r· . --·-··-- ------
---------------
------------ --·
........
----------- ........ ·--------·
- ... -
........ ____
................ -
...................
-
... - -
.....
____ - --------,
i
i
I
1
i
I
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,
NORTHRIDGE
I
I
I
!
'
i ,CARKHUFF'S
.
I
j
1
1
INDEXES OF COf'!Ir1:UNICATION
AND DISCRINIINATION
AND cum~:EI.;;T TRENDS 10! SCREEi'HNG OF FOTEN'I'IAI, COUNSELORS
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
I
I
I
I
I
Educational Psychology, Counseling and Guidance
by
I!
Bonnie Brit Carter
J
I
I
I
II
I
I
January, 1977
r------------·--~--~-;--·----·------
--- - - - ----------- ---------··-··-- --·----------------------· -··----- --·-·---
~-----
---· -- --· -----------··-- -··
The thesis of Bonnie Brft Carter is approved:
California State University, Northridge
January, 1977
--------·-----~~-]
ii
~-----
------
------ ----
----- ---
----- ---- -------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
-
--- ------------------ --------------
\
LIST OF TABLES
I
i
i Table
P::1ge
I
1.
2.
Comparison of Means and Standard
Deviations of Groups ••••• •••••••••••••••
27
Comparison of ~\atings by Trainers
and Index Scores by Group •••••••••••••••
29
iii
I -- --------------------------·------- ----------------------------- ·---- ---------------------------------- - ---------- ---------------- ----------------------- --1
ABSTRACT
CARKHUFF'S INDEXES OF COMr.mNICATION AND
DISCIUT.1INA~·ION
CURRENT TREN'.JS IN SCREENING OF POTENTIAIJ COUNSELORS
by
Bonnie Brit Carter
I
Master of Arts in Educational Psychology
i
Counseling . and Guidance
II
Current trends in screening of notential counselor
!
•
1tra1nees is discussed.
The need for more objective and
[relevant screening procedures
lS
emphasized,
Carkhuff's
!screening device 1 the Indexes of Communication and Dis\
!crimination is presented as a possibledternative to
I
\current screening practices.
j assessing
It is a short test based on
the ~pplicant' s ability to communicate
errrp:::1thy s
+ ana' genu1neness
•
• •
t ·e more 'ne_pru
1 ,.. 1
1respecv
an,d t -o d"
.1scr1m1na
I
lrrom less helpful response patterns.
I
The Indexes were administered to volunteers partici-
I
i
i
[pating in the Helpline screening program.
I
iparc.:mrofessional -ohone crisis service.
I
"
A
Helpline is a
Helpline trainers
I
/rated the subjects on how effective they were as Helpline
Ioperators.
Rankl.ngs 0n ea.ch Index were compared with rank-
lings of trainee effectiveness made by trainers.
l
It was
[~!--~~~~[=~ :_ ~-~-~-~-~~ t _su~-~-=-~-~t s-~~~~~~ or-=~-~~~~~:__ ~~-~ _______________ _
iv
------ ---------------------------
------------- ---
----
-------
--- -----
---------
--
-----------~
I
Communication Index would be seen as more effective by
I
trainers while low scorers would be seen as less effective.!
High scorers on the Discrimination Index would be seen as
'
i
j
more effective v.rhile low scorers would be seen as less
I effective
by trainers.
I
I
l
The Fisher Exact Probability test
II was used to ascertain the relationship between the two
I
' variables.
I small group
Results were nonsignificant on both tests.
size and level of sophi.stication of trainers
1
!were given as possible contributing factors to the non1
significant results.
I
I
l
L--·---·---·----~------~~-----~------- ---------------- ~-------------- ---- ---- ---'I
v
l--
-------~------~--·-----·
---------~-----·-
-----------------------
~---------
-··-- ----- -------- ----- --·-- --------------· ----- ---------- ---------1
i
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Ii LIS~"P
·' ....
I
OF iJ.1ABLES
)ABSTRACT
a e e •
!
