THE EFFECT OF.
EXPERIENTIAL-V‘IDEOTAPE TRAINING
PROCEDURES COMPARED TO
COGNITIVE- CLASSROOM TEACHING
METHODS ON THE INTERPERSONAI.‘
COMMUNICATION SKILLS OF JUVENILE
COURT CASEWORKERS

Thesis for the Degree of ML 0.;
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
MARY SUSAN HEISERMAN
1971

I/ll/I/I/IIIII/l/I/III

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
THE EFFECT OF EXPERIENTIAL VIDEO-TAPE TRAINING PROCEDURES
COMPARED TO COGNITIVE-CLASSROOM TEACHING METHODS
ON THE INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION SKILLS
OF JUVENILE COURT CASE-WORKERS

presented by
Mary Susan Heiserman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PM“: degree mflmnsgnng.

/w/

War professor _'

 

 

9mm

0-7639

 

1.213ng "
Michigan State
University

I».

:3h’v

"a.

 
   

: amomc av ”5
_. HUME & SUNS'
BOOK BINDERY INC. .

| LIBRARY amoens
II SPAINGPUAT, MICHIGAN

 

\Il

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF EXPERIENTIAL-VIDEOTAPE TRAINING
PROCEDURES COMPARED TO COGNITIVE-CLASSROOM
TEACHING METHODS ON THE INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION SKILLS OF JUVENILE
COURT CASEWORKERS

BY

Mary Susan Heiserman

The purpose of this study was to evaluate an experi-

ential "videotape" method of training court caseworkers in

interpersonal communication skills. In evaluating this

program, a comparison was made between the performance of
caseworkers trained via experimental videotape procedures

and those trained by a second method which was classroom

oriented and more cognitive in nature. Both programs were

developed to help caseworkers become more sensitive to and
more able to act upon the communications of delinquents.

Counselor behaviors to be acquired in the training

programs were conceptualized as reSponses facilitating con-
ditions in interpersonal communication. Within this com—

munication framework, trainees need to learn to develop
(1) a sensitivity to client communications, i.e., skills

in discriminating client feelings and thoughts, and (2)

skills in communicating that understanding to the client.

Mary Susan Heiserman

Another aspect of the training process was counselor self—
discovery, where trainees learn to internalize as well as
conceptualize the meaning of the counselor—client relation-
ship.

Kagan gt_§l. (1967) and Goldberg (1967) delineated
four major developmental tasks faced by trainees in counse-
lor education. These tasks represent dynamic stages with
specific goals for each stage. The four tasks emphasize
counselor awareness of (l) the elements of effective coun-
seling, (2) the meaning of client communications, (3) the
impact of counselor feelings on the counseling process,
and (4) the bilateral nature of the counseling interaction.

The developmental tasks were incorporated into a
specific process (Interpersonal Process Recall, IPR) by
which counselor trainees can learn skills to facilitate a
counselor-client relationship that ultimately seems to pro-
mote behavior characteristic of client growth. The program
itself involved (1) the use of simulation films where a
person portrays possible client emotions, (2) the video-
taping of the trainee as he reacts to the simulation and/or
the videotaping of real (nonsimulated) trainee-client
interviews, and (3) the immediate "replay" and discussion
of reactions to both simulated and nonsimulated (interview)
videotapes. This replay was conducted by a person trained
in facilitating client or counselor exploration of recalled
thoughts and feelings. The "recall" then served as a basis

for a: subsequent counseling interaction. This program had

Mary Susan Heiserman

produced trainee growth in a number of counselor education
studies (Kagan gt_al., 1967; Spivack, 1970; Grzegorek,
1970).

In this study, the experiential-IPR gs learned dis—
crimination and communication skills by following a series
of sequential experiences. These experiences were designed
to incorporate the developmental tasks posited and evalu-
ated by Kagan et al. (1967). The tasks emphasized an
exploration of trainee thoughts and feelings, client
thoughts and feelings, and ways to translate these learn-
ings into effective communication within the counseling
interaction, using IPR procedures.

In order to teach discrimination and communication
skills in a cognitive-classroom setting, another series of
experiences was planned. This series was designed to
teach caseworkers to (l) understand client communications,
(2) discriminate high from low level "facilitative" coun-
selor responses, and (3) think about ways to convey such
perceptions to the client. Both audio and video tapes were
used to teach the facilitative dimensions of empathic
understanding, congruence, nonpossessive warmth, and con-
creteness. The theoretical and practical role of such
dimensions and the importance of the caseworker—client
relationship in the court setting were discussed.

The experimental design approximated the Pretest-

Posttest Control Group design (Campbell & Stanley, 1966),

Mary Susan Heiserman

with a replication added. Criterion tapes of caseworkers
and their clients were collected at pre, mid, and post time
intervals. Three independent judges rated the tapes on
specified measures.

The data obtained on the measures were analyzed
using an analysis of variance on index of response
scores at the mid and post times. Data used for the
main analysis were transformed to standardize the mea-
sures. It was hypothesized that a significant groups
by times interaction would reflect the greater effective-
ness of the experiential-IPR procedure compared to
cognitive-classroom methods. Subsequent hypotheses were
generated, based on the groups by times interaction.

Results of the analysis of variance of six mea-
sures indicated that the groups by times averaged across
measures interaction was not significant at the .05 level
of confidence. The only statistically significant find-
ings were a main effect for measures and a second order
groups by times by measures interaction. This interaction
suggested that a groups by measures interaction was sig-
nificant for some measures.

Examination of the second order interaction indi-
cated that one measure seemed to be operating in a fashion
reversed from the other measures. A second analysis of
variance was performed, using only five measures. It

should be noted that this analysis was completed as a

Mary Susan Heiserman

kind of post hoc to understand if the one measure was in
fact accounting for the groups by times by measures inter-
action.

The second analysis of variance on only five mea-
sures showed that eliminating the one measure led to a
nonsignificant groups by times by measures second order
interaction and maintained a nonsignificant groups by
times interaction. Thus the groups by times by measures
interaction was apparently due to the effect of the one
measure. Like the first analysis, the main effect of
measures was retained. An additional different inter-
action, groups by measures was reported. However, neither
the measures main effect nor the groups by measures inter-
action are particularly meaningful or interpretable.

Since the groups by times interaction was signifi-
cant on the WROS (measure of client perception of case-
worker, reflected in significant groups by times by mea-
sures interaction of first analysis), sub-hypotheses were
tested on specific differences between groups at time 1
(Mid-kPre) and time 2 (Post-kPre) and on differences with—
in each group at both times. Comparisons (t—tests) indi-
cated that mean index of response scores on the WROS were
significantly greater for caseworkers following experi-
ential training than for workers after cognitive training
(at time 1). Greater learning apparently did take place
for the experiential group on the criterion of client

perception of the caseworker-client contact.

Mary Susan Heiserman

Caseworker written reports, reflecting learning in
on-the-job duties, were also evaluated. These reports were
evaluated in a separate analysis of variance because data
were not complete until a later point in time. Two
juvenile court judges rated the written reports according
to (1) an absolute scale and (2) a Q-sort technique.
Separate analyses of variance on the two scales both re-
ported nonsignificant main effects for groups and repeated
measures (times, Mid, Post) and a nonsignificant groups by
repeated measures (times) interaction. Sub-hypotheses
comparing the relative strength of experiential versus
cognitive training were thus inappropriate and hypotheses
failed to be rejected.

In essence, data indicated that the experiential-
IPR treatment was not more effective in teaching discrimi-
nation and communication skills on two of three criteria,
i.e., rates of learning for the two groups were not sig-
nificantly different.. However, since a significant groups
by times interaction did occur on one measure (WROS) the
hypothesis of interest, i.e., a groups by times inter-
action was rejected.

Reasons for the failure to find treatment differ-
ences on some criterion measures included possible vio-
lation of an assumption of the study and the influence of

the confounding variables. Such assumptions and variables

Mary Susan Heiserman

involved (1) inappropriateness of measures for the sample
studied, (2) initial level of caseworker performance, (3)
caseworker attitude toward the skills being taught and
toward the procedures used to teach them, (4) character-
istics of the "work" atmosphere in which the caseworkers

functioned, and (5) aspects of the experimental tasks or

procedures.

THE EFFECT OF EXPERIENTIAL-VIDEOTAPE TRAINING
PROCEDURES COMPARED TO COGNITIVE-CLASSROOM
TEACHING METHODS ON THE INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION SKILLS OF JUVENILE

COURT CASEWORKERS

BY

Mary Susan Heiserman

A THESIS

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

1971

To David H. Mills

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S

I would like to express my appreciation to the
following people who were instrumental in the development,
administration, and/or analysis of this study:

Norman Kagan, for his enthusiasm, encouragement,
and helpful advice throughout the study and my graduate
program.

Andrew Porter for his advice, patience, and moral
support during the planning and analysis stages of the
study.

Cecil Williams for his suggestions and friendship.

James Costar for his encouragement.

Bob Wilson for his generosity in giving time and
effort to the analysis of the data and especially for the
friendship that resulted from that work.

Kathy Scharf, Karen Rowe, and Bob VanNoord for
their friendship and help.

Jim Spivack, Al Grzegorek, Dan Munoz, Tom Zarle,
Jim Archer, Tom Fiester, and Tom Spierling for their
consideration and generosity in helping during various

stages of the program.

iii

Carolyn Piersma for her excellent typing and
c00peration.

Special thanks are directed to the youngsters who
gave their time and efforts as coached clients. These
people include: Lori Kagan, Peggy Winans, Ericka Vener,
Barb Francisco, Brenda Gregg, SueEllen Smith, Lois Eastman,
Jim DeJongh, Debbie Bingham, Bob Horstman, Steve Simmons,
Frankie Jones, Pat Coe, and Gary VanVelsor.

Appreciation is also extended to Judge J. T.
Kallman, Judge T. Brown, Warren Ritter, and Dr. E. L. V.
Shelley of the Ingham County Probate Court for their
encouragement and help in the administration of the
project.

Additional thanks is directed to Larry Cox of the
Michigan State University Closed Circuit Television Studio
for his assistance in technical aspects of the videotape

procedures.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .
Purpose of the Study. .

Need for the Study . .
Theory . . . . . .

Interpersonal Process in Counseling

in Counselor Supervision .
Model of Counselor Education

Training . . . .
Definition of Terms . .
Assumptions. . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . .
Overview. . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .

Introduction . . . .

and

Casework Treatment of Delinquent

Adolescents . . . .

Introduction. . . .
Research . . . .

Theory and Philosophical Literature

Conclusions on Treatment for

Delinquents . . .

Training Procedures for Caseworkers.

Introduction. . . .

Traditional Approaches to Counselor
(Caseworker) Training and Methods to
Implement Such Training

Recent Approaches to Casework Training

and Methods to Implement Such Training

Innovative Approaches to Casework
Training and Methods to Implement

Such Training. . .

Page

16
18
19
19
21
21
21
21
23
29
33
34

34

35

37

38

Chapter
Summary . . . . . . . . .
III. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF STUDY. . .

Description of the Experimental
Procedure. . . . . . .

Description of Experiential Treatment:

DevelOpmental Tasks Using IPR . .
Description of Classroom Treatment:

Cognitive Tasks. . . . . . .
Coached Clients . . . . . . .

Description . . . . .
Training . . . . . . .

Training Facility. . . . . . .
Supervisors. . . . . . . . .
Subjects. . . . . . . . . .
Measures. . . . . . . . . .

Counselor Verbal Response Scale (CVRS)

Truax-Carkhuff Scale (TCEU, 1969).
Written Report . . . . . . .
Wisconsin Relationship Orientation

Scale (WROS) . . . . . . .

Scoring of Criterion Measures. . .
Delimitations of the Study. . . .
Analysis of the Data. . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . .

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA. . . . . . . .
Treatment Effects. . . . . . .
Test Correlations. . . . .
Interrater Reliability Coefficients.
Summary . . . . . . . . .

V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS.

Summary . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion . . . . . . . . .

Assumptions of the Study. . . .
Restrictions on External Validity,

vi

Page
62

64

66
69

75
77

77
78

79
79
81
83

84
87
9O

91

91
92
93
96
101

103
103
126
127
129
133

133
144

146
147

Chapter Page

Conclusions and Implications . . . . . 157
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 157
Implications for Future Research . . . 158

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
APPENDICES
Appendix

A. IPR Counselor Verbal Response Scale and
Manual for Training Judges in Use of
Counselor Verbal Response Scale . . . . 176

B. Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal
Processes II--A Scale for Measurement . . 190

C. Wisconsin Relationship Orientation

Scale (WROS) . . . . . . . . . . 193
D. Clinical-Adjustment Report . . . . . . 194
E. Materials Used in the Cognitive-Classroom

Training Method . . . . . . . . . 195
F. Typescript of Simulation Films (Vignettes) . 206
G. Description of Role and Training for

Interrogation . . . . . . . . . . 212
H. Rationale and Training for Coached Clients . 216
I. Data Transform . . . . . . . . . . 220

J. Calculation of Appropriate Degrees of
Freedom for Repeated Measures Designs . . 224

K. Scales to Evaluate Client-Adjustment Reports 228

vii

3.4.

3.8.

3.9.

3.10.

LIST OF TABLES

Schematic Representation of Overall
Experimental Design . . . . . . .

Description of Treatment Procedures . .

Comparison of Subjects on the Demographic
Variables of Sex, Age, Educational
Level, and Job Experience in Groups I
and II . . . . . . . . . . .

Intraclass Correlation Reliability Esti-
mates on Individual and Average Ratings
Calculated for Judges' Ratings Across
Tapes on Each Dimension of the CVRS. .

Intercorrelations of Rater l and Rater 2
for CVRS Measures Made at Each of Three
Times for Role Play and Coached Client
Interviews (Spivack, 1970). . . . .

Interjudge Reliabilities of Ratings on the

CVRS (Grzegorek, 1970) . . . . . .

Reliabilities of Rating Scales for

Accurate Empathy Using Patient-Therapist-

Patient, Therapist-Patient-Therapist,

and Time Units of Analysis (Truax, 1966)

Intercorrelations of Rater l and Rater 2

for EUS Measures Made at Each of Three
Times for Role Play and Coached Client
Interviews (Spivack, 1970). . . . .

Interjudge Reliabilities of Ratings on the

EUS (Grzegorek, 1970) . . . . . .

Findings on the Therapeutic Effectiveness
of Accurate Empathy . . . . . . .

viii

Page

65

70

83

85

86

86

88

89

89

9O

Table

4.1. Analysis of Variance Across Indices of
Response for the Six Measures for Both
Groups at Time 1 and Time 2 . . . . .

4.2. Mean Standardized Index of Response Scores.
4.3. Principal Components of Correlation Matrix.

4.4. Analysis of Variance Across Indices of
Response for the Five Measures for Both
Groups at Time I and Time 2 . . . . .

4.5. Mean Standardized Index of Response Scores
for Groups by Measures Interaction
(5 measures) . . . . . . . . . .
4.6. Mean Indices of Response for the Groups by
Times Interaction on WROS. . . . . .

4.7. Comparison of Mean Index of Response
Scores (WROS) Between Groups at Time 1
and Time 2. . . . . . . . . . .
4.8. Comparison of Mean Index of Response
Scores (WROS) Between Time 1 and Time 2
Within Each Group . . . . . . . .

4.9. Analysis of Variance on Absolute Scale
Ratings for Group 1 and Group 2 Client
Adjustment Reports at Time 1 and Time 2 .

4.10. Means on Absolute Scale for Rating
Written Reports . . . . . . . . .

4.11. Analysis of Variance of Q-Sort Ratings for
Group 1 and Group 2 Client Adjustment
Reports at Time 1 and Time 2. . . . .

4.12. Means on Q-Sort Scale for Rating Written
Reports. . . . . . . . . . . .

4.13. Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients for
the Groups (Pooled) at Three Time
Peri-Dds O I I I O O O C O O O O

4.14. Interrater Reliabilities. . . . . . .

ix

Page

105

108

111

112

114

117

119

119

123

124

125

126

126

128

Table Page

4.15. Interrater Reliabilities for Judging
Written Reports on Two Scales at

Two Times 0 O O O O O O O O O O 128
4.16. Matrix of Inter—Method (Scale), Cross

Time Correlations . . . . . . . . 129
I-l. Mean Standardized Index of Response

scores 0 I O O O O O O O O O O 220
I-2. Mean Index of Response Scores Before

Transform . . . . . . . . . . . 221
I-3. Table of Means and Standard Deviations for

the Group 1, Group 2, and Combined
Groups on Six Measures at Pre, Mid,

and Post Times . . . . . . . . . 222
I—4. Raw Means and Scores for Each Subject on

Each Measure at Each Time (Pre, Mid,

POSt) o o o o o o o o o o o o 223

Figure

3.1.

LIST OF FIGURES

Schematic Diagram of IPR Suite . . .
Groups by Times Interaction . . . .
Groups by Times by Measures Interaction--

Mean Standardized Index of Response

Scores for the Groups by Times Inter-

action on the Measures . . . .

Mean Standardized Index of Response

Scores for the Measures Main Effect (5
Measures) and the Groups by Measures

Interaction. . . . . . . .

Differences to be Compared Between Groups

1 and 2 at Times 1 and 2 on WROS.

xi

Page
80

98

107

115

117

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of this study is to evaluate an
experiential "videotape" method of training court case-
workers in interpersonal communication skills. In evalu-
ating this program, a comparison will be made between the
performance of caseworkers trained via experimental video-
tape procedures and those trained by a second method which
is classroom-oriented and more cognitive in nature. Both
programs were develOped to help caseworkers become more
sensitive to and more able to act upon the communications

of delinquents.

Need for the Study

 

Although conflicting evidence exists about the
value of various counseling approaches with delinquent
adolescents or with juvenile court wards, the realism of
the legal and social situation requires ggmg kind of
decision-making and "helping" relationship between a
youth and his court caseworker. Specifically, the case—

worker or probation officer assigned to a minor must make

important decisions about the individual's placement and
future plans.

In order to be of practical (if not therapeutic)
help, the worker needs to determine accurately and under-
stand what the adolescent or child thinks and why he be-
haves as he does. However, the caseworker's experience,
training, and (or) heavy case load often make it difficult
for him to fill this role. Indeed, a recent report by
the Michigan Commission of Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice (1969) emphasizes the need for in-service training
programs which would provide the caseworker with additional
guidelines for effectively meeting increased responsibili-
ties. The commission suggests that such responsibilities
include the careful assessment of the juvenile's situation
and the development of appropriate treatment plans.

One way in which probation officers might be aided
in this work is through training which would increase
their ability to establish the interpersonal conditions
of a therapeutic or "helping" relationship, thereby facili-
tating the more adequate assessment and handling of the
emotional concerns of the clients. Here, caseworkers are
not necessarily viewed as agents of deep client person-
ality change, but they are viewed as peOple who, with
training and within the time limits of their job, can
offer conditions necessary (if not sufficient) for client

growth.

Traditional training of court caseworkers has
neglected study of the caseworker-client (delinquent)
relationship, focusing instead on abstract theoretical
issues and large discussion groups1 (Michigan Commission,
1969). While theory should provide necessary guidelines
for practice, the programs typically developed deal only
superficially with the theory under discussion and do not
offer an opportunity for the learning and supervised
application of the theory's practical implications. The
in-service training initiated in this study will empha-
size both the cognitive and experiential learning and
practice of skills deemed theoretically important in
establishing and maintaining a relationship where client
change can occur (Rogers, 1957, 1961; Kagan & Krathwohl,
1967).

If this study does in fact indicate that court
caseworkers can learn to offer increased facilitative be—
haviors and conditions through the proposed training
program, the procedures could be provided locally for
all new caseworkers. Follow-up studies and replications
could suggest the means for improving and implementing the
program in other courts to see if such conditions continue
to be developed by the training.

Finally, studies could examine the effect of case-

worker facilitative behavior learned in the training

 

1E. L. V. Shelley, Lansing, Michigan. Description
of court training programs. Private Communication, 1970.

programs on client growth or improved behavior of young
people in the juvenile court setting. Thus not only the
adequacy of the program in teaching facilitative behaviors
but the value or impact of such counselor behaviors on
client behavior could be investigated.

Because of the legal and practical difficulty in
distinguishing between children who are "delinquent" and
those who are "neglected" (Michigan Commission, 1969),
court caseworkers assigned to both neglect and delinquent
case loads are to be included in the study. Although
"counseling" procedures vary according to age and situ-
ation of the client, suggesting that differential treat-
ment of neglected children and delinquent adolescents may
be desirable, the necessity for accurate assessment and
understanding of client needs and behaviors is believed
to exist in both instances (Robison, 1961).

In addition to working with young people, case-
workers frequently need to work closely with parents,
fostor parents, and teachers (Michigan Commission, 1969).
Since it is believed that the dimensions important in
facilitating client growth are also helpful in developing
other personal relationships (Rogers, 1961; Truax &
Carkhuff, 1967), the training evaluated in this study is
viewed as a potential (but not tested) help for court
caseworkers in dealing not only with their clients, but

with other peOple who are involved with those clients.

Theory

Interpersonal Process in Counseling
and in Counselor Supervision

 

 

Although some of the experimental procedures in
this study are not based upon formal theory, the con-
ceptualizations of several counseling theorists serve as
an important basis for the development and rationale of
the training program. These theories come mostly from
the "insight" or "relationship" orientations to casework
(Stefflre & Matheny, 1968) which state that desirable be-
havioral changes result when client feelings and attitudes
are explored in an appropriate relationship between worker
and client and when particular aspects of the relation-
ship are used as the avenue toward client self-eXploration,
discovery, and change. The theories provide a conceptual
model influencing counselor behavior and subsequent client
growth or change (Foreman, 1967; Hobbs, 1962; Kell &
Meuller, 1966; Rogers, 1961; Sullivan, 1953; Whiteley,
1967).

More specifically, client growth seems to result
from a client-counselor relationship where certain con-
ditions of interpersonal communication are offered to the
client by the helper (counselor). These counselor-offered
characteristics are (l) the communication of empathic
understanding of client feelings, (2) the communication

of respect for client worth, (3) the communication of

genuine non-exploitive counselor feelings toward the
client, and (4) the discussion of client concerns in
specific and concrete terms (Berenson & Carkhuff, 1967;
Carkhuff, 1967; Pierce, Carkhuff, & Berenson, 1967;
Rogers, 1961; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967).

Counselor behaviors to be acquired in training
programs and counselor education practicums are thus con-
ceptualized as responses facilitating conditions of inter—
personal communication (Patterson, 1964; Moore, 1963;
Truax & Carkhuff, 1967; Kagan et_§1., 1967). Within this
communication framework, trainees must learn to develop
(1) a sensitivity to client communications, i.e., skills

in discriminating client feelings and thoughts, and (2)

 

skills in communicating that understanding to the client.

 

Another aspect of the training process is counselor self-
discovery, where trainees learn to internalize as well as
conceptualize the meaning of the counselor-client re-
lationship (Patterson, 1964; Moore, 1963; Gottesman, 1962;
Brammer & Shostrom, 1960; Wyatt, 1948; Bugenthal, 1964).
The way in which trainees learn about the
caseworker-client relationship itself shares common-
alities with the process of counseling. The trainer
(supervisor) who offers his students facilitative con—
ditions such as empathic understanding, genuineness,
concreteness, and respect allows the student to explore
and understand his relationship with clients (Carkhuff,

1969a; Kell & Meuller, 1966). The supervisor can offer

the trainee opportunities for self-discovery and under-
standing of the "feeling" qualities of their relationships
(experiential learning) and can offer Opportunities to
learn objectively defined behavioral correlates of what

is considered facilitative counseling (cognitive learn-
ing). Detailed discussion of studies supporting this
orientation is included in Chapter II, the review of
literature.

Model of Counselor Education
and Training

 

 

A specific process (Interpersonal Process Recall,
IPR) has recently been developed by which counselor
trainees can learn skills to facilitate a counselor-
client relationship that ultimately seems to promote
behavior characteristic of client growth (Kagan gE_al.,
1967). Such growth is characterized by (1) the client
"owning" his discomfort, (2) the client committing him—
self to change, (3) the client differentiating stimuli,
and (4) the client behaving differently. Although the
method has largely been develOped in working with counse-
lors enrolled in doctoral or master's degree programs
and clients in school settings (Kagan e£_gl., 1967;
Spivack, 1970), pilot studies and projects suggest the
potential of such training with teachers or counselors
who have less clinical training or experience (Kagan,

1969; Grzegorek, 1970).

The program of teaching counseling skills involves
(l) the use of simulation films where a person portrays
possible client emotions, (2) the videotaping of the trainee
as he reacts to the simulation and/or the videotaping of
real (nonsimulated) trainee-client interviews, and (3) the
immediate "replay" and discussion of reactions to both
simulated and nonsimulated (interview) videotapes. This
replay is conducted by a person trained in facilitating
client or counselor exploration of recalled thoughts and
feelings. The "recall" then serves as a basis for a
subsequent counseling interaction.

Kagan §£_31. (1967) and Goldberg (1967) have
delineated four major developmental tasks faced by train—
ees in counselor education. These tasks represent dynamic
stages with specific goals for each stage. The four tasks
emphasize counselor awareness of (l) the elements of
effective counseling, (2) the meaning of client communi-
cations, (3) the impact of counselor feelings on the
counseling process, and (4) the bilateral nature of the
counseling interaction.

The following discussion develOps the theory or
concept underlying each developmental task and then
describes how that theory or concept is "applied" or
translated into counselor behavior in the training pro-
gram. In this way, the relation of the developmental

tasks posited by Kagan et al. (1967) to the "learning"

of interpersonal discrimination and communication skills

is considered.

1.

The trainee becomes increasingly aware of the
elements of good counseling. Rogers (1961)
stresses three attitudinal conditions or elements
as essential in activating the process that leads
to desired counseling outcome. He writes that
these conditions exist in any growth-promoting
relationship. These "facilitative" conditions
are posited as necessary and sufficient elements
in an effective client-counselor or helper-
helpee relationship. Such dimensions include

(1) accurate empathy, (2) congruence or genuine-

ness, and (3) nonpossessive warmth.

These theoretically developed facilitative
conditions have been extended into a more oper—
ational and quantitative framework by researchers
such as Truax and Carkhuff (1967). Operationally,
accurate empathy is viewed as the therapist's
sensitivity to discriminate current client feel-
ings and his ability to communicate this under-
standing so that the client perceives it. The
counselor-offered characteristic of nonpossessive
warmth illustrates a nonpossessive caring and

nonevaluative acceptance of the client as a person

10

of worth and value. Therapist genuineness refers
to his ability to "be himself" or "be" whatever
his response denotes rather than to deny feelings
or to act "phony." A forth condition important

in the relationship is that of concreteness. Con-
creteness is viewed as helping the client to dis-
cuss relevant concerns in specific terms rather
than vague abstractions.

Research by Truax and Carkhuff (1967) and
Carkhuff and Berenson (1967) has identified
various levels of response at which the theo-
retically-derived facilitative conditions can be
communicated. These five levels are:

Level l--The verbal and behavioral expres-
sions of the counselor either do
not attend to or detract signifi-
cantly from those of the second
person

Level 2--The counselor's response subtracts
noticeable affect from the client
communications

Level 3--The counselor's responses are
essentially interchangeable with
the client's statement

Level 4--The counselor's responses add
noticeably to client eXpressions
and communications.

Level S--The counselor's responses add
significantly to client expressions
and communications

The development of discrimination and communi-

cation skills makes it possible for the atti-

tudinal conditions to be offered at a high level

11

in a counselor-client relationship. Truax and
Carkhuff (1967) maintain that high levels of these
counselor-offered dimensions will facilitate the
central focus of the therapeutic process--client
self-exploration. This exploration, like the
facilitative dimensions, has been related to con-
structive gain or change in therapy.

The counselor-offered conditions suggested

 

by Rogers (1961) and Truax and Carkhuff (1967)

are similar to the counseling responses or be-

 

haviors found by Kagan §E_al. (1967) to differen-
tiate effective from less effective counselors.
Specifically, Kagan gE_gl. (1967) discuss the
importance of counselor reSponses which are judged
(1) understanding of client feelings (empathy);
(2) specific to immediate and real client concerns
(concreteness); (3) exploratory in terms of client
statements, thoughts, and feelings; (4) appropri-
ate to client "affect" rather than responding
intellectually or theoretically to client communi-
cations. These judgments have been developed into
a research scale, the Counselor Verbal Response
Scale (Kagan gt_31,, 1967).

Truax, Carkhuff, and Douds (1964) suggest
that relevant dimensions of counseling behaviors

be presented to trainees via a model rated high

12

in the behaviors being taught. A scale for mea-
suring the facilitative dimensions has been
developed (Carkhuff, 1969c). By using this scale
plus the Counselor Verbal Response Scale (CVRS),
to judge an appropriate model, trainees acquire a
frame of reference in translating theory into
practice.

Application--Kagan et al. (1967), Goldberg (1967),

 

and Truax and Carkhuff (1967) helped counselor
trainees to become more aware of the elements of
effective communication by providing objective
definitions of counselor behaviors that charac-
terize that communication. Trainees could then

be presented with examples of a counseling inter-
action and could begin to describe the interaction
in terms of the specified definitions.

The counselor-trainee becomes sensitive to and

 

understands a greater amount of client communi-

 

cation.

In studying client growth and counselor edu-
cation tasks, Kagan §E_31. (1967) noted that it
is quite difficult for a person in the client-
counselor relationship to "introspect" and "inter-
act" simultaneously (Kagan §£_al., 1967; Kubie,
1964). Although not based upon a formal theory,

Kagan et al. (1967) attempted to solve that

13

problem by "preserving" the original client-
counselor interaction by means of a videotape and
by "recreating" the situation by having the client
watch and react to the replay of the session.

This "replay" is conducted by a person (interro-
gator) trained in facilitating an exploration of
recalled thoughts and feelings. Thus the client
"interacts" at one point (during the session) and
"introspects" about these reactions at another
point (during the recall).

Application--Counselor observation of client re-

 

call sessions is one way to increase counselor
awareness of the subtle affective and cognitive
meanings underlying the client's verbal and non-
verbal communications and behaviors. In addition,
the trainee can begin to obtain client feedback
about whether his responses are at a high "facili—
tative" level.

The counselor trainee becomes aware of and senti-

 

tive to his own feelings during the counseling

 

session.

Counselor self—awareness has been described
as an important dimension of counselor training
(Appel, 1963; Brammer & Shostrom, 1960; Berenson
& Carkhuff, 1967; Rogers, 1961; Wyatt, 1948;

Bugenthal, 1964; Kell & Meuller, 1966; Patterson,

14

1964). Indeed, Kell and Meuller (1966) write

that the client's change depends in large part on
the caseworker's awareness of his own experiences
and impact. Specifically, counselor needs for
competence, power, or client approval may inter—
fere with his ability to use perceptions and
understandings to help the client. Thus counselor
anxiety may provoke defenses which bring an im-
passe to the therapeutic relationship.

Application—-Whi1e client recall provides under-

 

standing of client dynamics, counselor recall

 

sensitizes a trainee to his own anxieties and
needs and helps him to explore those feelings.
As the caseworker discusses his reactions with
the recall worker, he is encouraged to analyze
his thoughts and feelings during the counseling
session.

After observing client recall and experienc-
ing counselor recall, the trainee begins to learn
the interrogator role. Using his clinical per-
ceptions, he actively pushes or probes the client
(or fellow trainee in counselor recall) to explore
the original videotaped counselor-client inter-
action and associated feelings and thoughts.

The counselor trainee becomes sensitive to the

bilateral nature of the counseling interaction.

15

Theoretical emphasis on the moment—
to-moment experiencing of emotions in the
counselor-client relationship with stress on the
dynamic and reciprocal aspects of that encounter
links Rogerian theory to an existential vieWpoint
(May, 1961) and to an orientation posited by Kell
and Meuller (1966). The existential therapist
views the casework relationship as one where
counselor and client interact in a meaningful
"encounter." Kell and Meuller (1966) are con-
cerned also with the relationship, with how

clients "defend themselves,‘ with client efforts
to both change and "hold on to" their problems,
and finally with the way the caseworker enters
into this very personal interaction. A basic
premise of their framework (and of this study)
is that of the dynamic and "reciprocal" nature
of the counseling relationship, where each
participant influences the other and where the
client's change depends in large part on the
caseworker's awareness of his own experiences

and impact.

Application--The counselor trainee is provided

 

with an opportunity to explore his relationship
with a client, using the counseling session it-

self as the point of study. A recall session

16

of this nature is called mutual recall, where
both client and counselor view a replay of the
session, sharing recalled thoughts and feelings

with each other.

Definition of Terms

Special terms used in this study are defined as
follows:

I§§.--Process involving the taping and playback
of videotapes of personal (simulation) and interpersonal
(counseling interviews) interchanges to help the trainee
(caseworker) recall and explore the intrapersonal and

interpersonal dynamics of the original experience.

Stimulated Recall.--The replay of videotaped

 

interactions in the presence of a person (clinical inter—
rogator) trained in facilitating the eXploration of re-

called thoughts and feelings.

Interrogator.--Trained person who helps the client

 

or the counselor explore reactions to videotaped material

(simulated or interview material).

Affect Simulation.-—The procedure of using film

 

clips or vignettes to simulate kinds and degrees of
emotional states which are interpersonally stressful.

Reactions to these films are explored to determine typical

17

responses and to develop more potentially satisfying ways

to react to the given situation.

Facilitative.--That which aids the individual to
reach higher and more personally satisfying levels of
intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning (Berenson &

Carkhuff, 1967).

