differences is the set of instru-
ments used to assess the variables of interest. All of

the instruments that were used were developed especially

129

for this study and the parallel study (Martin, 1978).
Due to time constraints little refinement of the instru-
ments was possible. This is reflected in the wide range
of reliability coefficients obtained. The reliability
coefficients for the discrimination tests were very low,
for the free-response performance test they were of
moderate strength, and those for the evaluation skill
test being quite high. The scores on the instruments
had large subject variability, thereby introducing a
source of imprecision and consequent decrease in power.
The instruments were also developed for dual
purposes for the two studies, thus the face validity of
the measures may be in question. In particular, the
instruments may not have been measuring counseling
behaviors that would have been affected by self-evalu-
ation. That is, the instruments may have in fact been

assessing basic counseling aptitude.

Effects of Treatment over Time

 

The results indicated that there were no sig-
nificant time effects. That is, for all 22 subjects
who took part in the follow-up test there was no sig-
nificant change in their scores over the six weeks from
the end of training. Nor was there a differential time
effect for the three treatment groups. The results
thus supported the hypotheses of no time effects.

These results may lend support to the idea that the

130

instruments were not assessing behaviors effected by
treatment but in fact may have been measuring basic

counseling skills.

Implications of the Study

 

Few clear implications can be drawn from this
research. The purpose of this study was to assess the
effects of self-evaluation training. The results indi-
cated that there were no significant differences between
treatment groups on the measures of counselor skills or
the measure of supervision preparation. In discussing
the results several explanatory sources for the failure
to find predicted differences were considered. Thus, the
primary implication is that additional research is needed
to address both self-evaluation training issues as well
as issues revolving around the problem of measuring

counselor effectiveness.

Suggestions for Future Research

 

As this research was conducted without many con-
crete prior findings, it should be viewed as exploratory.
Thus, the results of this study should indicate directions
for future research in the general area of counselor
self-evaluation, including aspects of this study that

should be altered if it were repeated.

131

The following suggestions for the direction of

future research are offered for consideration:

1. The definition of self-evaluation for research
purposes should be initially more focused in order to
provide research data to support the general hypothesis
that changes in self-evaluation can lead to changes in

counselor performance.

2. Measures should be developed to be more sen-
sitive to the counselor behaviors addressed in the defi-

nition of self-evaluation.

( 3}C Correlational research is needed in order to
explore an assumption made in this study; namely, that
the ability to self-evaluate is related to counselor
performance. Also, possible personality correlates of
the ability to accurately self-evaluate should be
explored. Such personality characteristics as internal-

external locus of control, defensiveness, dogmatism, and

rigidity are possible variables of interest.

4. Research is needed to explore (a) the time
necessary to change habits of self-evaluation, (b) the
time necessary for accurate self-evaluation to impact
upon performance, and (c) the most apprOpriate way to

include self-evaluation in counselor training programs.

5. Study of the effects of supervisor evaluation

as a supplement to self-evaluation is also needed.

132

A dissertation is meant to be a learning exper-
ience, and thus this researcher would alter several
aspects of her study if it were repeated. These changes

include:

1. Treatment packages--(a) a clearer distinction
between the experimentaleand control packages is needed,
(b) more explanation to provide focus to the self-
evaluation activities, and (c) restriction of the self-

evaluation package to more focused behaviors.

2. Length of treatment--training and application
of self-evaluation to counselor performance should be

extended maybe to also include a practicum experience.

3. Dependent measures--measures more specifically
related to the counselor behavior dimensions addressed
in the self-evaluation package need to be developed and

refined.

In Retrospect

 

Results of this research are inconclusive with
respect to the value and effectiveness of self-evaluation
as a counselor skill. As the research was in new areas,
it is not surprising that it generated more questions
than it answered. This researcher believes that self-
evaluation is an important counseling skill to acquire
and thus merits further research. She also believes

that training in self-evaluation should be included in

133

counselor preparation programs. Further research is,
therefore, needed to indicate the manner in which to
incorporate this element into training programs. The
researcher trusts that her study will prove valuable
to others, not only in designing future studies, but
also in designing counselor training programs with a

self-evaluation component.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

RELEASE FORM

APPENDIX A

RELEASE FORM

ED 819D
INTENSIVE SKILL INTEGRATION WORKSHOP
February 15, 19, and 22

I understand that by my signature below, I give my per-
mission for Norman R. Stewart and his two doctoral candi-
dates, Nancy Martin and Judith Taylor, to keep and to use
as data for preparing research reports and articles, the
audio tape recordings made during the activities in which
I participated and the written exercises I completed
during the course of the workshop.

Dr. Stewart, Nancy Martin, and Judith Taylor have offered
me the assurance that in no way will my name or other
personally identifying information be linked with the
audio taped material. I recognize that insomuch as my
voice will be part of the recording, there is a possi-
bility that I may be recognized by those to whom the
recorded material is played. However, I am assured that
no one will have access to this information other than
the three people mentioned and others under their direc-
tion who will assist in the task of data analysis. My
performance will in no way influence my course grade in
ED 819D.

SIGNATURE:

 

DATE:

 

134

APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS OF COUNSELING RESPONSE TYPES

APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS OF COUNSELING RESPONSE TYPES

RESTATEMENT: A statement which repeats or restates
all or selected portions of the cognitive content of
the client's previous communication. There is no
attempt to reflect feelings, to clarify, or interpret.

 

QUESTIONING: A statement in the form of a question
which serves two general purposes: (1) to get the
client talking, and (2) to elicit general information
about feelings and content.

 

INFORMATIVE: A statement which introduces information
useful or necessary to counseling (e.g., counseling
procedural matters, educational-occupational infor-
mation, testing information). It may be used when
responding to client questioning by explaining or
stating different courses of action. It is descrip-
tive in character and neutral in tone.

 

SUGGESTION: A statement designed to give the client
alternative courses of action and to give the client
help in making a choice. They are the counselor's
considered opinions and give the client leeway to
accept, refuse, or propose new ideas. They are open
rather than closed, and provisional rather than final.

 

REINFORCEMENT: A statement which praises or encourages
the client's verbalizations or actions.

 

EVALUATIVE: A statement which expresses the coun-
selor's own morals, values, or standards.

 

CONFRONTATION: A statement which emphasizes a dis-
crepancy in the client's communication and/or behavior.
There are three types of discrepancy: Between (1) what
client says at one time and another, (2) what client
says and what others say, and (3) what the client says
and what the client does. The purpose is to help the
client face the reality of a situation.

 

135

10.

136

REFLECTION: A statement which expresses a feeling
or emotion present in the client's previous communi-
cation. This can be a reflection of overtly or
covertly expressed feelings. The purpose is to
communicate understanding of the client's feelings.
Reflection primarily addresses the affective content
of the client's communication.

 

CLARIFICATION: A statement which is used to clarify
what the client has said. It can be used for two
purposes: (1) to clarify for the client that which
he has had difficulty expressing clearly and (2) to
clarify for the counselor so that he has an accurate
understanding of what the client means.

INTERPRETATION: A statement in which the counselor

states something which can be inferred from what the
client has said or done, but which the client has not
specifically discussed. The purpose is to provide

the client with a new frame of reference from which
to view his problem.

 

APPENDIX C

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TRAINERS

APPENDIX C

INSTRUCTIONS FOR TRAINERS

SELF-EVALUATION TRAINING
Instructions and Information for Trainers

Purpose of the Trainipg

 

The purpose of the self—evaluation training is to help the
counselor trainees develop skills in evaluating counselor

performance, and to provide them with a way to analyze, critique
and evaluate their own counseling behavior. Thus, by focusing in
on certain behaviors, the trainees should be in a position to
modify and improve their counseling performance. The stage of the
counseling process that has been chosen to be self-evaluated is
the beginning stage of the counseling relationship. This includes
the establishment of the relationship and initial exploration and
identification of the problem.

The self-feedback instrument to be used consists of two tasks:
(1) Charting counselor responses, and (2) Rating and selecting
appropriate action steps on ten behavioral dimensions.

Traininngormat for the Self-evaluation Group for the Saturday
Workshop

 

ACTIVITY TIME YOUR ROLE
Videotape 18 hours --
Lab. Exercises 1% hours Provide feedback to

2 trainees on audiotape
and written exercises

Selféevaluation k hour Provide feedback to

exercise 1 trainee

Roleplay k hour Roleplay a client
with i trainee

Self-evaluation k hour Evaluate trainee's
performance

Feedback k hour Provide trainee with

feedback on the accuracy
of their evaluation

137

138

The didactic videotape portion of the training will (a) present
the basic concepts involved and (b) demonstrate the application of
the self-feedback instrument.

After the videotape the trainees will work individually on exercises
that involve audiotapes and written materials. Here you role will be
to provide feedback to two trainees and help them with any difficulties
they may be having either with the instrument itself or the exercises.
The purpose of these exercises is to familiarize the trainee with the
instrument and the behaviors that are the primary ones to be monitored.

In the third unit the trainees will evaluate a tape of their own
that they have made previously (performance tape 5.2-5.6 for Ed. 819D).
You will now be working with just one trainee. You will listen to the
tape with the trainee and also evaluate it using the self-feedback
instrument. You will then discuss the evaluation made by the trainee,
with primary emphasis being on the self-ratings rather than the
charting of responses.

 

In the fourth unit the trainee will roleplay a counseling situation
with you as client. The roleplay will address the beginning stages
of counseling and should laSt a maximum of 20 minutes. The trainees
will evaluate their own perfrmance and at the same time you will also
evaluate their performance, after which you will provide the trainee
with feedback on the accuracy of their evaluation.

Overview of the Content of the Videotape

The tape is in two phases. The first phase reviews the responses to
be charted and includes demonstrations of identification and recording
of the responses on the Counselor Response Profile.

The bulk of the videotape addresses the rating of ten behavioral
dimensions. The charting is primarily a tool to get the trainees to
systematically listen to themselves. The dimensions have been grouped
into four groups for the purpose of discussion and demonstation.

Group 1: Dimension 1 and to some extent dimension 2.
This addresses the opening of an interview.

Group 2: Dimensions 4,5 and 6.
These address concrete counselor behaviors demonstrated
throughout an interview.

Group 3: Dimensions 2 and 7.
These address general counselor behaviors directed toward
the provision of facilitative conditions. These are
demonstrated throughout an interview.

Group 4: Dimensions 3,8,9 and 10.
These address the specific process of exploring concerns.

139

General Instructions for Lab Exercise Trainers

 

You will be working with 2 trainees (names and rooms
specified on your schedule) providing feedback on:

1. Exercises from the videotape
2. Lab. Exercises
In your folder you will find the following materials:

1. Copy of the videotape exercises (Supplementary
Exercise Text)--answers were provided on the
videotape with explanations.

2. Copy of the lab exercises--with answers and expla—
nation provided for you to give to the trainees.

Videotgpe

 

During the videotape presentation the trainees worked on:

1.
2.
3.

Two examples of charting responses

Two exercises of charting

Two examples involving counseling segments for
each of the four groups of dimensions. The group-
ings were specified on your original handout and
were grouped for ease of demonstration.

On the videotape answers and explanations were provided

for the

examples.

Lab} Exercises

 

These consist of three tasks:

1.

Reading material on the expansions of the
dimensions

Practice in charting a 5-minute audiotaped coun-
seling segment-~they have a model answer provided
in their exercise text.

Practice in using the rating and action steps for
the ten dimensions as applied to a lO-minute
audiotaped segment. To aid them in this task,

a counselor behavior checklist has been provided,
detailing the behaviors under each dimension.
Once they have completed the checklist, it will
be easier for them to select appropriate rating
and action steps for each dimension.

140

Your role

 

1.

2.

To answer any questions regarding either (a) the
charting task or (b) the ten dimensions.

To help them with any difficulties they may still
be having in discriminating between response
types.

To help them with any difficulties they may have
in using the response profile--both you and the
trainees have model answers for the 5-minute
counseling segment on the audiotape.

To help them with any difficulties they are having
in doing the rating of the 10 dimensions-—you

only have been provided with answers and expla-
nations, which you will share with the trainees.

Float back and forth between the two trainees that you
have been assigned to.

141

General Instructions for Trainers Working Individually
with Trainees Involved in Self-Evaluation

 

You will be working with one trainee ( name and room specified on your

schedule). There are four activities covered during this session.

1.

l. Self-evaluation exercise of previously made tape (8 hour)
2. Roleplay ( 1/3 hour)

3. Self-evaluation of roleplay (1/3 hour)

4. Feedback on evaluation (l/3 hour)

In your folder you will find the following materials :

Tape of 5.0

Evaluation of 5.0 tape (model answer)
Self-feedback instrument and checklist for trainee
Same as 3 for yourself

Instructions for roleplay

Self-evaluation instrument for trainee
Self-evaluation instrument for yourself

Blank tape for roleplay

mfimm-fiQN-l

Activity 1: Self-evaluation exercise (ghour)

1.

Play the tape - during the playback both you and the trainee will be
using the behavior checklist - checking items that you consider the
trainee covered adequately. Do this checklist independently of each other.

. Then using the checklist as a guide assign ratings and select action

steps - again acting independently of each other.

. Discuss how your ratings compare with the trainees - give them

feedback on behaviors they are not picking up on.

Activity 2: Roleplay_(l/3 hour)

See instructions on roleplay sheet.

