Pub Date : 2022-05-19DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2022.2063713
A. Lenz, Joshua C. Watson
Abstract Behavioral health provider shortages continue to grow in the United States, with the need for related services increasing as the SARS-COVID-19 pandemic persists. The implementation of integrated primary and behavioral healthcare (IPBH) practices represents one viable approach to leverage existing resources and maximize the potential for client outcomes; however, best practices for counselors within an IPBH paradigm remain unclear. We report the findings of a mixed method evaluation of an IPBH training program with 45 (36 females; 9 males; M age = 31.65) professional counseling students who predominately identified with ethnic minority identities (55%), urban residences (66%), and disadvantaged backgrounds (44%). We detected statistically and practically significant changes in self-efficacy (p = .01, d = .55) and interprofessional valuing and socialization (p < .01, d = .76), but mixed findings for variables associated with multicultural competence. Stakeholder interviews and document analysis identified four key facilitators (Financial Support; Facilitated Engagement; Witnessing Collaboration; Holistic Representation of Clients and Client Care) and four barriers (Awareness Raising and Recruitment; Logistics and Coordination; Inconsistent Culture of IPBH; Momentum Maintenance) to program success.
随着SARS-COVID-19大流行的持续，对相关服务的需求也在增加，美国的行为健康提供者短缺问题继续加剧。实施综合初级和行为保健(IPBH)做法是利用现有资源和最大限度地提高客户成果潜力的一种可行方法;然而，在IPBH范式中，辅导员的最佳实践仍不清楚。我们报告了45例IPBH培训项目的混合方法评估结果(36例女性;9男性;M年龄= 31.65)，以少数民族身份(55%)、城市居民(66%)和弱势背景(44%)为主的专业咨询学生。我们发现自我效能感(p = 0.01, d = 0.55)和跨专业价值和社会化(p < 0.01, d = 0.76)在统计和实践上都有显著的变化，但在多元文化能力相关的变量上发现了不同的结果。利益相关者访谈和文件分析确定了四个关键的促进因素(财政支持;促进参与;目睹协作;客户的整体代表和客户关怀)和四个障碍(提高认识和招聘;后勤与协调;IPBH的非一致性文化;动量维护)计划的成功。
{"title":"A Mixed Methods Evaluation of an Integrated Primary and Behavioral Health Training Program for Counseling Students","authors":"A. Lenz, Joshua C. Watson","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2022.2063713","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2022.2063713","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Behavioral health provider shortages continue to grow in the United States, with the need for related services increasing as the SARS-COVID-19 pandemic persists. The implementation of integrated primary and behavioral healthcare (IPBH) practices represents one viable approach to leverage existing resources and maximize the potential for client outcomes; however, best practices for counselors within an IPBH paradigm remain unclear. We report the findings of a mixed method evaluation of an IPBH training program with 45 (36 females; 9 males; M age = 31.65) professional counseling students who predominately identified with ethnic minority identities (55%), urban residences (66%), and disadvantaged backgrounds (44%). We detected statistically and practically significant changes in self-efficacy (p = .01, d = .55) and interprofessional valuing and socialization (p < .01, d = .76), but mixed findings for variables associated with multicultural competence. Stakeholder interviews and document analysis identified four key facilitators (Financial Support; Facilitated Engagement; Witnessing Collaboration; Holistic Representation of Clients and Client Care) and four barriers (Awareness Raising and Recruitment; Logistics and Coordination; Inconsistent Culture of IPBH; Momentum Maintenance) to program success.","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"1 1","pages":"28 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77701952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-19DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2022.2065975
L. Rocha, A. Lenz
Abstract The current study is a reliability generalization meta-analysis of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). A total of 95,440 participants were found across 66 studies with 117 internal consistency coefficients. We present the average Cronbach coefficient alpha (α) for the total Grit-S and subscales, Consistency of Interest and Perseverance of Effort. The results include total sample percentages for participant characteristics and setting types in which researchers used the Grit-S. The alpha range (α = .68 − .73) indicates the Grit-S and individual subscales are suitable for basic research use but not clinical decision making. Additionally, studies were inconsistent with statistically significant results with participants outside the United States, and reliability coefficients reduced among nonwhite participants. Researchers should further study the reliability of Grit-S among diverse participants.