Core of Facilitative Conditions.-—The counselor
dimensions of sensitivity and attitude that create an
atmosphere that allows the individual (client) to relate
constructively to the counselor and to himself within

the therapeutic contact (Berenson & Carkhuff, 1967).

Cognitive.--Didactic, intellectual, theoretical
behaviors involving attainment of information and evalu-

ation procedures.

Affective-Experiential (emotional).--Behaviors
involving self-exploration, self-discussion, and under-

standing of "feelings."

Discrimination Skills.--These skills emphasize

 

counselor ability to recognize and identify client communi-
cations, i.e., to be sensitive to client feelings and
thoughts. These skills apply also to counselor ability

to discriminate "levels" of counselor response on facili-

tative dimensions as defined by Truax and Carkhuff (1967).

18

Communication Skills.-—These skills emphasize
using counselor discriminations in helpful (facilitative)
counselor responses, i.e., communicating counselor under-
standing, nonpossessive warmth, concreteness, and genuine-
ness in a manner perceived as such by the client. These
responses are generally of an affective, understanding,

specific, and exploratory nature.

Assumptions

 

For the purposes of this study, the dimensions or

 

conditions of accurate empathy, nonpossessive warmth,

genuineness, and concreteness and the counselor responses

 

of an understanding, specific, exploratory, and affective
nature will be considered basic or facilitative to thera-
peutic progress, regardless of the specific manner in

which these elements are employed, i.e., formal therapy
or casework-client interviews.
Additional assumptions are:

1. Court caseworkers who participate in this study
are like most other court caseworkers.

2. Behaviors required in the training will be
related to tasks necessary in actual on-the-job
behavior.

3. Caseworker's within-interview behaviors can be
measured and changes in such behavior can be

determined.

l9

4. The rating of 20 consecutive caseworker responses
taken from the middle portion of an interview will
be representative of behavior (responses) through—

out the interview.

Hypotheses

 

The basic hypothesis of this study is that court
caseworkers trained in discrimination and communication
skills via experimental procedures which emphasize
develOpmental tasks and stress videotape feedback and
experiential learnings will use significantly more growth
facilitating behaviors and conditions than will court

caseworkers who receive a more cognitive "classroom"

training program.1 More specifically, caseworkers receiv-
ing the experiential training (IPR) will develop greater
ability to discriminate client communications and to use
these discriminations in helpful (facilitative) counselor

behaviors.

Overview
In Chapter II, relevant psychological literature
is reviewed. Studies cited include those in areas of (l)
casework treatment of delinquent adolescents, and (2)

training procedures for caseworkers. Chapter III describes

 

1The specifically testable hypotheses as well as
the variables and instruments used to measure them will be
discussed in Chapter III.

20

the research design including the sample studied, oper-
ational measures employed, the testable hypotheses, the
procedures, and the prOposed analysis. Analysis of data
is found in Chapter IV and the relevance and interpre-

tation of findings are presented in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

 

The first chapter included the discussion of a
number of developmental tasks faced by counselor trainees
in learning interpersonal communication skills. Therefore,
literature will be reviewed on caseworker treatment of
delinquent adolescents and on training procedures for
caseworkers. Discussion of caseworker treatment of de—
linquent populations will include a review of both rele-
vant experimental and nonexperimental (theory and phi-
losophy) articles. Discussion of training procedures for
caseworkers will include a review of both traditional and
innovative approaches and their implications for training.
Again, relevant experimental and nonexperimental articles
will be presented.

Casework Treatment of Delinquent
Adolescents

 

Introduction

 

Most authors consider "counseling" to be a pro—

fessional relationship involving verbal interaction and

21

22

directed toward some kind of lessening of client psycho-
logical concerns (Patterson, 1966). Such a counseling or
therapy process is frequently assumed to be beneficial to
persons in varying life situations with divergent psycho-
logical problems. Recent literature, however, raises
questions regarding the effectiveness of certain kinds of
therapy treatments as provided to specific types of
clients by particular counselors (Whiteley, 1967; Ford &
Urban, 1963).

In working with what he called a "culturally de-
prived" client group, Calia (1966) reported the application
of traditional psychotherapeutic concepts to be unsuccess-
ful in facilitating "client growth." Procedures found
ineffective were those stressing self-exploration, verbal
exchange, self-referral, and the counselor-offered
dimension (Rogers, 1961) of unconditional positive re-
gard. Calia wrote that therapy emphasizing (1) "action"
or directive behavioral plans, and (2) counseling within
the client value system is more beneficial to clients who
are from such a "culturally deprived" sample. However,
he did stress that conditions of support, respect, and
freedom (Roger's nonpossessive warmth) are important in
developing client feelings of Optimism, worth, and
responsibility.

Although £229 of the traditional counseling

procedures may not benefit all clients, Calia (1966)

23

failed to elaborate upon what the concepts he criticized
actually meant. In addition, he did not define what he
meant by or how he evaluated "culturally deprived,"
"unsuccessful," or "client growth." Thus it is diffi-
cult tO evaluate the soundness of his criticisms and to
know how such factors should be varied according to client
background.

Other studies comparing such client variables as
delinquent versus nondelinquent behavior types and such
cultural factors as middle versus lower social-economic
class reported that the success Of counseling is not in-
dependent Of the type or situation Of the population
investigated (Truax & Carkhuff, 1965; Shore, Massimo, &
Ricks, 1965). Still, "counseling-like" procedures Of
some sort have been used in working with delinquent

youngsters. A number of these studies will be discussed.

Research

An early study of therapy with juvenile delin—
quents failed to show benefits Of counseling treatment
(Teuber & Powers, 1953). This study has been widely
cited by authors who contend that "therapy" or "counsel-
ing" efforts with a population Of juvenile offenders are
of little value in bringing about improved client be-
havior.

Close examination Of this study leaves some Of

the conclusions Open to question. For example, a

24

consistent "therapy" treatment did not exist. Instead,
"treatment" ranged from a "big-brother" type friendship
to the more traditional psychologist or social worker-
client relationship. All those varied relationships were
placed in the treatment category described as "therapy."
Such relationships could all be potentially helpful to
the delinquent. However, it is unlikely that such a
variety of associations should be defined as "therapy"
in the usual sense of exploration Of conflicted feelings
and resolutions Of such conflicts through the counselor—
client interaction.

In a more recent study, Truax, Wargo, and Silber
(1966) investigated the effects Of short-term (three
months) group therapy with high level conditions of
"accurate empathy" and "nonpossessive warmth" (see theory
section of Chapter I). Clients were institutionalized
female delinquents. The authors reported more "con—
structive" personality and behavioral changes in a treat—
ment group where leaders provided the theoretically
defined facilitative conditions of nonpossessive warmth
(NPW) and accurate empathy (AE) than in a control group
of delinquents not receiving formal therapy. Further,
when the counselor-Offered dimensions Of AE and NPW were
low, clients showed either little change or change in an
unpredicted direction when compared to a control group.

Truax eE_gl. (1966) interpreted their findings

Of therapeutic benefits gained from high facilitative

25

conditions as being mediated through changes in self-
concept and as being manifested in attitude to peers and
family. Instruments used to measure such changes were
Q-sorts of self and ideal-self and a designated subscale
(conformity) on the Minnesota Counseling Inventory (Berdie
& Layton, 1960). "Constructive personality change" re-
ferred to increased congruence between self and ideal—self
concepts, and "behavioral change" included better relation-
ships with others as well as a higher percentage Of time
spent out Of the institutional placement.

Although Truax eE_al. (1966) did not elaborate on
the details Of the therapeutic treatment, they implied
that a "relationship-oriented" therapy, with therapist-
offered conditions of NPW and AE was effective with a
delinquent population. Results indicated that this impli-
cation might be justified, but a more complete description
of the treatment would verify this conclusion. In evalu-
ating the results, it should be noted that Truax §t_gl.
(1966) did not clarify the kinds Of changes involved for
the subjects who changed in an "unpredicted" direction,
merely stating that such changes occurred. Nor can it
be said that low conditions of AE and NPW have strictly
negative therapeutic effects. Instead, Truax §£_gl,

(1966) wrote that high facilitative levels on those

dimensions are most effective therapeutically.

26

Further evaluation Of the study suggests the
following criticisms. The validity and reliability Of
criterion measures were not specified by Truax gp_al.
(1966) nor was the statistical level to be chosen for the
analysis. Theoretical relationships among changes in
self-concept, changed relationships with others, and
nondelinquent behavior were not explained, although the
associations seem implicitly valid. Finally, Truax gg_31.
(1966) did not clearly indicate the sort of analysis
chosen for the study and the appropriateness Of their
evaluations for the hypothesis to be tested.

Still another study on the effects of group therapy
on the behavioral change Of institutionalized delinquents
reported positive personality change to be associated
with counseling. In that project (Persons, 1966), therapy
involved the development Of a warm, accepting, understand-
ing, and supportive interpersonal relationship between
counselor and client. This type Of relationship seems
similar to one Offering the facilitative dimensions Of
AE and NPW (Truax §E_§l., 1966).

Persons (1966) measured behavioral change in terms

Of discipline reports, "good conduct passes,’ and school
achievement within the institution. Personality change
was measured using both an anxiety scale (Taylor, 1953)

and selected scales on the MMPI (Hathaway & Monachesi,

1953). Both treatment versus control differences and

27

pre-post differences for the therapeutic group were sig-
nificant in the direction predicted.

Although Persons (1966) was careful to specify
criteria for assessing behavioral change, the use of
apprOpriate instruments and the results predicted on
those measures were unclear. The type of analysis was
not explained, so the validity Of findings remains un-
certain.

In spite Of the limitations Of the above studies,
dimensions such as AE and NPW appear to facilitate success-
ful therapy with delinquents. However, one study reported
that the assumed facilitative dimension Of counselor
genuineness (congruence) did not seem to aid the client
exploration important to client change (Truax & Carkhuff,
1965). A similar study by Glasser (Whiteley, 1967) indi-
cated that congruence in the form of a direct Open commit-
ment by both client and counselor does contribute to the
success Of therapy sessions.

Despite the failure to describe therapy procedures
in detail, Shore, Massimo, and Mack (1965) reported that
delinquents showed positive change in their perception Of
interpersonal relationships following vocationally-
oriented counseling. These changes were especially evi—
denced in regard to self-image, control Of aggression,
and attitude toward authority. Rigid, preconceived, and

undifferentiated interpersonal relationships were reduced

28

in number, followed by an increased sensitivity to and
apparent awareness Of others.

Perceptions Of such relationships were measured
pre and post counseling, using projected responses to
preselected TAT cards. Although post-therapy stories did
suggest changed attitudes and perceptions of peOple, the
question Of how such changes were mediated is unresolved.
Thus the particular therapeutic aspects contributing to
attitudinal change, i.e., expressions Of feelings, cor-
rective emotional experiences, or learning experiences are
unknown. In addition, details Of analysis and appropriate-
ness Of criterion measures were not explained, lending
some question to the findings.

Still another study (Shore, Massimo, & Ricks,
1965) used responses to selected TAT cards to investigate
therapeutic change in delinquent boys. Like the earlier
study (Shore, Massimo, & Mack, 1965), these authors found
(1) increased control Of aggression, (2) "improved" self—
image, and (3) "better" attitude toward authority follow-
ing counseling. In addition, the Shore, Massimo, and
Ricks (1965) reported an association between changes in
self-image and improved academic achievement. This
association lends some support to the notion that thera-
peutic efforts with delinquents should involve an explor-
ation of client feelings about himself, i.e., self-concept

as well as other areas Of concern. Several other authors

29

stressed the role Of the self-concept as important in

theories Of delinquency. Tangri and Schwartz (1967) and
Dorn (1968) suggested that a poor self-concept might make
a youngster especially vulnerable to delinquent behavior.

Theory and Philosophical
Literature

 

 

A review Of the literature reveals several
philOSOphical or theoretical discussions of the importance
Of therapy and of the counselor-client relationship in a
court setting. Although few such articles are Of a
research or experimental nature, the discussions do
illustrate trends and therapeutic attitudes with treat-
ment and research implications.

In one such article, Hartman (1963) wrote that
the goals Of a probationer-probation Officer interview
are to understand client behavior and to use the relation-
ship tO help modify such behavior. In the process of
developing this relationship, Hartman adhered to princi—
ples reviewed by Wolberg (1954). These principles, like
those Of Rogers (1961), Truax and Carkhuff (1967), and
Kagan 2E_31. (1967), stress (1) counselor perception from
the client's internal frame Of reference, (2) counselor
maintenance of nonjudgmental attitudes (NPW), (3) counse-
lor communication Of understanding and empathy (AE), and
(4) counselor awareness of how his own feelings contribute

to counselor reactions.

30

Robison (1961) conceptualized delinquency as an
expression of the youngster's need or reaction to a situ-
ation as perceived by the youngster. She stressed that
neither elimination Of symptom behavior nor appeal to
logic is sufficient to correct delinquent behavior. In-
stead, such behavior can be altered by helping the client
relearn ways to adapt to social situations through experi-
encing a warm, understanding, and accepting relationship
with an adult (counselor). Anxiety-provoking experiences
are then re-experienced in the safety of the therapeutic
relationship, allowing for the release Of anxiety and the
experiencing of reasonable behavioral limits. This view-
point is similar tO that held by Kell and Meuller (1966)
(discussed in Chapter I).

Like Robison, Harrower (1955) stressed the im-
portance of an understanding, warm relationship between

worker and client, as well as a self-awareness on the part

Of the caseworker. As early as 1935 Aichhorn (1964) wrote
of a caseworker-client relationship Of trust and emotional
involvement, where the worker needs to be able to "feel"
the emotions Of others. Finally, Silverman (1960) wrote
that dealing with juveniles who have broken the law re-
quires dealing with client feelings in relation to family
experiences.

In his article on family casework with juvenile
offenders, Braxton (1966) also stressed the counselor-

client relationship. He wrote that this exchange requires

31

mutual trust and involvement. Specifically, Braxton
reported that the counselor serves as a new source of
adult identification for the youngster, at the same time
providing emotional support to him. This relationship
is also viewed as important in developing an improved
behavioral pattern within the family setting.

Lquuist (1967) also emphasized the value Of a
close probation officer-client relationship. He wrote
that the probation Officer should "show understanding and
sensitivity toward the youth's inner-most feelings"
(Lofquist, 1967, p. 18). Such an understanding relation-
ship aids the youth in relating more effectively to other
people as well as to the probation Officer.

Adamson and Dunham (1956) attributed the high
recidivism rate for juvenile Offenders to the assumption
that delinquent youth are low risk subjects for gay thera-
peutic treatment. They suggested that some type Of
"relationship" therapy is the mpst likely to bring re-
sults.

Other studies by Shore, Massimo, and Moran (1967)
and by Gottesfeld (1965) report that the delinquent desires
close interpersonal relationships with others, both
socially and in therapy. However, Stollack and Guerney
(1964) wrote that delinquents may_explore personal con—
cerns effectively by talking into a tape recorder, without
the personal-emotional interchange Of a counselor client—

relationship.

32

Still other authors stressed the importance Of
establishing a "helping" relationship with the legal
Offender. Overton (1965) wrote that such a relationship
should show respect for the client. Ordway (1968) sug—
gested using the client's "strengths" in the relationship
through the counselor communication Of understanding and
sensitivity.

Gibbon (1962) wrote that correctional treatment
is a legitimate area for social work concern and that the
legal framework need not preclude such "helping" efforts.
He discussed the legalistic trends in juvenile courts,
suggesting that probation Officers learn to use authority
within a "casework" role.

Hardman (1960) discussed this constructive use of
authority within the juvenile court setting. This author-
ity, he reported, should best be applied in a "kind" and
"nonpunitive" manner. In this article, Hartman empha-
sized that a caseworker Often responds according to per—
sonal feelings about the client or about himself. He con-
cluded that counselor negative feelings are ESE necessarily
wrong as long as they are not hidden. Instead, such atti-
tudes should be dealt with in the session and hopefully
can then be used constructively in the relationship. Like
previously cited authors (Kell & Meuller, 1966; Truax &
Carkhuff, 1967; Kagan §£_al., 1967), Hardman wrote that a

"congruent" understanding, and self-aware attitude on the

33

part Of the worker can contribute to a successful
counselor-client relationship.

Chwast, Harari, and Weisman (1958) and Burbank
and Goldsborough (1954) emphasized the importance of the
probation Officer's personality in the rehabilitation Of
Offenders. Chwast g£_§1. (1958) stressed counselor recog-
nition Of his own feelings of anxiety, frustration, and
confusion, while Burbank §E_§l. (1954) wrote that counse-
lors must rely heavily upon their ability to form and
maintain sound interpersonal relationships. Still another
author (Flemming, 1954), has written Of the importance Of
probation Officer interviewing skills, stressing listening
abilities and caseworker sensitivity to client feelings.
Flemming discussed counselor characteristics similar to
those stressed by Truax and Carkhuff (1967), i.e., the
importance Of the counselor in "being himself" (genuine-
ness) and the importance of the counselor in believing in
the significance and worth Of the youngster (respect, NPW).

Conclusions on Treatment
for Delinquents

 

 

Experimental studies on the value Of counseling
or therapy with delinquent adolescents present conflicting
findings. Experimental designs, Operational definitions,
criterion measures, and theoretical rationales differ
among the various studies, and the appropriateness Of
such factors for the particular study is Often unclear

from the information available.

34

In spite of these incomparabilities and weaknesses,
most studies suggest that spme kind of counseling helps
juvenile Offenders to change both behaviorally and in
personality (Calia, 1966; Truax gt_al., 1965; Persons,
1966; Shore gt_§1., 1965). The particular Eypg of therapy
to be offered to young people in a court setting can vary.
However, legalistic trends (Anderson, Thomas, & Sorensen,
1970) and theoretical attitudes lend support to a counsel-
ing process that is "relationship" oriented (Hartman,
1963; Robison, 1961; Silverman, 1960; Braxton, 1966; Lof—
quist, 1967; Adamson & Dunham, 1956). Specifically, such
therapy incorporates the counselor-Offered facilitative
conditions theoretically described by Rogers (1961) and
operationally defined and elaborated by Truax and Cark-

huff (1967).

Traininngrocedures for Caseworkers

 

Introduction

 

A search into psychological and legal journals
revealed no formal accounts of training programs in court
settings which attempt to improve Specific counselor
(caseworker) skills. As indicated in Chapter I, seminar
or "classroom" programs have stressed theories of delin-
quency and considered methods of casework but have not
offered programs of supervised application of theory or

method in a caseworker-client framework. Thus most of

35

the guidelines which caseworkers follow tend to stem from
undergraduate training in social work or police adminis-
tration programs or from on-the-job learnings.

Court caseworkers must often make decisions re-
quiring an understanding of client feelings and behavior
(see Chapter I). In developing a training procedure to
help caseworkers offer conditions which will aid them in
making such decisions, a number of counselor-training
programs within educational settings were evaluated. In
addition, philosophical and theoretical articles which pro-
vide a rationale for the program were reviewed.
Traditional Approaches to Counselor

(Caseworkef) Training_and Methods
to Implement Such Training

 

 

 

Traditional counselor training programs have
stressed either didactic pr experiential learnings.
Didactic procedures are theoretical, cognitive, and
empirical elements (Levy, 1968), while experiential
aspects include counselor self-discovery and self—awareness
experiences (Gibb, 1968; Foreman, 1967; Lister, 1966;
Truax, Carkhuff, & Douds, 1964).

PrOponents of the didactic emphasis in learning
counselor skills have written that an understanding of
counseling (caseworker) theory helps a counselor to con—
ceptualize what he is doing and to evaluate his behaviors
in the framework of his assumptions about client behavior

and need (Brammer, 1966). The trainee can also cognitively

36

understand his own behaviors and evaluate his role in the
counselor-client relationship.

Specifically, cognitive skills are taught by
modeling and guiding behaviors of the teacher or super-
visor. In this way, trainees learn objectively derived
behavior correlates of what is considered effective
counseling practice (Fleming & Benedek, 1964; Korner &
Brown, 1952; Moore, 1963). The trainer offers accumu-
lated knowledge to his student who then deduces specific
behaviors from these established theoretical principles.

Cognitive tasks are involved in learning the
discrimination and communication skills mentioned in
Chapter I. Here, discrimination skills are increased by
practice in recognizing and identifying types of behavior
having underlying clinical significance. Communication
skills can also be learned in a cognitive manner by trans—
lating such discrimination of client behavior into con-
crete counselor responses and interactional behaviors.

Trainers who adhere to the experiential vieWpoint
have stressed the counselor's personal growth through
activities which help him to internalize, experience, and
understand the meaning of the "feeling" or affective
qualities of the counselor-client relationship (Altucher,
1967; Hansen & Barker, 1964; Gysbers, 1964; Kell &
Meuller, 1966). This greater self-understanding on the
part of the counselor is generalized to greater under-

standing of the emotions, needs, and conflicts of others.

37

Specifically, experiential learnings are acquired
through quasi-therapeutic experiences in groups or between
trainer and trainee (Bonney & Gazda, 1966; Foremen, Poppen,
& Frost, 1967; Lister, 1966; Gazda & Ohlsen, 1961). Per-
ceptual and attitudinal conditions in trainees are ex-
plored to aid counselor growth and to then induce client
understanding. Experiential learning requires recognition
and understanding Of client behaviors and feelings and
communication of this understanding to the client. Thus
the process can also be used to teach discrimination and
communication skills.

Recent Approaches to Casework

Training and Methods to
Implement Such Training

 

 

 

Recent evaluations of counselor-education programs
have suggested the combining of didactic and experiential
aspects Of training in teaching discrimination and com-
munication skills (Carkhuff, 1966; Chenault, 1964; Lands—
man, 1963; Lister, 1964; Perrone & Sanborn, 1966). Cark-
huff (1966) recommended a blending Of didactic shaping
behavior, experiential learnings, and role models. Truax,
Carkhuff, and Douds (1964) combined these aspects in a
supervisory model where counselor behaviors were shaped
through also meeting with their supervisors for a quasi-
therapeutic or "experiential" session emphasizing
counselor self-exploration. This aspect of training gave

the counselors a chance to consider the impact of their

38

own experiences and feelings upon counselor-client
relationships. Such self-discovery helped the trainee
develop ways to put didactic learnings into practice in
a manner which was effective for him.
Although the program described by Truax gp_31.
(1964) was reported as effective, little or no details
were provided on the experimental design used to evaluate
the program or on the statistics used to draw conclusions.
Thus it is difficult to evaluate objectively the program.
Replications of the study, using a shorter train-
ing program, have not reported as encouraging results
(Berenson, Carkhuff, & Myrus, 1966). Reasons for these
inconsistent findings are unclear. Possible explanations
for failure of short-term programs in producing comparable
trainee learnings include both the depth and the intensity
of the programs (Spivack, 1970). Shorter programs might
not enable the trainee to incorporate learnings at a
deep level. The discrimination and communication skills
being taught might require a longer period of time in
order for their impact to be realized.
Innovative Approaches to Casework

Training and Methods to Imple-
ment Such Training

 

 

A. Audio-tgpe Procedures
An early study by Gaier (1951) used the playback
of audiotaped classroom interactions to stimulate dis-

cussion of recalled behaviors and thoughts during a

39

learning situation. The tape was stopped at pre-determined
points, and subjects (Sg) were encouraged to elaborate on
thoughts influencing the original interaction.

The implications of such a procedure in studying
inner feelings and thoughts were applied by Bloom (1954).
Again, audiotapes of classroom discussions were used to
recreate the original situation. The tapes were stOpped
at seemingly significant points, and reports indicated
that this method aided SE in reliving the original experi-
ence. Similar use of audiotapes in counselor-education
supervision was reported by several authors (Beiser, 1966;
Holmes, 1961; Kubie, 1958). Beiser (1966) wrote that the
use of audiotapes in supervision helped counselor trainees
to (1) note their own defenses and how those behaviors
influenced therapy, and (2) Obtain understanding both of
clients and of the supervisory process.

Despite the frequent helpfulness of using audio-
tapes in the training process, a number of limitations of
such tape use have been noted (Poling, 1964). Eckstein
and Wallerstein (1958) wrote that taping interviews inter-
feres with the naturalness of the session, while Heimann
and Whittemore (1964) reported that taped portions do not
represent total interview events. Ryan (1969), Poling
(1964), and Kagan g£_§l. (1967), reported that audiotapes
miss important nonverbal aspects of behavior which in-

fluence both counselor and client behavior. Kubie (1964)

40

noted that the use of audiotapes in training make it diffi-
cult to recreate the "atmOSphere" and "nuances" Of the
session. Kubie (1964) elaborated on the limitations,
writing that it is more difficult for the trainee to
remember accurately his thoughts and feelings without
nonverbal cues.

B. Closed Circuit Television
and Videotgpe Procedures

 

 

Concern with the limitation and disadvantages of
audiotape use 229 technological advances in communication
have led to increased use of Closed Circuit Television
(CCTV) and videotaping procedures in accelerating client
growth and in facilitating counselor training in discrimi-
nation and communication skills. The present discussion
centers upon use of these aids in counselor training.

Many of the articles cited are nonexperimental. These
articles, as well as the few experimental studies avail-
able are reviewed.

In discussing reactions to hearing and seeing one-
self, Holzman (1969) described the confrontation experi-
ence, whether by audio or videotape. He emphasized the
"deautomatization" of a person's usual ways of viewing
himself and the confusion or disruption that results.
Specifically, the affective reaction to the discrepancy
between the expected image and the findings on tape
extends an individual's "associational realm," leading

to conflict.

41

Holzman (1969) wrote that the conflict generated
by the tape confrontation raises defenses which then mighg
provide for the person's gradual denial of what he sees
or hears on tape. Thus he recommended the use of tapes as
an aid of the therapist or trainer, where the counselor
helps the client or trainee to deal with generated con-
flicts and use the results in a helpful manner.

A final suggestion made by Holzman (1969) was that
experiments studying the value of tape-confrontations in-
clude a control group and describe how the tapes were used
and who used them. In this way, it would be easier to
determine if changed behavior results merely from the
therapeutic situation or also from some aspect of the
confrontation itself.

Several therapist training programs have been
develOped using closed circuit television as a supervisory
aid. One such program was developed by Younge (1965) in
his training of medical students. It is not clear whether
his procedures were intended for psychiatric students or
for all medical students in the context of a more general
"doctor-patient" relationship. However, the program
illustrated a new way of providing instruction in diag-
nostic and therapeutic interviewing via television.

In this method (Younge, 1965), all participants
met in weekly two-hour sessions over a 16-week school

term. During the first half of the term, students

42

watched live demonstration interviews conducted by their
instructors and monitored by another professor who was

with the students in the TV viewing room. These demon-
strations were followed by six didactic lectures on various
aspects of therapy. The last half Of the program consisted
of (1) weekly supervision via one-way mirror with students
both conducting individual interviews and taking "notes" on
their client, and (2) weekly Observation of additional
demonstration sessions, with emphasis on therapeutic, not
diagnostic, aSpects of the session.

At the end of the training, both students and
faculty evaluated the procedures by questionnaire. Stu-
dents were asked how they viewed the entire sequence in
terms of learning about interviewing, about clients, and
about themselves. Although many students requested more
"practice" interviews without TV, most residents also re-
quested more monitoring of the demonstration tapes and
more such demonstrations. When asked how much the effec-
tiveness of the course depended on the TV demonstrations,
34 of the 47 students indicated that the use of CCTV
demonstration sessions was moderately or largely responsi-
ble for the overall effectiveness of the program. In-
structors also rated the course and the TV aspects as a
valuable teaching aid.

Younge (1965) described his program as a prototype

for observation and simultaneous commentary (monitoring)

43

of both verbal and nonverbal aspects of the therapy
session. He reported that such demonstrations are a way
to teach beginning doctors about the doctor-patient re-
lationship, particularly how attitudes of the doctor in-
fluence the emotional and intellectual communications of
patient and doctor.

Another researcher (Holmes, 1961) wrote about the
use of CCTV in illustrating various clinical syndromes to
psychiatric trainees. In that program, students viewed
a 15- to 20-minute case presentation which was either
preceded or followed by discussion and lectures. An
intercommunication system between class lecturer and the
interviewer allowed for immediate clarification of speci-
fic counselor techniques or insights and for coordination
of demonstration with classroom discussion. Other ad—
vantages mentioned by Holmes include the student's in-
creased sense of involvement, the increased credibility
and spontaneity of the counselor—client relationship as
viewed, and the bridging of the gap between didactic
theory and actual interviewing.

Kornfield and Kolb (1964) discussed the use of
CCTV to teach diagnostic interviewing skills and other
aspects of psychiatry. In this program, student thera-
pists viewed an experienced counselor as he met with a
client. Following the session, the therapist discussed

the interview with the class. Kornfield and Kolb (1964)

44

thought this procedure was a good way to hold the attention
of students and to increase student identification with
the therapist and the therapeutic process. In addition,
the experienced counselor was believed to be a model for
demonstrating techniques and therapeutic methods.

Landsman and Lane (1963) and Walz and Johnston
(1963) investigated the value of videotape feedback on
trainees' attitudes toward themselves and their reactions
to viewed counseling behaviors. Participants in the
Landsman and Lane (1963) study were videotaped as they
role-played both client and counselor. After a 10- to
15-minute taping, trainees watched the playback and dis—
cussed reactions. Students reported that despite the
"artificiality" of the role-play, insights into counselor
responses were Obtained during playback. In addition,
facility and comfort in "self—assessment" was reported as
a result of the experience. Landsman and Lane also
allowed trainees to View videotapes Of five different
experienced counselors, all working with the same coached
client. By viewing such "expert" demonstrations on video-
tape, trainees were able to discuss and appreciate the
individuality of counselor responses and to evaluate
their effectiveness.

The focus of the Walz and Johnston (1963) study
was counselor changes in self-perceptions as a result of

self-observation in a counseling interview. A number Of

45

instruments were used to assess changes in self—evaluation,
including Bills Inventory of Adjustment and Values (Walz

& Johnston, 1963), Welsh's Anxiety Index (Welsh, 1952), and
an Interpersonal Check List develOped by Walz and Johnston
(1963).

Experimental gs were 30 candidates in an NDEA
counseling institute. Subjects were videotaped for 10
minutes while interviewing one of two coached clients.
After the session and before viewing the video playback,
SS, supervisors, and clients separately completed the
Interpersonal Check List (ICL). This instrument was an
adjective check list completed as the person felt the
client viewed the counselor during the session. The day
after the taping, the S (trainee) viewed the videotape and
again completed the ICL. Changes in self-perception
following videotape feedback were studied by comparing
positive and neutral items used by SS on the ICL before
viewing with those used after playback.

Counselors reported that the experience gave them
more critical awareness of themselves and more desire for
self-study, even though self-perceptions were less posi-
tive on the ICL after the self-observation. These self—
perceptions, though less positive, were more in agreement
with the supervisor's view of their counseling behaviors.
It should be noted that the latter report may be criti-

cized for the lack of a control or comparison group and

46

for inadequate justification of criterion measures and
instruments.

Another author who discussed the merits of teach-
ing by television and videotape is Wilmer (1967). Wilmer
stressed the immediate replay and study of the client-
counselor relationship by the participants themselves.
In therapy, Wilmer (1967) recommended a brief 10- to 15—
minute videotaping, followed by a 45-minute replay. Dur-
ing the playback, the client and the counselor 93 the
counselor and the supervisor explored the interaction
without the influence of faulty memory or distortions
Often evidenced in other supervisory methods (audiotapes,
case notes). Wilmer (1967) wrote that the immediate
replay of videotaped sessions with a supervisor enables
the student counselor to understand better the inter-
personal aspects of a therapeutic interview and the im-
portance of the "relationship" in the therapeutic process.
He reported that videotape replay in supervision can
teach the student to sharpen his perceptions and cue
discrimination. For classroom teaching, Wilmer (1967)
suggested the presentation of brief videotaped segments
of an interview, interspersed with "predictive inferences"
and a "checking" to see how closely subsequent
material followed the behavioral hypotheses.

Similarly, Suess (1966) recommended the replay of

videotaped interviews for teaching purposes. He suggested

47

that class discussion follow taping, with the instructor
aiding the discussion. This method would give students
an opportunity to Observe "experts" and would provide for
an accurate appraisal of concrete verbal and nonverbal
aspects of the session.

In a recent article, Gruenberg, Liston, and Wayne
(1969) wrote that the use of videotaped interviews for
therapeutic supervision offers a unique chance for the
student to note differences between the model he holds
of his behavior and the reality of such behavior. In that
program, psychiatric residents saw clients for 50 minutes
twice weekly. After sessions, students (trainees) viewed
the video replay by themselves or went over the tape with
a supervisor.

An article by Benschoter, Wittson, and Ingham
(1965) also stressed previously mentioned advantages of
individual psychotherapeutic instruction via videotapes.
Those authors recommended taping 45 minutes of the inter-
view, later viewing the replay with the supervisor for
about one-half hour. Students evaluated this use as help-
ful in providing a means of "self-instruction" and in
gaining "interview perspectives." However, Benschoter
gt_§l. (1965) noted that scheduling problems and initial
counselor anxiety might be difficulties of the procedure
which need to be considered in the application of video-

tape methods in counselor training.

48

A recent project by Ivey, Normington, Miller,
Morrill, and Haase (1968) used videotape procedures to
teach counseling skills within the context of a "pre-
practicum." In this experiment, beginning counselors were
videotaped in a five-minute conversation with paid volun-
teer clients. Three counseling skills, attentiveness,
reflection of feeling, and summarization of feeling were
the focus of the "microcounseling" method.