Activity 3: Self-evaluation of Roleplgy (1/3 hour)

. Play the tape - during the playback the trainee shoul use the

Counselor Response Profile to record responses - note, the trainee
does not have to be 100% accurate or record every s-ngle response,
so try keeping the tape going. You should just use the checklist.

. Assign ratings and select action steps - again acting independently

Activity 4: Feedback on Evaluation (1/3 hour)

 

Discuss how your ratings compare with the trainee - give feedback on
accuracy and behaviors they may be missing or overemphasizing.

2. Give them feedback on how you felt as a client - see attached sheet

for dimensions.

APPENDIX D

INSTRUCTIONAL TEXT FOR SELF-EVALUATION TRAINING

APPENDIX D

INSTRUCTIONAL TEXT FOR SELF-EVALUATION TRAINING

Overview

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this phase of the skills integration
workshop is to develop your skills in evaluating counselor
performance and provide you with a way to critique and
evaluate your own counseling behavior. This phase will
therefore build upon the response training you received
on Tuesday, where you were concerned with identifying
counselor response categories.

Background Information on
Self-Evaluation

 

Self-evaluation is a process of self-analysis that
involves the ability to examine, criticize and improve
upon one's own counseling performance. As counselors, you
are all concerned about improving your counseling skills
so that you will be more effective when working with your
clients. However, before you can improve your counseling
behavior, you have to have some feedback on your present
performance. Feedback may be obtained from peers,
instructors, supervisors, clients, and yourself. Clearly,
your own feedback and evaluation is the most readily
available. Thus, it is important that you should become
a good and accurate evaluator of your own performance.

The acquisition and development of the ability to examine
and critique your own counseling behavior will stand you
in good stead, not only during your training at M.S.U.,
but also when you are a practicing counselor where super-
vision may not always be readily available.

Overview of Todayis Activities

 

In this workshop, we are concerned with developing
your ability to examine, critique, and improve upon your
own counseling behavior. You have already had one phase

142

143

of the training, namely the identification and practice of
ten important counselor responses. During today's phase
there will be a mixture of activities.

The first unit consists of (a) the presentation
of some of the basic concepts involved in self-evaluation
and (b) the introduction to and demonstration of a self-
feedback scale. This unit will be presented in the form
of a combination of written materials and videotape. This
will take about 1 l/2 hours. The next unit involves you
trying various evaluation tasks and exercises with feed-
back from a trainer. Finally, you will do some role-playing
and evaluate your own performance, focusing on your behavior
and deciding on ways to modify and improve it.

The goal of today's workshop is to provide you with
a way to systematically analyze your counseling performance
and to develop your ability to criticize and improve your
counseling behavior.

Basic Concepts

Self-evaluation is essentially a self-management
process as it involves monitoring and modifying your own
behavior, namely your counseling behavior. In order to
know what to monitor, you need to have a model of counsel-
ing which indicates variables that are important to the
counseling process.

Models

During your training at M.S.U. you are presented
with a model of the counseling process called Systematic
Counseling. This model defines 12 major stages within the
counseling process and states what should be done at each
stage.

In this workshop, we want to consider a model of
the counselor role within the counseling process. In par-
ticular, a model for the counselor role during the begin-
ning of the counseling relationship is proposed:

I. The counselor is expected to communicate core con-
ditions for counseling.

 

During the first few sessions the counselor's
objectives should primarily be (a) to create an
atmosphere in which the client can feel safe to say
the things he wants to say, and (b) to help the
client realize that the counselor is listening and
understanding what the client is saying. Thus, the
first goal of the counselor should be to provide and
communicate facilitative core conditions for counsel-
ing.

144

II. The counselor is expected to help the client explore
problems, concerns, and feelings.

The second goal of the counselor is to facilitate
client self-exploration which usually leads to a
better self-understanding of concerns, which in turn
makes possible a more successful course of action.
This exploration of problems, concerns, and feelings
provides the foundation on which the rest of the
counseling process is based.

Evaluation

 

Evaluation may be viewed as the attempt to describe,
appraise and in part influence the changes which take
place. This involves the specification of variables or
behavioral dimensions held to be important to counseling,
variables that can be observed in an interview and rated
against a criterion. The purpose of evaluation is not
just to analyze the counseling performance and rate it
against some standards but also to in part facilitate
improvement.

Methods of Evaluation

Today we are concerned with providing you with a
method to evaluate your own counseling performance. At
the finest level, counseling consists of individual
responses. Therefore, it is important for you to have
some awareness of your performance at this level, and to
be able to identify the type of response made. This is
the first step of evaluation, namely, the describing and
analyzingof a counseling performance. This will be
accomplished by the charting of responses during counseling
interviews. The next step involves the appraisal of the
counseling performance. This will be accomplished by the
rating of important counselor behavior dimensions sug-
gested by the counselor role model proposed. The third
step of evaluation is that which attempts to influence
the changes. This will be accomplished by deciding what
are appropriate action steps to take in order to improve
performance within each behavioral dimension.

 

 

 

Self-Evaluation Package

 

General Instruction

 

This self-evaluation feedback form is to be used
to evaluate your own counseling performance that you have
audiotape recorded. The procedures to be used are as
follows:

145

While listening to an audiotape of a counseling
session, record the frequencies of eleven counselor
responses on the Counselor Response Profile. This
will provide a detailed analysis of counselor
activity during the counseling session.

Using the response profile and personal recall of
the session, rate counselor performance on 10
behavioral dimensions and select appropriate
action steps to modify behavior within that
dimension.

Charting_Counselor Responses

Definitions

The counselor responses that will predominate

during the beginning stages of the counselor relations,
i.e., the stage of the process that we are concerned about
today, are:

1.

Informative: A statement which introduces information
or data useful for the client and to counseling. It
may be used in response to a client question by explain-
ing or stating alternatives.

Reflection: A statement that expresses a feeling
present in the client's previous communication.

I
J‘

Additive: Responses add deeper feeling and meaning
to the expression of the client.

 

Interchangeable: Responses express essentially
the same affect and meaning.

Subtractive: Responses subtract noticeable affect
from the client's communication.

Questioning: A statement in the form of a question
that gets the client talking generally elicits spe-
cific information about feelings and content.

Ooen-ended/Probe: A question that requires more
than a minimal one-word answer by the client.

 

Binary: A question that can be answered yes/no.

Multiple: Asking a string of questions.

 

146

4. Restatement of content: A statement that repeats or
restates all or selected portions of the cognitive
content of the client's communications. It deals with
content involving people, events, and things.

 

5. Reinforcement-Supportive: A statement that conveys
the counselor‘s support and reinforces the client's
words or actions.

 

6. Direction: A statement that could involve suggesting,
leading, or interpreting.

 

7. Other: A statement that cannot be placed clearly in
any of the above categories.

Instructions

While listening to an audiotape of a counseling
session, the counselor will identify and record each coun-
selor response. To aid the record-keeping, counselor
responses have been grouped in columns of five responses.
Having identified the type of response made, the counselor
will place a hash mark against that category in an approx-
imate position in the appropriate column to indicate which
numbered response it was. Thus, each column will only
contain five hash marks.

On the next page, you will find an example of the
Counselor Response Profile in which the first 20 counselor
responses have been recorded. The first five counselor
reaponses, in order, were: Supportive, informative,
informative, open-ended question, and interchangeable
reflection. At the right hand side, there is a column
to give the total frequencies of each response.

The response profile can be used to provide infor-
mation on how the counselor used the counseling time and
what response types were used, and the balance of response
modes. It thus provides a detailed analysis of the coun-
selor's behavior in a counseling session.

In the first part of the videotape presentation
that is to follow immediately, you will see a demonstration
of the use of the first part of the self-feedback instru-
ment. The first task is the analysis, identification, and
charting of counselor responses.

(PLEASE STOP READING HERE.)

147

muuuounnuucu

 

n>Hh ho mksoxu zH mumzommmx moaumzaou

.HzmHAo

. . . . . .onmmNm . . .

HAHhomm mmzommum monumZDOU

.wcuvuufl .wcuunuwmnm I uswuouuwn c

.h

.o

.c

wcucoaunoao .n

coauuafiuox .N

mark HmZOthfl

. . . . . . . . .mogumzaoo

148

Specific Ratings
Introduction

The purpose of this section of the self-evaluation
package is to provide you with feedback on specific coun-
seling behaviors and to determine alternative ways to
improve these behaviors. The 10 behavioral dimensions to
be used involve counselor behaviors that are particularly
important during the first few counseling sessions.

The dimensions fall into two clusters:
I. Communicate core conditions for counseling.

l. How well did I establish rapport and put the
client at ease?

2. How well did I communicate my desire to help, my
interest, and respect for the client?

3. How well did I maintain focus on the client and
time the interview pace and direction?

4. How well did I use my voice and language?

5. How well did I use verbal reinforcement?

II. Help the client explore problems, concerns, and
feelings.

6. How well did I use open-ended questions?
7. How well did I encourage the client to talk about
feelings?
8. How well did I help client explore concerns?
9. How well did I identify cognitive content of the
interview?
10. How well did I obtain specific details of the
client's concern?

General Instructions for the Specific Ratingg

Each behavioral dimension is to be addressed in two
ways:
(1) Rating and (2) Action Steps.

(1) Ratin Each dimension will be rated using a three-
pOlnt scale: Exceptional - Adequate - Inadequate.

Assessments are to be made using the response pro-
file and personal recall of the counseling session.

A rating of "Exceptional" indicates that most of
the criteria behaviors considered exceptional were
demonstrated.

149

A rating of "Adequate" indicates that not all of
the behaviors considered exceptional were demonstrated
and that none of the behaviors considered inadequate
were demonstrated.

A rating of "Inadequate" indicates that at least
one of the criteria behaviors listed as inadequate was
demonstrated.

(2) Action Steps After rating the behavioral dimension,
action steps are to be selected that are appropriate
for the counselor needs and level of performance, to
modify behavior within that dimension.

Example

6. How well did I use open-ended questions?

Rating: a. Exceptional: Asked well-formulated
questions that focused
on the client and
required a process
type answer.

Used questions effec—
tively to get the
client talking.

b. Adequate : Used some open-ended
questions, but they
were not always
clearly expressed.

c. Inadequate : Asked binary or mul-
tiple questions.
Questions did not
focus on client.
Asked poorly formu-
lated questions. Got
into a question-
answer format.

Action Steps: I need to ask more open-ended
questions.

I need to increase the clarity and
precision of my questions.

I need to ask questions that are
simpler and briefer.

I need to avoid binary/multiple
questions.

I need to ask questions that focus
more on the client.

I need to avoid a question-answer
format.

150

Expansion of Each of the Dimensions

 

In the following pages, each dimension will be

discussed and expanded upon.

1.

How well did I establish rapport and put the client at
ease?

This dimension deals with the skills of the coun-
selor both at the beginning of establishing a counsel-
ing relationship and at the start of subsequent inter-
views. In opening an interview, it is important to
provide conditions that éncourage the client to talk.
At the outset of an interview, the counselor must
reduce the client's initial anxiety to a level which
permits the client to begin talking about him/herself.
The counselor should also not talk too much as this
would restrict the client's talking.

After a simple introduction aimed at putting the
client at ease, the counselor should allow a short
pause giving the client a chance to talk if he is
prepared to begin. If, after a few seconds of silence
and there's no sign that the client is going to begin
the talk, the counselor will want to initiate communi-
cation. In the first interview, it may be helpful to
provide a minimal structure to the counseling process
or the counselor may use an encouraging invitation to
talk such as "You probably have some things you want
to discuss" or "Is there something particular you want
to talk about?" or "It must be hard to know how to
begin--please feel free to go ahead."

The essential counselor behaviors which constitute
this dimension are:

Using verbal and nonverbal gestures to reduce
client anxiety.

Allowing the client to initiate a tOpic.

Using minimal structure statement if appropriate.

Using simple invitation to talk. °

Restricting counselor talk.

Encouraging client participation.

How well did I communicate my desire to help, my
interest, and respect for the client?

 

 

This dimension deals with the skills of the coun-
selor to provide facilitative conditions. It involves
an awareness of the client's communication and communi-
cation of the counselor's attentiveness to the client.
Attentiveness is one way to communicate commitment,
involvement, and respect to the client. It is through

151

listening and responding appropriately to the most
important component of the client's communication that
the counselor communicates to the client that he is
interested and is attempting to understand. It is
through careful listening to what the client is say-
ing that the counselor may begin to reconstruct an
image of the client's lifespace as the client is
describing it. Respect involves the counselor's
belief in the client's ability to deal constructively
with his problem given appropriate facilitation. The
counselor should therefore be nonevaluative and should
encourage the client to express himself fully.

The essential counselor behaviors within this
dimension are:

Expressing genuine desire to help.

Listening carefully to the client's communications.

Responding to primary component of each of the
client's communications.

Communicate respect and interest by being fully
attentive.

Communicate belief in the client's strengths and
potential.

Listening so as to be able to reconstruct the
client's lifespace.

How well did I maintain focus on the client and time
the interview pace and direction?

 

 

This dimension deals with the skills of the coun-
selor to provide direction during an interview as it
is needed. One of the most important aspects of coun-
seling is that it is for the client, thus the focus
should be on the client. Counseling also involves
a process, thus the counselor needs to be alert to
the rate of progress of this process. The present
needs of the client are not being met if either the
interaction is aimless and lacks directions or if the
pace is too fast and overly controlled by the coun-
selor. The counselor skill involved is the ability
to anticipate the direction in which the counselor
wants the dialogue to proceed. Involved in the coun-
selor's decision as to which direction to take the
process, is the counselor's assessment as to whether
the client is ready and emotionally prepared to pro-
ceed in that direction.

