Clergymen as counselor trainees: Comparisons with counselors rated most and least competent by their peers

Abstract

Minn.) State Hospital PROBLEMA survey of the literature indicates that almost no research has been reported that pertains t o clergymen who seek special counseling training after ordination. Available research (3* 6 -8, contains neither measures of counseling competency nor any evaluation of clergymen's clinical skills in comparison with other groups of counselor trainees. This dearth of research seems significant for several reasons. Gurin, Veroff, and Feld(') reported that 42% of American adults who sought help with personal problems consulted a clergyman. I n contrast, only 18% visited a psychiatrist or a psychologist. Also, data reported by Wagner and Dobbins(9) suggest that the degree of psychological disturbance among parishioners who seek pastoral counseling may be significantly greater than traditionally has been assumed.This study compared clergymen in a master's degree program with counselors rated high and low in competence by their peers. Previous research by the authors(4) revealed significant intellective and nonintellective differences between counselors of both sexes rated in the top and bottom quarters by peers on the basis of perceived competence as counselors. METHODThe sample consisted of 82 male graduate students (33 clergymen, 24 highrated, 25 low-rated) who had completed the practicum in counseling a t North Texas State University during the period from January, 1966 through January, 1971. The sample included all of the clergymen who could be identified (91% Protestant, 9% Roman Catholic) and males who were rated in the top and bottom quarters by their peers on the basis of perceived competence or skill as counselors.The following data were available for each S: (1) Ohio State University Psychological Test raw score; ( 2 ) Cooperative English Tests raw scores; (3) counseling practicum grade; (4) cumulative grade-point average; (5) chronological age; ( 6 ) GuilfordZimmerman Temperament Survey raw scores; and (7) Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory raw score. The t-test was used to test for differences between the mean scores of clergymen and the high-and low-rated counselors on the variables included in the study. Table 1 shows that clergymen differed significantly from male counselors rated in the top quarter by their peers on 12 of the 18 variables. Eight of the 12 significant differences between counselors rated high in competence by their peers and the clergymen Ss were on the same variables, in the same direction and of similar magnitude as the differences between high and low peer-rated counselors. RESULTS AMD DISCUSSIONLike counselors rated in the lowest quarter by their peers, the clergymen Ss scored significantly lower than high-rated counselors on both the Ohio State University Psychological Test and on the Level of Expression subtest of the Cooperative English Tests. The clergymen were also similar to low-rated counselors in that their mean practicum grade and cumulative grade-point average (4point scale) were significantly lower than those of high-rated counselors and because t...

Self‐Actualization of Clergymen Rated High and Low in Clinical Competencies

“…Results of the present investigation, together with previous data provided by Eberdt (1970) and Jansen, Robb, and Bonk (1972), suggest that clergymen who seek specialized counseling training in secular settings are, as a group, a different breed than nonclergymen who enter such programs. Unless they leave the religious setting, the clergymen will also be working in a role and framework considerably different from those of the public school counselor.…”

“…Overall, the results suggested a significant inverse relationship between elevation on MMPI scales and evaluation of clinical competence. Jansen, Robb, and Bonk (1972) compared clergymen in a master's degree program in counseling with counselors rated most and least competent by their peers. The clergymen differed significantly from high-rated male counselors on 5 of 7 intellective and 7 of 11 nonintellective variables.…”