In the first part of the study, attentiveness was
defined as "being with" the client and "communicating"
such attentiveness to the client. This skill was viewed
as a relationship variable having considerable reinforce-
ment value. Subjects were residence hall counselors and
their volunteer clients. Counselors were told to "get to
know" the person they were interviewing. After the video—
tape session, counselors completed several learning tasks,
including reading a manual explaining components of

" viewing of video models of effective and

"attentiveness,
noneffective examples of the skill, and discussion of the
dimension with respective supervisors. Next, the pre-
viously recorded practice session was viewed and discussed
by student and supervisor. The subject then recounseled
the same client, applying learnings of previous task com-
pletion. A control group of beginning counselors com-

pleted a practice and second interview, without viewing

a videotape of their session.

49

Evaluation of counselor "attentiveness" involved
ratings on counselor eye contact with client, counselor
posture and gestures, and the Counselor Effectiveness
Scale developed by Ivey and his colleagues (1968). Analy-
sis of covariance between control and experimental groups
revealed eye contact, "following" behavior, and client
rating of counselor effectiveness to be significantly
greater for the experimental group.

A second part Of the study by Ivey §£;213 (1968)
emphasized the learning of counselor "reflection of feel—
ings," i.e., the attending to and responding to feelings
and emotional aspects of client communication. Subjects
completed tasks similar to those delineated for the learn-
ing of "attentiveness." Evaluation of reflection of feel-
ing was made by the use of a scale adapted from the
Truax-Carkhuff (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) scale for accurate
empathy. Trend analysis revealed significantly greater
instances of such behavior over trials in the experimental
group as judged by both counselor and client.

The final part of the Ivey gp_gl. (1968) project
involved the teaching of "summarization of feeling."
Again, experimental gs showed a greater instance of such
counselor behavior than did control counselors.

Ivey g£_gl. (1968) interpreted their findings as
evidence that basic developmental counseling skills can

be taught in a relatively short-term program to in-

experienced trainees. However, the authors suggested

50

caution in (l) generalizing use of such skills to actual
counseling behaviors, (2) assuming that client judgments
and counselor ratings are sufficient criteria of effective-
ness, and (3) attributing experimental effort solely to
the training rather than to "halo effects" or other un-
controlled extraneous variables or differences between
control and experimental groups. An additional limit of
the study is the emphasis on cognitive elements without a
counselor self-discovery experience or an exploration of
the "reciprocal" nature of the counselor-client relation-
ship.

Delaney (1969) discussed simulation as a way to
present counselor trainees with typical client affect and
situations. He develOped a videotape procedure to help
counselors learn to (1) encourage nonverbal clients to

"open-up,‘ (2) use psychological tests in counseling, (3)
interpret nonverbally expressed client feelings, and (4)
encourage client expression of "affect" or feelings. The
approach used simulation methods and learning theory to
teach these counselor behaviors.

Specifically, client response leads, each two
minutes in duration, served as the counselor stimulus.
Blank spaces after each client lead allowed time for
counselor response. Other client responses were pro-

grammed to follow counselor statements. These responses

either reinforced or did not reinforce the counselor

51

response, depending on the judged apprOpriateness Of that
trainee response. The program allowed students to work at
their own rate on specific skills.

A similar study by Eisenberg and Delaney (1970)
investigated the use of a simulation program to teach
counseling skills to beginning counselors. Again, trainees
(21 female and 22 male graduate students) watched a simu-
lation videotape which was stopped at predetermined points
to allow for counselor response to a role-played client
statement. Trainees were split into one of four treatment
groups. The groups are described as follows:

Group One, Modeling-only: Ss viewed an expert counse—
lor making counselor response leads (counselor re-
sponses that evoke client elaboration of problem)

after client statements on scenes 1-20. On scenes
21-40, gs themselves responded to the clients.

 

Group Two, Reinforcement-only: gs verbally responded
to client statements on scenes 1—40 without having
viewed an expert model. On scenes 1-20, counselor
response leads were followed by verbal approval by E,
given through a speaker system into the room.

 

Group Three, Treatment control: SS verbally responded
to client statements but reOEiVed no experimenter (E)
communication on scenes 1—40.

 

Group Four, Modeling-reinforcement: For the first
10 scenes, gs watched an expert counselor respond to
client statements. On scenes 11-40, gs responded to
clients, receiving E communication (reinforcement)
through the speaker system.

 

Following training, clients (undergraduate volunteers)
talked to student counselors in a nonsimulated setting
and audiotapes of those sessions were evaluated to assess

transfer of training.

52

Analysis of variance indicated that scores of
modeling-reinforcement and modeling-only groups were both
significantly higher on Counselor Response Leads to video-
taped clients than were scores on treatment-control sub-
jects. In addition, significantly higher Counselor
Response Leads scores were found for both the modeling-
only and modeling-reinforcement groups than for reinforce-
ment-only subjects. NO significant differences in scores
were found between the reinforcement-only and treatment-
control group SS, nor was the difference between scores
of the modeling-only or modeling-reinforcement groups
significant.

Thus systematic exposure to modeling procedures
of expert counselors significantly increased quality (de-
fined as Counselor Response Leads) of trainee response on
a training videotape. However, these findings did not
appear to transfer into the nonsimulation (live interview
with undergraduate students) situation.

Eisenberg and Deleney (1970) accounted for the lack
of transfer by stating that (1) responses elicited may have
been inappropriate for an initial interview, and (2) the
simulation may have seemed contrived or unrealistic. A
further explanation is that "cognitive" knowledge of how
one wants to respond and actual use of such knowledge in
a real situation may have been prevented by counselor

dynamics. Thus "experiential" exploration of counselor

53

dynamics and the reciprocal counselor-client relationship
may help trainees feel comfortable communicating "cognitive"
knowledge.

A videotape procedure develOped by Kagan and his
associates (Kagan e£_gl., 1967) was described in Chapter I.
This process for helping trainees to develop relationships
promoting client growth incorporates some of the "facili-
tative" dimensions of an interpersonal relationship,
specifically, accurate empathy, genuineness, and con-
creteness. Evaluating counselor reSponses is a way of
then measuring if trainees have learned skills which pro-
mote those relationships. Studies indicated that video
replay and client recall using the IPR approach helped
clients to identify, label, and explore in depth the mean-
ings of their behaviors (Kagan, Krathwohl, & Miller, 1963;
Kagan §£_gl., 1967, 1969; Resnikoff, Kagan, & Schauble,
1970; Schauble, 1970). Goldberg (1967) applied the basic
IPR process to counselor training, conducting counselor
and client recalls to aid counselor exploration of his
role in the relationship. A detailed description of the
process as applied to casework training follows.

The IPR session begins as the counselor and a
client enter the interview room. A 15- to 20-minute
counseling session is videotaped. Following this period,
the tape is rewound for viewing. The counselor gr client
then leaves the room and observes the recall through a

one-way mirror.

54

A recall worker (clinical interrogator) then
enters the counseling room and views the video playback
with the client (or counselor). Either the interrogator
9; the client (or counselor) can stop the tape to comment
upon or explore thoughts and feelings in the interchange.
In client recall, clients are aided in self-exploration,
and client growth often ensues.

In counselor recall, counselor trainees can ex-
plore the way they relate to others and the impact which
personal feelings have on their interview behavior. By
noticing client behaviors as well as their own, counselor
trainees can become more sensitive to client dynamics, to
counselor feelings, and to the "reciprocal" nature of the
interaction (Goldberg, 1967; Kagan gg_gl., 1967).

An additional way for counselor trainees to become

aware of client concerns is for the trainee to learn and
practice the "interrogator" role, where he views a video-
tape with the client or a fellow trainee (caseworker) and
learns more probing aggressive clinical behavior. The
recaller focuses on client feelings and thoughts in the
original session, specifically (1) how the client sees
himself, (2) how the client would like to see himself,
(3) how the client thinks the counselor views him, (4)
how the client would like the counselor to view him, and
(5) possible alternative behaviors to be considered.

A later modification Of the basic IPR process

also applied in counselor training and supervision is

55

the use of simulation films in IPR. In these films,
actors portray affective states Often present in counsel-
ing interactions. These states are placed on a continuum
of approach-avoidance feelings, particularly client feel-
ings that (l) the counselor might reject or hurt him,

(2) the counselor might approach him in a seductive or
affective manner, (3) the client might show hostility
toward the counselor, and (4) the client might show
seductive or affectionate feelings toward the counselor.

During recall sessions, trainees explored the
counselor's videotaped reactions as he watched the various
scenes. In this way, the interrogator and the counselor
(or client in client recall) can discuss the individual's
typical reactions to such emotions and can explore other
means of handling the situation and associated affect
(Schauble, 1970; Spivack, 1970).

One study which used the basic IPR process in
counselor education was conducted by Goldberg (1967).
Goldberg assumed that counselor trainees face several
developmental tasks in training. These tasks included
(1) becoming aware of the elements of good counseling,

(2) becoming sensitive to and understanding client com-
munication, (3) becoming aware of and sensitive to his
(counselor) own feelings in the interview, and (4) becom-
ing aware of the "bilateral" nature Of the counseling
interaction. Goldberg (1967) then used a series of

sequential experiences to teach those tasks.

56

Subjects for the Goldberg (1967) project were 36
master's level graduate counseling students at Michigan
State University. Half of the students received tra—
ditional individual supervision, while half received
supervision via IPR. The IPR treatment involved (1) dis-
cussion of the elements of effective communication or
counseling, using dimensions of the Counselor Verbal
Response Scale, (2) videotaped practice interviews,
followed by client recall with trainee (counselor) watch—
ing and videotaped practice interviews followed by counse-
lgr (trainee) recall, (3) trainee practice of interrogator
role with another trainee's client, and (4) a videotaped
practice interview followed by recall conducted by the
supervisor, with shared participation of both counselor
(trainee) and client (mutual recall).

Analysis of results indicated that the IPR-trained
students showed significantly more counselor reSponses of
an affective, understanding, exploratory, and effective
nature than did §S receiving traditional (audiotape) super-
vision. In addition, counselors in the IPR group were
judged significantly more effective by their clients than
were counselors in the traditional training group. Gold—
berg (1967) concluded that the sequential experiences with
IPR were effective in training student counselors.

Another study using IPR in counselor training was

conducted by Spivack (1970). Spivack combined a series of

57

developmental task experiences based on previous IPR re-
search (Goldberg, 1967) and compared that training pro-
cedure with a traditional lecture-demonstration teaching
method. Trainees for the study were 20 beginning counsel-
ing graduate students at Michigan State University. SS
were randomly assigned to one of two group treatment
sequences, with group one receiving IPR training followed
by lecture-demonstrations and group two first attending
lecture-demonstrations followed by IPR. Thus each S re-
ceived training by both methods but in varying order.

During the first part of the IPR sequence, trainees
viewed simulation films to increase awareness of their own
feelings in the emotional situation portrayed on film.
While watching the vignettes, §s were videotaped, and a
recall of the tape was conducted by a clinical interro-
gator. Next, §s observed tapes on client-counselor com-
munications and each trainee then roleplayed the part of
counselor and then client. These role play sessions were
audiotaped, and a recall was conducted on this audiotaped
interview. In this manner, trainees were to gain an aware—
ness and have some practice "trying on" counselor-client
communications.

Third, trainees attended a lecture on the elements
of effective communication in counseling. Audio and
video training tapes were played while gs rated them on
Specific elements of communication (affective, under-

standing, specific, eXploratory responses) and on the

58

facilitative "levels" of such dimensions (accurate empathy,
nonpossessive warmth, concreteness, and respect). gs also
rated role play sessions in which they participated.

In the final phase of the experimental training,
trainees met with coached clients and were videotaped in
a "helping" interview. Counselor recall and mutual recall
sessions were conducted to help counselors become sensitive
to both client dynamics and to the "bilateral" nature of
the counseling relationship.

Criterion measures were collected at pre-, mid-,
and posttreatment intervals. Instruments used were the
Affective Sensitivity Scale (Kagan §£_gl,, 1967) and the
CVRS (Kagan et al., 1967), and AE (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967)
rating scales. The ratings were made on two audiotaped
interview situations (one with a coached client and one in
a role play session). Evaluation of interviews was con-
ducted by two judges using the CVRS and the Empathic Under-
standing scales in the coached client situation and by two
judges using the same scales on the role play session.

An analysis of variance for repeated measures was
performed on the mean gain score changes from pre-to-mid-
to-post on the three criterion measures. Significant
differences (< .05) were found between the initial IPR-
discussion-demonstration group and the initial discussion-
demonstration—IPR group on the understanding, specific,

and exploratory subscales of the CVRS in the coached client

59

situation. Significant differences were also found be-
tween those groups on the affective, understanding,
specific, and exploratory subscales of the CVRS under
the role play conditions when IPR was compared directly
to the traditional method.

No significant differences were found between the
two groups on level of accurate empathy (empathic under-
standing) and on the Affective Sensitivity Scale. How-
ever, a significant within group growth occured for the
group receiving IPR training as its first experience.

Spivack (1970) sorted out that the training pro-
gram developed for that study was successfully applied
within the financial and time limitations of a master's
degree program. This study, like that of Goldberg (1967),
showed benefits to be gained from an experiential training
using videotape procedures.

A recent study by Grzegorek (1970) compared two
approaches to counselor training, using simulation films
and videotape feedback in both instances. One approach
was termed "experiential-accepting (EA), stressing counse-
lor self-awareness and personal growth. The other pro-
cedure, designated "cognitive-intellectual" (CI) empha—
sized cognitive counselor learning of client dynamics and
counselor learning about techniques; that is, one group
studied the meaning of client behavior in depth and

examined productive counselor behaviors, the other group

60

spent a bit less time on that and added some time on self-
analysis of the counselor himself.

Subjects for the study were 44 counselors in the
Michigan Department of Corrections. Trainees were exposed
to four basic tasks in a lO-day training program. Firsg,
counselors attended a lecture presentation of the dimen-
sions of facilitative counseling. This lecture focused on
the types of responses and counselor behavior stressed by
Kagan et al. (1967) and the facilitative dimensions or
conditions recommended by Truax and Carkhuff (1967). The
initial lecture was followed by watching videotapes of
"expert" counselors and by practice in rating counselor
responses on the CVRS and AE research scales. Part one
was developed to help trainees gain understanding of the
components of effective communication as a basis for
counseling skills.

In stage Egg of the program, SS watched simulation
films (Kagan §£_31., 1967) and discussed personal re-
actions to the stress situations presented. This step
served to help counselors become more aware of themselves
and of client dynamics. Step Ehrgg of the training
sequence involved IPR procedures. Trainees were video-
taped with clients, and sessions were followed by client
recalls, counselor recalls, and mutual recalls. EA sub-
jects concentrated on self-awareness gained in the

sessions, as well as on understanding client dynamics.

61

CI group members focused on client dynamics and counselor
techniques. In this way, trainees had the opportunity to
become aware of their own feelings, of client feelings, and
of the "bilateral" nature or "reciprocal" impact in the
relationship. Finally, gs met in groups to review indi-
vidual counseling sessions which had been videotaped and

on which recall sessions had already been conducted.

A pre-post design was used to evaluate the relative
effectiveness of the procedures. Criterion measures in-
cluded (l) Affective Sensitivity Scale (Kagan e£_31.,
1967), and (2) CVRS and AE ratings Of counselor audiotapes
in actual client-counselor sessions. Audiotapes were rated
by two independent judges who were advanced doctoral stu—
dents in counseling.

An analysis of variance of pre-post changes within
groups indicated significant differences (< .05) pre—to—
post treatment on all measures taken as a total for the
EA group, but not for the GI group. Thus EA gs after
treatment were significantly higher on the Affective
Sensitivity Scale, CVRS, and AE ratings than they were
prior to training.

Analysis of variance and post-hoc comparisons of
pre-post changes between groups indicated significant
differences (< .05) favoring EA group subjects between
groups on AE, understanding, Specific, and exploratory

dimensions. Significant differences between groups were

62

not found on the Affective Sensitivity Scale or on the
affect dimension of the CVRS. Thus the two groups did not
seem to differ in counselor perception of client feelings
but did differ when counselor behavior (AE, the three
dimensions of the CVRS) were considered.

Grzegorek (1970) suggested that the relative suc-
cess of the EA program when compared to CI learnings was
due to a large extent to the IPR experience. This process
seemed to intensity and accelerate EA learnings by empha—
sizing counselor awareness Of client dynamics, counselor
self-awareness, and counselor awareness of counseling
technique. Feedback to counselors via videotape, recall
sessions, and simulation material also seemed to contri—

bute to counselor growth.

Summary

A review of experimental and discussion articles
on casework/counselor training presents considerable sup-
port for combining experiential and cognitive learnings.
Although experimental designs, theoretical rationales,
criterion measures, and analyses differ among the various
projects, the majority Of studies point to the importance
of (l) counselor self-awareness, (2) counselor understand-
ing of client dynamics, and (3) understanding the bi-

lateral counseling relationship in casework.

63

Several programs have found value in videotape
or CCTV procedures in training. The use of a specific
training program, IPR was validated in several studies.
This procedure uses videotape feedback to combine eXperi-
ential and cognitive learning tasks in a counselor edu-

cation program.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

Research hypotheses were tested by comparing the
performance of subjects on discrimination and communication
skills learned from the training procedures. The type Of
training (experiential-IPR or cognitive-classroom) was the
independent variable. Counselor performance was the de-
pendent variable.'

The subjects (caseworkers) were randomly assigned
to one of two treatment groups. The main question to be
answered by the research was the relative strength of
experiential-IPR versus cognitive-classroom training. How-
ever, in order to conduct the study in the court setting,
it was necessary to offer the same learning opportunities
to all caseworkers. Thus all trainees received BEER eXperi-
ential and classroom training and a pre-middle-post experi-
mental design was used. Group I received the experiential
followed by the classroom method, while Group II experi-
enced the classroom training followed by the experiential
method. The experimental design is diagrammed in Table

3.1 on page 65.

64

65

 

 

 

manoeuooua ud>o mfimxamcfl

 

 

_ J
hl wanna was» Ca o>onm ousmmoa wanna was» GM o>ono
M musmmoe mumom confiuommc mm meanwmue Andes Humom pmnfiuomoc mm ocficwmue musmme|oum
p l
m mmH m>nuficmoo HH anono
a
| ''''''' lentil-"Inn!" ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' -Iu'
m.» W Haooou
p.W Hogans a coflmmom
u.A ucmwao pogoooo:
o.w. dfirmcoflumaou
m.s xuo3Ommo uo cofimmsomflon oaou uoumoouuoucw
a 8 uo mcflcumoqn
e m mam s
Mm wm>o 92m: noncommou Spoon
u a uoHomcsoo mo onwummu mocflmuu a mcoflmmmm
q+u ucoflao nocomool
% mcoflmcmeflc o>aumuflaaomw
b we COADQAuOmOOI ousmmoe Haooou mosamuu a
n ousmooe mumom monauome mzouo A HE HumOd me a codum 96am: OHSOOOEIoum
a . O V H.w . H .
u
0 III
fll m>fluflcmoo mmH
as some mHIHH x663 oa xwmz mIN some H see: H aaouu
mxoo3\mucm8umoue .wwuz. mmzouo

 

coflmmo HODCOEHHOme Hamum>o mo coduoucmmoumom oflumeonom

H.m mqmda

66

The design permitted evaluation Of the relative

strength of each type of training (experiential versus

cognitive). The pre-measure provided a baseline measure
of performance. Relative strength of the training type
(experiential-IPR) versus cognitive-classroom was deter-
mined by comparing the groups during the first half (8
weeks) of the program (Mid-Pre change between groups).
Since all gs received both treatments, the im-
portance of the sequence or order of treatment presen-
tation (experiential-cognitive versus cognitive-
experiential) could also be examined. The importance
of treatment sequence was investigated by comparing Post-

Pre (l6-week) changes between groups.

Description of the Experimental Procedure

 

All caseworkers were first asked to audiotape a
pre-experimental 20-30 minute interview with one of the
clients on their current case load. This interview served
as a measure of caseworker behavior at the outset of train—
ing. Each caseworker then wrote a descriptive "clinical"
report about that client. The report was similar to
written client evaluations typically required by court
officials for use in disposition of cases. The clinical
evaluation was included in the study to see if counselor
interview behaviors and learnings could be translated into
practical treatment plans by the caseworker. Following
the taped interview, each client was asked to complete a

scale designed to evaluate client perception of the

67

client-caseworker relationship and client willingness to
approach the caseworker for help in specified areas of
concern.

Caseworkers next met as a group for an orientation
to the program and a presentation of the elements of effec-
tive communication on the CVRS and the Carkhuff (1969) re—
search scales. Participants were told that they would all
receive identical training, but in different order. Sub-
jects (gs) were informed that the only difference in train-
ing would thus be sequence, not content of the experience.

During the initial presentation, trainees were
told that the purpose of the study was to improve their
communication and discrimination skills so that they could
more effectively deal with their clients and more accur-
ately make placement and treatment decisions for those
clients. The presenter discussed the importance for
trainees to be aware of and sensitive to (1) their own
feelings and communications, (2) the feelings and com-
munications of clients, and (3) the impact of both case-
worker and client on the caseworker relationship. Trainees
were told about effective versus noneffective means of
communication that would be elaborated in the actual train-
ing. Examples taken from audiotaped and/or edited counsel-
ing sessions were used to facilitate discussion. Case-
workers were then randomly assigned to either the
"experiential-IPR" or the "cognitive-classroom" treatment

group.

68

At the completion Of the treatment sessions
(8 weeks), a (mid) measure (second audiotape with client
on case load, written report, and client evaluation of
counselor) was obtained. Following this presentation,
the IPR group continued their job as usual, but met for
cognitive sessions as the other group previously had.
Meanwhile, the original cognitive group received the
"delayed" IPR treatment. Following treatment of this
second group (second 8 weeks), a postmeasure (third audio-
tape, written report, and client evaluation of counselor)
was obtained for both groups. Thus total treatment time
was 16 weeks, and all subjects received both treatments
in differing sequence.

Client evaluations of counselors and counselor
written report data were collected immediately following
the interview of the delinquent and his worker. All judges'
ratings using criterion scales were made within a few weeks'
period after the end of the study. In this way, criterion
tapes could be distributed randomly to the raters, mixed
across all observation times and groups (pre, mid, post).

Each rater independently evaluated each criterion tape.

Thus the experimental design approximated Design 4

in Campbell and Stanley (1966), with a replication added:

Group I R 0 X 0 X 0
l IPR 2 COG 5

Grou II R
p 03 X 04 X 06

COG IPR

69

Description Of Experiential Treatment:
Developmental Tasks Using IPR

 

In order to teach discrimination and communication
skills via IPR, a series Of sequential experiences were
planned. These experiences were designed to incorporate
the developmental learning tasks posited and evaluated by
Kagan g£_31. (1967) and further applied and evaluated by
Spivack (1970) and Grzegorek (1970). The tasks, described
in Chapter I and in Table 3.2 on page 70, included coun-
selor awareness of (l) the elements of effective communi-
cation (counseling), (2) the meaning of client communi-
cations, (3) the impact Of counselor feelings on the
counseling process, and (4) the bilateral nature of the
counseling interaction. The developmental tasks used in
IPR for counselor education thus emphasized an exploration
of trainee (caseworker) thoughts and feelings, of client
thoughts and feelings, and of ways to translate these
learnings into effective communications within the counsel-
ing interaction.

More specifically, the procedures in the program
for court caseworkers firgp dealt with trainee feelings.
Caseworkers were encouraged to (l) talk about and learn to
explore their own feelings, (2) recognize that those
counselor feelings can influence counselor behavior, and
(3) begin to see hgw the influence of counselor feelings
on behavior actually occurs by studying caseworker re-

actions to specific situations and interactions. A basic

7()

 

muse: N

ocHuuom unsoo on cofiucoflamdm Lo COAmmsomac can
loomav neaaozz a Hams >2 Hmfiumooe uo 3ofi>om

dacwcofiumHoD xuo3Ommo wo CONOmsomno O>Nuflcooo

musoc m

mom a mm>o co mwmcoamou

uonmcsoo mcflumu CH 3ofi>uoucfl commuoonfl> mo mm:
mcofiudOOHOQ no

cofiumoflcseeoO Hmnuw>coc a Hpnuo> uo CONmmsomflc
a wcoflmcoeflc O>AuouflaaooO mo cofiumcfiefiuomao

mason m

Amwoa .wuscxucov mom a mm>o soon we Oman:
OCHDDOm cemflua Ca cofiwmmm no OdouoNcsm mcfiuom
mc0audoo

Thom Loam ounoacsEEoo ou m>m3 wo conmOOmHO

a mCmecmENo o>aumuflaflomL mo cofiuocflefluomfio

muse: m

Odmu mew

Iceman wuznxumo co noncommou sodomcsoo mcaumm
o>onm H coflmmom mo oemm

musoc N
mono meacfimnu wuscxnmu uo emotionaccmumumocs
OHLDOQEO co mHO>OH OmCOdmmu uOHomcsoo mcfiucu
co oofluomud ccm mcofimcosflc mo CONumucwmoud
uncommon

Modemcooo mo :mao>oH= uo cofiumcaefiuomwc new
mOHmom umsnxumo mo mcofiwcoeflc O>Numuwafloom

muse: m
moocofiuwmxm meacwmuu qu xuozosmuu m
mm wm>o :o coflumoficsEEoo O>Au00uuo mo mucoeon

"Ouspoooud
"moves

m coamwom

"ouzcoooum

"wsoom

v cofimmom

“ODOOOOOMO
”msoom

m conmom

"OLJOOUOum
”msoom

N :ofimmom

"OHSUOUOHQ

”msoom

 

a :onmom

"mooom

 

coflmmom financeduomxvnmum

~30: H
Haouou Hmsuse
can ucofiao pocomoo cuH3 xmad waou commuomcw>
cofiuomuoucfi
xu03Ommo or» mo onsum: annouuafln uo >csum

muse: v u cofimmom wad muse: N
maou noummouuoucfi CH mofiuooumnuamuawm :«
ocfixuo3 moonwmuuv mocfimuu xn Hamoou ucoNHo
a DCONHO cocumou cud: onQ mHou commuoocfl>
coflucoficseeoo o>auumuuo ouca mocqcumoH
wo coflumamccuu a mONEocxv ucmaao uo upsum

mason v n cofimmmm mom muson N
Hacoou uonmcsou
a ucoflao coroooo now: head Odo» mdmuowcfl>
mqu>mcwn uoHomcaoo O>HuooLum Oucfl mocdcumoH
Lo cofiumamcmuu a .moHEmcxo ucmaao uo >csum
.mmCMHOOu a murmsocu monumuu mo coflumuodem

muson N
Hamoou uoHomcsoo can >m~a OHOu commuoocw>
muofl>mcmn uoHomcsou
o>fluOOuwo Onca mocflcumo~ uo cofluoamcmuu a
mocHHOOw can murmsoco oocfimnu mo cofiumu0aoxm

muson N n GOAmmom non use: a
Hamoou manhoopa> a madam cofluoaseflm mo om:
uofl>cnon LOHOmcsoo com: mocAHOOO omen» uo
mucosawcfl onu can mocfiaooN can mucooozu mocfimue

muse: m
moocofluOon meacflouu “Ow xuOBOEmuu

0 m0 WZ>U CO COAUMUwCDEEOU 0>fiuomww0 MO MUCQEUHW

 

"ouOOOOOLQ

"msoom

m cofimmom

 

"ouscoooum

 

“msoom

 

A a o cosmmem

"OLOOOOODQ

 

”msoom

 

m a v coammmm

 

"ouOOOOODE

"mooom

 

m cofimmom

 

"UHSUUUOHQ

"msoom

 

N a H :oflmmom

umSUOk

 

COAmmom HODCOENuomxmuoum

 

o>fluflcmoo

HH dsouo

mmH

H macho

 

monotonous ucofiumoua mo coHudHuomoo

71

assumption underlying this stage of training was that the
understanding of client dynamics required some initial
degree of counselor self-awareness.

The second procedure in the caseworker training
focused on counselor understanding of client feelings. In
that part of the program, trainees were encouraged to (l)
recognize and be more sensitive to client communications
(thoughts and feelings), (2) recognize that client feel-
ings can influence client behaviors, and (3) begin to see
hey this influence occurs and how it can be communicated
in specific interactions.

A third focus of the develOpmental tasks was case—
worker practice in translating counselor self-awareness
and understanding of client dynamics into effective com-
munications in counseling interviews. Thus the discrimi—
nations or perceptions about oneself and about the client
being interviewed needed to be communicated to the client
and used in the interaction to facilitate client explor-
ation and caseworker decision-making.

Specific experiences in the IPR training were
planned to provide the learning described above. A de-
scription of the experiences and the focus of each experi-
ence follows (see also Table 3.2 on page 71). The IPR
treatment was modified from previous published (Kagan
gg_§l., 1967; Spivack, 1970; Grzegorek, 1970) and unpub-

lished (Kagan, 1969; O'Rafferty High School Project)

72

experiments. The modification was largely in terms Of a
more sequential treatment over a longer period of time.
One experimental session was conducted per week, with
videotaped counseling sessions lasting approximately 15
minutes and recall sessions approximately 45 minutes per

trainee.

Pre-experimental Session

 

FOCUS--Elements of effective Communication.--This
session included an orientatiOn to the program and
a presentation of the elements of effective communi-
cation, using dimensions of the CVRS (Kagan et al.,
1967). Caseworkers were presented with an audiotape
of a counselor-client interaction. Counselor re-
sponses to client statements on portions of the tape
were discussed according to dimensions on the CVRS.

 

Emphasis in this meeting was on the elements of effec-

tive communication so that gs had a common framework
for subsequent learnings of discrimination and com-
munication skills.

Session 1

 

FOCUS--Trainee Thoughts and Feelings and the Influence

 

of Those Feelings Upon Counselor Behavior.--In this

 

session, each trainee met individually with the experi-

menter or another training staff member. The trainee
watch simulated film clips followed by trainee recall
with the staff member. The clips or vignettes were
about 1-2 minutes in duration and showed adolescents
portraying emotions and behaviors typical of clients
seen at the court by the caseworkers.l After each
scene, §s were encouraged to explore their feelings
toward the actor and about the situation presented.
Discussion of the caseworker's probable reaction in
that situation was also included. Emphasis in this
meeting was thus upon trainee feelings and the way
those feelings could influence counselor responses.

 

1Transcripts and descriptions of the vignettes

are included in Appendix F. Vignettes were judged "typical"
by the experimenter and a consultant (casework supervisor)

from the Juvenile Division of the court.

73

Session 2

 

FOCUS-—Trainee Thoughts and Feelings and the Influence
of Those Feelipgspgpon Counselor Behavior.--In this
session, the trainee again watched vignettes. Several
vignettes were viewed consecutively, allowing for the
videotaping of the caseworker as he watched the film
clips. Taping was followed by trainee recall using

a split-screen playback of the actor and of the case-
worker as he was watching the scene. Emphasis again
was upon trainee feelings and the way that those feel-
ings could influence counselor response.

 

 

Session 3

 

FOCUS--Exploration of Trainee Thoughts and Feelings
and Translation of Feelings Into Effective Counselor
Behaviors.--In this session, trainees met in pairs
(assignment on the basis of scheduling convenience).
Caseworkers role played counselor and client for each
other and were videotaped. Each role play was followed
by counselor recall by an interrogator. Emphasis in
this meeting was on trainee feelings and the way in
which the trainee thought those feelings (during play-
back) influenced his behavior during the role play
interview.

 

 

 

Session 4

 

FOCUS--Exploration Of Trainee Thoughts and Feelings,
Study of Client Dynamics, and Translation of Learnings
Into Effective Counselor Behaviors.-—During this ses-
sion, trainees again met in pairs. Trainee A worked
with a live coached client in a 15-minute practice
interview (clients were adolescents trained by the
experimenter to present certain delinquent situations
and intense emotions to the trainee). Trainee A then
participated in counselor recall of his interview (con-
ducted by research staff) while Trainee B watched
through a one-way mirror. Next, Trainee A briefly con-
tinued interview with the same client (client left the
room during trainee recall). Following this procedure,
Trainee A switched places with Trainee B and above
procedures were repeated with a different coached
client.l

 

 

 

 

1See page 77.

74

Emphasis in this session was on counseling self—
awareness, counselor discussion of what he believed his
client was communicating, and practice in the trans-
lation of these learnings into effective communication.
In addition, trainees observed the interrogator role
and saw how counselor recall aided counselor self-
awareness. The brief continuation of the interview
following recall allowed for immediate application of
recall learnings (Ivey et al., 1968).

Session 5

 

FOCUS--Repeat of Procedure 4 to Provide Additional
Practice in Learnings.

 

 

Session 6

 

FOCUS--Study of Client Dynamics and Translation Of
Learnings Into Effective Communication.--In this
session, caseworkers again met in pairs. Trainee A
interviewed a coached delinquent client. This inter-
view was followed by client recall conducted by Train-
ee B while Trainee A watched through a one-way mirror.
Next, Trainee A continued to interview the same client.
Trainee A then switched places with Trainee B and above
procedures were repeated with a new client.

Emphasis in this meeting was upon caseworker under—
standing of client dynamics and of the way in which such
dynamics influence client behavior. Observation of
client recall by the caseworker provided the counselor
with immediate feedback as to client feelings and re-
actions to the caseworker. Delinquent recall by the
trainee helped the trainee learn the role Of inter-
rogator and thus increased his own ability to actively
help another person explore feelings.