The essential counselor behaviors within this
dimension are:

152

Responses centered on the client and the present.
Handling the pace and direction of the interview
appropriately for the needs of the client.
Avoiding rushing the client.
Refocusing when discussion wanders off on a tangent.
Accelerating the pace if necessary.
Refraining from too much leading, interrupting,
or jumping ahead of the client.
Avoiding an over-emphasis on a questioning role.

How well did I use my voice and language?

 

Not only do the things a counselor says have an
immediate impact upon the client, but also the manner
in which the counselor talks has an important effect
on the client. The use of a well-modulated, unexcited
vocal tone and pitch will reassure the client of the
counselor's own comfort with the client's problems.
The rate of speech should be such that the client can
follow easily and understand what the counselor is
saying. The counselor's statements should be concise
and well formulated using words appropriate for the
language level of the client. To always begin a
sharing or reflective statement with ”I hear you
saying" or "It seems that you feel" or "I feel that
you feel" or just "You feel" gets wordy, repetitive,
and even phoney.

The essential counselor behaviors within this
dimension are:

Using a soft, firm, interested tone.

Using a moderate rate of speech.

Speaking clearly and concisely.

Aiming language at a level appropriate for the
client.

Avoiding phoney language or jargon.

How well do I use verbal reinforcement?

 

The things a counselor says have an immediate
effect upon the client. The counselor's responses
can mold and shape the direction of the client's
responses. The use of intermittent one-word phrases
such as "mm-hm" serves as a verbal sign that the
counselor is listening and following what the client
is saying. However, overuse of those verbal stimuli
can also produce a "parrot-like" effect that has
negative results. Verbal reinforcement also includes
praise and encouragement of the client's verbalizations
and actions. Similarly, ignoral or nonreinforcement of
undesired behaviors, such as the client talking off the
topic, is an effective technique when used consistently.

153

The essential counseling behaviors within this
dimension are:

Awareness of the reinforcing effect of counselor
verbalization.

Using reinforcement naturally.

Using reinforcement appropriately.

Ignoring undesired behaviors.

How well did I use open-ended questions?

This dimension deals with the counselor's skills
in the use of the response category of questioning.
Questioning can be used to either get the client
talking or to elicit specific information. The most
effective type of question is the open-ended question
or probe. These require more than a minimal one-word
answer by the client. It is introduced with either
what, where, when, how, why, or who. Extensive use
of questioning can result in a "ping-pong" question-
answer effect. The essence of this dimension is
that the questions should be well formulated, brief,
clear, and precise. There is a tendency--which should
be avoided--to ask a string of questions (multiple
questions), especially if the client does not imme-
diately reSpond to the first question. It is also
important that a question should primarily focus on
one theme, especially if specific information is
desired.

The essential counselor behaviors within this
dimension are:

Using open-ended questions to encourage client
talk.
Using open-ended questions to elicit specific
information. '
Asking well-formulated questions.
Asking brief questions that focus on the client.
Refraining from asking binary or multiple questions.
Avoiding a question-answer format.

How well did I encourage the client to talk about

feelings?

The major goal of counseling is to facilitate self-
exploration on the part of the client. Counselor
empathy is known to facilitate client exploration, but
before a counselor can respond with empathy he must
be able to identify both the overt and covert expres-
sions of feelings by the client. Thus, the counselor
needs to become aware of and sensitive to certain

154

verbal and nonverbal cues that are part of the client's
communication. The counselor communicates empathy
through his words, statements, timing, and nonverbal
behavior. The two primary responses used are reflec-
tion of feeling and summarization of feeling.
Reflections that are of a greater intensity than the
feeling expressed by the client enable the client to
experience and/or express feelings he was unable to
express previously.

When dealing with clients' emotions, counselors
often fall into traps. One tendency is to probe for
further information or respond to the cognitive con-
tent rather than the feelings involved. Another
problem is having identified the feeling present,
the counselor does not know how to respond or has
personal difficulty in dealing with the particular
feeling expressed (blocking).

The essential counselor behaviors within this
dimension are:

Identifying overtly and covertly expressed feelings.
Reflecting feelings at the same or greater
intensity.
Encouraging client's affective responses by the
use of reinforcement, reflection, and open-
ended questions.
Recognizing own personal blocks to certain feelings.
Responding accurately and with specificity.

How well did I help client explore concerns?

The intent of the initial sessions is that the
client, with the help of the counselor through the
atmOSphere created, will feel free to talk openly and
candidly with the counselor about himself and his
concerns. In the initial stages of counseling, to
avoid embarrassment, many clients avoid talking about
the very things that distress them. Instead, they
talk about things which are relatively safe, or engage
in small talk. It is important that the counselor
does not reinforce social conversation.

Given safe, facilitative conditions, the client
will feel free to talk about his concerns. The coun-
selor's role is then to help and encourage the client
to identify, discuss, and explore his concerns. The
counselor uses restatement, summarization, open-ended
questions, and reinforcement to focus upon content
and identify themes and concerns. Through the use of
these responses, the counselor can help the client to
recognize and understand the concern more clearly.

10.

155

The essential counselor behaviors which constitute
this dimension are:

Providing facilitative conditions so that the
client may freely express himself.

Avoiding talking too much.

Not reinforcing social conversation.

Encouraging client to discuss concerns.

Using appropriate responses to focus and identify
themes.

Helping the client to recognize and understand
the concern more clearly.

How well did I identify cognitive content of the
interview?

 

This dimension deals with the skills of the coun-
selor to identify and respond to client thoughts or
ideas dealing with events, people, or things. As an
active participant in the counseling process, the
counselor's responses influence the direction of topic
development. Each communication of the client pre-
sents alternatives to the counselor in terms of the
content to which the counselor may respond. The
counselor's task is to identify accurately the kinds
of content presented and the alternatives to which the
counselor can respond. The counselor should respond
to that part of the client's communication that has
greatest bearing on the client's concern. The coun-
selor responses used as stimuli to focus upon and
elicit cognitive content are restatement, summarization,
and clarification.

The essential counselor behaviors within this
dimension are:

Identifying accurately the kinds of content pre-
sented in each client communication.

Responding to the most important component.

Using restatement, summarization, and clarification
effectively.

How well did I obtain specific details of the client's
concern?

In order for the counselor to fully understand the
client's concern and thus be in a position to help
him deal with the problem, the counselor needs to
obtain complete and specific details of the client's
concern. In particular, the counselor should try to
obtain a full and clear picture of the problem with
respect to the response, temporal, and situational

156

components. This information is elicited through the
skillful use of open-ended and concrete questions.
Another essential counselor characteristic is the
ability to recognize what information is missing that
is needed to complete the picture.

The essential counselor behaviors involved in this
dimension are:

Recognizing what information is needed.

Asking clear, concrete questions.

Identifying the response, temporal, and situational
components.

APPENDIX E

MODEL ANSWERS FOR SELF-EVALUATION TRAINING

APPENDIX E

MODEL ANSWERS FOR SELF-EVALUATION TRAINING

Charting Responses in Counseling Segment
Lab Exercise: Task 2

 

The counselor started with a supportive response to
help put the client at ease and then asked an open-ended
question to get him talking. To this the counselor
responded well with an additive reflection, picking up on
the indecision and the fear. Then he made a suggestion--
this was probably inappropriate this early in the interview.
Also, the next four responses were not entirely appropriate--
particularly the questioning. At this stage, the counselor
should be primarily reflecting, to indicate to the client
that he is interested and listening. Asking questions can
rather set the tone for an "interrogator" role. The ninth
and tenth responses were good additive reflections, helping
the client to explore the feeling of confusion and then
realizing that he was somewhat scared and nervous. The
eleventh response--a clarification, was not entirely appro-
priate. It had interpretive overtones and could have brought
the discussion to an end there. However, the client then
brought up new material about family and girlfriend and the
counselor reflected his nervousness. The next four responses
were also not appropriate for this stage of the process--the
counselor made two directing, interpretive responses and
then a binary question. At this stage, the focus was no
longer on the client but on the parents. The seventeenth
response, an additive reflection picked up on a new feeling,
namely frustration. The final response was a suggestion--
also not entirely appropriate as the counselor was leading
the client.

Overall, the counselor made some good reflections, but
also used some rather leading responses such as interpretation
and suggestion which are inappropriate for this early on in
the exploration of concerns and establishment of relationship.

Now listen back to the counseling segment to see if you
agree with the identification of responses and the general
evaluation of the interview.

After that, go on to the third task.

157

158

Evaluation of Counseling Segment
Lab Exercise: Task 3

 

 

§9mmary

The counselor made some attempt to put the client at ease, but really did
not do much to reduce initial anxiety - he was rather brusque, and tended to
ask questions, and interrupted or reaponded too fast.

The counselor rather latched on to the presented concern, namely school-
work problems and the client's lack of interest in classes. They then got
off on tangent in discussing Florida and the past, which the counselor rein-
forced by asking questions about Florida. Then the counselor refocused back
to present disappointment with an inappropriate suggestion about transferring,
instead of continuing to explore present concerns.

The counselor then made an inappropriate interpretation over the possibility
that the client had not made an effort to make things work here - this rather
destroys the building up of a trusting relationship, as the counselor really
has no information yet to make such an interpretation.

They then returned to more detailed exploration of classes - here the
counselor asked some rather badly worded questions which confused the client.
Also, the counselor seemed to have decided that it was a studying problem,
although he had not explored other things that might be happening to the Client.
Indeed, although the client mentioned going out drinking, the counselor in his
first major summarization did not address this piece of information at all.
Potentially, they could have got off on.the wrong topic if the client himself
had not begun to indicate that there might be another, more important problem.

The counselor was still tending to interrupt the client at a point when
the client was really wanting to talk, also the counselor was still rather
attached to the studying problem. Then the counselor began to realize there
was something else, so he kept quiet and let the client talk about other things
that were bothering him, such as his own disillusionment and annoyance with
himself - but again the counselor interrupted, still focusing on it being a
schoolwork problem - which the client tried to ignore.

Then the client began to bring up his main concern, namely his drinking
problem, and at last the counselor began to see the picture more in its
totality and realize that frustration with school was related to a drinking
problem.

They began to explore the client's real worry about his drinking, especially
in the light of his father's drinking problem. The counselor made an interpreta-
tion here that mdght have been more appropriate if the client had come to that
realization on his own.

In the final few minutes they began to focus on the concern, with the
counselor summarizing the general model of concerns as a way to highlight the
drinking problem and its effect on other areas of the client's life. They
began to address the client's real fears about becoming an alcdholic. The
counselor verified that this was the major concern and they began to start
exploring the concern in more detail.

159

Evaluation: Ratings

1.

10.

Rapport - the counselor made an initial response but really did not address
the client's anxiety. The counselor tended to interrupt, but not too much,
but he was rather pushing the client and asking too many questions, and
concentrating on one topic - thus Inadequate.

Interest - the counselor did say he would try to help and did seem to be
attentive to the client and show interest in the client. He did not always
respond to the primary component, and was not totally in touch with the
client, as he was not picking up on qhe unspoken.main concern, but this
was primarily because the client was being reticent. There was some use

of inappropriate reSponse types - thus Adequate, did not really mess up
enough to be inadequate.

Timing - the counselor overcontrolled the direction and pace, rather rushing
the client, allowing the client to wander off but doing some refocusing.
Basically, the focus was on the client but the counselor tended to ask

too many questions, interrupt, interpret, and suggest - thus Inadequate.

Voice - the counselor had an easy, comfortable, soft voice and used concise,
and clear verbalization - thus Exceptional.

Verbal Reinforcement - the counselor used "uh-huh" appropriately and
naturally. There was one point when he did not really ignore client
off-talk (the talk about Florida) but he did refocus - thus Adequate.

Qqestions - the counselor generally asked well formulated questions; however,
there was one point when his questions were not clear and he asked some
binary questions. They almost reached a question-answer format - thus

on this basis an Inadequate.

Feelings - they never really did get into exploring feelings, they remained
cognitive for most of the interview. The counselor made some attempts to
reflect and address feelings, but the client did not respond too much. This
the counselor tried, but the client was not entirely willing - the counselor
could have tried to do more empathy. The counselor did tend to stick with
cognitive content - thus Inadequate.

Explore concerns - the counselor invited the client to discuss concerns and
generally used restatement and questions well. He used summarization to
identify themes and provide direction. Generally, he did help the client
to explore concerns - thus Exceptional.

 

Cognitive content - the counselor did miss important content and focus on
the presented concern. Generally, restatement, summarization, and clarification
were appropriate - thus Adequate.

Details - the counselor was just beginning to obtain details and identify the
components. He was beginning to ask concrete questions to elicit specific
information - thus Adequate so far.

APPENDIX F

CHECKLIST FOR SELF-EVALUATION TRAINING

APPENDIX F

CHECKLIST FOR SELF-EVALUATION TRAINING

For each item, check in the circle if the counselor ade-
quately covered it during the performance.

Dimension 1: Rappqrq

1. Make initial reSponse to put client at
ease.

Orient client to situation.

Restrict counselor talk.

Not interrupt.

