Ego Development and Counseling Ability During Training

Abstract

In separate analogue and naturalistic studies, we investigated the impact of ego level on the counseling ability of beginning and advanced students.

The Contribution of Ego Development Level to Burnout in School Counselors: Implications for Professional School Counseling

“…With reference to ego development, the literature has documented that counselors with higher levels of ego maturity are more effective with their clients and demonstrate greater adaptivity (Borders & Fong, 1989;McIntyre, 1985;Watt et al, 2002). The finding that the modal level for the participants' ego development was at the self-aware (E5) level is consistent with the previous research and supports the difficulty in advancing beyond this level of development (Manners & Durkin, 2000).…”

“…The positive relationship between personal accomplishment and ego development also seems to extend the notion that higher levels of cognitive development are more functional (Kohlberg, 1981). This fundamental assumption has been supported in the previous counseling research (Borders & Fong, 1989;McIntyre, 1985;Watt, Robinson, & Lupton-Smith, 2002). In brief, it can be concluded that PSCs at higher levels of ego development preserve boundaries and engage in self-care, which enables them to accept their occupational limitations and maintain affirmative feelings about their work.…”

Constructive Development and Counselor Competence

“…Thus, the more global assessments required by constructive development theory regarding developmental capacity might allow counselor educators to measure students' personal characteristics more comprehensively. In fact, the idea of incorporating separate characteristics into an overall evolving personality structure that influences how a person makes meaning was the initial reason for establishing constructive developmental theory (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986;Borders & Fong, 1989;Kegan, 1982Kegan, , 1994Loevinger, 1976).…”

“…The nonvalidated instruments used in research included (a) a global scale ranging from "damaging" to "accurate" for the first eight counselor responses in an interview (Borders & Fong, 1989), (b) the Counseling Effectiveness Rating Scale (Zinn, 1996), (c) an author-created measure of six counseling functions (Benack, 1988), and (d) an inductive analysis of student interviews (McAuliffe, 2002). The limited range of counseling skills measured was observed in research that examined only empathy as a dependent variable (e.g., Benack, 1988;Lovell, 1999).…”

“…The limited range of counseling skills measured was observed in research that examined only empathy as a dependent variable (e.g., Benack, 1988;Lovell, 1999). Finally, an additional validity limitation lay in the use of graduate students to rate counselor interviews, often without reference to the students' qualifications to do such ratings (e.g., Benack, 1988;Borders & Fong, 1989;McAuliffe, 2002). We believe that instructors, as the gatekeepers of the profession, should do the rating and that they should use a validated instrument to do so.…”