 

 

Session 7

 

FOCUS--Repeat of Procedure 6 to Provide Additional
Practice in Learnings.

 

 

Session 8

 

FOCUS-~Study of the Bilateral Nature of the Counselipg
InteractiOn.—-In this session, each caseworker ifiter—
viewed a coached client. An IPR staff member conducted
mutual recall where both delinquent and trainee ex-
plored reactions to the session together with the inter-
rogator. Trainee then continued the interview with the
client. Emphasis in the session was upon trainee
facilitation of maximum client-counselor communication
and interaction from mutual recall learnings.

 

75

Description of Classroom Treatment:
Cognitive Tasks

 

In order to teach discrimination and communication
skills in a cognitive "classroom" setting, a series of
experiences were planned. These experiences were designed
to teach caseworkers how to (l) understand client communi-
cations, (2) discriminate high from low level "facilitative"
counselor responses, and (3) think about ways to convey
such perceptions to the client.

The cognitive group members met together for five
sessions. Activities of the group for the sessions are

described below.

Pre-experimental Session

 

Same as IPR group (see page 73). This session in-
cluded an orientation to the program and a presen-
tation of the elements of effective communication,
using dimensions of the CVRS (Kagan et al., 1967)

to provide S3 with a common framework for subsequent
learnings.

Session 1

 

A clinical psychologist presented the facilitative
dimensions and the concept of "levels" of communi-
cation Of such dimensions (see Chapter I, page 10).
These dimensions included conditions of accurate
empathy (empathic understanding), nonpossessive
warmth, congruence, and concreteness. The theo-
retical and practical role Of such dimensions in
therapy and the court setting was discussed. Sub-
jects then listened to several excerpts of a Cark-
huff training tape.1 The tape contained a client
statement followed by four possible counselor re-
sponses at varying facilitative levels (Carkhuff,
1967). As they listened to counselor responses,

 

1R. R. Carkhuff, Helping and Human Relations,
Vol. I: Selection and Training_(New York: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston, Inc., 1969).

 

 

76

trainees rated the level of counselor response on
empathic understanding. Group discussion of obtained
ratings continued until adequate understanding of the
level of that dimension was reached.

A basic assumption of this phase of the program
was that in learning to evaluate counselor responses,
trainees would need to develOp a degree Of awareness
or understanding of client communications. By dis-
criminating levels of counselor response on specified
dimensions, trainees began also to think of various
ways to communicate understanding of client statements.

Session 2

 

During the second cognitive group meeting, participants
again listened to excerpts from the training tape (Cark-
huff, 1969). Emphasis was still upon the level of
accurate empathy in various counselor responses. How-
ever, subjects also practiced rating and discussing
responses on the facilitative conditions of genuineness,
concreteness, and nonpossessive warmth.

Session 3

 

The third training session involved the rating of
counselor responses audiorecorded in a prison setting
(Grzegorek, 1970). This kind of counselor-client tape
was more similar to the "correctional" job setting of
court caseworkers. Elements of effective communi-
cation and counseling illustrated on the CVRS (Kagan
et al., 1967) were reviewed. Next, each counselor
response to a given client statement was rated on
dimensions of the CVRS (understanding versus non-
understanding, specific versus nonspecific, cognitive
versus affective, and exploratory versus nonexplora-
tory). During this meeting, subjects also judged
overall effectiveness of the counselor response using
the Carkhuff scale. Instead of using the five speci-
fied facilitative levels, participants evaluated re-
sponses in terms of a 3-point modification of the
scale, i.e., in respect to counselor adding, maintain-
ing, or detracting from client communications. This
change was made to expediate rating and afford greater
concentration on the CVRS.

Session 4

 

The fourth meeting involved the viewing Of a video-
taped counselor-client session. The client presented
a social background, a legal Offense, and personality
dynamics somewhat similar to clients seen by court
caseworkers. Again, caseworkers rated such responses

77

on the CVRS and the Carkhuff (3-point) scales. The
viewing and rating of the video-taped session allowed
trainees to Observe client dynamics, evaluate counse-
lor responses, and view examples of ways in which
counselors can communicate their perceptions of client
thoughts and feelings.

Session 5

 

A final session using "classroom" methods to teach
discrimination and communication skills focused on a
discussion of the caseworker-client relationship. This
discussion emphasized how clients in the court setting
typically defend themselves, how caseworkers may respond
to these clients, and how the reciprocal nature of the
relationship may be used to help the youngster. Much
of the material presented at this meeting was modified
from a reference by Kell and Mueller (1966). This
session was included in the study so that trainees
could have a cognitive exposure to notions of the
casework-relationship even though no experiential
learnings were offered.

Coached Clients

 

Description

 

A "pool" of 20 adolescents was recruited (as
volunteers) for participation in the study. These young—
sters were high school students in various schools in the
Lansing district or in nearby communities. Students
ranged in age from 14 to 17 and came from various socio—
economic backgrounds. None had been involved with the
Probate Court in any way. The use of coached clients
rather than actual court cases (delinquents) eliminated
ethical difficulties such as confidentiality and undue
client emotional upset which might otherwise have

resulted.

78

Training

Prospective coached clients met in small groups
to receive 3-4 hours Of instruction and training. First,
the nature of the experimental project and the purpose of
the client task were explained. Next, a description of
general client concerns likely to exist with the court
clientele was provided. The nature of the required inter—
view behaviors, i.e., expression of affect was also ex-
plained.

Coached clients next practiced individually with
the experimenter and her assistant while the rest of the
group observed. The practice role play was then discussed
by the group, with suggestions for improvement being
offered and continued practice taking place. Next, a
recapitulation of the task was provided.

Each client was encouraged to choose a role in
which he felt particularly comfortable and effective.
However, each client was reminded that he must present
sgmg degree of affect in each role play. The common
training period was presumed to minimize differences be-
tween clients.l However, three of the 20 initial young-
sters were later eliminated from the pool due to either

ineffective performance or unreliable attendance.

 

1The rationale and training for the coached clients
is found in Appendix H.

79

Training Facility

 

The IPR training facility consisted of two rooms.
One room (Studio A) was a studio where videotaped inter—
views and recall sessions were conducted. The other room
(Studio B) was equipped with a one-way vision mirror and
contained videotape equipment, i.e., an Ampex 5100 Video
Tape Recorder (VTR).l

Each of two cameras focused on one of two chairs
in the interview room. A Special Effects Generator (SEG)
allowed for the side-by-side monitor exposure of the
images from the two cameras. Thus the videotaped View
was of the two participants as they faced each other in
conversation. Cameras were visable to the client and
caseworker but were not conspiciously placed. A remote
control device allowed for the starting or stopping of
videotape by either S or interrogator during recall.

All §S were told when they were being videotaped.
A microphone in the studio was placed behind and between

the participants.

Supervisors

 

Several IPR staff members2 assisted the experi—
menter in conducting both IPR and classroom aspects of

training. These presenters and discussion leaders

 

1See Figure 3.1, page 80.

2A manual for training supervisors as IPR staff,
i.e., clinical interrogators is found in Appendix G.

80

STUDIO A

 

TABLE with
MICROPHONE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAMERA

     
   

ONE-WAY MIRROR

OBSERVATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S.E.G. ._ ‘13?
RECORDER
STUDIOB
Figure 3.1

Schematic Diagram of IPR Suite

81

included advanced graduate students in the doctoral
counseling program at Michigan State University. All
participants had counseling experience, some in prison
or "correctional" settings. The individuals helping in
teaching the "classroom" discussion and communications
skills were also experienced in conducting clinical
interrogations in the "experiential" videotape method.
The equivalence of skill and experience of presenters
were reasonably assured by nature of training experiences,
giving some control of experimenter differences across
treatments intervals. Participation of assistants in
both treatment programs provided reasonable control of

experimenter differences between treatments.

Subjects

Subjects for this study were 24 court caseworkers
(Probation Officers) and two teachers from the Juvenile
Division of the Ingham County (Michigan) Probate Court.
At the time of data analysis, Ss numbered 22 (21 case-
workers, 1 teacher). In two cases, subjects moved from
the Lansing area and in one case, a S changed employment
and was unable to complete the program. The final case
drOpped from the study for personal reasons.

These workers were employed by the court to handle
a case load of youths residing in the county. The youths
are petitioned to the court as either neglected children

or as juvenile offenders prior to their contact with the

82

caseworker. Subjects included 10 female and 12 male
workers ranging in age from 22 to 55 years.

Because of the legal and practical difficulty in
distinguishing between children who are "delinquent" and
those who are "neglected" (Michigan Commission, 1969),
court caseworkers assigned to both neglect and delinquent
case loads were to be included in the study. Although
"counseling" procedures vary according to age and situ—
ation of the client, indicating differential treatment
of neglected children and delinquent adolescents, the
necessity for accurate assessment and understanding of
client needs and behaviors was believed to exist in both
instances.

Participation in the project was voluntary. Sub-
jects EQEES receive three college credits for the success-
ful completion of the program if they desired such credit.
All participants had received undergraduate college de-
grees. However, college training was not necessarily in
a field related to case work professions. Few caseworkers
had graduate school training other than isolated courses.
Only one subject held a graduate (M.S.) degree of any
kind. Thus caseworkers were at various stages in pro-
fessional training, educational level, age, and work
experience. It is assumed that randomization used in
assignment of subjects to experimental treatment sequences
would control for differences on extraneous variables. A

description of subjects is found in Table 3.3.

83

TABLE 3.3

Comparison of Subjects on the Demographic Variables of
Sex, Age, Educational Level, and Job Experience
in Groups I and II

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group I Group II
Sex
Males 6 6
Females 5 5
Age in Years
Males median = 24 median = 26
Females median = 24 median = 24
Education
Highest Degree Attained
Bachelors ll 10
Masters 0 1
Number Years on Court Job
Males average = 2 average = 2
Females average = 1 average = 1
Measures

Several criterion measures were used to evaluate
counselor discrimination and communication skills. Instru—
ments used purport to measure (1) the level of counselor-
offered facilitative dimensions, (2) the communication of
such dimensions as evidenced in counselor responses and
behaviors, (3) the application of such skills to written
clinical reports required of caseworkers in their job
setting, and (4) the client's perception of the caseworker—
client relationship. A description of each measure

follows.

84

Counselor Verbal Response
Scale (CVRS)

 

 

The measurement Of counselor behavior used was the
CVRS developed by Kagan §E_El (1967). This instrument in-
cludes "elements" of effective counseling similar to those
set forth by Truax and Carkhuff (1966). These elements
are (l) counselor response of an understanding versus a
nonunderstanding nature, i.e., communication of awareness
of and sensitivity to client communication, (2) counselor
specificity Of response, and (3) counselor exploration,
i.e., helping the client to explore his concerns as an
active partner with the counselor. An additional dimension
in the CVRS is that of the "affective" versus "intellectual"
component of a client statement. The scale also has a
global rating of overall response effectiveness, but this
rating was not used in the present study.

Following the procedure of DeRoo and Rank (1965),
judges listened to a series of 20 individual counselor-
client units (consisting of a client statement and the
counselor response taken from the middle of the session).
The rater described each of these counselor responses to
client statements on four of the scale dimenSions mentioned
above.1 Several studies cited by Kagan g£_gl (1967) sup-
port the adequate (l) interjudge reliability and (2)

validity and discriminative power of the scale.

 

lThe CVRS, a manual for training judges, and a scor-
ing sheet are found in Appendix A.

85

The interrater reliability of the CVRS was deter-
mined by Holt's analysis of variance method (Griffin, 1966).
Judges involved had rated counselor responses in coached
client interviews. The following average tape interjudge

reliabilities were found:

Affective-cognitive dimension .84
Understanding-nonunderstanding dimension .80
Specific-nonspecific dimension .79
Exploratory-nonexploratory dimension .68
Effective-noneffective dimension .79

Further reliability data were collected by Gold—
berg (1967) who used the CVRS to evaluate counselor re-
sponses from two different training methods (see Chapter II,
page 56). Judges using the scale were divided into three
groups. Ebel's intraclass correlation technique (Ebel,
1951) was used to Obtain reliability measures for each

group. Results are reported in Table 3.4.

TABLE 3.4

Intraclass Correlation Reliability Estimates on
Individual and Average Ratings Calculated for
Judges' Ratings Across Tapes on Each

Dimension of the CVRS

 

 

Aff Und Spec Exp
N Cog N Und N Spec N Exp
I. Average 16 .93 .96 .90 .81
Individual 16 .82 .90 .76 .59
II. Average 28 .93 .96 .93 .96
Individual 28 .81 .87 .80 .87
III. Average 28 .93 .94 .92 .92

Individual 28 .93 .84 .80 .79

 

86

Intercorrelations of raters using the CVRS in the
Spivack (1970) and Grzegorek (1970) studies (reviewed in
Chapter II) are presented in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 respec-

tively.

TABLE 3.5

Intercorrelations of Rater l and Rater 2 for CVRS
Measures Made at Each of Three Times for Role
Play and Coached Client Interviews

(Spivack, 1970)

 

 

 

 

Pre Mid Post
Role Play Sessions CVRS
A .972 .962 .992
U .977 .979 .997
S .977 .981 .971
E .985 .968 .992
Coached Client Sessions CVRS
A .940 .979 .950
U .939 .971 .973
S .939 .971 .943
E .935 .979 .930

 

TABLE 3.6

Interjudge Reliabilities of Ratings on the CVRS
(Grzegorek, 1970)

 

 

Delayed
CVRS Pre Post Post
A .93 .99 .99
U .96 .98 .97
S .96 .98 .98
E .96 .98 .98

Total .96 .99 .98

 

87

Reliabilities reported in these studies (Goldberg, 1967;
Spivack, 1970; Grzegorek, 1970) support use of the scale
in future research.

Data collected by Goldberg (1967) support the
validity of the CVRS dimensions for describing counselors
at different levels of ability. Significant differences
were found on each dimension of the scale when responses
of Ph.D. candidates and M.A. candidates were compared. On
each dimension, Ph.D. candidates had significantly more
responses judged affective, understanding, specific,

exploratory, and effective.

Truax-Carkhuff Scale (TCEU, 1969)

A scale developed by Truax and Carkhuff was also
used to measure counselor behavior. The original scales
separately measured the dimensions of accurate empathy,
nonpossessive warmth, and genuineness as theoretically
emphasized by Rogers (1957) and as operationally defined
by Truax and Carkhuff (1966). The original scales were
9-, 5-, and S-point measures respectively, illustrating
various stages from minimal to maximal offering of the
conditions.

Recent evidence, however, indicates that the corre-
lations between empathy, nonpossessive warmth, and genuine-
ness are high enough that the measure of empathy alone
could be sufficient to evaluate the "facilitative" con-

ditions (Carkhuff, 1969). Therefore only the scale for

88

accurate empathy (revised and renamed the Empathic Under-
standing Scale, EUS) was used. The scale seems to possess
adequate reliability and validity for experimental use
(Carkhuff, 1969).1 Reliability data for the HUB are avail-
able from several studies (Truax & Carkhuff, 1966; Truax,
1966; Spivack, 1970; Grzegorek, 1970). The resulting
coefficients are presented in Tables 3.7, 3.8, and 3.9

for specified studies.

TABLE 3.7

Reliabilities of Rating Scales for Accurate Empathy Using
Patient-Therapist-Patient, Therapist—Patient-
Therapist, and Time Units of Analysis
(Truax, 1966)

 

N N N

 

Un1t Sample Patients Therapists Correlations
TPT 283 63 8 .84
PTP 305 65 8 .89
Time 384 80 8 .92

 

 

1A copy of the TCEU is found in Appendix B.

89

TABLE 3.8

Intercorrelations of Rater l and Rater 2 for EUS
Measures Made at Each of Three Times for Role
Play and Coached Client Interviews
(Spivack, 1970)

 

 

 

 

Pre Mid Post
EUS Level
Role play .901 .961 .993
Coached client .901 .928 .911
TABLE 3.9

Interjudge Reliabilities of Ratings on the EUS
(Grzegorek, 1970)

 

 

Delayed
Pre Post Post
EUS .98 .98 .78

 

The sufficient reliability coefficients reported between
judges' ratings on these studies warrant future use of
the research scale.

Findings supporting the effectiveness of accurate
empathy in counseling with various populations and in.
various treatment situations are summarized on page 90 in
Table 3.10 (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967).

The trained judges who used the EUS scale and the
CVRS were advanced graduate students in counseling

psychology who have themselves had experience with clients.

90

TABLE 3.10

Findings on the Therapeutic Effectiveness of
Accurate Empathy

 

 

o o I
I E I E m
E<3 E owa
o O m o 0(03N m
()D -H c)p r4 -H
Show smumm
FIo<vc:o r+o<vczc m
r4 Hv4£ r4 H Mwifll~
«so asap mwszsoaq+1m
u ocnc>o H mtnin Oc:
Type of Number 8.5 8 a E: 8.5. 8.“: 3 SJ
Treatment clients 0 .Q E u—I .x: o .Q E s: .H .c: v
Individual 8 l 1
Individual l4 2 2
Individual l4 1 1
Individual 14 1 1
Individual 40 2 2
Group 160 l 1
Group 80 l 1
Group 80 _l _i,
410 10 10

 

Both measures were used in order to (l) have two methods
to evaluate the treatment effects, and to (2) allow for
the possibility that each scale measures different aspects
of counselor behavior important in facilitating an effec-

tive counselor-client relationship.

Written Repprt

An additional measure was used to judge case-
worker "understanding" of clients as well as recommen-
dations and treatment plans. Both before and after

training, the caseworkers were asked to provide a written

91

diagnostic or adjustment report, describing the audiotaped
client, his concerns, his prognosis, and treatment recom-
mendations. These reports were rated by the two Ingham
County Juvenile Court Judges as to "usefulness" in making
case dispositions (see Appendix K).

Wisconsin Relationship Orientation
Scale (WROS)

 

Because a rating of counselor responses by inde-
pendent judges may not adequately reflect counselor effec-
tiveness as viewed by the client, the WROS was used to
measure client (from court caseloads) perception of counse-
lor responses and of the counseling (casework) relationship.
This scale was develOped by Steph (1963). Briefly, it is a

5-point rating scale indicating a minimum to maximum

fl
..

caseworker-client relationship as perceived by the c11ent.‘
Scoring of Criterion Measures
Judges who scored the criterion tapes were trained
in the use of both the CVRS and the EUS scales.2 The
training procedure involved (1) discussion of facilitative
dimensions and counselor behaviors measured by the scales,
(2) listening to and rating of practice tapes, and (3) dis-

cussion of obtained ratings. This discussion of ratings

 

1A copy of the WROS is found in Appendix C.

2A manual for training judges on the CVRS is in
Appendix A. The same method was used to train raters
on the E08.

92

allowed raters to reach agreement as to the interpretations
of and use of research scales.

Criterion tapes were randomly distributed (across
groups and times) to three raters who made independent
judgments on the scales used. Each rater evaluated each
criterion tape. Procedures for the CVRS evaluation of
criterion measures followed that of Griffin (1966).1 The
raters first listened to approximately two minutes of each
tape. In this way, the pace and general content of the
session could be ascertained. Next, ratings on the CVRS

and the EUS were made according to the procedures

described above.

Delimitations Of the Study

 

Delimitations of the study include the following
factors:

1. No attempt was made to obtain a stratified sample
or to control all possible relevant character-
istics of the caseworker sample. These character-
istics, listed below, might influence caseworker
learning by either training program:

a. sex of caseworker

b. personality type of the caseworker

 

lThe TCEU was substituted for the "effectiveness-

noneffectiveness" dimension on the CVRS. In this study,
judges assigned a 1-5 accurate empathy rating after each
client-statement—counselor response unit. Thus the TCEU
was modified to correspond to CVRS scoring units.

93

c. experiences and background of caseworker

d. differences in rates and ways of learning

e. motivation for participation and commitment
to treatment procedures

2. No attempt was made to obtain a historic or
geographic sampling of court caseworkers or
delinquents. Thus the nature of the group of
caseworkers in this study may not be represent-
ative of caseworker staffs in other locations or
in the same location at another point in time.

3. The possibility exists of (a) inconsistent
performance of coached clients with the various
caseworkers (in practice sessions), and (b)
differences between caseworker effectiveness with
those coached clients and with the actual "court-
caseload" clients used as a criterion.

4. Differences may exist among trainers, i.e., inter-
rogaters and presentation leaders in systematic ways

despite attempts to control for those differences.

Analysis of the Data

 

An analysis of variance indicates whether signifi-
cant differences exist among mean scores at the various
levels of the effect(s) being tested. If the F-test shows
significant differences among mean scores, a post-hoc
analysis may be conducted to determine the way in which

the levels differ. It should be noted that the

94

experimental unit of the design was considered to be indi-
vidual subjects rather than groups of subjects and that
the appropriateness of the method of analysis depends on
the correctness of that assumption.

Data were transformed in order to obtain measures
which were "metric-free." The transformation equated the
within group variance (variance = 1) so that in the
analysis, indices of response could be summed across
measures and have some assurance that equal weight was
given to each scale in the computations.

The sources of variation that were generated from
the analysis of variance are given in the table on page
95. The data were analyzed by a 4-way repeated measures
analysis of variance (2x2xllx6).

An analysis of variance on index of response scores
was chosen as the method Of analysis because of the in—
creased precision Of such a procedure when compared to an
analysis of variance on gain scores or on posttest scores.
The method allows a percentage of the pretest score rather
than the pretest score alone to be used in obtaining pre to
post differences. This "percentage" is ideally the slope
of the regression time predicting posttest scores from
knowledge of pretest scores. The percentage is estimated
by the reliability coefficient available from previous
data. The coefficient serves as a constant value to be

"taken out of" the pre-score.

95

 

 

 

 

NN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

” AHOHDGOHHOme
IO>HDNGOOOV
«a HH msouo
ma
NH
Ha
m Ao>fluflcooo
Iamflucoflnmmxmv
m H msouo
N
a
V5 ME VS ME NN N C
mousmmoz mousmmmz muooflnsm

 

 

 

Aoumxuumomv N mafia

 

Amumxlowzv H GENE

 

 

 

96

For this study, coefficients were obtained from
Truax (1966) for the TCEU scale and from Kagan §E_3£.
(1967) for the dimensions of the CVRS. Reliability data
were estimated for the WROS for the computations. It
should be noted that the increased precision Obtained by
the use of indices of response reduced the probability
of making a Type II error in hypothesis testing. Thus
it was less likely that a hypothesis would fail to be

rejected when it should be rejected.

Hypotheses

 

To summarize the statements of hypotheses, the

following terms will be used:

Groups.--The term groups refers to the treatment
used in this study:

Group 1: The first half of the program (Pre-Mid),
Group 1 received experiential-IPR training; the second half
of the program (Mid-Post) this group received cognitive—
classroom training.

Group 2: The first half of the program (Pre-Mid),
Group 2 received cognitive-classroom training; the second
half of the program (Mid—Post), this group received experi-

ential IPR training.

Time.--The word "time" refers to time periods
covered by the index of response score.
Time 1: This time period represents the index of

response at the mid point of the study (Mid—kPre).

97

Time 2: This time period represents the index of

response at the end of the study (Post-kPre).

Measures.--The term "measures" refers to the scales
of the CVRS, Truax—Carkhuff Empathic Understanding (TCEU),

and WROS.

Measure 1: Affective dimension (CVRA).

 

Measure 2: Understanding dimension (CVRU).

 

Measure 3: Specific dimension (CVRS).

 

Measure 4: Exploratory dimension (CVRE).

 

Measure 5: Level of effectiveness of empathic

 

understanding (TCEU).

Measure 6: Level of relationship indicated on

 

WROS.

Index of Response.--Index of response refers to
the dependent variable obtained by (a) multiplying an
appropriate reliability coefficient (k) by the Pretest,
and (b) subtracting that number from the Posttest (Cox,
1958, p. 55). In this study, indices of response are ob-
tained at Mid (Mid-kPre) and Post (Post-kPre) time periods,

i.e., time 1 and time 2.

The main hypothesis presented in research form is

as follows:

98

H1: There will be an interaction between groups
and times (Mid, Post) across indices of
response for the six measures (affective,
understanding, specific, exploratory,
empathic understanding, WROS).

The predicted interaction is presented graphically
in Figure 3.2.
It is expected that a significant groups by times

interaction would be due to the greater effectiveness Of

Indices of
Response

 

 

 

Time Time
1 2

Figure 3.2

Groups by Times Interaction

the experiential-IPR procedure when compared to the
cognitive-classroom training. Specifically,
Hla: At time 1 (Mid-kPre), Group 1 will score

significantly higher than Group 2 across
indices of response for the six measures.

99

If the experiential-IPR method ii more effective
than the cognitive-classroom procedure, comparisons be-
tween groups at time 2 would provide information about
retention of experiential-IPR treatment effects, repli-
cation Of IPR treatment, and possible influence of treat-

ment order on caseworker learnings. Specifically,

Hlb: At time 2 (Post-kPre), Group 1 and Group 2
W111 not d1ffer across 1nd1ces of response
for the six measures.

The equivalence in performance between groups at
time 2 is expected for two reasons (these reasons both
assume the superiority of experiential-IPR over cognitive-
classroom methods). EEEEE! Group 1 subjects should not
benefit noticeably from the addition of cognitive training
to the completed experiential IPR experience. Second,
Group 2 subjects should gain from the experiential-IPR
treatment received following the cognitive-classroom
experience. This gain due to the experiential-IPR treat—
ment would raise performance to the level originally
reached (time 1) by Group 1 subjects. Both of these
explanations assume that cognitive-classroom training

will not greatly affect caseworker performance (Hla).

If cognitive training does not add to learnings
of the experiential-IPR program, Group 1 performance at
time 1 (Mid-kPre) should be equal to Group 1 performance

at time 2 (Post-kPre). Specifically:

100

H1 : Within Group 1, no difference will be found
between performance at time 1 (Mid-kPre)
and time 2 (Post—kPre) across indices of
response for the six measures.

If Group 2 subjects benefit from the addition of
experiential-IPR experiences to the completed cognitive-
classroom training, Group 2 performance at time 2 (Post-

kPre) should be higher than Group 2 performance at time 1

(Mid-kPre). Specifically,

Hld: Within Group 2, performance at time 2
(Post-kPre) Will be s1gn1f1cantly higher
across indices of response on the six
measures than at time 1 (Mid-kPre).

This difference, if significant, would reflect a kind of
"replication" of the experiential-IPR training, assuming
minimal gains at time 1 (Mid-kPre) from cognitive-classroom
procedures (i.e., superiority of experiential to cognitive
methods).

Thus the retention shown over time by Group 1
equals the gain shown over time by Group 2, negating sig-
nificant differences between groups at time 2 (Post-kPre).
If the difference between groups was significant at time 1,
a significant difference between groups at time 2 would

suggest that one order of treatment is more effective than

the other (experiential-cognitive or cognitive-experiential).

101

Summary

Research hypotheses were tested by comparing the
performance of subjects (court caseworkers) on discrimi-
nation and communication skills learned from the training
procedures. The type of training (experiential-IPR or
cognitive-classroom) was the independent variable.
Counselor performance was the dependent variable.

The experiential-IPR subjects learned discrimi-
nation and communication skills by following a series of
sequential experiences. These experiences were designed
to incorporate the developmental tasks posited and evalu—
ated by Kagan EE_E£' (1967).. The tasks included counselor
awareness of (l) the elements of effective communication,
(2) the meaning of client communications, (3) the impact
of counselor feelings on the counseling process, and (4)
the bilateral nature of the counseling interaction. The
developmental tasks used in IPR thus emphasized an explor-
ation of trainee thoughts and feelings, client thoughts
and feelings, and ways to translate these learnings into
effective communication within the counseling interaction.
These experiences were provided via simulation films and
videotape procedures.

In order to teach discrimination and communication
skills in a cognitive-classroom setting, another series
of experiences were planned. This series was designed to

teach caseworkers to (l) understand client communications,

102

(2) discriminate high from low level "facilitative" counse-
lor responses, and (3) think about ways to convey such
perceptions to the client. Both audio and videotapes

were used to teach the facilitative dimensions of empathic
understanding, congruence, nonpossessive warmth, and con-

creteness. The theoretical and practical role of such

dimensions and the importance of the caseworker-client
relationship in the court setting were discussed.

The design approximated the Pretest-Posttest
Control Group design (Campbell & Stanley, 1966), with a
replication added. Criterion tapes of caseworkers and
their clients were collected at pre, mid, and post time
intervals. Three independent judges rated the tapes on
specified measures.

Results were analyzed by an analysis of variance
on index of response scores. The main question to be
answered by the research was the relative strength of
experiential-IPR versus the cognitive-classroom training.
However, since all Ss received both treatments, the impor-
tance of order or sequence of training type (experiential-

cognitive or cognitive-experiential) was also examined.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA

An analysis of the transformed data is presented in
Chapter IV.1 Data reported include (1) treatment effects,
(2) test correlations, and (3) interrater reliability coef-
ficients. The statistical procedures were described in
Chapter III. The main question to be answered by the re-
search was the relative strength of the experiential-IPR
versus the cognitive-classroom training method. The nature
of the experimental design permitted investigation of the
possible effect of training sequence (experiential followed

by cognitive versus cognitive followed by experiential).

Treatment Effects

 

The null hypothesis tested for treatment effects

between groups was:

H01: NO interaction will be found between groups
and time (Mid, Post) across indices of re-
sponse for the six measures (affective,
understanding, specific, exploratory,
empathic understanding, WROS)

 

1Data before transformation and calculations for
transformation are presented in Appendix I.

103

104

Implicit in the above hypothesis were both no groups by
times interaction averaged across measures 329 no groups
by times by measures interaction, i.e., no groups by times
interaction on individual measures.

Subsequent null hypotheses, based on a significant

groups by times interaction were:

H01 : At time 1 (Mid-kPre), no difference will
be found between Group 1 (experiential)
and Group 2 (cognitive) across indices
of response for the six measures

Holb: At time 2 (post-kPre), no difference will
be found between Group 1 (experiential-
cognitive) and Group 2 (cognitive-
experiential) across indices of response
for the six measures

H 1 : Within Group 1, no difference will be found
between performance at time 1 (Mid—kPre)
and time 2 (Post-kPre) across indices of
response for the six measures

Hold: Within Group 2, no difference will be found
between performance at time 1 (Mid-kPre)
and time 2 (Post-kPre) across indices of
response for the six measures

Table 4.1 contains the results of the analysis of

variance (p = .05). The analysis of variance indicated
that the main effects for groups and for times were not
significant. However, a significant main effect for
measures was found. No significant interactions among

measures and times, groups and times, or measures and

groups were found. However, a significant second order

105

.oococflmcoo mo HO>OH mo. um DOOOHMHcmHme

.o xflocommd CH

Oo3OH>OH mum can Ammmav ummmfloo can mmsoscoouo an cemmsomflc out mcoflumasoamo ucm>oaou
can mcmflmoc mousmmmE Omumomou “Om Eocoonw mo moouooc =oumEonuddm= NO on: mean

 

 

mm Ham. OOH Gmo.am Amanoc mafia
«.mmo2«.mnsm
« mN.m N mNN.v OHH.H m Hmm.m .mmoz
«mmEflB«.mmuo
.m.z mN.m N mNm. mma. m Haw. mmEHB
emousmmoz
mm mmm. cos amm.mw Amanoc
.mmoz«.hnsm
.m.z mm.m N mmm.m Amo.a m mms.m .mmmz..mdno
« mN.m N Nmm.mn who.am m Nmm.mmN mousmmoz
om amm.m om Gem.am Amanov
moENe«.hnOm
.m.z mm.a a mas. Gmm. H omm. mmsflee.mmno
.m.z mm.v N moo. hHo. H mac. moefle
om ~mm.a om sao.aa Amazonuc .hnam
.m.z mm.v a NNm. mmv.a H mmv.a mmsouo
.w.c oflumm ouosom . . moumovm oocmfium>
coflmflomo .m mumeflxonmdd m coo: m O NO 85m mo moouoom

 

N mafia can a OSHB um mmsouo zoom HOm

mousmmwz me map How mmcommmm mo mmoHOcH mmouo<

H.v magma

m

mocmflnm> mo mflmwamc<

106

interaction between groups, measures, and times was
indicated.

The nonsignificant groups by times interaction
(averaged over measures) indicated that the difference in
rate of learning between Group 1 and Group 2 at time 1 was
not significantly different than the difference in rate
Of learning between Group 1 and Group 2 at time 2, i.e.,
the group effect (difference between groups) was inde-
pendent of time.

Although the groups by times interaction was
nonsignificant when averaged over measures, the signifi-
cant groups by times by measures interaction indicated
that (l) the form of the groups by times interaction
depended upon the particular measure being studied, (2)
the form of the groups by measures interaction depended
upon the time being observed, or (3) the form of the times
by measures interaction depended upon the group under
consideration.

The significant groups by times by measures inter-
action was examined by looking at the mean standardized
index of response scores for the groups on each measure
at each time (Mid-kPre),(Post-kPre). Table 4.2 presents
the mean standardized index of response scores for the
groups on each measure at each time (Mid-kPre, Post-kPre).
Figure 4.1 graphically shows the mean index of response
scores for the groups by times interaction on the separate

measures (groups by times by measures interaction).

107

mousmnoz on» :o
cofluomuoucH weeds xn mdsouo on» uOu mwuoom Ownedmom

mo xoocH OONAcumcccum cmozuncoAuoououcH mmusmmoz No moeae xn mdoouo

 

vmv.~

moo.n

mom.n

NH H8

mom3

omm.m

r

 

va.

mac.

mam.
mvm.