1
•
I
I
m
~
I
e
I
8
I
e
•
•
e •
t
•
t
•
e a •
C
I
I
e
I
0
I
I
D I
A •
e • •
1
•
I
8
I
'
~
I
I
e
I
I
I
I
t
a a • • • • • • ,
G 1
1
•
•
•
I
I
I
•
I
~
t
•
I
I
I
•
Page
iii
iv
i
j
I
i Cha-oter
I
-
INTRODUCTION
I.
I
I
I
I
0
I
I
Ill
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
I
Hypotheses
I
I
Definition of Terms
Limitations of the Study
I
Background and Significance
I
.,..T
~.
REVIEV! OF THE LITEHATURE
·J.
PROCEDURE:=::
III.
I
~
. ...........
;
• • • • '
11
• • a • • • • • a • e
Subjects
Procedures
I
Method of Cornparing I:ata and Data Analy::;j_[:;
I
I
FINDINGS
IV.
I
I
v.
CONCLUSION~.;
1 B~,.."PLTQr',....APHY
i
I
J.J...I
i...~rt . .'-1.
I,J_
I r. PP-FT\lTi]""'{
1
I
£~
..
--J ..
\1 ...
4 ,
•
llll!tlflllllllllllltlllllllltlttll
J
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I.
I
••
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I
•. I
I
I
Q
I
t
I
I
e
I
e
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ....
HECOl'c1ME~iDATIONS
AND
I
I
C II
'
"
30
'.:lJ
•
I
I
••
fJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
../
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
•
8
I
I
?7
I
_)
i
I
j
i
[·--·--·-·-·- ·-·-··-------·-··----·-------·-----------·--·---------------·---·----- ··-----··..1
-------------- - - - - - ------------- - - - - - - - - - ---------- - - - - - - --------- ------------·-····-- ·-------------·-·--·-1
,-!I
!
I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1
i
!
Statement of the Problem
I
The focus of this study vras current trends in
l
!screening of counselor trainees and particularly an innoI'
:vative screening device developed by Carkhuff. The majori'
lity of present screening procedures are lacking in validity
I
\and are not based on relevant criteria. Screening proi
lcedures need to be more objective and based on criteria
i
!that
are related to the future functioning of the counselor
I
i.
.
1-cralnee.
I
I
Purpose of the Study
i
The purpose of this study was to determine the
!
!
I
iadequacy of Carkhuff's Indexes of Communication and D;is-
~rimination
as a screening device,
Rankings on these
;
Indexes wex'e compared vdth rankings of trainee efficiency
i
bade by trainers.
Trainers based their rankings on inter-
!
!
~iews
'!
,
wee~
I -
and role playing with trainees which spanned a ten.
screening and training period.
I
l
Hypotheses
Hypothesis I:
Subjects who scored in the high group
I the Index of Communication 'Nill be rated as more effective
on
'
h'r
r-'..l
I
trainers ·while subjects who scored in the low group 'Nill i
'
L,e ratnol
ac lecc e¥Dec·~l·ve
bv
+ra::r·n~c
-·-v
v
v
l....~
c:;:_
0
1._ 1 \._:-,
__
_!_
J..it'..:=.Ll-.J.
'
!
j
L ______________________________________________________ -------------------------------·""--------------J
r-------------:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
i
I group
Hypothesis II:
Subjects who scored in the high
on the Index of Discrimination will be rated as more
effective by trainers while subjects who scored in the low
group will be rated as less effective by trainers.
Definition of Terms
Screening process:
A decision-making process
focusing on an individual or group of individuals.
These
decisions are to be based on information about the individual.
Counseling:
A relationship involving verbal inter-
action between a trained person and another individual concerning educational, vocational or personal concerns.
Index of Communication:
Measure of individual's
ability to relate to another in an empathetic, genuine,
respectful way.
An indicator of effective interaction.
Index of Discriminationc
A measure of the individ-
ual's ability to discriminate more effective from less
effective response patterns.
Limitations of the Study
The findings and conclusions resulting from this
study are very limited in their future application.
Subjects did not represent a random sample of potential
Helpline trainees but \vere volunteers who can be assumed
to have bean highly motivated.
Generaliations are also
!
.L---~·-----···-------------------------------------~------------------------------------·-jI
3
r----------1
limited due to the small number of volunteers, fifteen,
I
!who completed the study.