Encourage client participation.

mews:
.
AAAAA
vvvvv

Dimension 2: Interest

Cmmmunicate desire to help.
Attend to the client.
Show interest in the client.
Listen to client as indicated by res-
ponding to primary component of client's
communication. ( )
5. Seem to understand the client's life-

Space i.e. was in touch with the client

and what was happening to him. ( )
6. Not interrupt or jump to conclusions. ( )
7. Not use inappropriate reSponse types
such as interpretation, confrontation,
or suggestion. ( )

waH
0
AAA
VVV

160

161

Dimension 3: Timing and Focus

 

 

 

1. Maintain focus on client. ( )
2. Control direction and pace of the
interview. ( )
3. Avoid rushing the client. ( )
5. Refocus when discussion wanders off the
tOpic. ( )
6. Use apprOpriate response types for this
stage of counseling i.e. use restatement,
reflection, summarization, informative,
and questioning. )
7. Avoid an interrogator role. ( )
8. Refrain from inappropriate responses such
as leading, interrupting, interpretation,
suggesting, and confrontation. ( )
9. Bring session to a smooth and appropriate
ending. ( )
Dimension 4: Voice and Language
1. Use voice control (softness, pitch, rate).( )
2. Ask questions and make statements that
were clear and concise. ( )
3. Use language appropriate for the client
(non-technical vocabulary, well-formulated
thoughts). ( )
4. Avoid rambling and repetition. ( )
Dimension 5: Verbal Reinforcement
1. Use verbal reinforcement to shape
desired client verbalizations, i.e.
use "mm-hm," "go on," "tell me
more." ( )
2. Ignore client off-talk i.e. when
client wanders off on a tangent. ( )
3. Use reinforcement naturally and
appropriately. ( )
Dimension 6: Questions
1. Ask well-formulated open-ended questions.( )
2. Use questions to initiate client talk. ( )
3. Use questions to elicit information. ( )
4. Ask brief questions that focused on the
client. ( )
5. Avoid binary/multiple questions. ( )
6. Avoid question-answer format. ( )

162

Dimension 7: Feelings

1.

Encourage client affective talk by use
of reinforcement, reflection, and
questions.

Identify overtly and covertly expressed
feelings and reflect them at same or
greater intensity.

Use empathic reaponses to encourage
client talk.

Respond accurately and with Specificity.

Dimension 8: Explore Concerns

1
2.
3.
4

Invite client to discuss concerns.
Encourage client to talk about self.
Control own re3ponses so as to allow
client free expression.

Use restatement, probes, and rein-
forcement to focus and elicit content.
Use summarization to identify themes
and provide direction.

Use check questions to determine if
summarizations are on target.

Refrain from interrupting, interpreting,
confronting or suggesting.

Dimension 9: Cognitive Content

1.

WM

Use restatement of content to identify
and reapond to cognitive portion that
was of most meaning to the concern.

Use summarization and clarification.
Use reSponses that were clear, accurate,
and concise.

Dimension 10: Details

How well did the counselor. . .

1.
2.
3.
4

Identify response components of concern.
Identify temporal components concerned.

Identify situational components involved.
Use concrete questions to obtain specific

information for the client.

AAA

vvv

APPENDIX G

DISCRIMINATION POSTTEST

APPENDIX G

DISCRIMINATION POSTTEST

SKILL INTEGRATION WORKSHOP

ED 819D FEBRUARY 22, 1977

RESPONSE EXERCISE

Instructions: Please read each counseling situation
and client statement.

For each client statement circle the

counselor response which you consider
to be most apprOpriate.

163

1.

164

Situation: A 14 year-old boy is talking to his school counselor. This is
the third interview. The client has yet to say what is really on his mind.

Client: (Hesitatingly). . . uh . . . my friends are always talking about
girls. . . and things they do with them. . . I don't know what they are
talking about. . . - .

(a) You're feeling really confused about girls and sex.

(b) Your friends are always talking about girls and you feel left out.
(c) How can I help you exactly? '

(d) It sounds like you wish you had a girlfriend too.

Situation: Young mother of three is seeing a counselor at a women's counseling
center. It is her fifth interview and she is discussing her problems with
her children. = ‘ '-

Client: I know we've talked about this many times before and I tried some
of the things we talked about, but I really don't understand why my kids can't
keep quiet while I'm studying!

(a) Your difficulty understanding seems to indicate that you don't really go
along with the explanation we've come up with several times before.

(b) Your kids have really been bothering you again this week?

(c) You're having difficulty in understanding why your kids behave that way.

(d) Perhaps we can.work out a way to keep them from bothering you.

Situation: The client is a housewife who is frustrated with raising her
four children. This is the seventh interview. She and the counselor have
been discussing ways to cope with her frustration.

Client: I'd really like you to tell me if I'm crazy or not.

(a) It sounds like you are concerned about how I see you.

(b) You want me to tell you if I think you are crazy.

(c) You are worried that I think you are crazy.

(d) You are asking me what I think, but maybe what you are telling me is
that you think you may be crazy.

Situation: A 16 year-old girl talking to her high school counselor - fourth
interview.

Client: I finally found a way to quit smoking - I'm.just going to go "cold
turkey."

(3) That's a good idea.

(b) You think you could do it?

(c) I wonder if you realize how difficult it is to stop "cold turkey."
(d) WOuld you like to talk about how to go ahead doing that?

5.

7.

165

Situation: The client is a middle-aged businessman at a private clinic.
It is the middle of the fourth interview.

Client: I think the reason I'm.not getting along with my wife right now
is that I'm so wrapped up in things at the office. If I wasn't so busy at
work.there wouldn't be any problems.

(a)
(b)
(e)

(d)

Maybe you should take some time off the job, to work on things at home.
How does your wife feel about it?

You seem to be concerned enough about the problems to come here for help,
but you avoid talking about the feelings involved.

You're really upset about having to work so hard at the office.

Situation: The client is a teenage high school dropout whose parents are
putting pressure on him.to go back to school. This is the sixth session.
He and the counselor have been discussing job possibilities.

Client: I don't know what I want to do. . . and anyway, I can't do anything
about it. . . my parents are always on my back, and I'm.sick of it.

(a)
(b)
(e)
(<1)

You feel that there's nothing that you can do to get your parents off
your back.

You're saying you don't know what to do, but last week you wanted to

be a car mechanic but thought your parents would never approve.

Let's run through the alternatives we've discussed before and see why
you're discarding them.

But last week you were so excited about being a mechanic - what happened?

Situation: A 22 year-old male student seeing a college counselor about his
social life - this is the third interview.

Client: Everybody else seems to be having fun and going out - I don't seem
to get out at all - all I do is sit in.my room and listen to my stereo.

(a)
(b)
(e)
(d)

Did you go out at all this week?

What have you tried to do before to meet new peOple?

You don't seem to get out at all and have fun like other peeple.
Why don't you try getting out of your room.more.

Situation: The client is a middle-aged woman at a community mental health
agency. This is her eighth interview with the counselor.

Client: We've talked about this problem over and over and I've tried all

the things we've come up with in here, and none of them have really worked. . .
I don't know what to do next. I've run out of energy.

(a)
(b)
(e)
(<1)

You feel discouraged and unsatisfied because you've really tried hard
to solve this problem.and nothing seems to help.

Well, let's see if we can come up with something new for you to try
this week.

I wonder if the reason you're having so much trouble with this is you
really don't want to cha e.

What did you try this wee that didn't work?

10.

11.

12.

166

§i§qq§ign: A 32 year-old male at a community mental health agency. It is
the second interview and the client is noticeably upset.

gligng: I find it hard to believe that my wife has really left me. I mean,
she really didn't have any reason to. . .

(3) You're still having a hard time accepting the fact that she really walked
out on you.

(b) You are still really hurt that she'd leave like that.

(c) She gave you no reasons for leaving?

(d) You're really unprepared to make it on your own.

'~

Situation: A college female junior is talking to her dorm advisor for the
first tine.

Cliqug Maybe I'm just not cut out for college. Sometimes, I think it might
just be better to be a saleSperson or something like that and not worry about
neking something out of myself.

(a) You are having difficulty with school and are thinking of dropping out.
(b) Have you been having problems in your classes?

(c) You're having doubts about the value of a college education.

(d) You're really wondering about whether you can.meke it in college.

Situation: A high school dropout has come in to see a vocational placement
counselor for the first time. ”

gigant: I heard about some tests you can take to help you decide what job
you'll like. Can I take them here? Are they any good? Some of my friends
said they don't help, but I need to try something.

(a) Let me tell you something about the vocational services we have here.

(b) You are wondering whether the test information will help you decide
about a job.

(c) Have you taken any of these sort of tests before?

(d) Tell me, what you have done to try and get a job.

Situation: A 20 year-old girl talking with a counselor at a mental health
agency. It is the third interview and they have been discussing her fear
of flying in a general fashion.

Client: I really want to do something about my problem about flying as I
‘would like to go to my sister's wedding in California in the summer.

(a) In order to work on this we need to find out more details about the
problem. . . when did it start?

(b) Have you thought of other“ways to get out to California?

(c) You are really motivated to do something about your problem.

(d) It would be nice if we could help you enough so you could fly out there
then.

13.

14.

15.

16.

167

Situation: A 12 year-old girl has been referred to the counselor for biting
her nails. This is the second interview.

Client: I don't know. . . I guess I just do it when nothing much is going
on. . . I'm not sure.

(a) You're not certain exactly when you bite your nails.

(b) What else do you do when you're bored?

(c) well, maybe you can keep track of when it happens - then we'll know
more about your problem.

(d) When peeple are bored or nothing much is happening, they quite often
fiddle with things and bite their nails.

Situation: Third interview between a female college junior and her counselor.
In the previous interview, they were just beginning to explore her relationship
with her parents. This is about fifteen minutes into the interview.

Client: I had a good weekend. I saw a play - I'm an English major, you

know - I really like Tennessee Williams - his characters are always so
intense and interesting.

(a) Shall we return to what we were discussing last week.

(b) Have you thought anymore about what we discussed last time?

(c) It sounds like you had a good weekend.

(d) I wonder if talking about the weekend is a way to keep from discussing
'the problem of your parents.

Situation: First interview between a middle-aged woman and a community agency

counselor.

Client: I'm.not sure if you can help me - maybe I've come to the wrong place

and I should talk'with my doctor instead. Can you tell me what you do here?

(a) Why don't you try telling me what is bothering you?

(b) You are wondering if I can help you or whether your doctor would be the
right person to see.

(c) ‘Well, we offer free counseling services to people in the community who
want to talk about things that are bothering them.

(d) You are feeling rather uncomfortable about being here.

Situation: A 17 year-old girl is having difficulty deciding which colleges

to apply to. This is the fourth interview.

Client: I know we decided last week that I needed to find out about five

colleges to help me decide, but I don't have any idea about how to go about
getting that stuff. Do you have any suggestions?

(a) You are uncertain about what to do next.

(b) We have a list of colleges here and the addresses to write to for the
catalogs. . . you could look at those.

(c) What ideas do you have about how to get.the information?

(d) You were not able to get the information yet.

17.

18.

19.

20.

168

Situation: A 16 year-old girl is talking to her caseworker at the court
about family-related problems. This is the fourth interview.

Client: I‘m thinking about running away from home. Things have gotten
worse. What do you think about that?

(a) Things must be pretty bad at home right now for you to be considering
getting out.

(b) You're thinking of running away since things at home are impossible.

(c) You're upset with things at home and just want to get out.

(d) What's been happening that has made things so much worse that you
want to run away.

Situation: The client is a young married woman who is seeing a community
college counselor about a concern unrelated to her pregnancy. It is the fifth
interview.

Client: The prospect of being a mother still amazes me. I don't feel
ready for it. I hoped I'd be better prepared for everything. Could you
tell me a good place to get information on prenatal care?

(a) we have some brochures here from local agencies that offer that
type of service.

(b) It must be very exciting to be having your first child.

(c) You're worried about the prospect of having a baby when you hadn't
planned on one so soon.

(d) I'm wondering if you'd like to talk about your pregnancy rather than
the concern we've been discussing.

Situation: A factory worker is talking to a personnel officer at his plant

about work-related problems. The counselor is trying to get a full under-
standing of the problem.

Client: I was late for work three times again this week. The boss doesn't

mind us being a little late, but not as late as I'm.getting to be.

(a) How late have you been coming this week?

(b) You think your boss is pretty reasonable about workers coming late.

(c) The factory rules state that if you're late more than five minutes, you
get docked 15 minutes pay.

(d) I'd probably be more upset if I were your boss.

Situation: The client is a newly-married female talking to her counselor at a

community mental health agency and it is the fifth interview.

Client: I just don't know why I can't get along with my mother-in-law. She's

Empossible. You're married. . . do you.have the same problem?

(a) It's funny how many jokes are made about mother-in-laws. They really
are a problem sometimes.

(b) You're wondering if others experience the same problems you're having.

(c) I get along pretty well with my mother-in-law.

(d) In what way is she impossible?

21.

22.

23.

24.

169

Situation: A 27 year-old mother of three who has family problems is seeing
a community counselor. They have been discussing different ways she can
handle her children. This is the seventh interview.

Client: I'm just so tired all of the time - I don't know what's wrong with
me. MaybeI should go and see a doctor.

(a) I'm wondering if you are using the fact that you're tired as an excuse
for not trying to handle the situation at home.
(b) You're run down and think there may be something physically wrong with you.
(c) You are disturbed by being so tired and are concerned that you may
have something wrong with you.
(d) What exactly do you mean by being tired all of the time?

Situation: A 28 year-old male has come in to see the company counselor.

Client: I really feel like I need to talk to somebody. . . but I'd hate
for something to get back to the boss. . . working here is pretty important
to me.