N9 H8

mm>0

 

H.v enamaa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIA o. l
r v
n a m. ,
s a w
.. _.
A r
Duos r a.~ mm>o .
r r
w o.~ fl
r
o.
s s
r N. r
. vmm. «mm. 1
@FM H 1 HU
.- V. T
1 Hum. r
r o. t
+- I
. 5mm.
. a No T
a hmm. r
Ne as . o.H Ne as u
am>o . <m>o fl
r N.N

 

108

Table 4.2

Mean Standardized Index of Response Scores

 

 

 

 

Group 1 Group 2
Mid-kPre Post-kPre Mid-kPre Post-kPre
if if i 3?
CVRA .334 .571 .827 .637
CVRU .334 .436 .536 .376
CVRS .498 .515 .459 .254
CVRE .412 .513 .569 .224
TCEU .715 1.160 .784 .678
WROS 3.880 3.309 2.434 3.005

 

A table of raw means for Group 1 and Group 2 and
combined groups on six measures at Pre, Mid, and Post times
is found in Appendix I. Also, the appendix contains a table

of raw scores for each subject in each group at each time.

The graphic presentations of the groups by times
by measures interaction were formed in order to examine
the interaction, to determine on what individual measure
a groups by times interaction was likely, and to
determine what post hoc comparisons might be advisable.
The groups by times interaction for each measure was con-
sidered the most appropriate interaction to investigate
since it reflected the main hypothesis on each measure

individually.

109

In examining the groups by times interaction for
each measure, several observations were made which influ-
enced the decision as to additional statistical procedures.
These observations concerned (1) the slopes of the learning
curves on the measures, (2) the correlation matrix on the
measures (pooled across times and groups), and (3) the
principal components of the correlation matrix. Each of
these factors will be explained below and then discussed
more thoroughly in Chapter V.

EEEEE' in studying the mean index of response
scores on the separate measures (Figure 4.1), it was noted
that Group 1 (experiential-cognitive) showed a learning
curve that rose over time (Mid-kPre compared to Post—kPre)
for the first five measures used. In contrast, Group 2
(cognitive-experiential) caseworkers seemed to show a
rate of learning that decreased over time (Mid-kPre com-
pared to Post-kPre) for those measures. This finding was
contrary to what would have been expected if experiential—
IPR training had been more effective than cognitive-
classroom methods. In that event, the learning curve for
Group 1 (experiential-IPR) Ss would have stayed about the
same over time (starting higher than Group 2) and the
learning curve for Group 2 (cognitive—classroom) would
have started lower and risen over time. On measure six,
the slopes of the learning curves for the groups were

reversed and appeared in a noticeably different direction,

110

corresponding much more closely to expectation. That is,
Group 1 (experiential-cognitive) subjects showed a higher
index of response at time 1 (Mid-kPre) than did Group 2
(cognitive—experiential) subjects. This higher rate of
learning for Group 1 decreased only slightly from time 1
to time 2 (Post-kPre), and Group 2 (cognitive-experiential)
subjects seemed to gain from time 1 to time 2. Thus it
seemed that the sixth criterion measure (WROS) might have
been Operating in a fashion different from the other
measures and thereby might have accounted for the signifi-
cant groups by times by measures interaction.

Second, the correlation matrix (pooled across
groups and times) used to estimate the exact degrees of
freedom (see Appendix J) indicated that high positive
correlations were Obtained for the first five measures
(CVRA, CVRU, CVRS, CVRE, TCEU) but that the WROS seemed
uncorrelated with the other five measures.

Finally, the principal components of the corre-
lation matrix (presented in Table 4.3) suggested that the
five measures (CVRA, CVRU, CVRS, CVRE, TCEU) loaded on
the same factor but that measure six (WROS) did not corre-
late with the other measures and loaded on a second factor.
It should be noted that these correlations were "residual"
data, i.e., data collected in the computations for calcu-
lating degrees of freedom (Greenhouse & Geisser, 1959),

not a main part of the analysis.

111

Table 4.3

Principal Components of Correlation Matrix

 

 

Factor I Factor II
CVRA -.90 .05
CVRU -.98 .02
CVRS -.97 .04
CVRE -.98 .04
TCEU -.95 .04
WROS .19 . .98
Eigenvalue 4.69 .97
% of variation 77.30% 16.17%
93.47%

 

The evidence of (l) the slopes of the learnings
curves, (2) the pooled correlation matrix, and (3) the
principal components data all suggested that the WROS
(sixth measure) was not operating like the other five
measures. Therefore, it was decided that an additional
analysis of variance on index of response scores would be
done on the data, using only the first five measures (with-
out WROS). It should be noted that this analysis was com-
pleted as a kind of "post hoc" to understand if the one
measure (WROS) was in fact accounting for the groups by
times by measures interaction, i.e., if the significant

groups by times interaction was occurring on the one measure.

112

The results of the second analysis of variance on indices
of response scores for five measures are presented in

Table 4.4.

The second analysis of variance on only five
measures showed that eliminating the WROS led to a non-
significant groups by times by measures second order inter-
action and maintained a nonsignificant groups by times
interaction. Thus the groups by times by measures inter-
action wgg apparently due to the effect of the WROS. Like
the first analysis, the main effect of measures was re—
tained. An additional interaction, groups by measures,
was reported.

The mean index of response scores for the groups by
times interaction (on five measures) is presented in Table
4.5. Figure 4.2 graphically presents the significant
measures main effect and the significant groups by mea-
sures interaction (on five measures).

The measures main effect was considered uninter-
pretable, since each measure represented different cri-
terion scales. The groups by measures interaction was
not meaningful to the study because the score for an
individual on a particular measure would sum across time.
By averaging across time, the resulting dependent variable
would not be the index of response taken from either the
Post or the Mid time. Instead, it would fall between the
Mid and Post time intervals which was not an observation

point of interest.

113

.oocmcflwcoo mo HO>OH mo.

na HOOOHHHOOHO.

 

 

Om mOO. OO OHO.O H.manoc mmeHe
..mmez..nnsm
.m.z ON.m N ONO. ONO. O NOH. .mmmz
«moEHBe.mmuo
.m.z mN.m N OOO.H NO.H O NOO. mmeHe
«mousmmoz
Om NOH. OO HNN.O H.manoc
.mmoze.mnsm
. mN.m N ON.m OON. O mmm.H .mamz..mauo
. mN.m N OH.NH Omm.H a OHO.m manammmz
ON OOH.O ON NOO.NO Amauoc
mmsHe..Onsm
.m.z mm.s H NOO. OOH.N H OOH.N mmsHH.4manO
.m.z mm.O H OOO. HNO. H HNO. mmsHe
ON mNO.O ON OOO.ONH Amazonoc .Onsm
.m.z mm.a H NOOO. NOO. H NOO. mmsouo
.m.c oHumm mumsvm . . moumsom mocmwum>
conHooo .m ODmEHxOHmma m coo: w o no Esm m0 moonsom

 

N mafia can H oEHB um mmsouo nuom Mom
mousmmoz O>Hm map How oncommmm mo mOOHOcH mmouod oocmwum> mo mammHmcs

v.v magma

114

Table 4.5

Mean Standardized Index of Response Scores for
Groups by Measures Interaction
(5 measures)

 

 

CVRA CVRU CVRS CVRE TCEU
Group 1
Exp.-Cog. .452 .385 .507 .462 .938 .549
Group 2
Cog.-Exp. .732 .496 .401 .397 .731 .543
Total .592 .420 .454 .430 .834 .546

 

Since the groups by times interaction was signifi-
cant for the WROS, the hypothesis of primary interest was
rejected. Thus

H 1: NO interaction will be found between groups

and time (Mid, Post) across indices of
response for the six measures

was rejected.

In summary, the original analysis of variance
reported a nonsignificant groups by times interaction when
indices of response were averaged over measures. However,
the significant groups by times by measures interaction
suggested that a groups by times interaction ESE signifi-
cant on ng3 measure. Examination of the data suggested

that this second order interaction might be due to a

115

CONDOOHOHOH monsmmoz >3 mesono on“ can Hmonsmmoz mv

 

 

 

poommm cflmz mousmmoz man How mouoom oncommom mo xoccH OONHOHmOcmum coo:
N.v ousmflm
ms «2 N: N: Hz
D 09 m >0 mm o Dm>o Nm>o
as .1 O A _
N HO
o
\u \ \)
I. .I \I /
I IOI /
No / o
Ho /
/
/
(
No

 

Doowwm ONO: mousmmoz

 

mm.

ov.

me.

om.

mm.

om.

mm.

on.

mm.

om.

mm.

om.

mm.

oo.H

116

significant groups by times interaction on one measure,
the WROS. Confirmation of this suggestion was obtained by

the nonsignificant groups by times by measures interaction

in a second analysis of variance on only five measures
(excluding WROS).

Since the groups by times interaction was signifi-
cant for the WROS (reflected in the significant groups by
times by measures interaction on the original analysis Of
variance) sub-hypotheses were tested for specific differ-
ences between groups at time 1 (Mid-kPre) and time 2 (Post-
kPre) and for differences within both Group 1 (experiential-
cognitive) and Group 2 (cognitive-experiential) at both
times.

Sub-hypothesis comparisons are listed below
(derived from hypotheses on page 104, applied here only
to WROS measure).

H01 : At time 1 (Mid-kPre), no difference will

be found between Group 1 and Group 2 on
index of response scores

H l : At time 2 (Post-kPre), no difference will
be found between Group 1 and Group 2 on
index of response scores

H 1 : Within Group 1, no difference will be
found between performance at time 1
(Mid-kPre) and time 2 (Post-kPre) on
index of response scores

Hold: Within Group 2, no difference will be

found between performance at time 1
(Mid-kPre) and time 2 (Post-kPre) on
index of response scores

117

Table 4.6 reported the mean indices of response

for each group at each time (on WROS).

Table 4.6

Mean Indices of Response for the Groups
by Times Interaction on WROS

 

 

Mid—kPre Post-kPre
(WROS) (WROS)
Group 1
(Exp.-Cog.) 3.880 3.309
Group 2
(Cog.-EXp.) 2.434 3.005

 

Figure 4.3 reported the comparisons to be made

based on the sub-hypotheses.

 

 

4.0 fl '
| I ______differences to
3.6 4 G1: H 1 be compared
I IOC
I
oal IOb
2.8“ I I
H 1
G I O d
I 2|
2.4 —
2.0 I i
Mid-kPre Post-kPre
(Hola) (Holb)
Times
Figure 4.3

Differences to be Compared Between Groups
1 and 2 at Times 1 and 2 on WROS

118

The difference between Groups 1 and 2 (experiential-
cognitive and cognitive-experiential) at time 1 (Mid-kPre)
and again at time 2 (Post—kPre) were tested for signifi-
cance using a t-test on indices of response for two inde-
pendent samples. The time 1 and time 2 differences within
each group were tested for significance using paired t-
tests on indices of response (Hays, 1963). Results Of the
comparisons are presented in Table 4.7 (comparisons be-
tween treatment groups at the two times) and Table 4.8
(comparisons within groups at the times).

Because Group 1 (experiential-cognitive) subjects
scored significantly higher than Group 2 (cognitive-

experiential) caseworkers on WROS scores,

H l : At time 1 (Mid-kPre), no differences
will be found between Group 1 and
Group 2 on index of response scores

was rejected.

The following sub-hypotheses on WROS scores failed to be

rejected:

H01 - At time 2 (Post-kPre), no difference
will be found between Group 1 and Group
2 on index of response scores

H01 : Within Group 1 no difference will be
found between performance at time 1
(Mid-kPre) and Time 2 (Post-kPre) on
index of response scores

Hold: Within Group 2, no difference will be
found between performance at time 1
(Mid-kPre) and time 2 (Post-kPre) on
index of response scores

119

.umou HHmqu3B«« .pmou HHmuImc0a

 

 

..m.z OOO.N OOO.H OH OOO.m ONO.N HH HaHpamHumaxm
Io>HuHcmoo
««.m.z mmH.m mvm.H 0H mom.m omm.m HH O>HuHcooo
IHOHDGOHHOme
. . mnmxuumoa mnmxIOHz
conHooo .u u m o N oEHB H oEHB z dsouo

 

Ozone nomm cHanz N msHe ace
H oEHB coosuom Hmomzv mouoom Omcommom mo xoccH now: No OOmHHmmEoo

 

 

m.v OHnt
.ummu HHmpIo3eae .Aummu HHOHIOCOV mo. pm DGOOHMHcmHme
««.m.z mvm.N mum. ON moo.m OHm.m oumxlumom
N mEHB
« mNm.N mvm.m ON mmv.N omm.m mumonHz
H oEHB
. . HOHucOHHomxm O>HpHcooo
conHooo .u u m c Io>HuHcooo IHOHOOOHHomxm mEHB

 

N oEHB can H oEHB um
mmsouo coozuom Amomzv mouoom oncommmm mo xoch and: mo OOOHHOQEOO

h.v OHQMB

120

It should be noted that the rejection Of H la cor-

l
responded to expectations formulated in research hypothesis
H1a (relative superiority of IPR) whereas the failure to
reject H01d did not correspond to the expectation of re-
search hypothesis H1d (replication of IPR). The failure
to reject H01b and Holc did correspond to research expec-

tations of equivalence of groups at the end of the sequence

and retention of IPR learnings.

In review, examination of the analysis on six
measures and a second analysis on five measures indicated
that the hypothesis of a groups by times interaction
failed to be rejected for the CVRA, CVRU, CVRS, CVRE, and
TCEU measures. However, the hypothesis of a groups by
times interaction was rejected for the sixth measure, the
WROS. Thus significant differences between groups over
time were not reflected on five criterion measures pur-
porting to measure (1) the level of counselor-offered
facilitative dimensions, or (2) the communication of such
dimensions in counselor responses and behavior (evaluated

by independent judges). Although counselor responses were

 

not evaluated as more facilitative after experiential than
after cognitive training, the significant differences be-
tween groups at Mid-kPre (favoring experiential-cognitive
training, Hla) on WROS suggested that the client neverthe-
less perceived the caseworker-client relationship as more

helpful after experiential than after cognitive training.

121

However, it should be noted that this finding was not
replicated by a significant mid to post gain on WROS for

Group 2 (Hold).

The fact that clients perceived the caseworker-
client relationship as significantly more helpful for
experimental than for cognitively trained caseworkers
(at Mid-kPre) indicated that the subjects did seem to
learn from the training program as measured by the WROS.
Consideration of these results suggested that the other
instruments (five) might not have been sensitive to the
treatment effect. Therefore, a different dependent vari-
able was evaluated (written client-adjustment reports
completed by the caseworkers on the youngster interviewed).

This variable was considered an application of
learnings to "paper work" typically required at the
juvenile court. A separate analysis was conducted on the
data because data were incomplete at the time of the
original analysis. A detailed description of the two
procedures, an absolute scale and a Q-sort method is found
in Appendix K.

The null hypothesis to be tested by the analysis
of variance on the absolute rating scale and the Q-sort

ratings was as follows:

122

No interaction will be found between groups
and time (Mid, Post) on mean scores for the
absolute scale or for the Q-sort ratings of
written client-adjustment reports

Several sub-hypotheses, based on a significant

groups by times interaction were:

At time 1 (Mid), no difference will be
found between Group 1 (experiential) and
Group 2 (cognitive) on mean scores for the
absolute scale or the Q—sort

At time 2 (Post), no differences will be
found between Group 1 (Experiential-
cognitive) and Group 2 (cognitive-
experiential) on mean scores for the
absolute scale or the Q-sort

Within Group 1, no difference will be
found between performance at time 1 (Mid)
and time 2 (Post) on mean scores for the
absolute scale or the Q-sort

Within Group 2, no difference will be
found between performance at time 1 (Mid)
and time 2 (Post) on mean scores for the
absolute scale or the Q-sort

Data were analyzed by two analyses of variance,

one on the absolute scale ratings and one on the Q-sort

ratings.

Results Of the analysis of variance on the

absolute scale are found in Table 4.9.

The analysis on absolute scale ratings for written

reports indicated nonsignificant groups and repeated mea-

sures (time) main effects and a nonsignificant groups by

repeated measures (times) interaction. Thus the hypothesis

123

OOQOOHchO mo Ho>mH mo. One

 

 

mm mmmmom.H Hmuoa
mOOOOm. mH HOOHOO.m HOV .m.s
.m.z Om.s ONONNN. OOmmOO. H mmosmm.m .mmms .mmm
an .mmuo
.m.z Om.a OOOOOO.H mmmmmm. H NOOmmO.m monsmmms
coumomom
mbmnvw. mH vmeNN.H Hovm
.m.z OO.O OHHHOO. OOOOOO. H OHOmmO.O maaono
«OOHmHooo .m Omem ommwmm .m.c wwwmwwm WMOMMMMWm

 

N oEHe can H oEHB um manomom ucoEumOncd OGOHHU

N msouo can H msouo How mmcHumm OHmom ousHomn< co OOOMHHO> mo mHthmcd

m.v OHQOB

124

of a groups by times interaction failed to be rejected and

testing of the sub-hypotheses was inapprOpriate (Table

 

 

4.10) 0
Table 4.10
Means on Absolute Scale for Rating
Written Reports
. . Average
T1me l T1me 2
Groups Mid Post Across
Measure
Group 1
(Exp.-Cog.)
n = 10 2.950 2.600 2.775
Group 2
(Cog.-Exp.)
n = 7 2.857 2.714 2.785
Pooled
Across
Groups 2.912 2.647 2.779

 

Results of the analysis of variance on Q-sort

ratings are presented in Table 4.11.

The analysis on Q-sort ratings of written reports

also indicated nonsignificant groups and repeated measures

(times) main effects and a nonsignificant groups by re-

peated measures (times) interaction.

Thus the hypothesis

of a significant interaction (groups by times) failed to

be rejected and testing the sub-hypotheses was inappropri—

ate (Table 4.12).

125

oocmchcoo mo HO>OH mo.e

 

 

mm ooooom.N Hmuoe
mnmnvm. mH vomHN¢.H Hoe .m.z

.m.z vm.v NNONmo. hmmomo. H «Hemmo.m .mmmz .mom
an .mmno

.m.z vm.v oooooo. oooooo. H oooooo.o mousmooz
Ooumomom

mvmva. mH wmmHnm.H Hovm

«.m.z vm.v mmHmmo. hmmomo. H «Hummo.m mmsouo
.. IN... New New”.

 

N oEHB can H oEHB um manommm ucmsumsncs
ucoHHo N dsouo can H msouo HON mmcHumm uuomlo mo oocmHHm> mo mHthmcc

HH.v OHQOB

126

Table 4.12

Means on Q-sort Scale for Ra
Written Reports

ting

 

 

 

 

Time 1 Time 2 Average
Groups Mid Post Across
Measure
Group 1
(Exp.-Cog.)
n = 10 3.050 3.000 3.025
Group 2
(Cog.-Exp.)
n = 7 2.929 3.000 2.964
Pooled
Across
Groups 3.000 3.000 3.000
Test Correlations
Reliability coefficients were calculated pooled
across groups. Results appear in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13

Test—Retest Reliability Coefficients for the

Groups (Pooled) at Three Time Periods

 

 

Pre/Mid Pre/Post Mid/Post
CVRA .26 .48 .44
CVRU -.01 .24 .27
CVRS -.04 .34 .32
CVRE -.02 .30 .32
TCEU -.02 .57 .12
WROS .54 .32 .34

Pooled Across

Groups

 

127

Reliability coefficients indicated that the mea-
sures used in the study may not have been stable enough
to reflect or "pick up" behavioral changes of the case-
workers. It should be noted that the low-level of
functioning of the caseworkers (see Figure 4.1) greatly
restricted the range of scores, in part accounting
for the low and Often negative test-retest correlations
and so contributing to the possible failure of the measures
in picking up counselor behavioral change.

Although a low initial level of functioning could
contribute to the unreliability of measures, that unrelia-
bility should not effect the means used in index of response
scores, i.e., treatment means would not be biased. The
fact that observed means were in a direction opposite to
that predicted suggested that an increase in precision of
measurement might have produced significant differences in
groups favoring cognitive over experiential training. Thus
lack of precision due to low level of performance could
influence the lack of significance difference between
treatment groups but could not explain the direction of

results obtained.

Interrater Reliability Coefficients

 

Reliabilities were calculated for the three cri—
terion tape raters on the five measures (WROS was com-

pleted by clients and did not employ raters). Coefficients

128

were Obtained among raters for each measure at the pre,
mid, and post time period. Results are presented in

Table 4.14.

Table 4.14

Interrater Reliabilities

 

 

Reliabilities CVRA CVRU CVRS CVRE TCEU
Pretest .899 .894 .808 .873 .924
Midtest .929 .967 .958 .971 .980
Posttest .960 .969 .884 .912 .979

 

Reliability coefficients indicated that the three
independent judges were in agreement in evaluating the

tapes and in use of the scales (see Tables 4.15 and 4.16).

Table 4.15

Interrater Reliabilities for Judging Written
Reports on Two Scales at Two Times

Mid- Mid- Post- Post-
ABS Q—sort ABS Q-sort

 

Reliabilities
Between Rater 1
and Rater 2 .66 .68 .32 .81

 

129

Table 4.16

Matrix of Inter-Method (Scale), Cross
Time Correlations

 

 

Mid- Mid- Post- Post-
ABS Q-sort ABS Q-sort
ABS 1.00 -- -- --
Mid
Q-sort .91 1.00 -- --
ABS .40 .36 1.00 --
Post _
Q-sort .73 -.02 .51 1.00

 

Reliability data suggested that interjudge agree-

ment was moderate.

Summary
The hypothesis about the relative strength of the

experiential-IPR versus the cognitive-classroom training
method was tested by means of an analysis of variance on
index of response scores. The analysis indicated that the
groups by times interaction (reflecting differences be—
tween groups at each time interval) averaged over measures
was not significant at the .05 level of confidence. How-
ever, a main effect for measures was significant as was a
second order interaction between groups, measures, and
times.

Although the groups by times interaction was not

significant when averaged across six measures, the

130

significant groups by times by measures interaction sug-
gested that (l) the form of the groups by times inter-
action depended on the measures considered, (2) the form
of the groups by measures interaction depended on the time
of Observation, or (3) the form of the times by measures
interaction depended on the group being considered.

In examining the groups by times by measures
interaction, several observations were made which influ-
enced the decision as to additional statistical procedures.
These observations concerned (1) the slopes of the learning
curves on the measures, (2) the correlation matrix on the
measures (pooled across groups and times), and (3) the
principal components Of the correlation matrix.

These observations all suggested that the WROS
(sixth measure) was not operating like the other five mea—
sures. Therefore, it was decided that an additional
analysis of variance on index of response scores would be
done on the data, using only the five measures (without
WROS). It should be noted that this analysis was completed
as a kind of "post hoc" to understand if the one measure
was in fact accounting for the groups by times by measures
interaction, i.e., if the groups by times interaction was
significant on that one measure.

The second analysis of variance on only five
measures showed that eliminating the WROS led to a non-

significant groups by times by measures second order

131

interaction, and maintained a nonsignificant groups by
times interaction. Thus the groups by times by measures
interaction ESE apparently due to the effect of the WROS.
Like the first analysis, the main effect of measures was
retained. An additional interaction, groups by measures,
was reported. However, neither the measures main effect
nor the groups by measures interaction are meaningful or
interpretable.

Since the groups by times interaction was signifi-
cant for the WROS, the hypothesis of primary interest was
rejected and sub-hypotheses were tested for specific
differences between groups at time 1 (Mid-kPre) and time 2
(Post-kPre) and for differences within both groups at both
times. The hypothesis of a difference between groups at
time 1 was rejected, reflecting significantly higher scores
(t-test) for experiential than for cognitive subjects.

A different dependent variable, written client-
adjustment reports, was also evaluated. Analyses of vari-
ance on an absolute rating scale and Q—sort ratings indi-
cated nonsignificant groups and repeated measures main
effects and a nonsignificant groups by times (groups by
repeated measures) interaction.

Thus five measures of facilitative counselor re-
sponses and two measures of caseworker written client-
adjustment reports indicated nonsignificant groups by times

interactions. One criterion measure, client perception of

132

the caseworker-client interaction reported a significant
groups by times interaction, with Group 1 (experiential)
performing higher on the scale than Group 2 (cognitive) at

time 1 (Mid).

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND IMPLICATIONS

Summary

The purpose of this study was to evaluate an
experiential "videotape" method of training court case-
workers in interpersonal communication skills. In evalu-
ating this program, a comparison was made between the
performance of caseworkers trained via experimental video-
tape procedures and those trained by a second method which
was classroom-oriented and more cognitive in nature. Both
programs were developed to help caseworkers become more
sensitive to and more able to act upon the communications
of delinquents.

Although conflicting evidence exists about the
value of various counseling approaches with delinquent
adolescents or with juvenile court wards, the realism Of
the legal and social situation requires a "helping"
relationship between a youth and his court caseworker.

Most studies suggest that Spmg kind of counseling
helps juvenile offenders to change both behaviorally and
in personality (Calia, 1966; Truax et al., 1965; Persons,

1966; Shore et al., 1965). The particular type of therapy

133

134

to be offered to young people in a court setting can vary.
However, legalistic trends (Anderson, Thomas, & Sorensen,
1970) and theoretical attitudes lend support to a counsel—
ing process that is "relationship" oriented (Hartman, 1963;
Robison, 1961; Silverman, 1960; Braxton, 1966; Lofquist,
1967; Adamson & Dunham, 1956). Specifically, such therapy
incorporates the counselor-offered facilitative conditions
theoretically described by Rogers (1961) and operationally
defined and elaborated by Truax and Carkhuff (1967).

Specifically, the caseworker or probation officer
assigned to a minor must make important decisions about
the individual's placement and future plans. In order to
be of practical (if not therapeutic) help, the worker needs
to accurately determine and understand what the adolescent
or child thinks and why he behaves as he does.

Traditional training of court caseworkers has
neglected study of the caseworker-client (delinquent)
relationship, focusing instead on abstract theoretical
issues and large discussion groups (Michigan Commission,
1969). While theory should provide necessary guidelines
for practice, the programs typically develOped deal only
superficially with the theory under discussion and do not
offer an Opportunity for the learning and supervised
application Of the theory's practical implications. The
in-service training initiated in this study emphasized

both the cognitive and experiential learning and practice

135

Of skills deemed theoretically important in establishing
and maintaining a relationship where client change can
occur (Rogers, 1957, 1961; Kagan & Krathwohl, 1967).
Counselor behaviors to be acquired in training
programs and counselor education practicums are con-
ceptualized as responses facilitating conditions of inter-
personal communication (Patterson, 1964; Moore, 1963;
Truax & Carkhuff, 1967; Kagan g£_§l., 1967). Within this
communication framework, trainees must learn to develop
(1) a sensitivity to client communications, i.e., skills

in discriminating client feelings and thoughts, and (2)

 

skills in communicatipg that understanding to the client.

 

Another aspect of the training process is counselor self-
discovery, where trainees learn to internalize as well as
conceptualize the meaning of the counselor-client relation-
ship (Patterson, 1964; Moore, 1963; Gottesman, 1962;
Brammer & Shostrom, 1960; Wyatt, 1948; Bugenthal, 1964).

A review of experimental and discussion articles
on casework/counselor training presents considerable sup-
port for combining experiential and cognitive learnings.
Although experimental designs, theoretical rationales,
criterion measures, and analyses differ among the various
projects, the majority of studies point to the importance
of (l) counselor self-awareness, (2) counselor understand-
ing of client dynamics, and (3) understanding the bi-

lateral counseling relationship.

136

A specific process (Interpersonal Process Recall,
IPR) has been developed by which counselor trainees can
learn skills to facilitate a counselor-client relationship
that ultimately seems to promote behavior characteristic
of client growth. The program itself involved (1) the use
of simulation films in which a person on film attempts to
engage the viewer in a simulated relationship, (2) the
videotaping of the trainee as he reacts to the simulation
and/or the videotaping of real (nonsimulated) trainee-
client interviews, and (3) the immediate "replay" and dis-
cussion of reactions to both simulated and nonsimulated
(interview) videotapes. This replay is conducted by a
person trained in facilitating client or counselor explor-
ation of recalled thoughts and feelings. The "recall"
then serves as a basis for a subsequent counseling inter-
action.

Kagan e£_3l. (1967) and Goldberg (1967) have
delineated four major developmental tasks faced by trainees
in counselor education. These tasks represent dynamic
stages with specific goals for each stage. The four
tasks emphasize counselor awareness of (1) the elements
of effective counseling, (2) the meaning of client com-
munications, (3) the impact of counselor feelings on the
counseling process, and (4) the bilateral nature of the
counseling interaction. The developmental tasks are

incorporated into the IPR procedures described above.

137

In this study, the experiential—IPR Ss were taught
discrimination and communication skills by following a
series of sequential experiences. These experiences were
designed to incorporate the developmental tasks posited
and evaluated by Kagan et a1. (1967). The tasks empha-
sized an exploration of trainee thoughts and feelings,
client thoughts and feelings, and ways to translate these
learnings into effective communication within the counsel-
ing interaction.

In order to teach discrimination and communication
skills in a cognitive-classroom setting, another series
of experiences was planned. This series was designed to
teach caseworkers to (l) understand client communications,
(2) discriminate high from low level "facilitative"
counselor responses, and (3) think about ways to convey
such perceptions to the client. Both audio and video
tapes were used to teach the facilitative dimensions of
empathic understanding, congruence, nonpossessive warmth,
and concreteness. The theoretical and practical role of
such dimensions and the importance Of the caseworker—
client relationship in the court setting were discussed.

Several doctoral students experienced in the use
of IPR procedures assisted the experimenter in conducting
both IPR and classroom aspects of training. These pre-
senters and discussion leaders included advanced graduate

students in the doctoral counseling program at Michigan

138

State University. All participants had counseling experi-
ence, some in prison or "correctional" settings.

Subjects in the final analysis of this study (see
mortality information, p. 81) were 22 court caseworkers
(Probation Officers) from the Juvenile Division of the
Ingham County (Michigan) Probate Court. These workers
were employed by the court to handle a case load of youths
residing in the county. All participants had received
undergraduate college degrees. However, college training
was not necessarily in a field related to case work pro-
fessions. Few caseworkers had graduate school training
other than isolated courses. Only one subject held a
M.S. degree of any kind.

The experimental design approximated the Pretest-
Posttest Control Group design (Campbell & Stanley, 1966),
with a replication added. Criterion tapes of caseworkers
and their clients were collected at pre, mid, and post
time intervals. Three independent judges rated the tapes
on the specified measures.

Judges who scored the criterion tapes were trained
in the use of the CVRS and the TCEU scales. A manual de—
scribing the training procedures is found in Appendix A.
Ratings of the criterion tapes (audiotaped caseworker
interviews with client on work case-load) were made

according to procedures described above.

139

Several criterion measures were used to evaluate
counselor discrimination and communication skills. Instru—
ments used purported to measure (1) the level of counselor-
Offered facilitative dimensions, (2) the communication Of
such dimensions as evidenced in counselor responses and
behaviors, (3) the appreciation Of such skills to written
reports required of caseworkers in their job setting, and
(4) the client's perception of the caseworker-client
relationships.

The data obtained on the measures were analyzed
using an analysis of variance on index of response scores
at the Mid-kPre and Post-kPre time intervals. Data used
for the main analysis were transformed to standardize the
measures.

Data reported included (1) treatment effects, (2)
test correlations, and (3) interrater reliability coef-
ficients. The main question that was to be answered by
the research was the relative strength of the experiential-
IPR versus the cognitive-classroom training method. The
nature of the experimental design also permitted investi-
gation of the possible effect of training sequence
(experiential-cognitive versus cognitive-experiential).

Before presenting analysis findings, the hypotheses
to be tested and the theory behind the research hypotheses

will be reviewed. The hypothesis of primary interest was:

140

H01: NO interaction will be found between groups
and times (Mid, Post) across indices of
response for the six measures (affective,
understanding, specific, exploratory,
empathic understanding, WROS)

Subsequent null hypotheses, based on a significant

groups by times interaction were:

H01 : At time 1 (Mid-kPre), no difference will
be found between Group 1 and Group 2
across indices of response for the six
measures

Holb: At time 2 (Post-kPre), no difference will
be found between Group 1 and Group 2
across indices of response for the six
measures

H l : Within Group 1, no difference will be
found between performance at time 1
(Mid-kPre) and time 2 (Post-kPre)
across indices of response for the six
measures

Hold: Within Group 2, no difference will be
found between performance at time 1
(Mid-kPre) and time 2 (Post-kPre) across
indices of response for the six measures
The research hypotheses (see Chapter III, p. 71)
were generated from theoretical considerations and previous
research (Truax & Carkhuff, 1967; Kagan et al., 1967;
Grzegorek, 1971; Spivack, 1971). It was theorized that a
significant groups by times interaction (H1) would reflect

the greater effectiveness of the eXperiential-IPR procedure

compared to cognitive-classroom methods (Hla).

141

An equivalence in performance between groups at
time 2 (Hlb) was expected for two reasons (these reasons
both assume the superiority of experiential-IPR over
cognitive-classroom methods). EEEEEI Group 1 subjects
would not benefit noticeably from the addition of cognitive
training to the completed experiential IPR experiences.
Second, Group 2 subjects would gain from the experiential-
IPR treatment received following the cognitive-classroom
experience.

Further implications of the theory suggested that
if cognitive training did not add to learnings of the
experiential-IPR program, Group 1 performance at time 1
(Mid-kPre) should be equal to Group 1 performance at time
2 (Post-kPre). Such equivalence (ch) would reflect a
retention of experiential-IPR learnings.