I
I
Originally, I had planned to correlate scores on
~he
Carkhuff Indexes with acceptance or rejectance as a
!Helpline operator.
I~he
iI
This approach had to be changed due to
high percentage of accepted people who participated in
jthe study. - I then correlated scores with rankings made by
/the trainers.
!1nJ.ques
.
I am assuming that their interviewing tech-
.
.
an d ro 1 e p 1 aylng
exerclses
gave th em a d equa t e k now-
!
i
iledge to rank the trainees on effectiveness.
Ilranklngs
.
A problem with;
I
I
is that although trainers may be given the same
I
i
I
!instructions, ratings may actually be based on different
Itcrl• t erla.
.
I
I
Background and Significance
I
Research on screening of students for training as
I
!potential counselors is quite diverse and highly specula[
ltive.
Disagreement over such core questions as, "what is
I
!the nature of the therapeutic relationship?" makes develop-
!iment
of acceptable criteria difficult.
I!assumed
I
I
Unless it can be
that everyone has the capacity of being trained and
(eventually functioning effectively as a counselor, ·which is
;
!difficult to assume in light of the increasing numbers
Iseeking
help, selection indexes that are. ''relevant, mean-
!
~ingful and valid must be developed." (Carkhuff 1969).
I
1~------------------------------------------------J
r-------=---------·
- - - - - · - · - · ·······-------·1
I
II
.
There now exists considerable evidence of the nature:
lf
the conditions in the counselor which facilitate counsel-1
p-ng or psychotherapy.
bst
If3-
Truax and Carkhuff agree that inter-
!
I
in and concern for the client, respect for the client asi
I
person and for his ability to make his own decisions and
i
fhoices, empathy and understanding are essential character~stics of the effective counseling relationship.
Patterson
~tates that increased knowledge of the importance of the
Ipounse 1·lng relatlonshlp
·
· h elps slmpllfy
·
·
the problems of
~ounselor
I
I
screening.
It is questionable whether current trends in screen-
!
~ng are based on this knowledge.
Although studies have in-
i
picated a g·e.neral dissatisfaction with current practice in
I
:counselor screening, actual admission policies and proced-
iures
iI
have not changed much since the 1950's. (McKee 1973).
A survey by Redfering and Biasco (1976) compared
I
I
~ctual
screening proced.ures and ideal screening procedures.
I([nformatioi1
I
programs.
The rank order of the most used criteria in the
i
I
KJ)
personality tes~ scores, (4)
rnowledge, (6)
1(8)
(1)
letters, (5)
work experience, (?)
chairperson's reco!Ylmendation.
GPA, (2)
I
I
was obtained from ninety counselor education
kctual selection procedures was ·a
i
• t ervlew,
•
1.n
personal
I
I
I
I
1
i
undergraduate majors,
A brief look at the
thre~
1
I
I
i
tnost commonly used indexes vvill point out some of their
E-~~-~ng~~s and many of their weaknesses.
i
J
5
~--- -~----------
'
I
ljlng
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------ -1
First, a look at the use of GPA.
I
Since most train-
j
• aca d. em1c
• se tt 1ngs,
•
l• t ls
•
o f counse 1 ors ta_k es p 1 ace J_n
~nderstandable
that school performance as indicated by GPA
l emphas1zed
.
.
ts
as a pred1ctor
of f uture success.
I ntellect-
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
yal and academic measures have shown to be good predictors
!
pf
I
graduate school performance, especially when compared
I
~ith
,
other measures.
I·
bf counseling ability?
I
I
I
I
The increased research on the success
But are these appropriate predictors
I
!
~f using lay personnel as counselors raises some doubts a-
~out
!
the importance of academic work to effective counsel-
I
I
~ng.
(Truax 1972).
~ute
~or
I
The NDEA
Counse~ing
manual was recently changed and academic restrictions
schools offering institutes were lessened.
The interview is second on the list of most used
relection measures.
variety of factors can be considered in an interview.
,lii th no formal weighting system, raters use their intuition
o decide which factors to emphasize at the moment.