{"title":"Psychometric Meta-Analysis of the Short Grit Scale Reliability Across Demographic Groups and Academic Settings","authors":"L. Rocha, A. Lenz","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2022.2065975","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2022.2065975","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The current study is a reliability generalization meta-analysis of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). A total of 95,440 participants were found across 66 studies with 117 internal consistency coefficients. We present the average Cronbach coefficient alpha (α) for the total Grit-S and subscales, Consistency of Interest and Perseverance of Effort. The results include total sample percentages for participant characteristics and setting types in which researchers used the Grit-S. The alpha range (α = .68 − .73) indicates the Grit-S and individual subscales are suitable for basic research use but not clinical decision making. Additionally, studies were inconsistent with statistically significant results with participants outside the United States, and reliability coefficients reduced among nonwhite participants. Researchers should further study the reliability of Grit-S among diverse participants.","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"68 1","pages":"122 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79862002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-24DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2021.2018930
Andrew W. Wood, Amanda C. La Guardia, Alexandra Mott
Abstract Quality of life (QoL) as a measure in counseling research is rarely used. Measures for well-being or wellness take the place of the multi-dimensional concept of QoL in the work of many counselors. However, QoL measures are used widely in medical practice and related research. Therefore, counselors preparing to work in integrated care settings with other medical professionals, or counselors and researchers looking to expand their assessment options and knowledge, may benefit from understanding when and how to use QoL measures. This article provides an overview of the concept of QoL, a review of three QoL measures, and a case application to help familiarize counselors with the use of QoL measures. Future research with QoL in counseling applications is also discussed.
{"title":"Quality Measures: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement for Counselors","authors":"Andrew W. Wood, Amanda C. La Guardia, Alexandra Mott","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2021.2018930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2021.2018930","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Quality of life (QoL) as a measure in counseling research is rarely used. Measures for well-being or wellness take the place of the multi-dimensional concept of QoL in the work of many counselors. However, QoL measures are used widely in medical practice and related research. Therefore, counselors preparing to work in integrated care settings with other medical professionals, or counselors and researchers looking to expand their assessment options and knowledge, may benefit from understanding when and how to use QoL measures. This article provides an overview of the concept of QoL, a review of three QoL measures, and a case application to help familiarize counselors with the use of QoL measures. Future research with QoL in counseling applications is also discussed.","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"28 1","pages":"136 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89583678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-18DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2021.2017770
Evan C. Smarinsky, Cian L. Brown, David D. Christian
Abstract This study explored whether adolescents’ introspection increased while engaged in a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI). Using a quasi-experimental design, the researchers identified high school students (n = 13) with elevated levels of anxiety to participate in an 11-week, multiphase MBI. Participants’ introspection ability was assessed by comparing self-reported levels and observed percentage of time calm as recorded by a neurofeedback (NFB) device three times a week during the program. Using general linear modeling, results indicated a significant interaction effect with moderate effect sizes between self-reported scores by phase on NFB scores, F(2, 407)=4.12, p = 0.017 and a significant interaction between sex and self-reported scores on NFB scores overall, F(1, 407)=5.05, p = 0.025. Female participants appeared to have increased introspection compared to males. Results support the use of MBIs to foster introspection in adolescents. The MBI with an NFB device appeared to improve introspection, a key factor in accurate self-report.
摘要本研究探讨了正念干预(MBI)是否会增加青少年的内省。采用准实验设计，研究人员确定了焦虑水平升高的高中生(n = 13)参加为期11周的多阶段MBI。参与者的内省能力是通过比较自我报告的水平和观察到的平静时间百分比来评估的，这些时间百分比是由神经反馈(NFB)设备记录的，每周三次。采用一般线性模型，结果显示各阶段自我报告得分对NFB得分有显著的交互作用，F(2,407)=4.12, p = 0.017;性别与自我报告得分对整体NFB得分有显著的交互作用，F(1,407)=5.05, p = 0.025。与男性相比，女性参与者似乎有更多的自省。结果支持使用MBIs来培养青少年的内省能力。带NFB装置的MBI似乎改善了自省，这是准确自我报告的关键因素。
{"title":"Examining the Effects of a Mindfulness-Based Intervention Using a Neurofeedback Device on Adolescent Introspection: A Quasi-Experimental Time-Series Design","authors":"Evan C. Smarinsky, Cian L. Brown, David D. Christian","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2021.2017770","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2021.2017770","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study explored whether adolescents’ introspection increased while engaged in a mindfulness-based intervention (MBI). Using a quasi-experimental design, the researchers identified high school students (n = 13) with elevated levels of anxiety to participate in an 11-week, multiphase MBI. Participants’ introspection ability was assessed by comparing self-reported levels and observed percentage of time calm as recorded by a neurofeedback (NFB) device three times a week during the program. Using general linear modeling, results indicated a significant interaction effect with moderate effect sizes between self-reported scores by phase on NFB scores, F(2, 407)=4.12, p = 0.017 and a significant interaction between sex and self-reported scores on NFB scores overall, F(1, 407)=5.05, p = 0.025. Female participants appeared to have increased introspection compared to males. Results support the use of MBIs to foster introspection in adolescents. The MBI with an NFB device appeared to improve introspection, a key factor in accurate self-report.","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"14 1","pages":"43 - 57"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84888146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-14DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2022.2029411
A. Lenz