Finally, it was hypothesized that the addition of
the experiential-IPR experience to the completed cognitive
tasks for Group 2, subjects would raise Group 2 performance
at time 2 (Post-kPre) compared to time 1 (Mid-kPre). This
difference, if significant, would reflect a kind of "repli-
cation" of the experiential-IPR training effect, assuming
minimal gains at time 1 (Mid-kPre) from cognitive-
classroom procedures (i.e., superiority of experiential
to cognitive methods).

Thus the retention shown over time by Group 1
would equal the gain shown over time by Group 2, negating

significant differences between groups at time 2 (Post-kPre).

142

A significant difference between groups at time 2 would
suggest that one order of treatment was more effective
than the other (experiential-cognitive or cognitive-
experiential).

Implicit in the hypotheses of primary interest
(groups by times interaction) were both a groups by times
interaction averaged across measures Egg a groups by times
by measures interaction, i.e., a groups by times inter-
action on each individual measure (CVRA, CVRU, CVRS, CVRE,
TCEU, WROS, written reports). Caseworker performance was

evaluated on three basic types of criteria (1) counselor

 

responses as rated by independent judges, (2) client per-
ception of the caseworker-client relationship, and (3)
juvenile judges' evaluation of caseworker written client-
adjustment reports.

Results of the analysis of variance on six measures
indicated that the groups by times interaction was not
significant when averaged across measures. However, a
main effect for measures and a second order groups by
times by measures were significant.

Since one measure (WROS) seemed to differ markedly
from the other measures, a second analysis of variance was
performed, using only five measures. It should be noted that
this analysis was completed as a kind of post hoc, to under-
stand if the one measure (WROS) was in fact accounting for

the groups by times by measures interaction significance.

143

The main analysis of the study was still considered to be
the original analysis of variance presented in Chapter IV
(Table 4.1) and results will be largely interpreted and
discussed accordingly.

The second analysis of variance on only five
measures showed that eliminating the WROS led to a non-
significant groups by times by measures second order inter-
action, and maintained a nonsignificant groups by times
interaction. Thus the groups by times by measures inter-
action was apparently due to the effect of the WROS, i.e.,
a significant groups by times interaction was found on
that measure. Like the first analysis, the main effect
of measures was retained. An additional different inter-
action, groups by measures was reported. However, neither
the measures main effect nor the groups by measures inter-
action are particularly meaningful for interpretable (see
p. 112).

Since the groups by times interaction was signifi-
cant on the WROS (reflected in significant groups by times
by measures interaction of first analysis), sub-hypotheses
were tested on specific differences between groups at time
1 (Mid-kPre) and time 2 (Post-kPre) and on differences
within each group at both times. Comparisons (t-tests)
indicated that mean index of response scores on the WROS
were significantly greater for caseworkers following

experiential training than for workers after cognitive

144

training (at Mid-kPre). Learning apparently did take place
on the criterion of client perception of the caseworker-
client contact. However, this learning was not replicated
on Mid to Post gain for Group 2 (Hold).

Caseworker written reports, reflecting learning
on-the—job duties, were also evaluated. These reports
were evaluated in a separate analysis of variance because
data were not complete until a later point in time. Two
juvenile court judges rated the written reports according
to (1) an absolute scale, and (2) a Q-sort technique.
Separate analyses of variance on the two scales both re—
ported nonsignificant main effects for groups and repeated
measures (times, Mid, Post) and a nonsignificant groups by
repeated measures (times) interaction. Sub-hypotheses
comparing the relative strength of experiential versus
cognitive training were thus inappropriate and hypotheses

failed to be rejected.

Discussion

 

In order to draw conclusions and implications from
the data obtained, a number of factors should be considered.
The factors concern (1) the discrepancy among findings on
the various criterion measures, i.e., WROS measure com-
pared to CVRS, TCEU, and scales evaluating written reports,
and (2) possible reasons for the lack of difference in

rate of learning between groups on measures of caseworker

145

"facilitative" behavior (CVRS, TCEU) and on juvenile
judges' ratings of client-adjustment reports.

The finding Of significant differences between
groups (at Mid time) on client evaluations but not on
either ratings Of counselor responses by independent
judges or ratings of written reports by juvenile judges
may relate to the nature of the instruments. One type of
instrument measured doctoral students' evaluations of
caseworker "facilitative" responses, one instrument mea-
sured usefulness of written material to juvenile judges,
and one instrument measured client evaluation of case-
worker contact. The counselor response criteria and the
written report data were to reflect greater caseworker
"understanding" of the concerns of young peOple. The
client perception scale (WROS) was to reflect the willing-
ness of the client to approach the counselor to discuss
concerns.

The different "raters,' i.e., client, independent
judges, juvenile judges, might have approached the task
with different "sets" or conceptions of caseworker effec-
tiveness. It is possible that the independent judges of
criterion tapes were evaluating the caseworker statements
in terms of therapeutic skill rather than "listening" and
"communication" abilities. Information believed to reflect

client understanding on caseworker written reports may

have been of a different nature than that believed by

146

juvenile judges to be useful in disposition of cases or
in "knowing" the child.

At any rate, clients of experiential caseworkers
did seem to feel that their caseworkers were more approch-
able and that they could more easily discuss personal con-
cerns with them than with cognitively trained workers.
Certainly client perception of caseworker helpfulness is
an important consideration regardless of other criterion
results. However, the fact that this finding was not
replicated by Group 2 S3 when they received IPR training,
make conclusions about the WROS data somewhat speculative.

The factors to be discussed in considering the
lack of group differences on all but one (WROS) criterion
measure included (1) the possible failure to meet basic
assumptions of the study, and (2) the effect of restrictions

on external validity on caseworker learnings.

Assumptions of the Study

 

One assumption may have been invalid for the sample
studied. This belief, implicit by nature of the research,
was that counselor behavior can be measured and that
changes in such behavior would be "picked up" by those
measures. The reliability data collected on the criterion
measures suggested that the scales (CVRS, TCEU, WROS) may
not have accurately reflected behavioral changes of case-

workers (between or within groups).

147

It should be noted that the low-level of function-
ing of the caseworkers (reported in Chapter IV) and the
resulting restriction in range of scores would have influ-
enced the reliabilities and the possible failure of the
scales to operate as assumed. Thus the criterion measures
used may not have been adequate for discriminating case-
worker response differences at such low levels of facili-
tative functioning.

A second assumption was that the therapist-Offered
conditions and the resulting counselor behaviors would be
considered "facilitative" in the court setting and that
the caseworker behaviors required in the programs did
relate to on-the-job behaviors of the court workers. The
possible invalidity of the assumption will be elaborated
further when discussing the influence of "environmental"

factors on research findings.

Restrictions on External Validity

Several confounding variables may have influenced
the failure to Obtain differences between groups in rates
of learning on all but one criterion measure (WROS). It
was assumed that the potential influence of these variables
would be minimized by the random assignment Of S3 to
experimental groups. However, several uncontrolled factors

concern the sample studied, environmental factors, and

aspects of the experimental tasks and procedures. Each
variable will be discussed and conclusions will be drawn

as to probable impact of the factor on obtained results.

148

Sample.--The lack of statistically different rates
of learning between groups, i.e., failure to obtain a
significant groups by times interaction on all but one
measure (WROS) might have been due in part to the low
level of initial "facilitative" functioning of the case-
workers in the sample studied. Although research indi-
cates that varied groups of Ss have learned such facili-
tative behaviors (Carkhuff, 1967; Grzegorek, 1971;
Spivack, 1970) the skills are difficult to teach success-

fully at low levels of initial trainee performance. Cer-

tainly some learning could still take place, but perhaps
not enough behavioral change to effect statistical signifi-
cance and discriminate between groups.

Another possible factor contributing to caseworker
performance was caseworker motivation to learn the skills
and the impact Of such interest on commitment to the treat-
ment procedures. Participation in the program was volun-
gary, and all but one eligible caseworker expressed a
desire to receive the training. Attendance at sessions
was good for both groups throughout the study, suggesting
good motivation.

However, clinical observation during the sessions

and spontaneous comments Of some participants suggested that

149

the assumption Of caseworker motivation for or commitment
to the skills being taught or the procedures being used
may not have been as great as initially thought. The
factors believed to have an influence on caseworker moti-
vation and commitment included (1) caseworker attitude
about skills being taught, (2) caseworker threat and
anxiety about procedures used in teaching the skills, and
(3) caseworker feeling that he "should" participate even
though he was not particularly interested. A subtle
coercion may have been communicated to the workers by
court personnel as a part of the recent trend to encour-
age in-service training programs. Some of these attitudes
will be discussed separately.

Several caseworkers seemed to express an attitude
(in both programs) reflecting the desire to either "punish"
their client for alleged wrong doings or "preach" to re-
form the clients. Either attitude allowed for only mini-
mal counselor "listening," "understanding," or "communi-
cating" with clients in a manner indicative of a counsel-
ing relationship. In fact, such an attitude is one that
produces a psychological "distance" between caseworker
and client.

Since both training programs (cognitive and
experiential) were designed to decrease "distance" and
establish a relationship allowing for the expression Of
discrimination and communication skills, both groups

could have been effected by a failure of caseworkers to

150

"value" the skills being taught. This attitude might
reflect a "resistance" to training. Thus the failure
of groups to differ significantly in rate of learning
and the overall low level of functioning even after
training may be due to the attitude of caseworkers in
the sample studied.

Closely related to caseworker attitudes toward

discrimination and communication abilities was the influ-

 

ence of caseworker attitude toward or response to pgp—
cedures used to teach those skills. Clinical observation
by the examiner and by recall workers indicated that the
experiencing of videotape feedback through counselor and
client recall was often threatening to subjects. For
example, caseworkers occasionally mentioned to the recaller
that they became quite nervous before their sessions.
Recall workers noted that those careworkers could not seem
to "use" that anxiety as an impetus to learning and self—
exploration. Instead, the anxiety failed to decrease as
training proceeded, defensive reactions remained high, and
learning was hindered. This element of anxiety appeared
greater while Ss received the experiential—IPR training
but it was evidenced to some extent by subjects as they
received cognitive training.

Although any judgments about the impact of per-
ceived caseworker "threat" and resulting anxiety on
caseworker performance can only be speculation, a number

of points will be discussed. First, caseworker anxiety

151

as a factor of particular subjects could have remained
throughout the treatment sequence for that person, deter-
ing learning by either method. Second, caseworker anxiety
or threat as a factor especially evident in the experiential-
IPR training might have contributed to the lack of greater
effectiveness Of that procedure when compared to the cog-
nitive classroom method. Third, if the experiential-IPR
training was in fact especially anxiety-provoking, this
anxiety might account for the overall slope of the learning
curves. These possibilities will be discussed further.
However, it must be emphasized that this discussion is
speculative in nature, since significant differences were

not found between groups.

Siggp, the slopes Of the learning curves for the
two groups during both training methods indicated (see
Chapter IV) that for five measures, Group 1 (experiential-
cognitive) caseworkers had a rising curve while Groups 2
(cognitive-experiential) caseworkers showed a decreasing
lepe over time. That is, at the Mid point, the cognitive
group was performing at a higher level (numerically not
statistically) while at the Post time, the experiential
group functioned slightly higher than Group 2 subjects.

As suggested above, the greater anxiety-provoking nature

of the experiential-IPR treatment may have contributed to
the unexpected Group 1 positive lepe following cognitive
methods and the Group 2 negative slope after completing

experiential—IPR.

152

This possibility becomes even more plausible when
considering the low initial level of caseworker performance
and possible resistance to training. If caseworkers were
especially low in facilitative behaviors at the Pre time
Observation 22S if they were resistant to training, or
not "ready" for the developmental tasks in IPR, the video-
tape experience Of a confronting experiential nature would
be particularly anxiety-provoking. However, when that
same group received the cognitive program, they might have
been less anxious and more free to experiment and cogni-
tively reinforce experiential learnings. Similarly, the
equally low functioning Group 2 Ss might have felt rela-
tively "safe" from threat in the cognitive experience.

Then when the Group 2 caseworkers received the experiential
program, they might have "regressed" because of increased
anxiety and resistance to that threat.

Second, a rising learning curve for the experiential—
cognitive and a decreasing curve for the cognitive-
experiential training sequence suggested that the final
performance of caseworkers mighs have been influenced by
order of training methods. That is, although the experi-
ential procedure seemed particularly anxiety-provoking,
that experience followed by a period of cognitive training
may have provided for necessary cognitive "assimilation"
of earlier learnings and contributed to overall caseworker
increase in facilitative behavior. The cognitive experi-

ence may initially have produced greater facilitative

153

performance but this performance may have been "undone”
by the anxiety-provoked in the experiential procedures.
NO explanation can be given as to why anxiety was
not reduced as training proceeded in the experiential-IPR
program, unless the previously mentioned initial level of
functioning was a factor. Still, the experiencing of

recall sessions should have allowed caseworker exploration

and subsequent use of such anxiety to improve performance.
Instead, those Ss who were most anxious seemed to remain

defensive.

Environment.--An additional explanation for ob-

 

tained results is related to the environment of the sample
studied. This influence concerns the "work" atmosphere

in which the caseworkers functioned and relates to the
assumption that the behaviors being taught related to be-
haviors required "on-the-job." Although the trainees were

labeled "caseworkers,' and their job description included
"counseling" clinical observation suggested that workers
were often viewed by court officials and to some extent
by themselves as "probation Officers," "police," or
"report writers." The "effective" caseworker seemed to
be defined by his superiors as the worker who completed
the most reports and/or dismissed, "placed" or "closed"
the most cases, not by the number of children receiving

on-going caseworker "interview" contacts or by the "quality"

of written reports.

154

Thus the concept of rehabilitation of the juvenile
court setting, while perhaps stated as counseling or com-
munication oriented was in practice not focused on counsel-
ing or communication skills. Instead, a typical response
to client "acting out" was placement in an institutional
or detention setting. Attempts to listen, understand, and
communicate with the youngster were not always encouraged.

It is possible that caseworkers who did try to
spend time responding in a "facilitative" manner were not
rewarded in the work setting. In fact, more "action" in
terms of placement was sometimes demanded, rather than more
client contact to ascertain apprOpriate placement or pro-
gram alternatives. Thus either agency perceptions as to
what "counseling" or "interviewing" should involve 93 a
work atmosphere not rewarding the particular abilities
being taught might have made it difficult for caseworkers

to learn the skills or to apply them in the manner taught.

 

Tasks or Experimental Procedures.--A third restric-

 

tion on external validity was the experimental situation
and the tasks required by the situation. That variable
will be discussed in terms of evaluative and eXperimental
procedures. The possibility existed that skills learned
in the training sessions (either program) did not trans-
fer to the work setting, i.e., criterion tapes and written
reports because Of some aspect of the evaluative pro-

cedures. For example, the possibility existed of

155

systematic differences among actual caseload clients from
one criterion interview to another. Rapid change of client
placements necessitated the interviewing of different
clients for the three observations.

Another procedure involved in evaluating the pro-
gram also needs tO be considered. This procedure was that
of using counselor responses for the major basis to judge
counselor effectiveness. It was possible that client
motivation affected caseworker performance, i.e., a client
committed to dealing with his concerns might be easier to
respond to in a facilitative manner and easier to "plan"
for via written material recommendations. However, in this
study, each caseworker chose the client he would interview
on the criterion tape. This choice was necessary because
the examiner did not have access to a pool of clients and
because caseworkers were allowed to interview only clients
assigned to them.

Caseworker choice of client and caseworker knowl-
edge that the tape was connected to the experiment probably
led most workers to choose clients with whom they felt
they would be reasonably able to communicate. Furthermore,
the typical counselor case youngster is sometimes not
highly motivated in the usual sense of "wanting help" with
his concerns. Thus client level Of motivation would
probably be somewhat similar across all trainee caseloads

and would not have greatly influenced findings.

156

It should be noted that the use of a measure of
client perception of the caseworker-client relationship
(WROS) provided a different way to evaluate counselor
effectiveness other than independent judge's ratings of
counselor effectiveness or juvenile judges' ratings Of
caseworker written reports.

The WROS asks clients to indicate their
willingness to approach the counselor on a number of con-
cerns, ranging from factual problems to increasingly
"personal" problems. It is assumed that it would be more
difficult for a person to talk about personal concerns
and that a rating that indicated such a willingness would
therefore reflect a "close" counselor-client relationship.
Comparisons based on sub-hypotheses reported that experi-
ential caseworkers were perceived of as more "approach-
able" by their clients than were cognitively trained
workers (at Mid-kPre). It is possible that client per—
ceptions reflected caseworker growth in becoming less
hostile and punitive but not necessarily more "empathic"
as measured on reports or interview responses.

Several other general factors that may have influ-
enced research findings also relate to experimental pro-
cedures. Siggp, the treatments might have been too similar
to produce significant differences in learning rates as
measured on the first five criteria. While the procedures
were both designed to help caseworkers establish client-

caseworker relationships and use discrimination and

157

communication skills in that relationship, different kinds
of experiences were required in the two programs. The
fact that both involved "empathy" training, even though

it was by markedly different methods, might have influenced
results in an unanticipated manner. Second, the fact

that all caseworkers received both treatments may have

had an impact on findings. TQSES, the length of the pro-
gram and the resulting scheduling problems might have
caused a "fatigue" factor or a "resistance" factor to
Operate upon caseworker motivation and resulting training
progress. Finally, initial level of caseworker perfor-
mance suggested that more time spent on early stages of
training might have helped the S5 to be "ready" for the

more intense learning experiences.

Conclusions and Implications

Conclusions

 

In essence, data indicated that the experiential-
IPR treatment was significantly more effective than a
cognitive-classroom approach in teaching discrimination
and communication skills on a criterion measure involving
client perception of the caseworker-client relationship.
However, the experiential-IPR treatment was not signifi-
cantly more effective than cognitive-classroom procedures
on criteria measuring caseworker "facilitative" responses

or rating usefulness of written client-adjustment reports.

158

It should be noted that the sequence involving
experiential cognitive experience did lead to greater
(numerically not statistically) mean indices of response
at the end of the study than did the sequence involving
cognitive followed by experiential methods. However, as
far as significant findings are concerned, it must be
concluded that for this caseworker sample studied over the
l6-week period, training procedures focusing on an
experiential-IPR experience were on the average (except
for WROS) not superior to training procedures emphasizing

cognitive input.

Implications for Future Research

 

In order to provide court caseworkers with train-
ing experiences aiding them in their client interviews, a
number of changes in procedure are suggested. These sug-
gestions involved discussion of assumptions of the study and

control of previously mentioned restrictions or external

validity.

1. It was assumed that the criterion measure used in
the study would "pick-up" behavioral changes of
caseworkers in the sample studied. However, it
was found that the Ss started at an extremely
low level of facilitative behaviors, causing the
range to be restricted and the test-retest relia-
bilities to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, in

measuring behavior of a casework sample, a

159

criterion measure devised to discriminate levels Of

functioning which cluster at the low end Of the
scale would be helpful, i.e., a measure that makes
finer distinctions at the part of the scale where
Ss seem to be functioning. If such a measure were
unavailable, more time spent on early stages of
training, emphasizing readiness for more intensive
tasks might be helpful. Then after performance
reached a level higher than initial level, case-
workers could proceed to the next stage of train-
ing.

Clinical observations and spontaneous comments of
the Ss evaluated suggested that the caseworkers
were not necessarily rewarded for the facilitative
behavior attempts in the work situation. That is
to say, the efforts of Ss who seemed motivated to
learn the skills were not "valued" by their super-
iors. Future training procedures should not be
attempted unless the setting to which the Ss
return after sessions rewards behaviors being
taught. Otherwise, learnings fail to transfer

and caseworker motivation does not remain high.
Transfer of skills to job behaviors might also

be increased by a more eXplicit integration of
skills into the caseworker role, i.e., having
caseworkers write client-adjustment reports

immediately following the IPR session or having

160

IPR role-play clients complete the WROS and then

give that feedback to the caseworker.

Future attempts to provide discrimination and com-
munication skills training should assess caseworker
readiness and attitude or motivation for receiving
the training. In the present study, a "distance-
producing" attitude was frequently evidenced by
the caseworkers, hindering development of case-
worker relationships required by the training
procedures. In addition, a high anxiety level,
with resulting defensiveness seemed to exist,
especially during the experiential training.

If some measure of caseworker anxiety or
defensiveness and some evaluation of willingness
to form interpersonal relationships could be col-
lected prior to training, caseworkers could be
"blocked" on their anxiety, defensiveness, or
openness level. In this manner, the contribution
of such attitudes and characteristics to caseworker
learnings could be evaluated more clearly. Then
the speculation as to the role of motivational
factors such as attitude to training and treatment
procedures could be more than speculation.

If the role of caseworker motivation as dis-
cussed above could be ascertained through a

research design of "blocking" on those variables,

161

planning for how to increase motivation or gear
training programs more to the caseworker level of
functioning could take place. However, the possi-
bility must be faced that training efforts of the
nature described in this study might be futile
under the existing work atmosphere and caseworker

characteristics.

In considering the anxiety level evidenced during
IPR training, a discussion of how to reduce that
anxiety to a "workable" level becomes important.
It may be that caseworkers need to reach a certain
level of "readiness" for the intense videotape
confrontation. Introductory experience, simu-
lation experiences, and role play sessions were
planned to ready the caseworker for coached client
interviews and client counselor, and mutual recalls.
However, more time might be needed for that prepa—
ration. Finally, the low—level functioning and
anxiety-laden characteristic of caseworkers might
indicate that such Ss are unable to profit from

the type of experiences planned.

The use of the same criterion tape client for the
caseworker over three observations might standard—
ize the client stimulus to which caseworkers

responded and better control for client differences.

162

Spontaneous comments of some caseworkers indi-
cated that they perceived the training as being
"helpful" to them personally and professionally.
These comments could be subject to a "halo" effect
or an attempt to please the experimenter. It is
also possible that caseworkers did learn to SEE“

criminate client feelings and thoughts but that

 

anxiety and defensiveness kept them from "trans-
lating" those learnings into behaviors that ppm-
municated the understanding either via caseworker
responses pp written reports. This possibility
could be checked in future programs by including

a criterion measure that evaluates discrimination
rather than communication skills (Affective Sensi—
tivity Scale, Kagan et al., 1967).

It is possible that caseworker "testimonials"
as to value of the training are meaningless.
However, the fact that the statements were made
(even mentioned in Court Annual Report) suggested
that the learnings might not have been picked up
because of (l) inappropriate measures, or (2)

insufficient practice in translating perceived

 

learnings into behavioral terms.

Since the experiential-cognitive group did reach
a numerically higher level (though slight) at the

end of the entire sequence, future training

163

attempts might retain the experiential-cognitive
order, but incorporate "readiness" experiences

more thoroughly into the IPR experiences.

It is possible that the training procedures could
have been better learned by caseworkers if the
programs had been of shorter duration (fewer weeks)
and more intensive in presentation (more than one
session per week). In this way the "fatigue"
factor and scheduling problems might have been
avoided and defensiveness and anxiety might have
been reduced. However, such scheduling would be

difficult due to work demands of the caseworkers.

It is also possible that the training of recall
workers for this type of counselor (caseworker)
sample would influence caseworker learning.

Recall workers in the present study had previously
worked largely with trainees who were functioning
at a higher level both initially and throughout
training. The interrogators might have become
discouraged or exasperated with the apparent con-
tinued defensiveness of trainees and this dis—

satisfaction could have been communicated to the

trainees, influencing their resistance and

performance.

10.

11.

164

It should be noted that the failure to find
treatment differences on two of three criterion
measures does not mean that court caseworkers
could not ever learn the skills being taught.
However, changes in the program (suggested above)

might be necessary to facilitate such learning.

Reliability data on the WROS raised some question
about the precision of the measure (see Chapter
IV). These data, plus the failure of H1d in
replicating IPR treatment effects on the WROS,
suggest revision of the scale itself. One way to
increase the precision would be to use the scale
on several clients of a given caseworker. The
resulting dependent variable would be the sum
across clients with each administration of the
WROS serving as an "item." Further research
might be improved by using the scale in this

manner .

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Adamson, L., & Dunham, H. W. Clinical treatment of male
delinquents: A case study in effort and result.
American Sociological Review, 1956, SS, 320.

Aichhorn, A. Delinquency and child guidance. 0. Fleisch-
man, P. Kramer, & H. Ross (Eds.). New York: Inter-
national University, 1964.

Altucker, N. Constructive use of the supervisory relation-
ship. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, ii,
165-170.

Anderson, D. T., Thomas, E. S., & Sorenson, C. B. Listen
to the child: The child's View of thegprobation
officer. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Western Michigan Uni-
vers1ty, Center for Children's Court Services, 1969.

Appel, M. L. Self-understanding for the guidance counse-
lor. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1963, 52,
143-148.

Beiser, H. R. Self¥listening during supervision of
psychotherapy. Archives Of General Psychiatry,

Benschoter, R. S., Wittson, C. L., & Ingham, C. G.
Teaching and consultation by television. I. Closed

circuit collaboration. Hospital Community Psychiatry,
1965, SS, 99-100.

 

Berdie, R. F., & Layton, W. C. Research on the Minnesota
Counseling Inventory. Journal Of Counseling Psy-
chology, 1960, 1, 218-224.

Berenson, B. G., & Carkhuff, R. R. Sources of gain in
counseling and psychotherapy. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, & Winston, Inc., 1967.

 

165

166

Berenson, B. G., Carkhuff, R. R., & Myrus, P. The inter-
personal functioning and training of college students.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1966, SS, 441-446.

Bloom, B. S. The thought process of students in dis-
cussion. In S. J. French (Ed.), Accent on teaching:
Experiments in general education. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1954.

 

Bonney, C. W., & Gazda, G. Group counseling experiences:
Reactions by counselor candidates. Counselor Edu-
cation and Supervision, 1966, S, 205—212.

 

 

Brammer, L. Teaching counseling theory: Some issues
and points of view. Counselor Education and Super-
vision, 1966, S, 120-131.

Brammer, L. M., & Shostrom, E. L. Therapeutic psychology:
Fundamentals of counseling and psychotherapy. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1960.

Braxton, D. Family casework and juvenile first Offenders.
Social Casework, 1966, 41, 87-92.

 

Bugental, J. F. T. The person who is the psychotherapist.
Journal Of Consulting Psychologxy 1964, SS, 272-277.

Burbank, E. G., & Goldsborough, E. W. The probation
officer's personality: A key factor in rehabili-
tation. Federal Probation, 1954, SS, 11-14.

 

Calia, V. The culturally-deprived client: A reformu-
lation of the counselor's role. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1966, SS, 100-105.

 

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1963.

Carkhuff, R. R. Training in the counseling and therapeutic
practices: Requiem or reveille? Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 1966, SS, 360-367.

 

Carkhuff, R. R. Toward a comprehensive model of facili—
tative interpersonal processes. Journal of Counsel-
ing Psychology, 1967, SS, 67-72.

Carkhuff, R. R. Critical variables in effective
counselor training. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1969, SS, 238-245. (a)?

167

Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relations. Vol. 1.
Selection and training. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston, Inc., 1969. (b)

 

 

Carkhuff, R. R. Helping and human relationships: A
primer for lgy and professional helpers. Vol. 1.
Practice and research. New York: Holt, Rinehart,
& Winston, Inc., 1969. (c)

 

 

Carkhuff, R. R., & Berenson, B. G. Bgyond counseling
and therapy. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,
Inc., 1967.

 

 

Chenault, J. The education of the phony counselor. Phi
Delta Kappan, 1964, SS, 450-452.

 

Chwast, J., Harari, C., & Weisman, I. Why we fail.
Federal Probation, 1958, SS, 36-42.

 

Cox, D. R. Planning of experiments. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

Delaney, 0. Simulation techniques in counselor education:
Proposal of a unique approach. Counselor Education
and Supervision, 1969, S, 183-188.

 

DeRoo, W. M., & Rank, R. C. Counselor response system of
the behavior interaction description system. Paper
presented at the American Personnel and Guidance
Association Convention, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1965.

Dorn, D. S. Self-concept, alienation, and anxiety in a
contraculture and subculture: A research report.
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police
Science, 1968, SS, 531-535.

 

Ebel, R. L. Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Psychometrika, 1951, SS, 407-424.

 

Eckstein, R., & Wallerstein, R. X. The teachingpand
learning of psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books,
1958.

 

 

Eisenberg, S., & Delaney, 0. Using video simulation of
counseling for training counselors. Journal Of
Counseling Psychology: 1970, S1, 15-19.

 

Fleming, J., & Benedek. T. Supervision: A method of
teaching psychoanalysis. PsychoanaSytic Quarterly,
1964, SS, 71-96.

 

168

Flemming, E. L. A positive approach to interviewing.
Federal Probation, 1954, SS, 15-19.

 

Ford, D. H., & Urban, H. B. Systems of psychotherapy:
A comparative study. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1963.

 

 

Foreman, M. T-groups: Their implications for counselor
supervision and preparation. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 1967, 1, 48-53.

 

 

Foreman, M., Poppen, W., & Frost, J. Case groups: An
in-service education technique. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 1967, SS, 388-392.

 

Gaier, E. L. The use of simulated recall in revealing
the relationship between selected personality vari-
ables and the learning process. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1951.

Gazda, G., & Ohlsen, M. The effects of short-term group
counseling on prospective counselors. Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 1961, SS, 634-638.

 

 

Gibbon, D. C. Some notes on treatment theory in corrections.
Social Service Review, 1962, SS, 295-305.

 

Gibb, J. R. The counselor as a role-free person. In
C. A. Parker (Ed.), Counseling theories and counselor
education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968.

 

 

 

Glasser, W. Reality psychiatry: An effective treatment
for delinquents. Reference Bulletin NO. 24. San
Diego County Probation Department, San Diego, Cali-
fornia (undated). Cited by J. Whiteley. Research
in counseling; Education and Refocus. Columbus,
OhiO: Merril Publishing Co., 1967.

 

Goldberg, A. D. A sequential program for supervising
counselors using the Interpersonal Process Recall
technique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1967.

Gottesfeld, H. Professional's and delinquent's evaluation
of professional methods with delinquents. Social
Problems, 1965, SS, 45-59.

Gottesman, L. E. The relationship of cognitive variables
to therapeutic ability and training Of client-
centered therapists. Journal of Consulting Psyé
chology, 1962, SS, 119-126.

 

169

Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. On methods in the
analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 1959,
SS, 95-112.

 

Griffin, G. G. An evaluation of the objectivity of an
audio-visual counselor scale which compares the be-
haviors of M.A. candidate counselors with the be-
haviors of Ph.D. candidate counselors. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1966.

Gruenberg, P., Liston, E., & Wayne, G. Intensive super-
vision Of psychotherapy with videotape recordings.
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1969, SS, 95-105.

 

Grzegorek, A. E. A study Of the effects of two types of
emphasis in counselor training used in conjunction
with simulation and videotaping. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970.

Gysbers, N. C. Strategies for practicum supervision.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1964, S, 149-152.

 

Hanson, J. C., & Barker, E. N. Experiencing and the
supervisory relationship. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1964, SS, 107-111.

 

 

Hardman, D. G. The constructive use of authority. Crime
and Delinquency, 1960, S, 245-254.

 

Harrower, M. (Ed.). Medical and psychological teamwork
in the care of the chronically ill. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 1955, SS, 1-50.

 

 

Hartman, H. L. Interviewing techniques in probation and
parole. I. Building the relationship. Federal

 

Hathaway, S. R., & Monachesi, E. D. Analyzing and pre-
dicting juvenile delinquency with the MMPI. Minne-
apolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1953, 38-53.
Cited by R. W. Persons, Psychological and behavioral
change in delinquents following psychotherapy.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1966, SS, 337-340.

 

Heimann, R. A., & Whittemore, R. G. Electronic aids to
practicum supervision. Counselor Education and
Supervision, 1964, S, 104-107.

 

 

Hobbs, N. Sources of gain in psychotherapy. American
Psychologist, 1962, SS, 18-34.

 

170

Holmes, O. J. Closed circuit television in teaching
psychiatry. University of Michigan Medical Bulletin,

Holzman, P. S. On hearing and seeing oneself. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1969, 148, 198-209.

 

Ivey, A. E., Normington, C., Miller, G. D., Morrill, W.,
& Haase, R. Microcounseling and attending behavior--
an approach to pre—practicum counselor training.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1968, SS(5, pt. 2).

Kagan, N. Training high school teacher-counselors via
I.P.R. Unpublished Pilot Study, O'Rafferty High
School, Lansing, Michigan, 1969.

Kagan, N., & Krathwohl, D. R. Studies in human inter-
action. E. Lansing, Mich.: Educational Publication
Serv1ces, College of Education, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1967.

 

Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D., & Miller, G. Stimulated recall
in therapy using videotape: A case study. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 1963, SS, 237-243.

 

 

Kagan, N., Schauble, P., Resnikoff, A., Danish, S., &
Krathwohl, D. Interpersonal Process Recall, Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1969, 148, 365-374.

 

Kell, B. L., & Mueller, W. J. Impact and change: A
study of counseling relationships. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.

 

 

Korner, I. N., & Brown, W. H. The mechanical third ear.
Journal of Consulting PsychologY: 1952, SS, 81-84.

 

Kornfeld, D. S., & Kolb, L. C. The use of closed circuit
television in the teaching of psychiatry. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 1964, 138, 452-459.

 

 

Kubie, L. 8. Research into the process of supervision
in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalyticgparterly, 1958,
SS, 226-236.

 

Kubie, L. S. Research in protecting preconscious functions
in education. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), Nurturing indi-
vidual potential. Washington, D. C.: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1964,
28-42.

