The complexities of undertaking counselling evaluation in the workplace

Abstract

There is a long-standing debate over whether evaluation is an art or a science (Barker et al.: Research Methods in Clinical and Counselling Psychology, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 1994). The ''science'' camp argues for scientific rigour in methodology, whilst the ''art'' camp maintains that evaluation should be tailored to the specific circumstances under evaluation. The compromise proposed by Barker, Pistrang, & Elliot (1994) suggests that evaluation should be as systematic as possible within the practical and organizational constraints inherent in service settings. The aim of this paper is to present a review of the literature on evaluation and workplace counselling. The paper initially reviews the literature in the counselling/psychotherapy field, and then explores studies on employee assistance programmes. The themes that are explored are the relationship between research and practices; the interactions with stakeholders in the field; the use of control groups and the economic side of counselling.

Benchmarking key service quality indicators in UK Employee Assistance Programme Counselling: A CORE System data profile

“…Secondly, the EAP providers contributing data for this analysis demonstrated a capacity to collect high Alker & Cooper, 2007;Cayer & Perry, 1988;Kirk & Brown, 2003;McLeod, 2001McLeod, , 2008McLeod, , 2010McLeod & Henderson, 2003). Thirdly, according to pre-therapy CORE-OM profiles, clients presenting to EAP services demonstrate a similar level of distress to NHS and higher education student counselling services with 88% scoring above clinical cut-off on the CORE measure and thereby demonstrating their capacity to benefit from therapeutic interventions.…”

“…Again, it's hoped that this level of data quality contributes a robust resource to the literature to overcome the limitations identified by early commentators (e.g. Alker & Cooper, ; Cayer & Perry, ; Kirk & Brown, ; McLeod, , , ; McLeod & Henderson, ).…”

“…Kirk and Brown () reinforced McLeod's view, stating ‘EAP evaluations have not yet produced the quality of evidence that would enable an unqualified endorsement of EAP interventions in the management of stress and other personal and organizational issues in the workplace’ (p. 141). Finally, Alker and Cooper () acknowledge the void in their commentary on some of the complexities involved in workplace counselling evaluation, and concur that there has been little movement or change in evaluation processes since any of these earlier works.…”

“…By 2011, EAP services were ranked as the most popular core employee benefit, offered across 73% of respondent organisations. Yet it appears such growth takes place in the apparent absence of a substantive archive of published supportive research evidence (McLeod, 2001;2008;2010;McLeod & Henderson, 2003) and, as observed by Alker and Cooper (2007), with little new or substantive research activity since the early studies by Cooper and Sadri (1991) and Cooper, Sadri, Allison, and Reynolds (1990). This paper aims to summarise published views on UK EAP effectiveness, describe the use of the CORE System by UK EAPs as standardised contemporary evaluation activity, and compare key service quality indicators with published data drawn from NHS primary care psychological therapies (Bewick, Trusler, Mullin, Grant, &Mothersole, 2006;Cahill, Potter, & Mullin, 2006;Connell, Grant, & Mullin, 2006;CORE IMS, 2011a;Mullin, Barkham, Mothersole, Bewick, & Kinder, 2006) and UK higher education counselling services (CORE IMS, 2011b).…”