A Method of Self‐Evaluation for Counselor Education Utilizing the Measurement of Facilitative Condition

Abstract

A pretest-posttest control group design was used to test the value of employing four psychotherapeutic interaction scales for selfevaluation. The counselor-offered conditions of empathy, nonpossessive warmth, genuineness, and intensity of interpersonal contact were self-evaluated by 44 counselors following their counseling interviews. These evaluations were compared with supervisors' evaluations of the tape recorded sessions. Findings showed that (a) the gain in offered therapeutic conditions was significant on all scales for the experimental group but on only two scales for the control group; (b) the amount of gain for the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group on only one scale ( Empathy) ; ( c ) counselor / supervisor evaluations showed highly Significant concurrent validity; and (d) basic counselor personality orientations such as self-concept strength and defensiveness generally showed no correlation with accuracy of self-evaluation on the scales.

Research on Training Counselors and Clinicians

“…Acceptable reliability levels were only rarely reported for supervisor ratings (Kingdon, 1975), peer ratings (Martin & Carkhuff, 1968), and self-ratings (Bailey et al, 1977;Carter & Pappas, 1975;Perlman, 1972). Supervisor, peer, and self-ratings have been found to covary significantly, or to yield parallel pre-and postchange patterns in many instances (Berenson et al, 1966;Bishop, 1971;Borman & Ramirez, 1975;Dilley, 1964;Friesen & Dunning, 1973;Martin & Gazda, 1970), especially after extensive training programs (Burck, Jacobs, Saubra, Stone, & Thomson, 1973).…”

“…Supervisors, peers, clients, or the trainee himself/herself may provide performance feedback. Peer and self-evaluations have been found to be 15% to 20% higher than supervisor ratings, although the gap narrows with more advanced trainees and the ratings do correlate significantly (Friesen & Dunning, 1973;Martin & Gazda, 1970). Assuming that supervisory feedback is accurate-and this has not been empirically verified-this suggests that peer and self-evaluations will be more effective in training if preceded by supervisor feedback earlier in training (i.e., discriminative training), as in programs that systematically teach trainees to accurately evaluate therapist performance (e.g., IDET, IPR).…”

“…Authier and Gustafson (1975) concluded that nonsupervised microcounseling was as effective as supervised microcounseling. Martin and Gazda (1970) showed that self-evaluative feedback greatly facilitated more behavior-specific supervisor feedback. Peer-or self-directed supervision is more efficient than supervision by a professional trainer and appears to be equally effective once trainees are proficient in basic discrimination and communication skills (Poling, 1968).…”

“…Similarly, trainees whose ability to handle challenging counseling situations was rated as "high" by their supervisors were found to increase their focus on affective concerns and clients' personal concerns more than low-rated trainees, after a "traditional" counseling practicum (Havens, 1968). Martin and Gazda (1970) showed that inexperienced trainees gained significantly more than experienced ones in supervision that included both self-and supervisor evaluations, although both groups improved equally (and significantly less than in the latter condition) when self-ratings were the lone feedback source.…”

A Prepracticum Laboratory Training Experience

“…A prepracticum experience early in the counselor candidate's program could minimize this threat and initiate a self-evaluative process rather than an external-evaluative (game) process. Martin and Gazda (1970) report in a recent study that "persons who tended to be more self-critical (self criticism subscale of the TSCS) were significantly more able to achieve higher levels of Intensity and Intimacy of Interpersonal Contact (IIC) with their clients [po 91]." In a prepracticum experience, with a minimization of threat and the reinforcement of self-evaluative processes, analysis of the helping-counseling process can be a self-experience.…”