 

 

171

Kubie, L. 5. Some aspects of the significance to psycho-
analysis of the exposure of a patient to the televised
audio-visual reproduction of his activities. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1969, SSS, 301-309.

Landsman, T. Humanistic training for a mechanistic
society. Counselor Education and Supervision, 1963,
S, 113-120.

 

Landsman, T., & Lane, D. A. V. media, yes, depersonali-
zation, no. Audio Visual Instruction, 1963, S,
24-28.

 

Levy, L. H. Fact and choice in counseling and counselor
education: A cognitive viewpoint. In C. A. Parker
(Ed.), Counseling theories and counselor education.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968.

 

Lister, J. The counselor's personal theory. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1964, S, 207-213.

 

 

Lister, J. Counselor experiencing: Its implications for
supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision,
1966’ 2' 55-61.

 

Lofquist, W. A. The framework and experience of juvenile
probation. Social Casework, 1967, SS, l7-21.

 

May, R. Existential psychology. New York: Random
House, 1961.

 

Michigan Commission of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice.
First comprehensive law enforcement and criminal
justice plan for Michigan. Lansing, Mich.: Executive
Office of the Governor, 1969.

Moore, F. J. Mimeographed speech presented at the Southern
Regional Education Board's Convention on Regional
Approaches to Educational Television Programming, Fort
Lauderdale, December 5-6, 1963. Cited in N. Kagan,

& D. R. Krathwohl, Studies in human interaction.
E. Lansing, Mich.: Educational Publication Services,
College of Education, Michigan State University, 1967.

 

Ordway, J. A. Use of the offender's strengths in psycho-
therapy. Crime and Delinquency, 1968, SS, 233-239.

Overton, A. Establishing the relationship. Crime and
Delinquency, 1965, SS, 229-238.

 

 

Parker, C. A. (Ed.). Counseling theories and counselor
education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968.

 

172

Passow, A. H. (Ed.). Nurturing individual potential.
Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1964, 28-42.

Patterson, C. H. Supervising students in the counseling
practicum. Journal of Counseling Psychologx, 1964,
lip 47-530

Patterson, C. H. Theories of counseling and psycho-
therapy. New York: Harper and Row, 1966.

 

Perronne, P. A., & Sanborn, M. P. Early observation:
An apprenticeship approach to counselor education.
Counselor Education and Sgpervision, 1966, S, 63-69.

Persons, R. W. Psychological and behavioral change in
delinquents following psychotherapy. Journal Of
Clinical Psychology, 1966, SS, 337-340.

 

 

Pierce, R., Carkhuff, R. R., & Berenson, B. G. The
differential effects of high and low functioning
counselors upon counselors-in-training. Journal Of
Clinical Psychology, 1967, SS, 212-216.

 

 

Poling, E. G. Videotape recordings in counseling
practicum. Title VII, Project 1235. NDEA of 1958,
Grant No. 7-51-0140-246, University of South Dakota,
1964.

Resnikoff, A., Kagan, N., & Schauble, P. Acceleration
of psychotherapy through stimulated videotape recall.
American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1970, SS, 102-111.

 

Robison, S. Juvenile delinquency, its nature and control.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc., 1961.

Rogers, C. A. The necessary and sufficient conditions
of therapeutic personality change. Journal Of Con-
sulting Psychology, 1957, SS, 95-103.

 

 

Rogers, C. A. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1961.

 

Ryan, C. Video aids in practicum supervision. Counselor
Education and Supervision, 1969, S, 125-129.

 

 

Schauble, P. G. The acceleration of client progress in
counseling and psychotherapy through Interpersonal
Process Recall. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970.

173

Shore, M. F., Massimo, J. L., & Mack, R. Changes in the
perception of interpersonal relationships in success-
fully treated adolescent delinquent boys. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1965, SS, 213-217.

 

 

Shore, M. F., Massiso, J. L., & Moran, J. Some cognitive
dimensions of interpersonal behavior in adolescent
delinquent boys. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 1967, S, 243-247.

 

 

Shore, M. F., Massimo, J. L., & Ricks, D. F. A factor-
analytic study of psychotherapeutic change in
delinquent boys. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
1965, SS, 208-212.

 

Silverman, E. Lawyers and social workers in juvenile
proceedings. Crime and DelinquenQY, 1960, S, 262-
266.

 

Spivack, J. D. The use of developmental tasks for train-
ing counselors using Interpersonal Process Recall.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970.

Stefflre, B., & Matheny, K. B. The function of counseling
theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.

 

Steph, J. A. Responses to hypothetical counseling situ-
ations as a predictor of relationship orientation in
school counselors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1963.

Stollack, G. E., & Guerney, B., Jr. Exploration of
personal problems of juvenile delinquents under
conditions of minimum reinforcement. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 1964, SS, 279-283.

 

 

Suess, J. F. Teaching clinical psychiatry with closed
circuit television and videotape. Journal of Medical
Education, 1966, SS, 483-488.

 

 

Sullivan, H. S. The interpersonal theory of psychiatry,
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1953.

 

Tangri, S. S., & Schwartz, M. Delinquency research and
the self-concept variable. Journal of Criminal Law,
Criminology, and Police Science, 1967, SS, 182-190.

 

 

Taylor, J. A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, SS,
285-290.

 

174

Teuber, H. L., & Powers, E. Evaluating therapy in a
delinquency prevention program. Proceedings:
Association for Research in Nervous and Mental
Disorders, 1953, SS, 138-144.

 

Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Client and therapist
transparency in the psychotherapeutic encounter.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, SS, 3-9.

 

Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Toward effective
counseling and psychotherapy:, Training and practice.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing 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,
SS, 240-247.

Truax, C. B., Wargo, D. G., & Silber, L. D. Effects of
group psychotherapy with high accurate empathy and
nonpossessive warmth upon female institutionalized
delinquents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966,
SS, 267-274.

 

Walz, G. R., & Johnson, J. A. Counselors look at them-
selves on videotape. Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology, 1963, SS, 232-236.

 

Welsh, G. S. An anxiety index and an internalization
ratio for the MMPI. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1952’ l—4_' 65-720

 

Whiteley, J. Research in counseling: Education and
refocus. Columbus, Ohio: Merril Publishing Co.,
1967.

 

Whiteley, J., & Jakubowski, P. A. The coached client as
a research and training resource in counseling.
Counselor Education and Supervision, 1969, S, 19-29.

 

Wilmer, H. A. Television: Technical and artistic aspects
of videotape in psychiatric teaching. Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 1967, 144, 207-223.

 

 

Wolberg, L. R. The technique of psychotherapy. New
York: Grune and Stratton, 1954.

 

Wyatt, F. The self-experience of the psychotherapist.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1948, SS, 82-87.

 

175

Younge, K. A. The use of closed circuit television for
the teaching of psychotherapeutic interviewing to
medical students. Canadidg Medical Association
Journal, 1965, SS(14), 747-751.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

IPR COUNSELOR VERBAL RESPONSE SCALE AND MANUAL FOR
TRAINING JUDGES IN USE OF COUNSELOR

VERBAL RESPONSE SCALE

The scale was develOped as a part of a project
supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Office Of Education, "Exploration
of the Potential Value of Interpersonal Process Recall
Technique (IPR) for the Study of Selected Educational
Problems" (Project Nos. 7-32-0410-216 and 7-32-0410-270).

APPENDIX A

IPR COUNSELOR VERBAL RESPONSE SCALE AND MANUAL FOR
TRAINING JUDGES IN USE OF COUNSELOR

VERBAL RESPONSE SCALE

IPR Counselor Verbal Response Scale

 

The Counselor Verbal Response Scale is an attempt
to describe a counselor's response to client communication
in terms of four dichotomized dimensions: (a) affect--
cognitive; (b) understanding--nonunderstanding; (c) spe-
cific--nonspecific; (d) exploratory--nonexploratory.

These dimensions have been selected because they seem to
represent aspects of counselor behavior which seem to make
theoretical sense and contribute to client progress. A
fifth dimension--effective--noneffective--provides a
global rating of the adequacy of each response which is
made independently of the four descriptive ratings.

The unit for analysis is the verbal interaction
between counselor and client represented by a client

statement and counselor response. A counselor response is

176

177

rated on each of the five dimensions of the rating scale,
with every client-counselor interaction being judged
independently of preceding units. In judging an individual
response the primary focus is on describing how the coun-
selor responded to the verbal and nonverbal elements of

the client's communication.

Deschption of Rating Dimensions
I. Affect--cognitive dimension

The affective--cognitive dimension indicates
whether a counselor's response refers to any effective
component of a client's communication or concerns itself
primarily with the cognitive component of that communica-
tion.

A. Affective responses--Affective responses

 

generally make reference to emotions, feelings, fears,

etc. The judge's rating is solely by the content and/or

intent Of the counselor's response, regardless of whether
it be reflection, clarification, interpretation. These
responses attempt to maintain the focus on the affective
component of a client's communication. Thus they may:

(a) Refer directly to an explicit or implicit reference
to affect (either verbal or nonverbal) on the part
of the client.

Example: "It sounds like you were really angry

at 51m."

(b) Encourage an expression of affect on the part of
the client.

178

Example: "How does it make you feel when your
parents argue?"

(c) Approve of an expression of affect on the part of
the client.

Exam 1e: "It doesn't hurt to let your feelings out
once in a while, does it?"

(d) Presents a model for the use of affect by the client.
Example: "If somebody treated me like that, I'd
really be mad."

Special care must be taken in rating responses which use

the word "feel." For example, in the statement "Do you

feel that your student teaching experience is helping you
get the idea of teaching?", the phrase "Do you feel that"
really means "Do you think that." Similarly the expres-
sion "How are you feeling?" is often used in a matter-of-
fact, conversation manner. Thus, although the verb "to
feel" is used in both these examples, these statements do

not represent responses which would be judged "affective."

B. Cpgnitive Responses--Cognitive responses deal

 

primarily with the cognitive element of a client's communi-

cation. Frequently such responses seek information Of a
factual nature. They generally maintain the interaction
on the cognitive level. Such responses may:

(a) Refer directly to the cognitive component of the
client's statement.
Example: "So then you're thinking about switching
your major to chemistry?"

(b) Seeks further information of a factual nature from
the client.
Example: "What were your grades last term?"

179

(c) Encourage the client to continue to respond at the
cognitive level.
Example: "How did you get interested in art?"
II. Understanding--nonunderstanding dimension
The understanding--nonunderstanding dimension

indicates whether a counselor's response communicates to

the client that the counselor understands or is seeking to

 

 

understand the client's basic communication, thereby

 

encouraging the client to continue to gain insight into

the nature of his concerns.

A. Understanding responses--Understanding
responses communicate to the client that the counselor
understands the client's communication; the counselor
makes apprOpriate reference to what the client is expres-
sing or trying to express both verbally and nonverbally;
or the counselor is clearly seeking enough information of
either a cognitive or affective nature to gain such under-
standing. Such responses:

(a) Directly communicate an understanding of the client's
communication.

Exam le: "In other words, you really want to be
treated like a man."

(b) Seek further information from the client in such a
way as to facilitate both the counselor's and the
client's understanding of the basic problems.
Example: "What does being a man mean to you?"

(c) Reinforce or give approval Of client communications
which exhibit understanding.

Example: CL: "I guess then when people criticize
me, I'm afraid they'll leave me."

180

CO: "I see you're beginning to make some
connection between your behavior and
your feelings."

B. Nonunderstandingfiresponses-~Nonunderstanding

 

responses are those in which the counselor fails to under-
stand the client's basic communication or makes no attempt

to obtain appropriate information from the client. In

 

essence, nonunderstanding implies misunderstanding.
Such responses:

(a) Communicate misunderstanding of the client's basic
concern.
Example: CL: "When he said that, I just turned
red and clenched my fists."
CO: "Some people don't say nice things."

(b) Seek information which may be irrelevant to the
client's communication.
Example: CL: "I seem to have a hard time getting
along with my brothers."
CO: "Do all your brothers live at home
with you?"

(c) Squelch client understanding or move the focus to
another irrelevant area.
Example: CL: "I guess I'm really afraid that
other people will laugh at me."

CO: "We're the butt of other people's
jokes sometimes."
Example: CL: "Sometimes I really hate my aunt."

CO: "Will things be better when you go
to college?"
III. Specific--nonspecific dimension
The specific--nonspecific dimension indicates
whether the counselor's response delineates the client's
problems and is central to the client's communication or

whether the response does not specify the client's concern.

181

In essence, it describes whether the counselor deals with
the client's communication in a general, vague, or periph-
eral manner, or "zeros in" on the core of the client's
communication. NE: A response judged to be nonunder-
standing must also be nonspecific since it would, by
definition, misunderstand the client's communication and
not help the client to delineate his concerns. Responses
judged understanding might be either specific (core) or
nonspecific (peripheral) i.e., they would be peripheral
if the counselor conveys only a vague idea that a problem
exists or "flirts" with the idea rather than helping the
client delineate some of the dimensions of his concerns.

A. §pecific responses--Specific responses focus
on the core concerns being presented either explicitly

or implicitly, verbally or nonverbally, by the client.

Such responses:

(a) Delineate more closely the client's basic concerns.
Example: "This vague feeling you have when you get
in tense situations--is it anger or fear?"

(b) Encourage the client to discriminate among stimuli
affecting him.

Example: "Do you feel in all your classes
or only in some classrooms?“

 

(c) Reward the client for being specific.

Example: CL: "I guess I feel this way most often
with someone who reminds me of my
father."

CO: "So as you put what others say in
perspective, the whole world doesn't
seem so bad, it's only when someone

182

you value, like Father, doesn't pay
any attention that you feel hurt."

B. Nonspecific responses--Nonspecific responses
indicate that the counselor is not focusing on the basic
concerns of the client or is not yet able to help the
client differentiate among various stimuli. Such
responses either miss the problem area completely (such
responses are also nonunderstanding) or occur when the
counselor is seeking to understand the client's communica-
tion and has been presented with only vague bits of infor-
mation about the client's concerns. Thus such responses:
(a) Fail to delineate the client's concern and cannot

bring them into sharper focus.
Example: "It seems your problem isn't very clear-—
can you tell me more about it?"

(b) Completely miss the basic concerns being presented
by the client even though the counselor may ask for
specific details.

Example: CL: "I've gotten all A's this year and
I still feel lousy."
CO: "What were your grades before then?"

(c) Discourage the client from bringing his concerns
into sharper focus.

Example: "You and your sister argue all the time.
What do other people think of your sister?"

IV. Exploratory--Nonexploratory dimension

The exploratory--noneXploratory dimension indicates
whether a counselor's response permits or encourages the
client to explore his cognitive or affective concerns, or

whether the response limits a client's exploration of

these concerns.

183

A. Exploratory responses--Exploratory responses
encourage and permit the client latitude and involvement
in his response. They may focus on relevant aspects of
the client's affective or cognitive concerns but clearly
attempt to encourage further exploration by the client.
Such responses are often open-ended and/or are delivered
in a manner permitting the client freedom and flexibility
in response. These responses:

(a) Encourage the client to explore his own concerns.
Example: Cognitive: "You're not sure what you
want to major in, is that
it?"
Affective: "Maybe some of these times
you're getting mad at your-
self, what do you think?"

(b) Assist the client to explore by providing him with
possible alternatives designed to increase his range
of responses.

Example: Cognitive: "What are some of the other
alternatives that you have
to history as a major?"

Affective: "In these situations do you
feel angry, mad, helpless,
or what?"

(c) Reward the client for exploratory behavior.

Example: Cognitive: "It seems that you've con-
sidered a number of alterna-
tives for a major, that's
good."

Affective: "So you're beginning to wonder
if you always want to be
treated like a man."

B. Nonexploratory reSponses--NoneXploratory

 

responses either indicate no understanding of the client's
basic communication, or so structure and limit the cli-
ent's responses that they inhibit the exploratory process.

These responses give the client little opportunity to

184

explore, expand, or express himself freely. Such
responses:

Discourage further exploration on the part of

the client.

Example: Cognitive: "You want to change your
major to history."

Affective: "You really resent your
parents treating you like
a child."

V. Effective--noneffective dimension

Ratings on the effective--noneffective dimension
may be made independently of ratings on the other four
dimensions of the scale. This rating is based solely
upon the judge's professional impression of the appro-
priateness of the counselor's responses; that is, how
adequately does the counselor's response deal with the
client's verbal and nonverbal communication. This rating
is app dependent on whether the reSponse has been judged
affective--cognitive, etc.

A rating of 4 indicates that the judge considers
this response among the most appropriate possible in the
given situation while a 3 indicates that the response
is appropriate but not among the best. A rating of 2
indicates a neutral response which neither measurably
affects client progress nor inhibits it, while a rating
of 1 indicates a response which not only lacks basic
understanding of the client's concerns but which in effect

may be detrimental to the Specified goals of client growth.

185

Manual For Training Judges in Use of
Counselor Verbal Response Scale

 

 

This manual is intended to standarize procedures
for use of the IPR Counselor Verbal Response Scale in the
judging of either video or audio tapes and to provide some
guidelines in the training of judges in the use of the

scale.

I. What is a scorable reSponse?

Scorable responses include words, phrases, or
sentences used by the counselor which interrupt the flow
and momentum of client communication or which are in direct
response to a client's statement. Although such reSponses
normally occur at the conclusion of a client's communica-
tion, there are times when a counselor will deliberately
interrupt a client's statement. In either case, such
counselor statements are treated as scorable responses.

Responses which are part of a counselor's
unconscious mannerisms, and do not interrupt the flow and

momentum of client communication, e.g., "Umm,' "Hmm,"

"Yes,' and "I see" are not scored. Responses such as
"continue" and "go on" are scorable responses. In essence,

they urge and encourage the client to continue with his

186

flow of communication and reinforce the client's pattern
of communication.

There are times when counselors make two distinct
responses to a single client communication, these responses
normally being separated by a pause:

Example: CL: "It's good to get rounded,

especially if I decided to

teach which you really can't

decide until you get into

college, I guess."

CO: "Kind of hard to figure things

out, isn't it?" "Do you think

student teaching is helping you

get the feel of teaching?"
In this case, there are clearly two responses differing in
nature which must be scored separately to accurately
evaluate the counselor. There are other instances in which
there is a clear shift in the content of the counselor's
response without a distinct pause. In such cases, as in
the proceeding example, counselor statements are treated
as two separate responses and are scored individually.

N.B.: Each scorable counselor response must be rated on

each of the five dimensions of the scale.

II. How many responses are scored?

 

For purposes of accurate evaluation, twenty
consecutive counselor responses are scored from each
counseling session rated. These responses should be drawn
from the middle portions of a counseling session, avoiding
both the beginning and the terminating segments of the

interview. Judges should, however, be given an opportunity

187

to listen to a few responses prior to the start of judging
so that they may become acclimated to the voices and pace
of both client and counselor, and may gain some familiarity

with the general tone of the interview.

III. When is rating done?

 

Each response is rated at the conclusion of the
counselor's statement (word or phrase). The tape (audio
or video) should be stopped after each scorable counselor
response and scoring should be completed by all judges
prior to the playing of the next unit. As judges become
more comfortable with the use of the scale, they should
require no more than thirty seconds for the scoring of
each response.

As in all judging procedures, it is desirable
that communication among judges be minimized during the
rating session. Thus, judges should be so placed that,
while they have adequate view of the video monitor or can
clearly hear the audio tape, there is a minimum of contact

among judges.

IV. How are judges trained?

 

It is important that adequate time be given to
the training of judges. The success of any evaluation of
this sort depends upon the agreement reached by the judges
in defining the dimensions of the scale. Training must

involve actual rating of practice tapes. The number of

188

tapes used will, of course, depend on the needs of the
judges. However, the tapes used should represent a variety
of counseling interviews, i.e., experienced, inexperienced
or beginning, etc.

During training, discussion should follow the
rating of each counselor response (obviously in the later
stages of training, this is not as crucial and a group of
responses may be rated before discussion occurs) until
agreement about interpretation of the dimensions of the
scale is reached. Prior to the actual rating, judges
should go over the definitions of the five dimensions to

insure complete understanding.

V. How much time does rating require?

 

It has been found that at least one hour is
required for the rating of two audiotapes. It is clear
that more time would be involved in the rating of videotapes
due to the time required for changing tape. These time
allowances should be noted prior to establishing a rating
session.*

It has also been our experience that approximately
three hours is necessary for adequate training of judges

and discussion of the definitions of the five dimensions.

 

*Care should be taken in scheduling rating ses-
sions so that judges are not required to rate too many
tapes at any one session. If this is allowed to occur,
judges may acquire a "set" which will affect later ratings.

189

General Questions:

 

The most frequent question which occurs centers
about whether responses can be judged independently of
prior content in the interview. The intent of this scale
is to focus primarily on a single client communication
and counselor response. It is obvious, however, that many
counselor responses take into account material which has
been elicited in prior portions of the interview. Most
interviews also present a general theme within which
individual interactions occur. The judge must clearly be
aware of this larger framework in making his rating. How-
ever, the emphasis still remains on the individual response
to a client communication.

In this context, it is important to note that
ratings of responses take into account the appropriateness
of the response at a given moment in time. For instance,
while a reSponse may be specific in the early portions of
the interview, the same response coming later in the inter-
view may not only be nonspeCific, but also inappropriate
in moving the client to a further understanding of his
own concerns. To this extent, the unfolding theme and the
apprOpriate timing of responses must be considered by the

judge in making his rating.

APPENDIX B

EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES II
A SCALE FOR MEASUREMENT
by
Robert R. Carkhuff

1969

APPENDIX B

EMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING IN INTERPERSONAL PROCESSES II

A SCALE FOR MEASUREMENTl

Level 1

The verbal and behavioral expressions of the first person
either do not attend to or detract significantly from the
verbal and behavioral expressions of the second person(s)
in that they communicate significantly less of the second
person's feelings than the second person has communicated
himself.

 

 

lThe present scale "empathic understanding in
interpersonal processes" has been derived in part from
"a scale for the measurement of accurate empathy" by
C. B. Truax, which has been validated in extensive process
and outcome research on counseling and psychotherapy
(summarized in Truax and Carkhuff, 1967) and in part from
an earlier version which has been validated in extensive
process and outcome research on counseling and psycho-
therapy (summarized in Carkhuff and Berenson, 1967). In
addition, similar measures of similar constructs have
received extensive support in the literature of counseling
and therapy and education. The present scale was written
to apply to all interpersonal processes and represent a
systematic attempt to reduce the ambiguity and increase the
reliability of the scale. In the process, many important
delineations and additions have been made, including in
particular the change to a systematic focus upon the addi-
tive, subtractive or interchangeable aspects of the levels
of communication of understanding. For comparative pur-
poses, Level 1 of the present scale is approximately equal
to Stage 1 of the Truax scale. The remaining levels are
approximately correspondent: Level 2 and Stages 2 and 3
of the earlier version; Level 3 and Stages 4 and 5;
Level 4 and Stages 6 and 7; Level 5 and Stages 8 and 9.
The levels of the present scale are approximately equal to
the levels of the earlier version of this scale.

190

191

Examples: The first person communicates no
awareness of even the most obvious, expressed surface
feelings of the second person. The first person may be
bored or disinterested or simply operating from a pre-
conceived frame of reference which totally excludes that
of the other person(s).

In summary, the first person does everything but express
that he is listening, understanding or being sensitive to
even the feelings of the other person in such a way as to
detract significantly from the communications of the second
person.

Level 2

While the first person responds to the expressed feelings
of the second person(s), he does so in such a way that he
subtracts noticeable affect from the communications of the
second person.

Examples: The first person may communicate some
awareness of obvious surface feelings of the second person
but his communications drain off a level of the affect and
distort the level of meaning. The first person may com-
municate his own ideas of what may be going on but these
are not congruent with the expressions of the second person.

In summary, the first person tends to respond to other than
what the second person is expressing or indicating.

Level 3

The expressions of the first person in response to the
expressed feelings of the second person(s) are essentially
interchangeable with those of the second person in that
they express essentially the same affect and meaning.

Example: The first person responds with accurate
understanding of the surface feelings of the second person
but may not respond to or may misinterpret the deeper
feelings.

 

In summary, the first person is responding so as to neither
subtract from nor add to the expressions of the second
person; but he does not respond accurately to how that
person really feels beneath the surface feelings. Level 3
constitutes the minimal level of facilitative interpersonal
functioning.

192

Level 4

The responses of the first person add noticeably to the
expressions of the second person(s) in such a way as to
eXpress feelings a level deeper than the second person was
able to eXpress himself.

Example: The facilitator communicates his under—
standing of the expressions of the second person at a
level deeper than they were expressed, and thus enables the
second person to experience and/or to express feelings
which he was unable to express previously.

 

In summary, the facilitator's responses add deeper feeling
and meaning to the expressions of the second person.

Level 5

The first person's responses add significantly to the feel-
ing and meaning of the expressions of the second person(s)
in such a way as to: (l) accurately express feelings
levels below what the person himself was able to express,
or (2) in the event of ongoing deep self-exploration on
the second person's part, to be fully with him in his
deepest moments.

Examples: The facilitator responds with accuracy
to all of the person's deeper as well as surface feelings.
He is "together" with the second person or "tuned in" on
his wavelength. The facilitator and the other person
might proceed together to explore previously unexplored
areas of human existance.

 

APPENDIX C

WISCONSIN RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION SCALE
(WROS)
by

Joseph Steph

DIRECTIONS:

APPENDIX C

WISCONSIN RELATIONSHIP ORIENTATION SCALE

Check the item which best describes your
feelings toward the counselor.

I would attempt to avoid any kind of inter-
action or relationship with this person.

If no one else were available, I might consult
this person for specific information of a
factual, e.g., educational or vocational nature,
but I would avoid any personal exposure.

I would be willing to talk with this person
about factual, e.g., educational or vocational
concerns, and some of the personal meanings
connected with these.

I would be willing to talk with this person
about many of my personal concerns.

I have the feeling that I could probably talk
with this person about almost anything.

193

APPENDIX D

CLINICAL-ADJUSTMENT REPORT

(completed by counselor)

APPENDIX D

CLINICAL-ADJUSTMENT REPORT

Please use the next one-half hour to write a brief descrip-
tion of the youngster you have just interviewed. This
description should be based upon the conversation you and
the youngster have just completed and should include your
evaluation as to:

 

l. the youngster's area(s) of concern

2. the youngster's personal needs, strengths and
weaknesses

3. the youngster's usual modes of reaction

4. the youngster's relationship to authority,
family, and peers

5. the youngster's view of himself

After you have responded to the above areas, indicate
briefly:

l. where the person might be most likely to have
further adjustment difficulties

2. what your goals would be in working further
with this individual

194

APPENDIX E

MATERIALS USED IN THE COGNITIVE-

CLASSROOM TRAINING METHOD

APPENDIX E

MATERIALS USED IN THE COGNITIVE-

CLASSROOM TRAINING METHOD

Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes

A Scale for Measurement1

Level 1

The verbal and behavioral expressions of the first person
do not attend to or detract significantly from the verbal
and behavioral expressions of the second person(s) in that
they communicate significantly less of the second person's
feelings than the second person has communicated himself.

 

1This scale is derived in part from "A Scale for
the Measurement of Accurate Empathy," which has been vali—
dated in extensive process and outcome research on counsel—
ing and psychotherapy (summarized in Truax & Carkhuff,
1967), and in part from an earlier version that had been
validated in extensive process and outcome research on
counseling and psychotherapy (summarized in Carkhuff, 1968;
Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967). In addition, similar measures
of similar constructs have received extensive support in
the literature of counseling and therapy and education.
The present scale was written to apply to all interpersonal
processes and represents a systematic attempt to reduce
ambiguity and increase reliability. In the process many
important delineations and additions have been made, includ-
ing, in particular, the change to a systematic focus upon
the additive, subtractive, or interchangeable aspects of

195

196

Examples: The first person communicates no aware-
ness of even the most obvious, expressed surface feelings
of the second person. The first person may be bored or
uninterested or simply operating from a preconceived frame
of reference which totally excludes that of the other per—
son(s).

In summary, the first person does everything but express
that he is listening, understanding, or being sensitive to
even the feelings of the other person in such a way as to
detract significantly from the communications of the second
person.

Level 2

While the first person responds to the expressed feelings
of the second person(s), he does so in such a way that he
subtracts noticeable affect from the communications of the
second person.

Examples: The first person may communicate some
awareness of obvious surface feelings of the second person,
but his communications drain off a level of the affect and
distort the level of meaning. The first person may com-
municate his own ideas of what may be going on, but these
are not congruent with the expressions of the second person.

In summary, the first person tends to respond to other than
what the second person is expressing or indicating.

Level 3

The eXpressions of the first person in response to the
expressed feelings of the second person(s) are essentially
interchangeable with those of the second person in that
they express essentially the same affect and meaning.

Example: The first person responds with accurate
understanding of the surface feelings of the second person
but may not respond to or may misinterpret the deeper
feelings.

 

 

the levels of communication of understanding. For compara-
tive purposes, level 1 of the present scale is approximately
equal to stage 1 of the Truax scale. The remaining levels
are approximately correspondent: level 2 and stage 2 and

3 of the earlier version; level 3 and stages 4 and 5; level
4 and stages 6 and 7; level 5 and stages 8 and 9. The
levels of the present scale are approximately equal to the
levels of the earlier version of this scale.

197

In summary, the first person is responding so as to neither
subtract from nor add to the expressions of the second per-
son; but he does not respond accurately to how that person
really feels beneath the surface feelings. Level 3 consti—
tutes the minimal level of facilitative interpersonal func-
tioning.

Level 4

The responses of the first person add noticeably to the
expressions of the second person(s) in such a way as to
express feelings a level deeper than the second person was
able to express himself.

Example: The facilitator communicates his under-
standing of the expressions of the second person at a level
deeper than they were expressed and thus enables the second
person to experience and/or express feelings he was unable
to express previously.

In summary, the facilitator's responses add deeper feeling
and meaning to the expressions of the second person.

Level 5

The first person's responses add significantly to the feel—
ing and meaning of the expressions of the second person(s)
in such a way as to (l) accurately express feelings levels
below what the person himself was able to express or (2) in
the event of on going deep self-exploration on the second
person's part, to be fully with him in his deepest moments.

Examples: The facilitator responds with accuracy
to all of the person's deeper as well as surface feelings.
He is "together" with the second person or "tuned in" on
his wave length. The facilitator and the other person
might proceed together to explore previously unexplored
areas of human existence.

In summary, the facilitator is responding with a full
awareness of who the other person is and a comprehensive
and accurate emphatic understanding of his deepest feelings.

198

Facilitative Genuineness in Interpersonal Processes

A Scale for Measurement1

Level 1

The first person's verbalizations are clearly unrelated to
what he is feeling at the moment, or his only genuine
responses are negative in regard to the second person(s)
and appear to have a totally destructive effect upon the
second person.

Example: The first person may be defensive in his
interaction with the second person(s) and this defensive-
ness may be demonstrated in the content of his words or his
voice quality. Where he is defensive he does not employ
his reaction as a basis for potentially valuable inquiry
into the relationship.

In summary, there is evidence of a considerable discrepancy
between the inner experiencing of the first person(s) and
his current verbalizations. Where there is no discrepancy,
the first person's reactions are employed solely in a
destructive fashion.

 

1This scale is derived in part from "A Tentative
Scale for the Measurement of Therapist Genuineness or
Self-congruence," which has been validated in extensive
process and outcome research on counseling and psycho-
therapy (summarized in Truax & Carkhuff, 1967) and in part
from an earlier version that has been similarly validated
(summarized in Carkhuff, 1968; Carkhuff & Berenson, 1967).
In addition, similar measures of similar constructs have
received support in the literature of counseling and

199

Level 2

The first person's verbalizations are slightly unrelated to
what he is feeling at the moment, or when his responses are
genuine they are negative in regard to the second person;
the first person does not appear to know how to employ his
negative reactions constructively as a basis for inquiry
into the relationship.

Example: The first person may respond to the
second person(s) in a "professional" manner that has a
rehearsed quality or a quality concerning the way a helper
"should" respond in that situation.

In summary, the first person is usually responding accord-
ing to his prescribed role rather than expressing what he
personally feels or means. When he is genuine his
responses are negative and he is unable to employ them as
a basis for further inquiry.

Level 3

The first person provides no "negative" cues between what
he says and what he feels, but he provides no positive cues
to indicate a really genuine response to the second per-
son(s).

Example: The first person may listen and follow
the second person(s) but commits nothing more of himself.

In summary, the first person appears to make apprOpriate
reSponses that do not seem insincere but that do not
reflect any real involvement either. Level 3 constitutes
the minimal level of facilitative interpersonal functioning.

 

psychotherapy and education. The present scale was

written to apply to all interpersonal processes and
represents a systematic attempt to reduce ambiguity and
increase reliability. In the process, many important
delineations and additions have been made. For comparative
purposes, the levels of the present scale are approximately
equal to the stages of the earlier scale, although the
systematic emphasis upon the constructive employment of
negative reactions represents a pronounced divergence of
emphasis.

200

Level 4

The facilitator presents some positive cues indicating a
genuine response (whether positive or negative) in a non—
destructive manner to the second person(s).

Example: The facilitator's expressions are con-
gruent with his feelings, although he may be somewhat
hesitant about expressing them fully.

In summary, the facilitator responds with many of his own
feelings, and there is no doubt as to whether he really
means what he says. He is able to employ his responses,
whatever their emotional content, as a basis for further
inquiry into the relationship.