(a) You are concerned about your boss finding out some of the things you
might say to me.
(b) It is the company's and my policy that whatever you say here is confidential.
(c) You are bothered by something that is happening here at the company.
(d) This job is important to you.

Situation: The client is a college sophomore. It is the sixth interview.
He and the counselor have been.working on ways to improve his social life.

Client: I know now why things don't work out for me - I'm.too stupid.
I'm.no good socially. I'm no genius at school. . . I'm not that good at

anything.

(a) Putting yourself down like that could be your way of not taking
re8ponsibility for dealing with your problem.

(b) It sounds like you are feeling really inferior.

(c) I'm beginning to think you may be getting something out of putting
yourself down.

(d) You are feeling unhappy and disillusioned with yourself.

Situation: A 16 year-old boy is flunking English and social studies. This
is the second interview with the school counselor.

Client: I really don't want to flunk those classes - what can I do about it?

(a) You want to work on passing these classes.

(b) Why don't you tell me exactly what you are doing in these classes. Let's
start with English.

(c) How are your grades in those classes at the moment?

(d) One thing that might really help is setting up a study schedule.

25.

170

Situation: The client is a male college junior talking to one of the school
counselors. It is the seventh interview.

Client: You really make me mad! We do all this talking in here and you
suggest all these things for me to do, but you don't realize how hard it
is for me to do them!

(a)
(b)

(e)
(d)

You're really angry at me for not understanding.

You think I don't understand how difficult it is for you to do.these
assignments.

Maybe we should take things a little slower.

You're really upset about how difficult it's been to do anything about
solving your problem.

APPENDIX H

RATING FORMS FOR EVALUATION SKILL TEST

APPENDIX H

RATING FORMS FOR EVALUATION SKILL TEST

Instructions

 

Listen to the accompanying audiotape of a counseling per-
formance. Then rate the counselor on each item on the
rating form attached. Some items are to be just rated for
quality, i.e., how well the counselor performed on that
item; some items are to be rated for both quality and
quantity. You may be able to rate some items as you are

actually listening to the tape.

Please use the following scales:
HOW WELL: 0 - No attempt
l - Poorly
2 - Less than acceptably
3 - Acceptable
4 - Well
5 - Exceptionally well
HOW OFTEN: l - Seldom or never
2 - Less than desirable
3 - Often enough
4 - More than desirable

5 - Excessively

171

1372

PRETEST

RATING EXERCISE

Dimensions are to be rated on a six-point scale for quality and a five-point scale
for frequency.

HOW WELL: 0 - No attempt

l - Poorly

2 - Less than acceptably
3 - Acceptably

4 - Hell

5 - Exceptionally well

GENERAL_BEHAYIQBS:
How well did the counselor ....
Communicate desire to help the client?

l.

9M.UN
...

Show interest in the client?

Encourage the client to talk about self?
Encourage the client to talk about feelings?
Use voice control(softness,pitch,rate)?
Use language(non-technical vocabulary,well-

fOrmulated thoughts)?

Seem to understand the client's lifespace?

CQUHSELQB_BE§EQNSES=

How well and how often did the counselor ....

8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.

13.

14..

15.
‘6.

l7.

18.

Use reflection of feelings?
Use restatement of content?
Use open-ended questions to
initiate client talk?

Ask questions and make state-

. ments that were clear and concise?

Use empathic responses to
encourage client talk?

Use concrete responses to obtain
specific information from client?
Use verbal reinforcement?

Ignore client off-talk?

Use refocus responses when client
wanders off the tapic?

Use check questiohs to determine
if summarizations are on target?
Uses appropriate response types?

0

HOW OFTEN: l - Seldom or never

2 - Less than desirable
3 - Often enough
4 - More than desirable
5 - Excessively

0101

HOW WELL

0 l 2 3 4 E

O l 2 3 4 5

0 l 2 3 4 5

0 l 2 3 4 5

O l 2 3 4 5

0 l 2 3 4 5

0 l 2 3 4

HOW HELL HOW OFTEN

3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4
3 4 5 l 2 3 4

173

 

.. .. n u . .. . a s . .. as... sets. sets... 2.. s.
n v n u . n c n u . o .233 co 9.- nco...~..a§a ..
. 3.230.. 3 2.3.3.... «8.3 on: .2
a v n u p a Q n N p o no.3. o... to «.8231
«3.... :2... 323.39. .389. 3.. .u. .
a c n u . a c a u . o 2.3;... 2...... 9.82 .m.
u c a u . a v n a . o 25.58852 .33.. 3.. ....
a q a a . a o. n u . o 3...... 8... 3.35.... 3:8...
.. . 333 3 8233.. 39.2.8 3.. .3
u. o a a . m. o a a . o 2.3 .8... sass...
. 3 32.2.3; 9.58.8 on: .w.
a v a .n p u o a a p o «3.9.8 a... can... 23.2. 3c!-
. . . . .33. 3....- ..eo 2.3.3.... «2 .2
.339... «5.353 a v a u u .
05 39.9.5 0.63 3535 .8 a c n N — To 5.3 «cg—0 33:...
.23... 33.33... a... 3 2.033.... 32.0-5.3 3.. .o.
583 a 3 8.33 23.5 .nu a o a u p a o n u p o . 33:8 .0 355332.... 3... .0
$2.22. 3.28.... a s a a . . .. a a . .. tar... .9 838......5 ..
.2233... 335... .3 3.32.3 a... 3‘ :33 )9. u..- ..3 1
32.32.60
3.5.09.8 .385. $55... .3 E a. . . a g "a;
.ctoocou .o
35:38.. 3:83.. 3:83 .3
2330......» . .. . .
3..» 23.9 3......3 n v a u . o .333»: race—.9 2... 9.33%.... 3 soon a
no on 32.83.. 6.6 .828 .3 n v a a p o 23:95.... 3.2.3.8
.333... a... .o . 4.03.5533? Garage-c8793.... 3... .u.
3.... 1.- 5.38... .223 «u o. o n u . .— ..32.g3.¢.u3.8..2.e3 3.3 on... .m
. $802.3 .
«Sun; 3 2.3.9 3...... ..~ H u a u . o .33.... use...- u.3 3 35.3 .3 $958..” c
.83-3.. 3 22.9 2.3.5 .8 n u . o t... 2.2- u.3 3 «5:9 .5 2.9535 n
.33 a. 2.3.9 .3 a v n N p o. pace-.0 .5 a. «£3... 30...». .N
3 822...... 3:... 9.... .2 a v n u . o 38:0 s... A... 8 58.. 8323-8 ..
2.3.8.353 a... a... ..o.. :8. .... 3.358 03 v... .73 I...
“was... ears. 6.. 3.. "g
_ :2. 5222.8... . a
30333.6 u a So: - v
.2232. :2. 9...... u v .2339: n a
£39... :33 .. n 2338- ...... 33 .. a
032.3» :2. 33 .. u 3.82 . p
.32... to .833 a . "auto 29.. «93.- 8. u o 36: :9.

38...... use...

APPENDIX I

STIMULI FOR FREE-RESPONSE POSTTEST

APPENDIX I
STIMULI FOR FREE-RESPONSE POSTTEST

Situation: The client is a 20 year-old male community college student.
He made an appointment to see the counselor and this is the first inter-
view. He seems to be on edge and sounds apolegetic.

Client: I feel like I'm taking up your time and that someone may be
waiting that really could use your help. This thing of mine seems
silly - even to me.

Situation: A 20 year-old female college student has been discussing
her fears about staying in school. She'd made up her mind to continue
but now is waivering. It is the seventh interview.

Client: I know I said I was going to stay in school but I changed my
mind. . .it's just too much work. . .

Situation: A 28 year-old male who is out of work is talking to a
community agency counselor about needing to find a job. It is the
eighth interview.

Client: No - I didn't go for those job interviews. I guess that's the
third time I messed up. . .

Situation: A 40 year-old male is talking to a counselor at a private
clinic during the first interview.

Client: Because of my job I have a really hard time getting here during
the day. Do you have evening hours?

Situation: Sixteen year-old female client talking to a family counselor
about problems getting along with her mother. In past weeks she has
avoided talking with her mother about things she and the counselor decided
she would discuss with her mother. It is the eighth interview.

Client: Yeah. . .I talked to my mother about it. Boy it's really cold
in here. Is the heat on? Boy, isn't this weather awful!

Situation: Female high school girl talking to school counselor about
problems getting along with her peers. This is the first interview.

Client: I don't understand why the other kids don't like me. . .why
they think I'm so different. I don't even have one good friend.

Situation: Thirty year-old female talking to a community agency
counselor. She is describing her relationship with her mother. This
is the second interview.

Client: I really loathe my mother. She disgusts me. . .always prying
into my life. But I can't leave her on her own. . .anyway, I don't
have anywhere to go myself.

174

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

175

Situation: Forty-five year-old male client at community agency talking
about his marriage. He has been having trouble acknowledging his
feelings about his wife's intention to divorce him. It is the fifth
interview.

Client: I don't really know what's wrong. I just feel depressed and
anxious all the time. I don't know. . .maybe it's just been a bad week.

Situation: Twelve year-old boy talking to the school counselor about

being late for school in the morning. It is the second interview.

Client: I'm not late all the time - just sometimes. . .something
happens at home and I'm late.

Situation: Female college sophomore talking with her academic advisor -
it is the third interview.

Client: You know. . .I've been thinking over what we talked about last

week and I'd really like to find out more about horticulture - but do
they offer that on this campus?

Situation: Fourteen year—old girl is talking to a caseworker at the
court. It's the sixth interview. In previous interviews she had been
talking about how unbearable things have been at home.

Client: I've been putting you on. I really don't want to run away
from home, I like it most of the time.

Situation: The client is a 13 year-old girl who has a tardiness problem.

She has been seeing the junior high counselor for three weeks - this
is the fourth interview.

Client: Remember how we said I should try to get to school on time
at least three times this week? Well, I made it all five days!

Situation: Sixteen year-old male high school student talking with
his school counselor in the fourth interview. In previous interviews
they have been talking about his home situation and how to get along
better with his mother.

Client: I had a great weekend - stayed out all night. That really
upset my Mom, but it was worth it.

Situation: The client is a 24 year-old mother of four young children.
She has been seeing a mental health counselor about her depression and
general inability to cope with things at home. This is the eighth
interview. The client comes regularly to her counseling appointments,
but things don't seem to be changing at home.

Client: I was thinking. . .maybe I should come in and see you more
often. I really like talking with you and it makes me feel good and I
leave her feeling great, but after a few days everything's back to its
usual messed up state and I can't seem to cope with things.

15.

16.

l7.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

176

Situation: Thirteen year-old boy has been sent down to see the junior
high counselor by his math teacher for being a general nuisance in his
classes - first interview.

Client: I'm confused - what am I doing here. Why have you asked to
see me, I didn't do nothing wrong.

 

Situation: Thirteen year-old girl has been seeing the counselor
about her tardiness problem.

Client: I'm sorry. . .I forgot to bring those sheets of paper
again. You know, those ones where I'm supposed to keep track of how
late I am for classes each day. I'm sorry. . .know it's the third
time I've forgotten.

Situagigg: High school sophomore has come to see a counselor about
his problem studying for school and his general slow reading - this
is the second interview.

gliggt: How much I studied last week? - Well, I'm not sure. . .I
do it in bits and pieces and it also seems to depend on my classes
and the assignments.

Situagion: The client's a male college freshman who came voluntarily
to the counseling center. This is the first interview.

Clieng: I really feel I lonely - nobody cares about me or shows any
interest in me - I could disappear and nobody would notice.

Situation: Newly employed male talking to company counselor. First
interview.

Cliggg: These people who do they think they are? I just can't stand
mixing with them anymore. Just a bunch of phonies - I just wish I could
be honest with them and tell them all to go to hell.

Siggggiggt Thirty-two year old female at community mental health agency.
Second interview.

Client: I love my children and my husband and doing things around the
house - I guess they get boring at times but I really don't mind, I
don't miss working - going to the office everyday was a bore. A lot of
women complain of just being a housewife. . .but, well, I wonder if
there is more for me than this stuff.

.SLQEQELQQ: Young mother talking to a counselor about her problems
with her child. Second interview.

gligggz I get so frustrated with my son - I just don't know what to
do with him - I feel myself getting more and more angry. He just won't
do what I tell him to do.

222.

23.

24.

25.

177

Situatigg: Fifty-two year-old male talking to a counselor about family-related
problems. Seventh interview. The client had left the last interview upset
over some things he'd revealed.

 

Client: I guess I'm not really in the mood to talk today. . .I'm kind

of tired. Did you see the game last night? Our TV went out so I had to
listen to it on the radio. My wife was glad - she's tired of football. . .
Boy - that woman can really complain!

Situation: Nineteen year-old woman at community counseling agency.
Third interview. -

Client: I just seem to be depressed all the time - most of the time

I don't even know why. . .my job's getting boring now that I'm getting
used to it. . .and Jim keeps saying "Well, then quit." I thought

I loved him but when he bugs me like that - I just don't know. . .

But he's probably right. . .and my parents, too. I should have tried
college. Anyway, do you have those test things we were going to

look at?

Situatigg: Junior high student talking to school counselor re: problem
of missing class. Second interview.

Client: Well. . .maybe I skip class a couple of times a week. . .but
only classes I don't like.

_§itgation: Thirty-five year old man talking to a counselor about some
problems with his marriage that he blames on his wife. This is the
eighth interview.

