The Doctoral Comprehensive Examination in Counselor Education

Abstract

According to recent survey results, the doctoral comprehensive examination is still the most often used method of evaluating doctoral students for candidacy. Widespread dissatisfaction, however, on the part of both professors and students continues. This article gives suggestions for improving the written portion of the doctoral comprehensive examination.

The Doctoral Comprehensive Examination in Counselor Education: Faculty Members’ Perception of its Purposes

“…Scholars' primary recommendation for future research with respect to the comprehensive examination has been to identify and clarify the purpose of the exam (Peterson et al, 1992;Thomason et al, 1980). A lack of consensus about purpose often leads to an interpretation that comprehensive exams are a rite of passage (Tinker & Jackson, 2004).…”

“…As a milestone in a students' progression towards their degree, Thomason et al (1980) acknowledged a need to study the comprehensive examination in doctoral level counseling programs. Although exams may serve multiple purposes, Thomason et al (1980) found the ultimate goal of the comprehensive exam was not clear.…”

“…Although exams may serve multiple purposes, Thomason et al (1980) found the ultimate goal of the comprehensive exam was not clear. The authors suggested that the process should ultimately be a valuable learning experience for students.…”

“…Peterson et al (1992) followed up Thomason et al's (1980) profession-wide call and reported the top three purposes of the exam included: (a) integrating graduate education, (b) screening for minimum knowledge, and (c) learning experience for students. The inability to separate counselor education data from counseling psychology in both Thomason et al (1980) and Peterson et al's (1992) research becomes problematic when attempting to study the examination in counselor education. It is important to note that both Peterson et al (1992) and Thomason et al (1980) based information from doctoral liaisons and department chairs, and did not include input from program faculty members' perceptions.…”

“…Loughead (1997) recommended utilizing Bloom's taxonomy as the primary purpose for designing the comprehensive examination, evaluating, and providing feedback to students to facilitate higher order thinking. Loughead (1997) An extensive review of the literature within counselor education and across disciplines yielded five main purposes for the comprehensive examination: (1) to assess lower levels of cognitive complexity (Anderson et al, 1984;Burch & Peterson, 1983;Khanna & Khanna, 1972;Loughead, 1997;Manus et al, 1992;Peterson et al, 1992;Ponder et al, 2004;Saraf, 1985); (2) to assess higher levels of cognitive complexity (Anderson et al, 1984;Boes, Ullery, Millnner, & Cobia, 1999;Estrem & Lucas, 2003;Fox, 1985;Loughead, 1997;Manus et al, 1992;Peterson et al, 1992;Ponder et al, 2004;Saraf, 1985); (3) to promote a beneficial learning experience (Cobia et al, 2005;Fox, 1985;Furstenberg & Nicholas-Casebolt, 2001;Peterson et al, 1992;Schafer & Giblin, 2008;Thomason et al, 1980); (4) to prepare students for future scholarship (Burch & Peterson, 1983;Cobia et al, 2005;Estrem & Lucas, 2003;Ponder et al, 2004;Thyer, 2003); and (5) to maintain tradition (Anderson et al, 1984;Beck & Becker, 1969;Eisenburg, 1965;McKee et al, 1999;Molbert, 1960;S...…”