Level 5

The facilitator is freely and deeply himself in a non—
eXploitative relationship with the second person(s).

Example: The facilitator is completely sponta—
neous in his interaction and open to experiences of all
types, both pleasant and hurtful. In the event of hurtful
responses the facilitator's comments are employed con-
structively to open a further area of inquiry for both the
facilitator and the second person.

In summary, the facilitator is clearly being himself and
yet employing his own genuine responses constructively.

201

Personally Relevant Concreteness or Specificity
of Expressionfiin Inteppersonal Processes

 

 

A Scale for Measurement1

Robert R. Carkhuff

Level 1

The first person leads or allows all discussion with the
second person(s) to deal only with vague and anonymous
generalities.

Example: The first person and the second person
discuss everything on strictly an abstract and highly
intellectual level.

In summary, the first person makes no attempt to lead the
discussion into the realm of personally relevant specific
situations and feelings.

Level 2

The first person frequently leads or allows even discussions
of material personally relevant to the second person(s) to
be dealt with on a vague and abstract level.

Example: The first person and the second person
may discuss "real" feelings but they do so at an abstract,
intellectualized level.

 

1The present scale "Personally Relevant Concrete-
ness or specificity of EXpression" has been derived from
earlier work by C. B. Truax (summarized in Truax and
Carkhuff, 1967). Similar measures of similar constructs
have been researched only minimally. The present scale
has received support in research on training and counseling
(summarized in Carkhuff and Berenson, 1967). The system-
atic emphasis upon the personally meaningful relevance of
concrete and specific expressions represents a pronounced
divergence of emphasis.

202

In summary, the first person does not elicit discussion of
most personally relevant feelings and experiences in
specific and concrete terms.

Level 3

The first person at times enables the second person(s) to
discuss personally relevant material in specific and con-
crete terminology.

Example: The first person will help to make it
possible for the discussion with the second person(s) to
center directly around most things which are personally
important to the second person(s) although there will
continue to be areas not dealt with concretely and areas
which the second person does not develop fully in specifi-
city.

In summary, the first person sometimes guides discussions
into consideration of personally relevant specific and
concrete instances, but these are not always fully
develOped. Level 3 constitutes the minimal level of
facilitative functioning.

Level 4

The facilitator is frequently helpful in enabling the
second person(s) to fully develop in concrete and specific
terms almost all instances of concern.

Example: The facilitator is able on many occasions
to guide the discussion to specific feelings and expe-
riences of personally meaningful material.

In summary, the facilitator is very helpful in enabling the
discussion to center around specific and concrete instances
of most important and personally relevant feelings and
experiences.

Level 5

The facilitator is always helpful in guiding the discussion
so that the second person(s) may discuss fluently, directly
and completely specific feelings and experiences.

Example: The first person involves the second per-
son in discussion of specific feelings, situations and
events, regardless of their emotional content.

In summary, the facilitator facilitates a direct expression
of all personally relevant feelings and experiences in
concrete and specific terms.

203

The Communication of ReSpect in Interpersonal
Processes. II

 

A Scale for Measurement1

Robert R. Carkhuff

Level 1

The verbal and behavioral expressions of the first person
communicate a clear lack of respect (or negative regard)
for the second person(s).

Example: The first person communicates to the
second person that the second person's feelings and
experiences are not worthy of consideration or that the
second person is not capable of acting constructively.

 

1The present scale, "Respect or Positive Regard in
Inter-personal Processes," has been derived in part from
"A tentative scale for the measurement of unconditional
positive regard" by C. B. Truax which has been validated
in extensive process and outcome research on counseling
and psychotherapy (summarized in Truax and Carkhuff, 1967)
and in part from an earlier version which has been vali—
dated in extensive process and outcome research on coun-
seling and psychotherapy (summarized in Carkhuff and
Berenson, 1967). In addition, similar measures of similar
constructs have received extensive support in the litera—
ture of counseling and therapy and education. The present
scale was written to apply to all interpersonal processes
and represents a systematic attempt to reduce the ambiguity
and increase the reliability of the scale. In the process
many important delineations and additions have been made.
For comparative purposes, the levels of the present scale
are approximately equal to the stages of both the earlier
scales, although the systematic emphasis upon the positive
regard rather than upon unconditionality represents a pro-
nounced divergence of emphasis and the systematic de-
emphasis of concern for advice-giving and directionality,
both of which may or may not communicate high levels as
well as low levels of respect.

204

The first person may become the sole focus of evaluation.

In summary, in many ways the first person communicates a
total lack of respect for the feelings, experiences and
potentials of the second person.

Level 2

The first person responds to the second person in such a
way as to communicate little respect for the feelings and
experiences and potentials of the second person.

Example: The first person may respond mechanically
or passively or ignore many of the feelings of the second
person.

In summary, in many ways the first person displays a lack
of reSpect or concern for the second person's feelings,
experiences and potentials.

Level 3

The first person communicates a positive reSpect and con—
cern for the second person's feelings, experiences and
potentials.

Example: The first person communicates respect
and concern for the second person's ability to express
himself and to deal constructively with his life situation.

In summary, in many ways the first person communicates that
who the second person is and what he does matters to the
first person. Level 3 consitutes the minimal level of
facilitative interpersonal functioning.

Level 4

The facilitator clearly communicates a very deep respect
and concern for the second person.

Example: The facilitator's responses enables the
second person to feel free to be himself and to experience
being valued as an individual.

In summary, the facilitator communicates a very deep caring
for the feelings, experiences and potentials of the second
person.

205

Level 5

The facilitator communicates the very deepest respect for
the second person's worth as a person and his potentials
as a free individual.

Example: The facilitator cares very deeply for the
human potentials of the second person.

In summary, the facilitator is committed to the value of
the other person as a human being.

APPENDIX F

TYPESCRIPT OF SIMULATION FILMS

(VIGNETTES)

APPENDIX F

TYPESCRIPT OF SIMULATION FILMS

(VIGNETTES)

Descriptions of Vignettes

 

Taped introductory statements for each scene are reported
verbatim. All scenes were in black and white on 16 mm.

motion picture film, using male, female, black and white

high school age students.

General Introduction:

"In this phase of the project, you are to watch
the following scenes or vignettes. In each scene, try to
imagine that you are engaged in a personal relationship
with the youngster presented on the film. Imagine that
the person you see is talking directly and privately to
you. With each scene, try to involve yourself and to
notice what your reactions are; that is, (1) what were
your thoughts and feelings in response to the interaction
and (2) what was your body doing--were you tense, relaxed
and so on."

Scene 1
Introduction:

"In this first scene, imagine that you are meeting
with this youngster in order to explain to him the

conditions of his probation. You are trying to impress

upon him that he should pay careful attention to these
conditions and should take them quite seriously. As
you talk, you notice his expression."

Vignette:

(male-white) The boy is aware that the viewer is
watching him and is deliberately acting bored.

206

207

Scene 2

Introduction:

"You convey your disapproval of this same young-
ster's reaction and continue your exploration of the
probation terms which he is to follow. Again you are
struck by his reaction as you talk."

Vignette:

(male-white) Same boy as scene 1. He starts to
make an obscene gesture at the viewer, but is caught
before actually doing so. He denies he was doing any-
thing.

Scene 3

Introduction:

"In this next scene, imagine that you have just
reprimanded this girl for continued school truancy,
breaking of curfew rules, a generally belligerant
attitude. She responds."

Vignette:

(female-white) She looks at the viewer and in a
biting manner she says she would like to "scratch
your eyes out." The girl continues with the same
theme, ending by swearing at the viewer.

Scene 4

Introduction:

"In the following vignette, imagine that you are
speaking with another one of your girls. This young-
ster has been especially hard for you to deal with and
with her attitude, she has been a constant source of
irritation to you. You voice your concern, scolding
her and telling her that she has been a "problem" to
you. She responds."

Vignette:

(female-black) The girl leans back and says
"what's the matter, do I bug you?" Later she says
"Yes, I bug you--I'm going to keep right on bugging
you--I'm just going to sit right on back and bug you-—
I'm going to bug you."

Scene 5
Introduction:

"In this scene, you are speaking again with the
same youngster, explaining to her quite frankly that

208

you are puzzled by her behavior. You express concern
that she seems to enjoy annoying you and not coopera-
ting with you. She responds."

Vignette:

(female-black) In a hostile voice she states, "I
hate you because of the things you're thinking about
me. You don't say them, but I know you're thinking
them."

Scene 6

Introduction:

"In this scene, imagine that you have called in one
of your boys, telling him that you are worried about
him and that you want to help him. He responds."

Vignette:

(male-black) The boy tells you--"Quit trying to
help me--can't you see I don't want your help—-if I
wanted your help, I'd ask you for it."

Scene 7

Introduction:

"Next, imagine that you have been meeting regularly
with this youngster. You have tried to counsel her and
have felt that you are 'getting through to her.‘ In a
current session, you pause and she responds."

Vignette:

(female-black) The girl sits silently for several
seconds, finally she shrugs disinterestedly and says
all the talking is not doing any good. She says
"You've been doing all the talking--what do you want
me to do?--Cry?--Moan?-—What you say is not going to
make me like you any more or dislike you any less; as
far as I'm concerned, you don't even exist."

Scene 8

Introduction:

"In the following scene, imagine that you are meet-
ing for the first time with this boy. In reviewing
with him the reasons for his 'petition,‘ you tell him
that you 'know what he has done.‘ He responds."

Vignette:

(male-black) The boy says "You're crazy. I don't
know what you're talking about--I don't care what you
think, you're wrong--it's just not true, where'd you
get that--you're crazy."

209

Scene 9

Introduction:

"Later on, you are visiting with this same boy in
his temporary placement setting. You approach him,
asking how he has been getting along. He responds."

Vignette:

(male-black) In a loud voice, the boy shouts
"Leave me alone and get off my back. I don't care
for you; I don't care for anyone."

Scene 10

Introduction:

"In the next scene, imagine that you have been
working regularly with this girl. In this particular
meeting, you express your concern over her recent mis-
conduct and you ask her what will happen next. She
responds."

Vignette:

(female-black) "I've done what I've thought you'd
want me to do--I've tried to change--I don't see what's
the matter--what am I going to do--I can't seem to make
you like me—-I don't know what to do."

Scene 11

Introduction:

"You continue to try to work with this girl.
Despite your efforts, she does not improve. You voice
your concern about your relationship with her. She
responds."

Vignette:

(female-black) "I can't figure it out. I have
to do so much just to make you like me even a little.
I don't know what to do."

Scene 12

Introduction:

"You respond again to this same girl, saying that
you are trying to help her, but that you are at a loss
as to what to do. She responds again."

Vignette:

(female-black) "Maybe I've done something wrong.
I'm not so bad after all you see, I want to be your
friend. Hold out your hand to me--I need you, don't
make me feel left out."

210

Scene 13

Introduction:
"In the next scene, imagine that you are expressing

concern about this youngster's 'strange' behavior. He
responds."

Vignette:
(male-white) "I'm different because I want to be
different. I don't want to be like anyone else."

Scene 14

Introduction:
"You are puzzled by this response and you look at

the boy in silence. He responds again."

Vignette:
(male-white) "You think I'm crazy--well, I'm

not--I'm not."
Scene 15

Introduction:
"You ask the same client why he is so upset or

what you have done to bring on such a feeling. He
answers."

Vignette:

(male-white) "You've hurt me--you don't realize
how I feel--you don't know how much you've hurt me
or what it's like to feel this way."

Scene 16

Introduction:
"In the following scene, you are unable to talk

with this girl, who remains silent and uncommunicative.
You ask her why she is so quiet. She responds."

Vignette:
(female-black) "Well--you act superior to me. It

really bothers me."

Scene 17

Introduction:
"In this next scene, imagine that you are in a

meeting with a youngster. As you speak, he interrupts

211

with an irrelevant comment, you tell him so. You pro-
ceed with your original comment. He responds."

Vignette:
(male-white) The boy has his head down and is
sobbing. After several seconds, he raises his head

and says "It's all your fault--I didn't do anything--
it's all your fault."

.u 2!! I.' I‘ll (I! (:11! .El' l |'|Iulll rt

APPENDIX G

DESCRIPTION OF ROLE AND TRAINING

FOR INTERROGATION

APPENDIX G

DESCRIPTION OF ROLE AND TRAINING

FOR INTERROGATION

Kagan pp El: (1967) proposed that the use of video-
tape feedback in examining counselor-client relationships
requires the involvement of a third person, a clinical
interrogator. This person conducts the counselor or client
recall sessions in the IPR process. Because the present
study focuses on caseworker training, the discussion of
clinical interrogation will emphasize interrogation during
trainer (counselor) recall. Discussion of interrogator
role in client recall may be found in Kagan pp 31. (1967).
However, it should be noted that the role of the inter-

rogator is similar in both client and counselor recall.

Role

 

The function of the clinical interrogator in
counselor education programs is to help the counselor (in
counselor recall: (I) explore the way he relates to
others, specifically his client, and (2) explore the impact

that his personal feelings have on his interview behavior.

212

213

The gig 0f such discussion is to teach the trainee to even-
tually "interrogate" himself or conduct a "self-analysis"
on his relationships with clients and on the influence of
his own feelings in those relationships. The method for
facilitating self-analysis is the "self-confrontation"
provided by the videotape.

The recall worker (interrogator) focuses on the
original counselor client interaction as it is played
back on videotape, helping the counselor relive and examine
the experience. Although clinical skill is required of
the interrogator to help the counselor explore the feelings
that underlie his behavior, the interrogator does not
establish a personal relationship withthe counselor
trainee. Instead, the recall worker actively "pushes" or
"probes" the counselor to consider the original relation-
ship with his client and he focuses the counselor on
specific behaviors viewed on the videotape playback. The
interrogator is concerned with the dynamics of the couné
selor trainee but only insofar as they influence counselor
behavior in the videotaped interaction.

Thus, the interrogator avoids: (l) establishing
a close interpersonal relationship with the trainee and
(2) exploring dynamics of the trainee's "life-in-general."
By focusing on the original interaction and probing in
the study of that interaction, the trainee gains insights
which he can then apply Specifically in future contact

with his client.

214

By noticing client behaviors as well as his own,
a counselor trainee can become more sensitive to client
dynamics, to his own (counselor) feelings, and to the
"reciprocal" nature of the interaction. Thus, the inter-
rogator asks the trainee to focus on: (1) the origin and
development of client feelings and thoughts at given points

of the session, (2) the origin and develOpment of counselor

 

feelings and thoughts in the session, (3) the way the
counselor (or client) sees himself in the interaction,
(4) the way the counselor (client) would like the client
(counselor) to see him, and (5) the way the counselor
(client) believes the client (counselor) dpgs see him in

the interaction.

TrainingfInterrogators

 

Prospective interrogators are usually selected
from competent clinicians and are offered special experi-

ences. These training experiences are delineated below:

1. The rationale, function, and technique are
explained to the recall worker.
2. Various videotaped sessions are played for

the interrogator trainee.

In viewing the tapes,a recall trainee is asked to
identify appropriate places to stOp the tape and explore

with the client (or counselor in counselor recall). He is

215

asked to explain his reason for inquiry at that point and
to suggest what he would discuss with the client or coun-
selor.

Specific cues have been found to be helpful in
recognizing verbal and nonverbal communication appropriate
for recall exploration. These cues include: sudden
shifts in theme; changes in posture or in voice pace, tone,
and level; use of vocabulary suggesting intense emotion;
changes in visual focus; points where either party (coun-
selor or client) seemed to have misunderstood the other;
inappropriate affect such as a laugh after a serious
remark; possible metaphoric communication (i.e., "My
counselor at school gets me angry").

After considering cues and thinking about possible
places for recall discussion, the interrogator-trainee
views and critiques a videotape demonstrating interrogation
sessions. He is then videotaped in a counseling session
of his own and is himself interrogated by a recall worker.

After a second counseling session, the interroga-
tor observes a recall session with his client. Finally,
he is paired with another trainee and he conducts recall
sessions on the other trainee's counseling interviews.
These interrogation sessions are discussed with one of the
IPR staff with appropriate suggestions being made to

trainees.

APPENDIX H

RATIONALE AND TRAINING FOR

COACHED CLIENTS

APPENDIX H

RATIONALE AND TRAINING FOR

COACHED CLIENTS

Rationale

 

Since practical and ethical considerations did not
permit the use of actual court-caseload clients p£_the use
of the same client for each caseworker and each given case-
worker's training interviews, several coached clients were
obtained for the various training sessions (see Chapter III,
page 77). These clients were believed to simulate cli—
ent behavior typical of caseworker on—the-job interviews
and to provide somewhat standarized experiences for the
trainees (Whiteley & Jakubowski, 1969).

It was believed that the coached clients should be
consistent in their individual presentations and that they
should each present somewhat similar concerns to the case-
workers. However, it was decided that arbitrary "scripts"
or pre-set statements would not be equally comfortable or
realistic for all clients to portray. Therefore, within
a general framework of concern (see below), each coached
client had the flexibility to develOp and practice a role

he felt comfortable and competent in presenting.

216

217

Training

gigs}, coached clients were introduced to the pur-
pose of the study. Clients met as a group and were told
that their function was to: (1) help trainees learn to
understand and respond to client thoughts and feelings
and (2) help trainees see how to aid clients in understand-
ing how feelings influence client behavior. Clients were
instructed to explore thoughts and feelings in pre-deter-
mined ways, if the counselor encouraged them to do so.
Finally, clients were told that caseworkers did not have
much previous information about them (other than court
offense) but had just been assigned to them and told to
help the client begin to explore his situation and deal
with his concerns.

Second, a discussion was held as to the ways
coached clients were expected to respond. A number of
concerns relevant to the court setting and clientele were
related to the coached clients. Such concerns dealt with:
(1) home and family concerns, (2) school problems, and
(3) concerns regarding peer relationships.

Kinds of behavior commonly related to these con-
cerns that often brought youngsters into the court were
also explained. These behaviors included: (1) runaways
from home, (2) truancy from school, and (3) group behavior
such as gang fighting, group truancy, or group elicited

illegal behavior such as "breaking and entering."

218

Clients were told that trainees were being espe-
cially encouraged to deal with client feelings as well as

thoughts on the general concerns. These emotions included:

1. Conflicted feelings or confusion, ranging from
mild (e.g., "I'm not sure how I feel about my
step-father"; "I think I want to go home"; "I
believe I want to change"). to uncertainty with
stronger anxiety correlates (e.g., "I'm afraid
to go home"; "I don't understand why I do these

things and it worries me").

2. Negative affect ranging from mild (e.g., "I don't
like school"; "I don't really care for my mother"),
to strong (e.g., "I hate my mother"; "I'll £3395
go back and talk to that teacher"; "No one knows

how bad I feel").

Clients were encouraged to include the particular
emotions of hurt, rejection, anger, and resentment in the
various intensities.

Epipg, coached clients began to practice various
roles. Clients practiced individually with the experi-
menter while the group watched. The client practiced ,
working affect into the general concerns. After the pair
(experimenter and client) was finished (five to ten
minutes), all clients joined them in a discussion of how

realistic the role play seemed and how the client might

219

improve his presentation. The pair then continued the
role play for a few minutes, trying to apply suggestions
and ideas from the discussion. Practice was continued
until each client had role played as client and been
aided in discussion of his presentation.

Fourth, the group raised remaining questions, and
suggestions were made for continued practice of clients

for training interviews.

APPENDIX I

DATA TRANSFORM

APPENDIX I

DATA TRANSFORM

Index of response scores were transformed (z trans-
form) to standardize the data. This procedure involved
dividing each score on a measure by the pooled (across
groups and times) standard deviation for that measure.

The mean standardized index of response scores, the non-
transformed index of response scores, the raw means and
standard deviations for each group and time, and the raw
scores for individual subjects across time are presented

in Tables 1.1, I-2' 1-3, and 1-4.

Table I-l

Mean Standardized Index of Response Scores

 

Group 1 Group 2

 

Mid-kPre Post-kPre Mid-kPre Post-kPre

 

f i 3(— i
CVRA .334 .571 .827 .637
CVRU .334 .436 .536 .376
CVRS .498 .515 .549 .254
CVRE .412 .513 .569 .224
TCEU .715 1.160 .784 .678
WROS 3.880 3.309 2.434 3.005

 

220

2121

 

mnv. mom.H mmm. mom.~ Adv. oom.a new. omv.a own. vo~.H nmm. ~mm.~ owe. mmm.H
mam. mom. can. mom. mmm. mmw. ohm. wHN. Ham. omN. Hmm. onm. mom. mNN.

Hmm.m nam.a mom.m wmv.H mmv.v mmo.~ hmo.N 0mm. mmm.m hv~.N mao.v mmo.m vam.v m~o.~
va.m mmm.a 5mm.m. mvm.a mmo.w mNm.H omm.~ mmm. mma.m mam.a mom.m oom.a vmh.v ov~.H

005.0 wn¢.H oom.v hom.H mmh.v mvo.~ mmo.v vwh.a Anh.m omm.~ vom.v mvo.~ onw.m aom.a

mwo.m MN~.H mmH.N hv~.4 hwo.a m¢~.H HmH.N man.a omH.~ mo~.a mma.m mwa.a mNh.H mmo.

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

 

 

 

 

 

oumx-o«z ouaxnoflz mumx-umom mumx-oflz ouax'umom wuaxncfi:

 

 

made + msouu
mmouo< pmaoom mdcouu mm0u0< pwaoom N QSOuo H dsouu

mom:

DmUB

mm>U

mm>U

Dm>U

 

Equmcmue ouOumm mwuoom musedmwm uo xmch com:

NIH manna

222

will be reduced on final copy

222

 

 

 

 

mv. n~.v Hm. m~.v as. mH.v nv. h~.v no. oo.v Hm. on.v oe. ma.v mm. mv.v mm. oo.v mom:
an. m~.~ aw. mH.H ed. mo.a om. ea.a on. ha.a no. oo.~ me. mm.a mN. mH.H ON. HH.~ Dmoe
Hm.n me.~ mo.v o~.m mm.H mm.~ ma.~ mm.a Hm.n v~.m em. mo.H mq.v ¢v.m mm.v mo.m mo.~ oo.a mm>u
mm.~ Nm.~ hw.m ow.~ sm.a oo.H om.a mm.H m~.m mm.~ on. mm. en.m hm.~ a~.v on.~ om.H >~.H mm>u
em.v nm.m o~.v He.m vo.~ mh.a mo.v mo.m ~m.m mn.m mm. mm.~ ma.m ~H.¢ mm.v em.m ~5.~ mH.~ Dm>u
mm.~ cm.H mo.~ mm.a mm. as. mo.~ mm.a mm.~ h~.N vb. Ho. vh.~ va.a mo.a mv.a wa.~ Nm. <¢>U
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m. m
umom 3x 9.5 Owen 3: 3m umom 3: 98
Hamuw>o N aaouu H msouu

 

mmea umom can .0“: .oum um mousmmmz xwm co masouu
pocwnsou pan .N msouu .H asouo on» you mc0wu0w>wo pumpcouw can mammz mo wanna

MIH OHQGE

2123

 

 

 

 

oo.v oo.H oo.o oo.o oo.o mm. oo.v mo.H no.o em.o nm.~ mn.H oo.m oo.a oo.c oo.o oo.a nm.o Nm
oo.v oo.H oo.o oo.o oo.o km.o oo.v oa.a SG.H mm.~ mm.n oo.H oo.v ~H.H so.~ oo.~ mm.~ mm.a Hm
oo.v mo.~ no.a SG.H mn.n no.a co.m mo.a mm.n oo.~ so.m SG.H co.m oo.~ oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o cm
oo.v oo.H oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.m ~v.~ ~o.~ ee.~ mm.v oo.o oo.m mo.a nm.a SG.H oo.~ oo.o ma
oo.q NH.H mm.a mo.a Sm.~ oo.~ oo.v -.H mm.n em.~ ew.m mm.~ oo.v -.H mn.a eo.a oo.~ so.a ma
oo.m oo.~ oo.c oo.o oo.o cc.c cc.m oo.a so.m em.~ so.m mm.~ oo.m mo.H oo.~ oo.H km.~ km.o SH
oo.m wo.H bu.~ mm.a no.a oo.a oc.c oo.~ oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.m mo.~ mm.H em.o mm.a so.o ma
oo.v mm.a mm.» no.m oo.eH oo.n oo.v oo.~ nm.m Se.~ no.m mm.~ oo.e oo.a oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o ma
oo.v mo.H oo.~ oo.~ mm.m SG.H oo.m oo.H oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.c oo.m ~o.a em.a oo.a mm.H oo.o «a
oo.v S~.H Sw.n oo.n no.v mn.v oo.q oo.~ on.v~ oo.- om.vH mm.n oo.m mo.a eo.a mm.a oo.~ oo.~ ma
oo.m oo.d oo.N oo.N no.n oo.N oo.v no.H no.N oo.N bo.m hm.o ow.m oo.H oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o NH

N msouo
oo.v oo.a oo.o oo.o oo.o co.o co.v oo.a oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.v oo.H oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o AH
oo.v mo.H eo.m em.~ mm.¢ so.a oo.m oo.H oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.m mo.a So.o km.o Sw.o oo.H oH
oo.c mo.H no.o oo.H oo.~ oo.H oo.m oe.H om.~a oo.~a oe.q~ mm.~ oo.v oo.H mm.a mm.o em.a oo.o mo
oo.q mo.H km.a oo.~ mm.~ oo.o oo.v mo.~ mm.m SG.~ no.m mm.H oo.v oo.a oo.o oo.o mm.o oo.o mo
oo.v om.a oe.HH nm.a oo.ma oo.o oo.v -.H o~.oa oo.o~ oo.HH mm.m oo.v oo.~ oo.o oo.o oo.o mm.o ho
oo.m oo.H oo.o oo.o oo.o co.o oo.m no.H No.0 km.c mm.~ oo.H oo.v SH.H oo.m mm.~ oo.e mm.~ mo
oo.v -.H so.H oo.~ oo.~ pm.a oo.m no.H oe.o ew.o oo.H oo.H oo.m oo.a mm.o oo.o mm.c oo.o mo
oo.v oo.a oo.o oo.a co.o oo.o co.v mo.a oo.o oo.c oo.H mm.o oo.m mo.H mm.~ mn.~ oo.m so.o so
oo.v ~v.~ so.n nm.m mm.v oo.~ oo.v oo.H oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.v ~o.~ mm.a oo.~ mm.~ eo.o no
oc.m mv.~ om.~H oo.aa oo.ma mm.m oo.m mo.~ mm.m mm.m ew.m om.m oo.v mo.a oo.h oo.w mm.m oo.v No
oo.v mm.H oo.m mm.a mm.~ em.o oo.v ~v.a oo.m em.~ hw.m mm.H oo.m -.H so.a mm.~ mm.~ oo.a #0

H NDOHU
mom: :mue mm>o mm>o am>o <m>o mom: smoe mm>u mm>o am>o <m>u mom: amps mm>o mm>o sm>u <m>o n

uom.nsm

umom ON: ONE

 

Aumom .oflz .oumc mafia 20mm

um musmmmz 20mm co uomnnsm comm u0u

vIH canon.

mQHOUm UCM mcmwz 3Mm

APPENDIX J

CALCULATION OF APPROPRIATE DEGREES OF

FREEDOM FOR REPEATED MEASURES

DESIGNS

APPENDIX J

CALCULATION OF APPROPRIATE DEGREES OF
FREEDOM FOR REPEATED MEASURES

DESIGNS

A paper by Greenhouse and Geisser (1959) reported
a method for computing appropriate degrees of freedom in
a repeated measures analysis. This method is used when
results of a test of significance (F-test analysis of
variance) are significant using "liberal" (unreduced)
degrees of freedom and nonsignificant when using the con-
servative (reduced) degrees of freedom.

Liberal and conservative degrees of freedom for
the ANOVA on six measures (Table 4.1, Chapter IV) are as
follows on page 225.

As is noted in the table, results cannot be
interpreted clearly because they vary depending upon the
d.f. being used. When a discrepancy of this sort occurs
with the design, the Greenhouse and Geisser (1959) method
is used to estimate the "approximate" d.f. for the F-test.

The reduction of the d.f. for this test is a function of

224

225

 

 

 

. Conservative
Source* Ligegal Decision (Reduced by Decision
' ' l/(M-l)

GrOUps l N.S. l N.S.
S(G) 20 20
Times 1 N.S. 1
GT 1 N.S. 1 N.S.
ST(G) 20 20
Measures 5 * 1 *
GM 5 * 1 N.S.
SM(G) 100 20
MT 5 N.S. l N.S.
GMT 5 * l N.S.
SMT(G) 100 20

*Group = 2; Times = 2; S = 22; Measure = m = 6.

the elements of the population variance-covariance matrix
(estimated from the sample variances and covariances)

according to the formula and procedures below:

 

 

l 2 ... p (number
measures)
1 O-——y-O ...—+0 #6 mean of the
t.
\\\\* t-th row

2 O O ... O
p O O ... O

i _

at. mean of the Ott mean of the

t-th column diagonal terms

0,, grand mean

where:

226

 

2 — — 2
p (Ott - 0")
2 —2 2—2
(p-l)(££Ots - 2pZOt. + p 0..)

the number of tests
mean of the diagonal terms
grand mean

square each element and sum over all such
squared elements

square each row mean and sum over all such
such squared row means

square the grand mean.

p2(3tt - 3|!)2

 

2 —2 2—2
(p-1)(Z£ots ZpZot' + p G.,)
36(.l40)

 

_ 14.460 _

(5)(22.524’- 12:2.812 + 36° .392)

 

5.040 _ .348

 

 

 

This factor (E) is then multiplied by the liberal

d.f. to obtain exact d.f. for testing the observed F

value (Table 4.1, Chapter IV).

227

mu

 

 

vmm.- u New“

ENG. u ..m. mmm.- u ONE“ mvo. Nee. ems. «me. ems. woe. o.m
ooo.a u mmwmm mmm. km¢.¢ mmm.v vmm.e mmm.v em~.¢ o.ow
mvo. mmm. ooo.a SSH.- mma.u mvH.- mma.- mma.- moms

NSF. kmv.v SSH.- ooo.a mom. «om. mam. Gem. Duos

«me. omm.¢ mmH.- mom. ooo.a mmm. Rom. Hmm. mm>u

vmk. smm.v mva.- «om. mam. ooo.a mmm. mam. mm>o

emu. mmm.s mma.n mam. 5mm. mmm. oo.H mmm. om>u

mop. vm~.¢ mma.- Gem. Hmm. Nam. mmm. ooo.a «m>O

.wm .uow mom: amue mm>o mm>o sm>o ¢m>o ouo

 

 

APPENDIX K

SCALES TO EVALUATE CLIENT-ADJUSTMENT

REPORTS

APPENDIX K

SCALES TO EVALUATE CLIENT-ADJUSTMENT

REPORTS

Client adjustment reports were completed by each
caseworker following the criterion interviews. These
reports (see Appendix D) were similar to material re-
quired for submission to juvenile judges prior to court
hearings. Two juvenile court judges read and evaluated
the reports according to procedures described below.

The judges evaluated the reports by: (1) an
absolute scale measuring degree of usefulness of the
report in evaluating the youngster's situation and making
disposition on the case, and (2) a comparison of reports
(via Q-sort) in terms of the extent to which it helped
the judge to "know" or "understand" the child. Since
randomization of gs to treatment groups was assumed to
control for initial differences and since no reliability
estimate was available for forming an index of response,
reports were evaluated at the Mid and Post time periods

only.

228

229

Reports were randomly presented to the judges

(Mid and Post times mixed) for evaluation by means of the
absolute scale. The Q-sort evaluation involved separate
sorting of Mid and Post reports to judge relative help-
fulness of material when compared to other reports within
that time period. The Q—sort method was used to avoid
the potential problem of obtaining little variability on
the absolute scale, i.e., to force discrimination among

reports.

230

The following reports were written by court caseworkers
about the youngsters they have interviewed. Please read
each report and indicate its degree of usefulness to you
in evaluating the youngster's situation and in making
disposition on the case. Check only ppg level of useful-
ness according to the scale below.

Neither useful nor informative. Would be of no
assistance to your decision making.

 

Slightlypuseful and informative. Would be of
some assistance to your deCIsion making.

 

Moderately useful and informative. Would be of
moderate assistance to your decision making.

 

Very useful and informative. Would be of con-
siderable assistance to your decision making.

 

Extremely useful and informative. Would be of
great assistance to your decision making.

 

231

Here are two sets of reports (in two folders, A and B).
For each set, again judge the reports. This time, please
sort the reports by comparing the reports within a set.
Evaluate the report in terms of the extent to which it
helps you to "know" or "understand" the child.

 

 

In sorting the reports, the following procedure should be

followed:
1. Arrange the empty folders in order l-S, starting with
folder 1 on your left.
2. Read the reports in set A and sort as follows:
a. Find the 1 best report, i.e., the report that
helps you "know" the child the most and put it in
folder 5
b. Find the 1 report that helps you "know" the child
the least and put it in folder 1
c. Find 4 reports that seem pretty good and put them
in folder 4
d. Find 4 reports that seem pretty bad and put them
in folder 2
e. Put the 7 reports that are medium in helpfulness
in folder 3
3. Check folders to see that the reports were sorted so
that:
Folder 5 has 1 report in it
Folder 4 has 4 reports in it
Folder 3 has 7 reports in it
Folder 2 has 4 reports in it
Folder 1 has 1 report in it
4. Leave reports in the folders as you have sorted them.
5. Follow the same procedure for reports marked set B.

When you have finished, you should have 2 piles of
reports, each one containing 5 folders.

"I7'1111111'11111111I