Client: Why can't we get along? I've tried and tried and nothing seems
to work. Is divorce the only thing left?

APPENDIX J

RATING CRITERIA FOR FREE-RESPONSE TEST

APPENDIX J

RATING CRITERIA FOR FREE-RESPONSE TEST

General
Descriptor:

Opening
Behaviors:

General:
Empathy

Respect

Attentiveness

Concreteness
and
Questioning

Confrontation

LEVEL 1

Lacks basic understanding of client's concerns;
may be detrimental to client growth.

Lengthy response,providing unnecessarily extensive
structure; fails to attend to client's anxiety, to
put client at ease, or facilitate client talk.

Irrelevant or hurtful response that does not
appropriately attend to content or surface feelings
of the client. Detracts significantly,communicates
no awareness of even obvious feelings. may be bored
disinterested, or operating from.preconceived frame.
Does everything but express he is listening,
understanding,or being sensitive.

Overtly communicates disrepect. May attempt to
impose own beliefs and values, seek to focus
attention on self by dominating, challenge accuracy
of client's perceptions, devalue worth of client.
Evaluative and judgemental.

Sounds disapproving,disinterested,phoney,bored
monotonous voice, unclear speech. Lengthy responses
that detract from client as focus, or too brief as
to be of no use to client to help self-exploration.
Responses detract from client by focusing on others,
irrelevancies, external events.

Responds in a very specific but premature and
detracting manner. Discusses everything on an
abstract, intellectual level, no attempt to lead
into personally relevant, specific situations and
feelings. Asks questions that are irrelevant,vague,
poorly expressed, binary or multiple. Overuse of
questioning instead of attending to feelings or
content in a reflective manner; fails to elicit
specific information when needed.

Passively accepts or ignores discrepancies in
client's behavior that are self-defeating.

178

_3,o

General
Descriptor:

Opening
Behaviors:

General:
Empathy

Respect

Attentiveness

Concreteness
and
Questioning

Confrontation

179

LEVEL 2

Neutral response that neither measurably affects
progress nor inhibits it.

Minimal attempt to encourage client and help to
overcome initial anxiety or hesitancy.

Subtractive response, partially communicates
awareness of surface feelings, or distorts client's
communications. Subtracts noticeable affect and
distorts level of meaning. May communicate own ideas
of what is going on but these are not congruent with
what the client is expressing or indicating.

Withholds self from involvement with the client,
ignores what client is saying, reaponds casually,
mechanically, passively. Gives cheap advice before
really understanding the situation.

Expressions and gestures are absent or neutral,
sounds mechanical, rehearsed or "professional",
responds according to a prescribed role. Does
not always maintain focus on client. '

ReSponds in general terms, does not focus on specific
manifestations of client's concerns. May lead or
allow discussion of material personally relevant to
the client but on a vague and abstract level.
Generally asks questions when appropriate but they
are poorly expressed. Tends to overuse questions and
not reflect.

Does not accept discrepancies in clien' s behavior,
but does not deal with them.effective1y or draw
attention to them.

9“
U\

General
Descriptor:

Opening
Behaviors:

General:
Empathy

Respect

Attentiveness

Concreteness
and
Questioning

Confrontation

180

LEVEL 3

Response is appropriate but not among the
best.

Some encouragement of client to talk, does not
reinforce social conversation, provides‘minimal
structure as needed.

Reflects surface feelings accurately and does not
distort content, conveys client is understood.
Responds interchangeably, but does not respond
accurately to how client feels beneath surface
feelings.

Communicates openness to entering a helping
relation, and recognises client as person of worth
capable of thinking and expressing himself, and
acting constructively. Counselor is non-evaluative.

Shows attention and interest, sounds concerned and
interested, responses indicate that he is following
and understanding the client. Communicates openness
and willingness to be involved. Speech is clear

with expressive intonation, responses are of an
apprOpriate length and do not detract from the client
as focus.

Responds in specific and concrete terms, directs
discussion to center directly around things that are
personally important to the client, but does not
always fully develop the theme. Uses questions
appropriately to elicit client talk or information
but questions are not always well-formulated.

Makes tentative expressions of discrepancies but
does not point out the directions in.which these
lead.

4,0

General
Descriptor:

Opening
Behaviors:

General:
Empathy

Respect

Attentiveness

Concreteness
and
Questioning

Confrontation

181

IEVHL4

Response is among the most apprOpriate possible.

Encouraging invitation to client to talk, fully
attentive to the client's needs.

Goes beyond«reflection of the essence of the client's
communications by identifying underlying feelings and
meanings. Conveys the client is understood beyond his
level of immediate awareness. Adds noticeably to client's
communication. Responds with full awareness of who the
other person is and with a comprehensive and accurate
understanding of the client's deepest feelings.

Involved and committed to the client's welfare,
communicates deep respect and concern for the client,
demonstrates willingness to make sacrifices and bear
risk of being hurt in order to further the helping
relation, responses enable the client to feel free
to be himself and to experience being valued as an
individual.

Wholly and intensely attentive, sounds interested and
concerned, uses voice to convey interest, attentiveness
and spontaneity. Indicates that is fully following
client by responding to most important portion of
client's communication. Maintains focus on client and
the immediacy of his feelings and concerns.

Responds in specific and concrete terms and actively
solicits specificity by asking for clarification of
vague and abstract statements. Guides discussion to
specific feelings and experiences of personally
meaningful material. Asks well-formulated, specific
questions. Highly appropriate use of open-ended
questions to encourage free-expression. Recognises
when a question‘would impede self-expression. Addresses
primary component of client's communication.

Clearly points out discrepancies in client's behavior
and the directions in.which these discrepancies lead.

APPENDIX K

TRAINING MATERIALS FOR RATING FREE-RESPONSE TEST

APPENDIX K

TRAINING MATERIALS FOR RATING FREE-RESPONSE TEST

MANUAL FOR THE RATERS OF THE COUNSELOR FREE-RESPONSE TEST

The rating task ahead of you involves rating counselor trainees'
brief responses to a variety of client verbal stimuli. The training
today will involve familiarizing you with the criteria to be used to
rate counselor responses on a four-point scale. This will be
accomplished by exposing you to a series of gradually more difficult
approximations to the final task.

Counselor Free-Response Test

The subjects took a set of three tests, the first one being the
free-response test. The free-response test involved listening to an
audiotape on.which there were 25 client stimuli. Each stimulus
consisted of a statement by a narrator defining the situation and
the stage of the counseling relationship, followed by a male or
female client response. After each stimulus the subjeCts responded

to the client, recording their responses on a second audiotape.

The stimmli cover a wide range of client situations.

Counselor Free-Response Scale

Ratings on the effective-noneffective dimension are based solely
on the rater's professional impression of the appropriateness of the
counselor's responses. That is, on how adequately the counselor's
response deals with the client's verbal communication. The Counselor
Free-Response Scale will be used for this purpose. Any response can
be analyzed and assigned a rating on a four-point scale which indicates
whether the response is likely to be helpful and effective. The four

levels of rating are as follows:

182

183

4 - response is among the most appropriate possible
in the given situation

3 - response is apprOpriate but not among the best

2 - neutral response which neither measurably affects
client progress nor inhibits it

1 - response not only lacks basic understanding of the
client's concerns but in effect may be detrimental
to the specified goals of client growth
Instructions
Transcripts of the client stimuli are provided. Each response is
rated at the conclusion of the counselor's statement, the audiotape
being stapped and even replayed if necessary. Occasionally a counselor
trainee had a false-start, or adds an extra statment at the end after
a slight pause. The raters should ensure that they have heard the
complete response before assigning a rating. The rating should be
based on the overall impact of the counselor's response as to whether
it is likely to be facilitative and effective. Criteria for each of
the four levels of rating, to be used as general guidelines, are
attached.
The rating forms are color coded to match the audiotape
identification color. Identify the subject by number and assign
a rating for each audible response. If a response is inaudible due
either to poor taping or to background noise, leave the box on the

form blank.

184

Examples of the Four Levels of the Concept

Example 1

Situation: Thirty-two year old female at community mental health agency.
Second interview.

 

Client: I love my children and my husband and doing things around the house -

I guess they get boring at times but I don't really mind, I don't miss working-
going to the office every day was a bore. A lot of women complain of just

being a housewife... but, well, I wonder if there is more for me than this stuff.

Respgnses
(1) So you find yourself raising a lot of questions about yourself -

educationally, vocationally, what you are doing with your life.

(2) These questions are very real for you, you don't know if there is more

out there for you, you don't know if you can find more fulfillment than
you have.

(3) The role of mother and homemaker can be a full-time self-satisfying
job.

(4) Hmm. What does your husband think about it all?

Example 2

Situation: Newly employed male talking to company counselor. First interview.

Client: These people who do they think they are? I just can't stand mixing
with them anymore. Just a bunch of phonies - I just wish I could be honest
with them and tell them all to go to hell.

Responses

(1) They really make you very angry, you wish you could handle them more
effectively than you do.

(2) Damn they make you angry and furious. But it's not just them. Its with
yourself too, because you don't act on how you feel.

185

(3) Why do you feel these people are phoney? What do they say to you?

(4) Maybe society is at fault too - making you feel inadequate and that
it is not okay to say what is really on your mind.

Example 3

Situation: Young mother talking to a counselor about her problems with her
child. Second interview.

Client: I get so frustrated with my son - I just don't know what to do with
him - I feel myself getting more and more angry. He just won't do what I tell
him to do.

Responses
(1) What does he do that makes you so angry?
(2) -I forgot - how old did you say he was?
(3) You get really upset when he doesn't do what he is told.

(4) Your frustaration is building up more and more inside you and you
are about ready to explode.

(5) You are afraid that Your frustration and anger will spill out and
you will do something you would regret.

Example 4

Situation: Thirteen year old girl has been seeing the counselor about her

taFdiness problem.

Client: I'm sorry... I forgot to bring those sheets of paper again. You
know. those ones where I'm supposed to keep track of how late I am for
classes each day. I'm sorry...I know it's the third time I've forgotten.

Responses

(l) As this is the third time you have forgotten, I'm wondering if you
really want to work on your lateness problem.

(2) You say you want to do.something about being late but you don't do
the things we decided upon.

(3) Can you remember how often you were late this past week?

(4) It is important that we have that record of how often you are late.

186

Egpmple 5

Situation: The client is a 20 year-old male community college student. He
made an appointment to see the counselor and this is the first interview. He
seems to be on edge and sounds apologetic.

 

Client: I feel like I am taking up your time and that someone may be waiting
thatreally could use your help. This thing of mine sounds silly - even to me.

 

Rpgponses
(l) Why don't I tell you what I do as a counselor.

(2) Tell me what is going on, then we can see if it is as silly as you
think it is.

(3) You seem to be uncertain about being here. Why don't you tell me
what is bothering you.

(4) No, nobody is waiting to see me - we have nearly an hour together
if you want.

APPENDIX L

PRACTICUM SUPERVISION CHECKLIST

APPENDIX L

PRACTICUM SUPERVISION CHECKLIST

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION - DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELING. EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824
PERSONNEL SERVICES AND EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

April 4, 1977

Dear Practicum Student:

As part of my doctoral dissertation research I am interested in
surveying what practicum students do to prepare for their individual
supervision sessions. I would therefore appreciate it if you would take
a few minutes to complete the attached survey questionnaire.

As in the first part of the research study held last term, the information
I am collecting will be held confidential, and reduced to anonymous tables
of data. As such your candor in responding would be appreciated.

Please return your completed questionnaire in the envelope provided to
either of the following two secretaries: Linda Cooper in Erickson 250,

or Sue Reeseman in Erickson 202, as soon as possible.

Once again many thanks for your c00peration.
Yours sincerely,

Judith Taylor

187

188

PRACTICUM SUPERVISION SURVEY
ED 819E SPRING TERM 1977

The purpose of this survey is to find out what M.A. counselor trainees do
to prepare to meet with their supervisor for individual supervision.

Counselor's Name

 

Date (day and month)

 

Number of times you have met individually with your supervisor so far this
term

 

l. Practicum Setting: ____Elementary School
____Junior High School
____High School
____Community College
____Rehab. Agency
____0ther. Please specify

 

2. a) Number of people seen individually this week who may
potentially become clients

 

b) Number of people interviewed this week with whom
you have entered into a counseling relationship

 

c) Average length of your counseling interviews

 

d) Present total case load

 

3. a) Number of tapes submitted to your supervisor
this week

 

b) Number of client cases these tapes represent

 

Answer questions 4 and 5 for each of the separate cases submitted to your
supervisor this week.

4. What did you do with the audiotapes to prepare for supervision ........

Case l Case 2 Case 3
Not listen to the tape at all?
Listened to part of the tape?
Listened to all of the-tape?

Carefully listened to all of the tape?

* _ *—

189

5. What else did you do to review cases before meeting with your supervisor?
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

a) Completely filled in the Performance Criteria
as far as the function reached in counseling

b) Partially filled in Performance Criteria

c) Completed coordinator/supervisor's rating
form(if coordinator/supervisor provided one)

d) Other possible means to analyze cases. Check
all that are appropriate.

