COUNSELOR EFFECTIVENESS AND THE EVALUATION PROCESS: A COMPARISON OF TWO GROUPS OF COUNSELOR TRAINEES

Abstract

Self-evaluation skills development among counselor trainees in counselor training programs has become an issue of importance in relation to counselor effectiveness. This study explored how the utilization of a structured self-evaluation procedure for the development of self-evaluation skills influenced counselor effectiveness. The study also attempted to determine the extent of agreement between counselor trainees' ratings and practicum supervisors' ratings of counselor effectiveness. The subjects were 30 graduate students who completed fifteen units of their graduate work and were enrolled in counseling practica at The University of Arizona. Seven faculty members were utilized as practicum supervisors to ensure usable data from thirty students. Response scores were obtained for each subject in the experimental group on the Interview Analysis Worksheet, a technique used to facilitate the development of self-evaluation skills. Response scores were obtained for each student subject on the Self-Evaluation Questionnaire, an instrument used to assess the level of skill development in the experimental group and the quality of the self-evaluations of all student subjects; and the Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale, a questionnaire consisting of 27 items on which to rate a trainee's performance during both counseling and supervision. This scale was also used by practicum supervisors as an instrument on which they rated their supervisees during the semester. Data were analyzed by means of t-tests and analysis of variance. The null hypotheses were tested at the .05 level. For the hypotheses tested, six results were obtained. First, utilization of a structured self-evaluation procedure had no effect on the trainees' development and use of self-evaluation skills. Second, trainees' level of self-evaluation skills had no significant influence on their self-ratings of effectiveness. Also the structured self-evaluation procedure was not significantly related to how the trainees rated themselves as counselors. Third, there was no difference in the counselor effectiveness of structured self-evaluating and non-structured self-evaluating trainees. The structured self-evaluation procedure did not significantly enhance the structured self-evaluating trainees' effectiveness as counselors. Fourth, of the ratings of supervisors and trainees of counselor effectiveness, the structured self-evaluating counselor trainees differed from supervisors on the second and third administration. Combined trainee ratings of counselor effectiveness were significantly different from supervisors' ratings for the first administration period. The remaining ratings did not show any significant differences. As these results were just significant at the .05 level, it was concluded that trainees and supervisors agree in their ratings of counselor effectiveness after the initial rating period. Fifth, there were no differences in trainees' ratings of their self-evaluation skills over any of the three administration periods. Finally, trainees tend to differ from supervisors in their ratings of counselor effectiveness when compared over time. The results of this study do not indicate that the concept of a structured self-evaluation procedure, as yet, is an important variable in counselor training. With improvement in instrument construction and methods for implementing skills training, it might be possible for a structured procedure to develop self-evaluation skills, and to make a contribution to the development of facilitative conditions in counselor training programs for the enhancement of a trainee's counselor effectiveness.