Few instruments have been designed specifically to address the needs of college counseling centers. This article reviews existing instruments and presents 4 studies that describe the development and psychometric properties of a new instrument, the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms-62 (CCAPS-62). Study 1 describes the initial item development, factor analysis, and preliminary scale development steps. Study 2 describes the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using data from more than 22,000 clients pooled via a national practice-research network of counseling centers. Studies 3 and 4 provide preliminary evidence of subscales' convergent validity and retest reliability. Results from these 4 studies provide support for the instrument's factor structure, construct validity, and subscale reliabilities for both the total sample and subgroups. Clinical and methodological issues pertaining to the future development of the CCAPS are discussed in the context of a national practice-research network of college counseling centers.

A short version of the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms–62 (CCAPS-62) was created via three studies. The final short version (CCAPS-34), which contains 34 items and 7 subscales, demonstrated good discrimination power, support for the proposed factor structure, strong initial convergent validity, and adequate test–retest stability over 1-week and 2-week intervals.

Self-report instruments of psychological symptoms are increasingly used in counseling centers but rely on rigorous evaluation of their clinical validity. Three studies reported here (total N = 26,886) investigated the validity of the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms-62 (CCAPS-62; Locke et al., 2011) as an assessment and screening instrument. In Study 1, initial evidence regarding the concurrent validity of the CCAPS-62 was replicated and extended in a naturalistic clinical sample of clients from 16 counseling centers. Using this sample, convergent validity of the subscales was examined in counseling center clients, the range of sensitivity of the subscales was investigated using item-response theory, and the presence of 2nd-order factors was preliminarily examined. In Study 2, 7 of the 8 CCAPS-62 subscales statistically significantly differentiated between students in counseling and those who were not, using data collected from a large national survey, although most differences were small and the groups' distributions overlapped considerably. Cut scores based on the differences between these clinical and nonclinical populations showed limited utility due to overall similarities between these broadly defined groups. In Study 3, therapist-rated diagnoses collected from 5 university counseling centers were used to further examine the validity of subscale scores. In addition, cut points for diagnostic screening using receiver operating characteristic curves were evaluated. Overall, these studies support the use of the CCAPS-62 as an initial measure of psychological symptoms in college counseling settings, provide additional information about its psychometric performance, develop cut scores, and illustrate the potential for collaboration between practitioners and researchers on a large scale.

The purposes of this study were to (a) investigate whether psychotherapists differ in their effectiveness with clients, (b) determine whether disparities exist within therapists' caseloads in their outcomes with White and racial and ethnic minority (REM) clients, (c) explore therapist factors that might contribute to observed therapist effects, and (d) identify whether treatment outcomes varied for REM and White clients. A sample of 3,825 clients seen by 251 therapists at 45 college counseling centers completed the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms at the beginning and end of individual psychotherapy. Therapists differed in their effectiveness at reducing general distress across clients, and evidence was found for disparities within therapists' caseloads in their effectiveness with REM and White clients. Effect sizes were small. Disparities within therapists' caseloads were not a function of any therapist variable that was studied. Therapy outcomes were similar for White and REM clients. Therapist multicultural competence can, and should, be considered in terms of measurable outcomes across client racial/ethnic groups. It is possible to identify multiculturally expert therapists who evidence competence with both REM and White clients and who might serve as models from whom the field could learn.

Large-scale collaborations between researchers and practitioners are possible, and some recommendations can be made based on the experience of CCMH.