Empirically Derived Test Specifications for the Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Examination

Abstract

This study examined the major job functions and knowledge domains required for effective rehabilitation counseling practice in today's rapidly changing practice environment to revise and update the test specifications for the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification examination. This report describes the methodology used in this nationwide study, the primary research questions addressed, the study's principal findings and recommendations, including the new set of test specifications that will guide future versions of the Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Examination. The results of this study provide empirical support for the description of the knowledge base underlying the practice of rehabilitation counseling and contributes further empirical evidence in relation to the content and construct validity of the knowledge domains identified in this replication and extension of the most recent study completed in 2006.

Empirically Derived Test Specifications for the Certified Rehabilitation Counselor Examination: Revisiting the Essential Competencies of Rehabilitation Counselors

“…Findings from the Leahy et al (2013) study provided a strong empirical support for the certification processes as well as information to guide the development of test specifications for the CRCE process. However, more than 5 years have passed since the most recent study completed in 2012 (Leahy et al, 2013). Over the past several years, enormous changes have taken place in the rehabilitation counseling profession, including the merger between CORE and CACREP on July 1, 2017 (CACREP, 2015).…”

“…Measures KVI-R. The KVI-R developed by Leahy et al (2013) was used as the primary instrument for the study. The current version of the KVI-R was first carefully reviewed and revised through a Delphi study with a panel of subject matter experts before being distributed for the study.…”

Closure rates and counselor education: An exploration of why counselors with MRC degrees do not have better client outcomes than other master’s-level counselors

“…Unfortunately, no studies exist examining specifically how MRC and OM counselors differ with respect to pre-service training. Studies have examined the required knowledge areas of rehabilitation counselors (Leahy et al, 1993(Leahy et al, , 2003, and have compared how these knowledge areas differ by licensure type (Leahy et al, 2012), but none have specifically examined if MRC and OM counselors differ in the amount of training received in these areas. Therefore, as the first step in an exploration of the reasons for the similar closure rates, it is important to examine precisely how the pre-service training experiences of these counselors differ to determine the unique skillset MRC counselors possess.…”

Assessing Vocational Rehabilitation Professionals’ Competencies in Taiwan

“…Despite variability in study sample and country/continent of location, the areas of training need reported by Taiwanese study participants are largely in congruence with those identified by American professionals (Leahy et al, 2013;Leahy et al, 2009), Japanese job coaches and job placement specialists (Yaeda, Kundu, & Nishimura, 2013), and Australian and German VR practitioners (Matthews et al, 2015). Therefore, in view of the above findings, it can be stated that professional development programs designed for current and future rehabilitation counselors in the United States and other countries need to incorporate the areas of training need identified by Leahy et al (2009), Yaeda, Kundu, and Nishimura (2013), Matthews et al (2015), and in the present study.…”