Group interviews give the evaluators the opportunity
ro observe the participants demonstrate their capabilities
tto
interact with others, valuable information for evaluation
I
I
.
Carkhuff and Truax (1965) have potential trainees conduct an
I
There is no mention of a correla~nterview with a friend.
I
tion
betwee~
this
Il
I
i
I
I
h wide
I
In a survey reported by McGowan ( 1970), i
p2% of the schools using this measure had no standard form.
I
I
and Guidance Insti- '
te~hnique an~future
performance in the
!
I
I
--------------------------------- -------- -----------------------· --------------------------------------------------------1
1I
-
I
-
II program.
At present, Patterson (1973) states that it is
.
I
J
I
not knovm whether a standardi z.ed procedure or a real inter- I
I view is more useful or valid for prediction. Group inter- Ii
I views also give the opportunity to observe the individual i
I under stress. A situation which may be of value yet is als~
II questionable as an indicator of future success is a trainII
I
I ing program
I applican~
Does this threatening situation give the
/
t~e best opportunity to relate naturally? Also,
do applicants who respond best with no preparation and/or
J
limited exposure make the best eventual counselors?
Interviews are generally assumed to sort out obvious
I misfits.
Goldberg (1973) states that the interview is
easily manipulated by the psychopathic, manipulative stu-
1
:::tp::;e::
lieves that this personality is especially difficult for
1
I
:~:s::~l::yw::mm::: :m::::::i:~rs:ei:::::::o:e-
screener to spot.
Frankel (1976) conducted a study relating scores on
I
the Psychopathic deviant (Pd) scale of the MMPI with success
i!
in group stress interviews.
I
I i~:~l's
1
!
His hypothesis was that indiv-i
.
!
s1g- I
high Pd scores will correlate positively and
nL 1cantly with performance in stress interviews.
His
!
l
I hypothesis was l"Ot supported but recommendations for future i
1
studies on this relationship were indicated.
I
i
I
There are numerous studies relating personality
L
---------·-·------------------------------------------------------------------J
7
~-------.--------··--·-------·-·----·
--
··---··-----·--------------------------~
!characteristics and counselors. Problems with these test
I
!results are that the counseling students do differ in ex1
Jpected directions from norm groups on measures used.
But,
I
(differences though statistically significant, are so small
I to be of little practical significance or use.
1as
I
I
i
I Of
I
It is suggested scores at advanced practicum level
training are higiler than the scores of beginning students,
I
\
!probably through a process of selection. It cannot be asi
:sumed that these students are better counselors or better
I
!potential counselors than beginning counselors.
There is some evidence (Nahan and Wicas, 1964) that 1
)
l
I
i
1
:some counseling students do not appear to possess character-
!
I
jistics usually considered desirable in counselors.
This
I
[suggests that there are differences in the concept of the
I
I
/nature and function of counseling and of the related char-
la.cteristics
1
of counselors.
l;Jhile it would appear to be
I
\desirable to study characteristics of those functioning as
!counselors rather than counseling students, the differences!
lin functions among those called
I
\(Patterson 1973).
counselors enter in.
Carkhuff suggested that since counselor
!personality traits are traditionally feminine, these difi
I
1ferences may represent more traditionally masculine
I
/traits.
iI
respons~
The desirability of screening out these traits is
i
i
/questionable.
!
1
Jh terms of selecting potential counselor trainees,
L_____.___
··-------------·---
I
i
·--'
8
------------------ --- -
------ -------- ------------·------ ----·------- ------ ----------•---------------------· ---~-------
------------,
I
personal I
'APA (1954), APGA (1965), ACES (1974) and ASCA (1965) have
all supported the need to identify the candidate's
characteristics.
•
I
I
On the other hand, there is a questlon as!
!
i
to why these measures of static psychological variables in !
I
i
the counselor might be expected to differentiate counseling!
effectiveness.
The possibility of using the practicum as a source
for
mut~al
decisions over a student's potential ability as
a counselor has been given consideration.
a very valuable approach.
This seems like
Candidates who are worked with
rather than looked at are bBtter evaluated.
Yet, in prac-
,
!
tice, Kaplan's ( 1970) surve;l showed schools surveyed did not !
have working systems of eliminating students once they were
in practicum classes.
