Client ratings of counselors seldom have been investigated as a source of criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of counseling. This research was designed to produce a brief but reliable and valid scale for client use. A 68‐item Counseling Evaluation Inventory was developed and studied for item social favorability and was factor analyzed. Three factor scales were identified, refined by item analysis and, for each of 21 critical items retained, scoring weights for all responses were determined. All three factor scales and the Inventory total score demonstrated significant test‐retest stability, and discriminative and/or congruent validity for a selected provisional criterion.
This study describes naturalistic observation of the frequency with which counseling trainees frsed specifically trained counseling responses across time. Frequency measures were based on the first 30 minutes of audiotaped interviews with clients, taken at the end of prepracticum, during practicum, and at least 3 months after training. Seven response categories were identified as trained in prepracticum: goal setting, confrontation, reflection/restatement, interpretation/summary, structuring, probe, and minimal verbal. Two more categories arose from the data: self-disclosure and information giving. A 10th category, "other," served for otherwise unclassifiable responses. Responses were classified by three trained raters working independently. The data indicate that males make more responses overall than do females. All responses do occur in the trainees' repertoire to some degree, but confrontation and goal setting are used with decreasing frequency, and probes increase across trials. Effects of supervisory expectations, as well as the tendency to internal consistency for a single individual across trials, are noted. Training of specific skills is affirmed.
This study sought to investigate how empathy ratings made by raters trained to use the Empathic Understanding in Interpersonal Processes (EU) Scale were affected by the conditions under which the ratings were made. The three factors studied were the training condition, the context of the counselor statement rated, and the mode of presentation of the stimuli to the raters. The results of the study indicated that training condition was the only significant factor. The significance of this factor was discussed in terms of the possible danger in comparing studies that used different training procedures. The nonsignificance of the context and mode factors was discussed in terms of the construct validity of the EU scale. It was argued that empathy ratings should logically be sensitive to the rater's knowledge of to whom and to what the counselor is responding. Because this was not the case in this study, the construct validity of the scale was held in question.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.