In the next decade, our communities will be looking for ways to heal, grow, and flourish from the deleterious effects of historical inequities, an international pandemic, and a changing planet. Counselors can make unique contributions within these ventures, not just as direct service providers, but as those individuals who identify local-level needs by amplifying historically excluded voices and making complex data plainly understood; identifying and centering existing resources and assets; promoting inclusive planning early and often in a program’s lifecycle; supporting accountability through implementation monitoring; representing outputs and outcomes with transparency and in ways that are accessible to the nonscientific community; contextualizing impact across the ecology of human development; and establishing a program’s successes and growth opportunities as the foundation for value-added advocacy efforts. These may sound like weighty charges, but we are all involved in evaluations and evaluative thinking. When we toss a ball of paper to the bin, we watch to see if we’ve sunk the shot. When we pour a cup of coffee, we get a sense of the temperature before enjoying that bean-based sunshine. While there has always been a need for the systematic use of social science research methods to identify the practical value of programs to their stakeholders, the increased integration of counseling interventions into the fabric of community, education, and hospital-based interventions has cued a watershed moment for counselors to regard the inclusion of program evaluation theories and practices as integral features of our professional identity. Counselors’ training provides a unique foundation for conceptualizing the ecological context within which programs attempt to promote the development and well-being of individuals, groups, and communities across the lifespan. However, many preparation programs across behavioral health professions are not designed to bridge that potential with the evaluation-oriented theories, skills, and experiences that may optimize the potential for meeting community needs. It does not have to be this way. Through personal inquiry, continuing education, specialized training, facilitated engagement, and intentional advocacy efforts, counselors can increase their representation among the ranks of those who complete program evaluations. Make no mistake, whether identifying as evaluation scientists, impact evaluators, or just plainly, counselors who do program evaluation, we all have important roles in defining the pathway through representation of an implementation efforts value, opportunities for program improvement, and the related social changes. In 2017, Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation (CORE) featured a new Outcome-Based Program Evaluation submission category and has since shown commitment to the associated spirit by publishing articles related to program evaluation methods (Prosek, 2020) and demonstrations (Ikonomopo
{"title":"Counseling Program Evaluation: A Key Pathway Through Implementation, Improvement, and Social Change","authors":"A. Lenz","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2022.2029411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2022.2029411","url":null,"abstract":"In the next decade, our communities will be looking for ways to heal, grow, and flourish from the deleterious effects of historical inequities, an international pandemic, and a changing planet. Counselors can make unique contributions within these ventures, not just as direct service providers, but as those individuals who identify local-level needs by amplifying historically excluded voices and making complex data plainly understood; identifying and centering existing resources and assets; promoting inclusive planning early and often in a program’s lifecycle; supporting accountability through implementation monitoring; representing outputs and outcomes with transparency and in ways that are accessible to the nonscientific community; contextualizing impact across the ecology of human development; and establishing a program’s successes and growth opportunities as the foundation for value-added advocacy efforts. These may sound like weighty charges, but we are all involved in evaluations and evaluative thinking. When we toss a ball of paper to the bin, we watch to see if we’ve sunk the shot. When we pour a cup of coffee, we get a sense of the temperature before enjoying that bean-based sunshine. While there has always been a need for the systematic use of social science research methods to identify the practical value of programs to their stakeholders, the increased integration of counseling interventions into the fabric of community, education, and hospital-based interventions has cued a watershed moment for counselors to regard the inclusion of program evaluation theories and practices as integral features of our professional identity. Counselors’ training provides a unique foundation for conceptualizing the ecological context within which programs attempt to promote the development and well-being of individuals, groups, and communities across the lifespan. However, many preparation programs across behavioral health professions are not designed to bridge that potential with the evaluation-oriented theories, skills, and experiences that may optimize the potential for meeting community needs. It does not have to be this way. Through personal inquiry, continuing education, specialized training, facilitated engagement, and intentional advocacy efforts, counselors can increase their representation among the ranks of those who complete program evaluations. Make no mistake, whether identifying as evaluation scientists, impact evaluators, or just plainly, counselors who do program evaluation, we all have important roles in defining the pathway through representation of an implementation efforts value, opportunities for program improvement, and the related social changes. In 2017, Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation (CORE) featured a new Outcome-Based Program Evaluation submission category and has since shown commitment to the associated spirit by publishing articles related to program evaluation methods (Prosek, 2020) and demonstrations (Ikonomopo","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"65 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85027240","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-05DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2022.2025586
S. Mason
ABSTRACT Evaluation can bring positive, often cathartic effects for those who participate in evaluation activities. Inviting stakeholder feedback conveys respect, a commitment to improvement, and lets program participants know their perspectives are valued. The absence of evaluation, on the other hand, can cause harm to program recipients by conveying the message that their voices don’t matter—and their experiences matter even less. This is particularly the case for programs and policies that mandate participation, such as recent hotel quarantine policies or federal vaccine mandates. In this article, the notion of disempowerment evaluation—the structural avoidance of stakeholder feedback— is introduced and its potential for negatively affecting participant health and well-being is discussed. Implications for evaluators of counseling and mental health programs are discussed.
