Counselor personality and level of functioning as perceived by counselees.

This study examined the usefulness of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire in differentiating characteristics of counselors who were rated effective and ineffective. Eight of the factors achieved significance in distinguishing between these groups. Only two factors were found to differentiate male and female counselors (p < .10).The selection of students for preparation in counselor education is a task that has confronted educators over the years. Professional organizations such

“…Comparative studies (Donnan, Harlan, & Thompson, 1969;McClain, 1968a) lend support only to factors C and F, which deal with emotional stability and seriousness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire as a Predictor of Counselor Effectiveness

Myrick¹,

Kelly²,

Wittmer³

1972

“…In search of consistent and useful patterns, we reviewed previous studies cited by Myrick, Kelly, and Wittmer (1972) that also used the 16-PF and mea-sures of counselor effectiveness (Donnan, Harlan & Thompson 1969;McClain 1968). The dependent measures were supervisor ratings and various client-centered indexes such as unconditional positive regard.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using the Counselor Effectiveness Rating Scale (CERS) (Myrick & Kelly 1971) as a dependent measure, they found eight 16-PF factors that distinguished between the two groups. These results then were compared with results of other studies that examined the relationships of the 16-PF and various measures of counselor effectiveness (Donnan, Harlan & Thompson 1969;McClain 1968). The present study investigated the relationship between 16-PF scores of counselor trainees and supervisors' ratings of the same trainees on the CERS.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Further Exploration of the 16‐PF and Counselor Effectiveness

Forster

Hamburg

1976

This study reexamines the relationship between the Sixteen‐Personality Factor (16‐PF) Questionnaire and counselor performance ratings. The 16‐PF was administered to 30 full‐time counselor trainees. Supervisor ratings of counseling effectiveness in practicums were correlated with raw scores of counselors on the 16‐PF. Data revealed that the pattern of relationships indicated by significant correlations is not consistent across this and three other studies using the 16‐PF. The results of this study and the reanalysis of previous studies indicate that it would not be advisable at this time for counselor educators to identify or predict effective counselors on the basis of the 16‐PF.

“…The 16 Note: For a more detailed description see Cattell and Eber (1967). (Myrick, Kelly & Wittmer 1972;Donnan, Harlan & Thompson 1969) to be related to effectiveness in counseling. This study found significant differences between paraprofessionals and counselor education students on four of these nine factors -C, G, I, and L.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Paraprofessional Trainees and Counselor Education Students: A Comparison of Personality and Predicted Counseling Effectiveness

Wehr

Wittmer

1973

This study compared 55 counselor education students with 34 junior college students being trained as counseling paraprofessionals, regarding their personality and predicted counseling effectiveness. All members of both groups were enrolled in practicums at their respective institutions. The two groups differed significantly on 8 of 16 personality characteristics as measured by the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire. And a higher percentage of the paraprofessionals received lower ratings as determined by a regression equation used to predict counseling effectiveness.