Hints of legal repercussions were
eluded to by departments although none were actually reported.
'
Carkhuff's Indexes of Communication and Discriminat:idn
i
I
attempt to measure components of the interpersonal relation...:
I
ship by means of a short test. In the Com.munication section
subject's ability to respond empathetically, genuinely and
respectfully are measured.
In the Discrimination section
subject's ability to discriminate more facilitative from
less facilitative responses are measured.
Both areas are
also viewed as to activity-orientation of the subject.
Carkhuff's emphasis is based on the belief that effective
9
r-·-------------- ------------------- ---- ·- ------------------------------- ----- ----- ---------1
-----1
!
-
Ilhelplng
·
· 1 ve th e d.lSCrlmlna
· · t·lon an d- commun1·
processes lnvo
I
jcation of both facilitative and action-oriented conditions./
/sensitive discrimination allows the counselor to :
I cern the
I! ing and,
(1) disf
counselee's areas of functioning and dysfunction- /
I
I
(2) during the latter phases of treatment to make '
II accurate prescriptions and prognoses concerning which of
J
the available alternatives v..rould be most helpful.
Effectivl
i communication by the counselor enables the counselee to ex-:
i
I
! perience being understood and facilitates movement toward
'I
I
1
deeper levels of self-exploration and self-understanding.
I
I Carkhuff sees the major goal of counseling as the improvei
I ment
!
'
in sensitive discrimination of what is going on in the!
'
client's;worlcl (both internal and external) as well as effective communication with himself and his world.
i
The major contributors to the field of selection and!
training of potential counselors seem to agree on the relationship that the counselor develops as a basic focal
point of future study.
Patterson (1968) said, "knowledge
of the importance of the counseling relationship greatly
simplifies the problem of counselor selection."
Mosher
mentions the emphasis needed on establishing effective
interpersonal relationships by counselors.
'~
I
Traux states
that, "accurate empathy, nonpossessive warmth and genuine-
ness existed along a continum in all human relationships
i
I and depending upon the degree they were present, these
L____________ ----------------------------- --------------------------··-JI
I
10
~-------------------·
-- -----·-· --------
.....
-...
·-----------·-·-·-··-- ~-.-- ~--
--
---··----· ---. ·-----------
!interpersonal skills or qualities led to the facilitation
I
\or inducement of a wide variety of socially and individually
I
i
;valued positive behavioral changes."
I
Whether Carkhuff's test is more efficient and rele-
'
I
li
i.
ivant than current methods has not been demonstrated.
I
I
r
Jonesi
i
lI ( 197~-) states that 'the predictive ability of these Indexes
I
I are still to be determined." He then investigated the reI
llationship of these Indexes with several variables used in
l
I selection.
l
Anthony (19?5) cites several studies vvhere pre-
i
I commu.nication scores correlated moderately with human rela-:i
I
I
i
I
From this brief look at the most common selection proN
j
Icedures
1
I
I
t 1ons
•
t ·ra1n1ng
• •
outcome.
done.
it is evident that much research still needs to be
Carkhuff's Indexes are a much needed attempt to focus
jthe field of screening on more
o~jective
measures based on
I relevant criteria.
I
I
l----------~---···--------~------·-------·--··-----------------------·-···
CHAPTER II
REVIE1rJ OF THE LITEHATURE
A general description of current practices is given
iin the Introduction.
Studies abound describing the inade-
:quacies
of current screening methods.
,
Each of the follow-
'
: ing articles cites studies critical of current practices.
I
:Also, Paterson (1968) presents extensive research on current measures and their inadeauacies.
Thus, I will concen->
i
; trate of Carkhuff's studies on the use of the Indexes of
i
,Communication and :Jiscrimination.
i
I
stud
Also, I will mention
s which compare Carkhuff's Indexes and traditional
screening measures.
Other studies which add important in-
i formation for the future developments in screening procedures will be mentioned in relation to Carkhuff's
i
Indexe~
' Finally, I will report on one study which describes traditional screening practices.
Carkhuff's original study of the Indexes of Communication and Discrimination was done in 1969.