{"title":"Disempowerment Evaluation and the Risks of Avoiding Stakeholder Feedback","authors":"S. Mason","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2022.2025586","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2022.2025586","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Evaluation can bring positive, often cathartic effects for those who participate in evaluation activities. Inviting stakeholder feedback conveys respect, a commitment to improvement, and lets program participants know their perspectives are valued. The absence of evaluation, on the other hand, can cause harm to program recipients by conveying the message that their voices don’t matter—and their experiences matter even less. This is particularly the case for programs and policies that mandate participation, such as recent hotel quarantine policies or federal vaccine mandates. In this article, the notion of disempowerment evaluation—the structural avoidance of stakeholder feedback— is introduced and its potential for negatively affecting participant health and well-being is discussed. Implications for evaluators of counseling and mental health programs are discussed.","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"59 1","pages":"3 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81173935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2022.2025771
Monica L. Coleman
Abstract The use of non-therapeutic counseling skills within evaluative contexts can be of great utility, particularly when lack of trust can lead to challenges in design, data collection, analysis, and contextualization. Because counselors and program evaluators share commonalities in their competencies, counselors can leverage their mastery of interpersonal skills to facilitate a depth of connection and understanding among stakeholders that supports evaluation validity. This article describes how counselors’ training and experiences focused on using empathic communication, becoming aware of and accounting for bias, broaching differences in identities and sensitive conversations with clients, and connecting with clients using basic attending skills can ground evaluation activities in ways that promote representation of experiences and utility of findings.
{"title":"The Use of Counseling Skills Within Evaluative Contexts","authors":"Monica L. Coleman","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2022.2025771","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2022.2025771","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The use of non-therapeutic counseling skills within evaluative contexts can be of great utility, particularly when lack of trust can lead to challenges in design, data collection, analysis, and contextualization. Because counselors and program evaluators share commonalities in their competencies, counselors can leverage their mastery of interpersonal skills to facilitate a depth of connection and understanding among stakeholders that supports evaluation validity. This article describes how counselors’ training and experiences focused on using empathic communication, becoming aware of and accounting for bias, broaching differences in identities and sensitive conversations with clients, and connecting with clients using basic attending skills can ground evaluation activities in ways that promote representation of experiences and utility of findings.","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"4 1","pages":"22 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80521282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2022.2025772
C. Sheperis, Bryan Bayles
Abstract Empowerment Evaluation is an evolving approach based in empowerment theory, self-determination theory, and evaluation capacity building theory. This strategy prioritizes a wrap-around approach that situates program stakeholders at the center of evaluation activities and collaborators in the development of many key processes. By adopting an empowerment evaluation approach, all stakeholders are subjected to an immersive learning experience which culminates in pride in ownership over the initiatives. In this article, we introduce the underlying principles of the three-step empowerment evaluation framework (Fetterman, Empowerment evaluation (pp. 20–42). SAGE Publications, Inc., 2015) and provide examples that can guide evaluation capacity building for programs and organizations. We illustrate how evaluators can assist programs and organizations in developing a mission, taking stock of their current status, and planning for the future. We provide a case example of an empowerment evaluation of an autism services collaborative using the three-step framework. Implications for evaluators of counseling and mental health programs are discussed.