Written summary of interview content

Written self-evaluation of the interview

Response-by-response transcript

Mental review of the interview

0thers.$pecify l.
2.

e) Noted specific points you wanted to raise with
your supervisor

f) None of the above
Following are some dimensions for evaluating counselor performance. Your task
is to estimate how well you believe you could evaluate your performance on each
dimension. Base the estimate upon the taped cases submitted to your supervisor.
Use the following scale:

Accurately_ - You could evaluate accurately your counseling performance
Partially - You could evaluate with partial accuracy your performance
Could not - You could not do it accurately
Don't Know - You don't know whether or not you could evaluate your
performance on this dimension
>, 3
.- >. +4 o
O) r— O C
«OJ F- C M
(d CU
5- °I- U H
: +J —- -
U L. 3 C
U (U 0 O
< CL (.3 D
a) Balance of Counselor-Client talk ____ ____ ____ ____
b) Best counselor response mode used ____ ____ ____ ____
c Response types that need improvement ____ ____ ____ ____
d Response types that you overused ____ ____ ____ ____
e) Response types that you underused ____ ____ ____
f) Your own counseling strengths ____ ____ ____ __—_
9) Your counseling weaknesses _ __ __ :
h) Level of rapport established with the clients ____ ____ ____
1) Use of voice and non-verbal behavior ____ ____ ____ :ZZ:
j) Control of interview pace and direction ____ ____ ____ ____
k) Use of verbal reinforcement ____ ____ ____
1) Level of empathy __ __ __ :
m) Use of open-ended questions ___, ___, ____ ____

APPENDIX M

FOLLOW-UP SOLICITATION LETTER TO SUBJECTS

APPENDIX M

FOLLOW-UP SOLICITATION LETTER TO SUBJECTS

DATE: February 28, 1977

TO: All ED 8190 class members

FROM: Norman R. Stewart, Nancy Martin, and Judith Taylor

We are interested in determining not only what you
learned during the workshop, but also how well you have
retained these skills. Specifically, we would like to look
at contrasts between the group's performance at the two
Tuesday sessions and after an interval of 30 or more days.
Hapefully, skills will not have lessened during this period.

We would like to ask that you participate in a follow-
up measure that will help us learn about specific skill
retention. We plan to schedule appointments during the
March 31 - April 8 period, at your convenience, to have you
participate in an exercise of not more than 90-minutes'
duration that will be similar to the work done during the
final portion of the workshop.

Because of this interest in determining the retention
of skills, we are delaying giving feedback to anyone until
this measure can be taken. Feedback, it should be under-
stood, is not contingent upon your participation in this
exercise.

The attached page contains a place where you can indi-
cate your willingness to participate in this final phase of
the study, as well as your interest in receiving informa-
tional materials and additional feedback. Please complete
the attached page and return if you are willing to partici-
pate and/or are requesting feedback.

190

191

Willingness to participate. I have read the accompanying page and
am willing to participate in this study. I understand that whether I
do or don't participate has no bearing upon my grade in ED 819D or any
other course. I understand that I will be given a release form after
completing this final portion of the study. Only if I sign this release
form will the information collected during this final portion be used.

Signature Date

 

Information and feedback. Please indicate your desire with respect to
informational materials and additional feedback requested.

I would like a copy of the informational materials related to the
topics covered in the workshop.

I would like feedback concerning my responses on exercises completed
on February 15 and 22, as well as model responses to these
exercises.

Signature

 

If you would like further feedback, please contact Linda Cooper (355-1755)
and set up an appointment to meet with either Nancy Martin or Judith (some time
after March 31).

APPENDIX N

SELF-EVALUATION SCALE

 

mepuoeacoue_.ue_eeop.meeumomm=m - oeeuuocros

 

Lasso .

 

sucpuooevo .

 

o>—ucoaa=m-ueoeuucoeeeom

 

gr :5 in r.

aeopeou mo aeoewuuumom

 

a_a.o_=z

 

acee.m

 

voucoueoao o:.eo—umm:o .m

 

o>vuuoeunam

 

o—neomcugueoue~

 

o>wuvuv< covuuopmom .w

 

 

os.».2toccu ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

beecc so mm cm me as an an mN SN me o_ m .
m>_a to masoae zu mmmzoamma aonmmzaou ma>e mmzoamma

.OOOOOOOOOIOOCOO0.00.0.0000... ENHAU 00...... zcmmmum OOOIOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO “Odmzau
u4~mo¢m umzoammu moaumzaou

madum ZOHBdDHd>MIhAmm

Z NHDmemd

.1592

193

.ouunooufifi e.ucoHHu one .uceHHo one gnu: sauce an no: hHHoou uo>oz

announces: hHHooc ou unoumo duos vans nose H III. .eeoHunHusou cu peasan one vouesuuoucH
.ooeoeuoexu 56 be so .eoEouHcofigo sleaze
momma acoHnsHocoo on use“ no: one wcHhou uo unocoesoo huoEHue an economy cu oeHme
uH neoHHu as» one: on eouoH~ AHHmou v—aogu H III .vouueuoueHeHo v:e.mouon.o>HunouuncH an:
.muHHHnHmeoeoou can HoHueouon can .uoonuon one weaveeuuuovc: ouoneaesoo uon can muuummmmmmm.mllu

u.uooHHu man s« ungoA as oueuHenaeou oHaoza H
.eao:0uonoa no canon canon an no: may ease H

.233 of as: :38

.oeuucouuo on u pecans onus he uoH “on ones H c« hHHeuoeow as: H voueoHveH noncoanuu
.omeonmou use: he ozone manhuuoa .aHo: ou ouHeuv one
on no: a mcHeouaHH “HHeou no anon unss.H Ill ueeuoueu uaouexo ou :oHuouHpruo> meow can: "wuemuev<.a

.huonmouoc mu ounce unsuccesou hueauhe can

on 959530» was you mchounHH an 3.33 does H .eoHuoncafieOo some mo

.umououcH one uuoenou euoa «annexe ou woo: H unocoeeou acouuerH umos cu uneconnum
.aHos on .uaoHHu one :u«:.:u=ou eH hHHou on: H uHoh
ouH-ov season» we unoaoueue e oer vHaone H.Ilu .uooeaou use ouoeo>Hucouuo oououacsesoo

.nHe: ou nuance ooeeouexo manganese"Annmamuummmnelll
pueoHHu can you uoeeeou one .uueueueH hB.eHon cu ouuuov ha.uueuuc=esoo H qu HHos.3o= .N

.pruo> hHuu>o on:

. .unoHHu one museum

.huonee useHHu uneven ou oHuuHH can
.coHuenHuHuuon ueoHHu uwau30ueo vuaogm H .uuonaou noon mumummmmmmm.mlll
.ucoHHu one unannoucH no: vHsono H
.:025 no xHou no: anona H

.oaee um unoHHu use on coHuunHHoouo> user one:

.omoe um ucoHHu ecu use eHos .ooHuo> uuonenm "Muenmuv<.a
on ouauuauum so usefiououm uuoam a 0x95 do one: H .i.
.ucoHHo one EHonsuo>o an ace .onoo us ueoHHu

as on nouuosm on vHooao.unquuoue ouauuauua as
humans» convey an uuouuo so we once axes o» coon H

use o» noueuaow Honuo>aeos use Henuo> use:
.uuonnou mo Ho>oH :wH: vockucHezuHecoHumuuxu.1II|
House a. ueoHHo oeu.uon one uuoeeou saHHneuoo H new HH93_so= .H

 

 

mmmhm onHU< mozHH<¢

 

mquH<M onHommm

194

.HeuHenuou can no hoeonn.henoa wea.ouosueeH
.o>nuHuonon
nes.vee voHAEon.eoucoucou ouoHneouen woe:
.aoHn no anew can no: seesaw
.veaoowue no unoccuoeoa.vsoH.soos.oon no: ouHo> mummmmmmmmw.ulll

.auooeo as ea Heanom nooH on on vows H.III

.onou he on oueomnmeou once oneness on one: H
.unoHHo he now ouownnonnnw

onoa Hoe“: e no omega: .9: ans page H

.aoosouuem ouoHnaoo on: On any nuns H

.eoHuHuoeon uno>o one oeHocoo once up nose

.eownmq new owosmcoH :voecoo: vwo>u cu moo:

.oouoowmw noon on On one:

.conmmonnxo once :uHs scene on one:

.thooHu ones semen cu noon

.nouu0e\noo:oH xooaa On one:

.vomoonexo
theuHo hHHonoeow one: «conunnHHoAno> mammmmmmfl.elll

.ueeHHu 0:» now euwnnnonnno owoawceH one:
.eoononcoa ouoHeEOU use dungeon vow:
.suooea mo anon
euenovoa one soon vouoonoucn anHu.uwom vows” moon» ouxm.nlll
.pomonwewH new ooHo> he on: H one HHos_som .c

HHHHHH

.nuse oou on H

.eueoaeeu no man noose: on acoHHo use oosoHHu H

.eoHuoonHv vuxuwH one umonano no: coHuoonoucH

.=0nunEnoueH now nose con nononm
.asnse oou no soHn ecu notuHo

.ouwe e.u:oHHu use squ nosey :H on an ooHme
.unen as»

no «Hoehfi.nno£uo no nonsense spoon» Henno> ”mummmmmmmm;ulll

.weauesnnoucH no: no snot none H

.ucuHHu one mo moose can“ no vmoH tho>o no: name H
.oHon

nonconuuosv a mo none can on menus vwobw oHeose H

.wcneauOHon cH o>Hunoamw once on on woo: H
.wmnv cu 3oH>noucn

one soaHm no: one some noumow a on: on vow: H
.oHsooLue ha nous

cu nocno an neoHfio can wcszon ono>o On one: H
anemone use use

ucoHHo use so «uncommon he noncoo cu xnoa none H
.3ou>noucu osu «0 some one

coHuuocHw mo neoconmSm nouoonw o o>n£ cu woos H

Ill .0>Huuowuo unoa use no: use sensuous no:
canoes» 0:» mo eoHnoonHo use some use uHou H “uwwmdwn¢.ni .

.vooooc not: eoHuoonHv memento new vonconwcou
.coHnounHo one soon
ecu JUHa oHeennoueoo nHom mucmenonunoe anon
.ucmmone on»
use neoHHo use so monoucoo womconmom” o:0Hu ouxm.1lll
weenuuonHo new node soH>noucn men oEHo van aconHu use so mnoow :Houcnea H qu HH03.3om .n

 

 

mmew ZOHHU< mUZHH<m

195

ueenow nonunwueoHueoov e vHo>o on use:
.ueoHHu «no so

once endow use» ocoHuooou see on vows
.oconuaoau oHeHanaxhneer vHo>e on woos
.nomonnn new

noHeeH- one use» esonuuosv x.- ou nous
.nsonuuosv he no

noHnHounn use naneHo on» seconded on one:
.ocouueoav coveeueono one- new on use:

.xHouuwuo ucoHHo onocmn on noon
.unoH>o£on connoooc:
no ucoaounomcHonnco: ones on: on use:
.zHoueHnnoneee
new hHuoononHv ones :ancea: on: on poo:
.anounOHaHon Honno> ucouoe once on: on noon
.hHucoawonu
uaoH unoaounoueHon.Hwnno> on: on ones
.uoeeoonOHsHon mean: an Henson: once on on noon
nnHueesvonu
ones nauseonoucaon Hoano> on: on moon
.no«>onon Hennoe he no nuoowuo.
mauonouowon one we unwed ones an en vows

 

mmufim onHU<

H HH

nan:

.uesnOH noaacoucoHuuoov u cueH you
.ncoHunosv moustanow thooa vexed
.uooHHo so endow no: oHv ocounooea
.ncoHuaosv oHeHuHse no anooHp vexe< “mmumummumwaulll

.voueonexo thonu ensaHe no: one:
zone use .nsoHuuosv oooeousoeo use. one: “one:

 

35'

.ueHxHeu
useHHu one new on hHonanoouuo ecoHueeav use:
.noaese
senate-000nm e oonnsvon use usoHHo can so
monsoon uneu neOHueoev vouoHssnouuHHos voxo<umummmmummmm;¢|II

HenoHuoosv cocoouooeo on: H vHo HHoa new .0

 

 
 

.u HHoow one announce .meoHnonn ononxo unoHHo «Hon .HH

.unoH>onoa ouoHnnonenosH ooonoucHux
.uoowuo oxHH
ouonnoe no ascend e weHunoonn uH ounnno>o
.ucoaounomcwon
Hwnnu> we on: 0>Huoouwu owes sovHom «mmummmmflmw.olll

.ansoueHusoocH
use hHouaneonanw usuaoOnOHsHon one: "unusuon<.AlII

.an0H>n£oA vonnuoocs mo coconnnuoo
one mcHosvon 6H aHo>Huooumo Honocwu use:
.enowuenuHennob useHHo vonHuuo mcHewso cH
aHobanoouuo one.hHHen:uen unassunoucuon vanauHesowuuouxu .tlll
«neoeeunomaHon Henno> on: H oHv HHosvaon .n

meanne—

 

196

:oHuuonno

ooH>onn one unseen hancooH on ozoncsoou
e no sOHueNnnoesou on: on hnn oHooSe
none as xHon no: oHaose
nonuoono>sou Honoou ounomonon no: ness
Henosow on nonwonooueo once on oHoonu
nauseououaon he an euonsooe once on oHsosa
hHoewuuouuo once neaone on: on one:
unoaounoueHon ones on: on ones

announce unauoHo one oonewooon

unoHHo one uoHnHo; no noonaa xnos on ooos

owenuoou
enounuu cu exooHa can $5 ouncmooon On one:
nouns: nwcHHoou on
ocoeuon on oaHu «Hooks o>Hw one canon on own:
uaoucou o>Huocwoono>Huuoumw
no ouanon one no onoaa once on on one:

onwuoona once on On one: nauseouwuu antennae h:

oconuaoav wcHHoom once xuo cu oooc

nmanoum so xHeu nonemcnen hHHmnn0> on own:

. ewcHHoow

noose once xHeu on ucoHHu omensouco On one:
cocoon-en haueeao uo hoaonuonm oeeonuan on once
uoHuooHuonxhauoeae 0>HuHooe once on: an oooz

HHHHHHH

H

H
H
H
H

H
H
H

.unocoesou o>nuuouuo ou oooeuon

o:- hununoon on unouuo onoa axes On one: Hull.

 

manna ZOHHD<

.ucoucoo uHuHHo on

nooseonoucnon one nonone .ucoEoumuuon no on: noon
.oonuouno>:oo Honda» oounowcnoz

.eenoosou announo cu uconno onn>cn on oonuoh

.Eodnone can
no uxoucoo one oncn oouunn aHnonocow aucoaaoo
.asnoocou unsouno on uconHo ooun>eH

.coHuoonHo oon>one one
unseen nuancoon on :oHuonnnossae no on: HsuHHme
.u=0u:ou nHonHo one macaw on ucoeoonOHnHon one

eonone .ucoEoueuoon no on: ooow he announce
onoHexo one menu-Ho.>unucoon unoHHo oonHem

“a. all

«(muruoofl.n

.uHoe oneness an nuncaunoneo ano>o usoHHu e>eoumumomwuwmmm.alll

peenoonou onoHexu on neoHHu any aHon H oHo HH93 so: .n

unoueoo o>nunawoo on wono:0eaon

Annnoanna no acnuounnosuuoHnonen ooonousneu
.awnHHoou Ho :oHuchooon

com: ooxuoHo no.oeomaon on an: o apex no: own

.aHHounaoeuoe ooosoaoon no owanooH oonosmH
.owsnnoow ozone wnqxnou

unannouno no.0u osoeeon.huuueoon on ooHme

.umsnnoou
oouunan n.usoHHo on ooonoeeon one oununnsooH
.uwanoou noose mcHsOHueonv one unoaowwnaooco neon

.Ho>oH o>HuHooe no
oHneouaesonouaH no no ewcHHooH unoHHu en ooocoeeou
.onoHuonHHwano> o>HuuoHue unonHo oounousnon

"umumumuuwm.

"mmumummfl.

O

A

one .oowennooeo.ou ooosoauon.oonunucooH"mumommuummm.w
neweHHoou usone Jane 0» neoHHo on» omensooso H oHo HHos son .5

 

mozHH<d

1197

HHunoHunnuHu.Hnnoneou.ounonaonv ounononsoo

oo>Ho>nH eunononsou a .e .mlll
Hononunaune mundane onu nununoon on one: H III on» no one nunoH no nHunooH cu ooHHefi . an:
o> o>n nunononsou III.
Hmnonnuu unwoonn gnu MwHuMooH on one: H Ill .nunonoaeoo one we neon ooaannooH “ouwnumo<.a
a nHomHuunn all. nnoonou n unoHHu one
once unnonnon enu annooH on ooon H .
Ho ennuan one wnHonnunnoonn one» u on; H uHoh
Annonuuonv ouonunoo oanoHunenounH anHoono III. .nnounoo one no nunun

ones unoHHo unnu nnonuuono so. on ooon H oHuHoonu manHHunooH no non unoHHooxo no oun. .Henouuuooxu.nl

~flh0800 0.0D0flfi0 Gnu NO Idfifluflfi OHNflOOA—I fldafi° H ‘fl‘ fiHg 5 . 00H

oomnunoo .ouoHnnoonH no
an H nun: nOHunoHymnnHo on: oHsosn H unannooenw one: onoHunannaenu one aunoaoununuz
oononoo ones on .unononaoo HnnHu en ononnon nu ooonma

an oven unoHunannaana one nonessenumon a: .unuunoo unnunoaaa ooanHz ”euenmmoenH.o

anowunnnno822m one

nunoeounuuon as nn muonnuuo once on on ooon H .nonunununnnHu
nOnunoHnaeeoo one noHneanuasnn.unuaoununon no on: onnnvood «mummummd.n
no nonuoHunnu on unan once on o» ooon H III. .
unononeou .noHunuHaneHo
uneunonna ages on ononnon an open H III. one .noaueannnnnn.unoeounueon no on: ooou
unounoo o>Hanmoo .nnounoo one on wannoa uaounonm no on: unnu
nununoou on unouuo no we onoa.oxns on open H.III noHunon onnunnwoo on ooononnon one ooHuHunooH”mmmmmmummchtlll

~30H>nounn on» no unounoo onaanuOo one o» once-on one Annunoou H oHo HHo:.3eu .u

 

 

2a.... 23.84 . , 85.93

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Alterkruse, M. W., & Brown, D. F. Counseling behavior
change through self-analysis. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1969, 8, 108-112.

 

 

Amidon, E. A. A technique for analyzing counselor-counselee
interactions. In J. F. Adams (Ed.), Counseling and
guidance: A summary view. New York: MacMillan,
1965.

 

Anthony, W., & Carkhuff, R. R. The effects of rehabili-
tation counselor training upon discrimination,
communication and helping attitudes. Rehabili-
tation Counseling Bulletin, 1969.

Appleton, G. M., & Hansen, J. C. Continuing supervision
in the school. Counselor Education and Su er-
vision, 1968, 1, 273-281.

Bandura, A. Principlgs of behavior modification. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.

Beck, C. E. Ethical practice: Foundations and emerging
issues. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1971,
§g(4), 320-325.

Benjamin, A. The helping interview. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1969.

 

Blane, S. M. Immediate effect of supervisory experiences
on counselor candidates. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 1968, 8, 39-44.

 

 

Bloom, B. 8., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. Handbook
on formative and summatipe evaluation of student
learning. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Carkhuff, R. R. A non-traditional assessment of graduate
education in the helping professions. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1968, 1, 252-261.

 

198

199

Carkhuff, R. R. Critical variables in counselor training.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 19, 238-
245.

Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relations: A primer
fpr lay andprofessional helpers. Volumes I and
II. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.

 

 

Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relations: A brief
guide for training lay helpers. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 1971,‘1
(2),'17-27.

 

 

Carkhuff, R. R., Friel, T., & Kratochvil, D. The dif-
ferential effects of sequence of training in
counselor-responsive and counselor-initiated con-
ditions. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1970, 2, 106-109.

 

Chenault, J. A proposed model for a humanistic counselor
education program. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 1968, 8, 4-11.

 

 

Coombs, A., & Soper, D. The perceptual organization of
effective counselors. In J. F. Adams (Ed.),
Counseling andgguidance: A summary_view. New
York: MacMiIlan, 1965.

 

Cornfield, J., & Tukey, J. W. Average values of mean
squares in factorials. Annals of Mathematical
Statistics, 1956, 21, 907-949.

 

Cronbach, L. J. Course improvement through evaluation.
Teachers College Record, 1963, pg, 672-683.

Delaney, D. Simulation techniques in counselor education:
Proposal of a unique approach. Counselor Edu-
cation and Supervision, 1969, 8, 183-188:

 

 

Dunlop, R. S. Counselor competence: Some proposals in
search of advocacy. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 1968,

 

Eisenberg, S., & Delaney, D. Using video simulation of
counseling for training counselors. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1970, lljl), 15-19.

 

Emener, W. G. A prepracticum laboratory training exper- l/'
ience. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1973, 13, 213-220.

200

Erickson, C. E. The counseling interview. New York:
Prentice-Hall, 1950.

Gazda, G. G. Human gelations development: Aimanual for
educators. Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1973.

 

Gendlin, E. T. Some proposals on psychotherapy training.
Discussion papers, Wisconsin Psychiatric Insti-
tUte, 1962' 21’ 1-60

Georgiades, W. Evaluating new strategies in teaching and
learning. Journal of Secondary Education, 1970,
320-325.

Gust, T. Extending counselor supervision. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1970, g, 157-16I.

 

 

Gysbers, N., & Moore, E. Using simulation techniques
in counseling practicum. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 1970, a, 277-286.

 

 

Hackney, H., & Nye, S. Counseling strategies and objec-

tives. Englewood C 1 s, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
I973.

 

Hansen, J. C. Trainees expectation of supervision in
the counseling practicum. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1965, 1, 75-80.

 

 

Hansen, J. C., Stevic, R. R., & Warner, R. W. Counseling:
Theory and process. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Inc., 1972.

 

 

 

Hansen, J. C., & Warner, R. W. Review of research on
practicum supervision. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 1971, 19, 261-274.

 

 

Hansen, J. M., & Smith, R. L. Evaluation evaluated.
High School Journal, 1972, 158-164.

 

Hargrove, D. S., & Porter, T. L. Discrimination: An
aspect of the helping process. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 1971,
1(2), 28-35.

 

 

Hewer, V. H. An aid to supervision in practicum. Journal
of CounselinggPsychology, 1974, gill), 66-70.

 

Hoyt, C. Test reliability estimated by analysis of
variance. Psychometrika, 194l,'§(3), 153-160.

 

201

Johnston, J. A., & Gysbers, N. C. Essential character-
istics of a supervisory relationship in counseling
practicum. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1967, p, 335-340.

Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. Princeton, N.J.:
D. Van Norstrand Co., 1964.

Kagan, N. Multimedia in guidance and counseling. Per-
sonnel and Guidance Journal, 1970, 32, 197-2533

Kagan, N., & Schauble, P. Affect simulation in inter-
personal process recall. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1967, lg, 309-313.

 

Kaufman, R. A. Educational system planning. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentibe-Hall Inc., 1972.

Krumboltz, J. D. Behavioral goals for counseling.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, 13,
153-159.

Krumboltz, J. D. Future directions for counseling
research. In J. M. Whiteley (Ed.), Research
in CounselingzlEvaluation and Refocus. Cqumbus,
Ohio: Merrill Co., 1937:

Krumboltz, J. D. Changing the behavior of behavior

changes. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1967, p, 222-229?

Lister, J. L. Counselor experience: Its implications
for supervision. ggunselor Education and Super-

Lister, J. L. Supervised counseling experiences: Some
comments. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1966' 2' 69-72.

Manello, G. College teaching without grades. Journal of
Higher Education, 1964, 31, 328-334.

 

Markey, M. J., Frederickson, R. H., Johnson, R. W., &
Julius, M. A. Influence of playback techniques
on counselor performance. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1970, 2, 178-182.

 

 

Martin, N. J. The effect of discrimination training on
teaching counselor regponses. Unpublished—doc-
toral’dissertation, Michigan State University,
1978.

202

Martin, D. G., & Gazda, G. M. A method of self-evaluation
for counselor education utilizing the measurement
of facilitative conditions. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1970, 9, 87-92.

 

 

Parker, C. A. Counseling_theoriesland counselor education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968?

Patterson, C. H. The selection of counselors. In J. M.
Whiteley (Ed.), Research in counseling: Evalu-
ation and refocus. Columbus, Ohio: Merrill Co.,
1967.

Poling, E. G. Videotape recordings in practicum: II -
Critique considerations. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 1968, 8, 33-38.

 

 

Porter, E. H. An introduction to therspeppic counseling.
Boston: Hofighton MiffIin Co., 1960.

 

Remmers, H. H., Gage, N. L., & Rummel, J. F. A practical
introduction to measurement and evaluation. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1960.

 

Rich, J. A philosophical analysis of educational stan-
dards. Educational Theory, 1966, ;§, 160-166.

 

Saltmarsh, R. E., & Hubele, G. E. Basic interaction
behaviors: A microcounseling approach for intro-
ductory courses. Counselor Education and Super-
vision, 1974, 247-249.

 

Spivack, J. D. Critical incidents in counseling: Simu-
lated video experiences for training counselors.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1973, pg,
263-275.

 

Stewart, N. R., Winborn, B. B., Johnson, R. G., Burks,
H. M., & Engelkes, J. R. Systematic Counselin .
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., I978.

 

Stone, G. L. Effect of simulation on counselor training.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1975, ii,

Stufflebeam, D. L., et a1. Educational evaluation and
decision making. Phi Delta Kappa, 1971.

 

Thayer, L., Peterson, V., Carr, E., & Merz, D. Develop-
ment of a critical incidents videotape. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 12(3), 188-251.

 

203

Toffler, A. Future shock. New York: Random House, 1970.

Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Toward effective counsel-
ing and psychothergpy: Training and practice.
Chicago: Aldine Co., 1967.

Truax, C. B., Carkhuff, R. R., & Douds, J. Toward an
integration of the didactic and experiential
approaches to training in counseling and psycho-
therapy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1964,
£I(3), 240-247.

Tyler, L. E. The work of the counselor. New York:

Appleton-Century Crofts Inc., I969.

Wallston, K. A., & Weitz, L. J. Measurement of the core
dimensions of helping. Journal of Counseling
Psychologya 1975, gg(6), 567-569.

Walz, G. R., a Johnson, J. A. Counselors look at them-
selves on videotape. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 1963, 12, 232-236.

Whiteley, J. M. figsearch in counseling: Evaluation and
refocus. ColumBus, Ohio: Merrill Co., 1967.

Wilson, F. R. Micro-Momentary facial ex ressions and
psychologicaI defense. UnpuEIisEed doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976.

Wittmer, J. An objective scale for content analysis of
the counselor's interview behavior. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1971, 1Q, 283-290.

"IETITIIIUTTIIIN '