{"title":"Empowerment Evaluation: A Practical Strategy for Promoting Stakeholder Inclusion and Process Ownership","authors":"C. Sheperis, Bryan Bayles","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2022.2025772","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2022.2025772","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Empowerment Evaluation is an evolving approach based in empowerment theory, self-determination theory, and evaluation capacity building theory. This strategy prioritizes a wrap-around approach that situates program stakeholders at the center of evaluation activities and collaborators in the development of many key processes. By adopting an empowerment evaluation approach, all stakeholders are subjected to an immersive learning experience which culminates in pride in ownership over the initiatives. In this article, we introduce the underlying principles of the three-step empowerment evaluation framework (Fetterman, Empowerment evaluation (pp. 20–42). SAGE Publications, Inc., 2015) and provide examples that can guide evaluation capacity building for programs and organizations. We illustrate how evaluators can assist programs and organizations in developing a mission, taking stock of their current status, and planning for the future. We provide a case example of an empowerment evaluation of an autism services collaborative using the three-step framework. Implications for evaluators of counseling and mental health programs are discussed.","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"9 1","pages":"12 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89054136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-11DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2021.1989576
R. Cade, Aamir Fidai
Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of client predictors of individual counseling session attendance at a counselor training clinic. Archived files of adult clients (n = 752) who participated in individual counseling at the counselor training clinic between 2014 and 2019 were coded for variables from the intake form and counseling session attendance. Using ordinary least squares multiple regression, authors examined the predictive ability of these variables on individual counseling session attendance rate. Gender, ethnicity, and highest level of education were statistically significant predictors of client attendance. The overall model was statistically significant and accounted for 3% of the variance in client attendance. These results highlight the need for exploration of predictor variables beyond individual characteristics of clients that may inform efforts to prevent and intervene with clients at risk of decreased attendance, increased absences, or termination of counseling prior to symptom reduction or goal attainment.
{"title":"Client Predictors of Individual Counseling Attendance at a Counselor Training Clinic","authors":"R. Cade, Aamir Fidai","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2021.1989576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2021.1989576","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of client predictors of individual counseling session attendance at a counselor training clinic. Archived files of adult clients (n = 752) who participated in individual counseling at the counselor training clinic between 2014 and 2019 were coded for variables from the intake form and counseling session attendance. Using ordinary least squares multiple regression, authors examined the predictive ability of these variables on individual counseling session attendance rate. Gender, ethnicity, and highest level of education were statistically significant predictors of client attendance. The overall model was statistically significant and accounted for 3% of the variance in client attendance. These results highlight the need for exploration of predictor variables beyond individual characteristics of clients that may inform efforts to prevent and intervene with clients at risk of decreased attendance, increased absences, or termination of counseling prior to symptom reduction or goal attainment.","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"34 1","pages":"44 - 56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89268553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-30DOI: 10.1080/21501378.2021.1940118
Michael T. Kalkbrenner
Abstract Reliability evidence of test scores is essential in counseling research and program evaluation, as the quality of client care is, in part, based on the proper interpretation of test scores. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is unquestionably the most frequently reported estimate of internal consistency reliability in counseling research. For over a decade scholars in other disciplines have raised a number of concerns about the utility of coefficient alpha for capturing the reliability of psychological traits, in favor of composite reliability estimates. However, coefficient alpha remains the most dominant reliability index in counseling research. To this end, this article provides a non-technical summary of coefficient alpha, coefficient omega, hierarchical omega, and coefficient H, guidelines for their appropriate usage, and can serve as a reference for counseling practitioners and researchers when conducting outcome research and program evaluation.
{"title":"Alpha, Omega, and H Internal Consistency Reliability Estimates: Reviewing These Options and When to Use Them","authors":"Michael T. Kalkbrenner","doi":"10.1080/21501378.2021.1940118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2021.1940118","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Reliability evidence of test scores is essential in counseling research and program evaluation, as the quality of client care is, in part, based on the proper interpretation of test scores. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha is unquestionably the most frequently reported estimate of internal consistency reliability in counseling research. For over a decade scholars in other disciplines have raised a number of concerns about the utility of coefficient alpha for capturing the reliability of psychological traits, in favor of composite reliability estimates. However, coefficient alpha remains the most dominant reliability index in counseling research. To this end, this article provides a non-technical summary of coefficient alpha, coefficient omega, hierarchical omega, and coefficient H, guidelines for their appropriate usage, and can serve as a reference for counseling practitioners and researchers when conducting outcome research and program evaluation.","PeriodicalId":37884,"journal":{"name":"Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation","volume":"3 1","pages":"77 - 88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88582439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：