The Indexes
were administered to eight teachers who had no previous
counseling experience.
The assumptions made were that the
best predictor of future functioning in discrimination and
communication is current level of functioning.
Those func-
tioning at the highest levels prior to training will use
;·
, the training experience most effectively.
The Indexes and
an initial interview vri th a. standard client were tested as
11
i
'
1
1.J.. r, (
,----- ------ ------- - - - - - - - --i
-
i predictors
-------- - - - - - - - - - -
--- -
- --
--- --
...
-----------------·--·· ---·--------··--------,
of performance on the criterion interview con-
ducted with a client.
Scores were compared to effective-
ness in counseling children and adults.
The Index of Com-
munication and the initial interview were good predictors
of functioning in the final counseling intervie·w.
The
Index of Discrimination was found unrelated to post-training criteria.
A common shortcoming of screening studies
is that only those applicants meeting initial screening
criteria are then trained to function as counselors.
Carkhuff trained all applicants irregardless of performance
on the screening instrument.
A definite handicap of this
study is the limited number of subjects involved.
Carkhuff (1969) administered the Indexes of Communication and Discrimination and then analyzed
:;.~esponse
patterns in relation to differing client affective expressions and content area.
The test was administered to a
large sample of students ( 4·00), teachers ( 10) and two
groups of counselors (JO).
1.
The major findings were:
Increased levels of communication accompany in-
creased levels of experience and/or training.
[
i
2.
Increased levels of discrimination accompany in-:
i
!
!creased levels of experience and/or training.
I
I
J. Communication level was found to be a function
!
!
!of affect and content.
l
I
I
!
4.
Level and repertoire of responses appeared char- I
L__________ --------------------------------------------------~-------------_]
13
-
~--------:--~--.
·--------------------·------·-····--~-.
---·----------
-- ----- ---------- ----------·------,
I
I
!
I
;acteristic of the individual respondent.
l1
5.
I
Successive administrations of the test lowered
I scores for all except the experienced.
I
1
6.
Inexperienced and/or low functioning respondents
j
on both Indexes tend to respond to content almost exclusi ve-J
I
I
lly.
They emphasized didactic responses.
7.
I
Experienced attended to both content and affect.i
I
They responded experientially but not to exclusion of eli-
!
dactic,
All groups consistently had fewest responses a·vailable for elation-affect and confrontation-content.
suggests these areas are most difficult.
Taliana (1969)
believes counselors answers become shorter vtith experience
and that a major error of beginning counselors is talking
too much.
This indicates that shorter responses are not
necessarily less effective.
Carkhuff discusses the use of written responses.
His findings indicate that written responses discriminate
between effective and less effective subjects.
But written
responses are not as effective in discriminating highs of
effective respondents as verbal responses.
Low funct3.oning
subjects remain at approximately the same level regardless
of the use of written or verbal responses.
A major problem area discussed is the communication/
I
\discrimination differential.
i
Carkhuff
Relative to inexperienced
L--·------------------------~~--------------------·---------------------------·-··
~-------:-----
1
j
respondents, experienced respondents do not communicate
j
nearly as well as they discriminate.
Carkhuff compared
I
ii
l this to the insight/action discrepancy experienced by client.
Il
An interesting finding is the overall drop in respons
I
1
repertoire of experienced counselors.
Carkhuff suggests
this is due to effective response patterns being retained
while ineffective ones are discarded.
It might also suggest
'
decreased spontaneity associated with increased experience.!
Carkhuff and Griffin (1970) conducted a pilot program in screening and training black Human Relations Specialists to ease in the transition to integrated schools in
Springfield, r:Iassachusetts.
Their goal was to select in-
experienced trainees on the basis of their level of functioning on those dimensions related to constructive change or
gains by future clients.
The three dimensions were coun-
selor-responsiveness, counselor-initiation and a variety
of indexes of client-process and outcome.
Each applicant
(1) participated in an interview with a standard client,
(2) was rated by these trained clients, (3) responded in
vrri ting to excerpts representing typical problem areas,
(4) rated alternative counselor responses on effectiveness,
( 5) was interviewed by two experienced intervie·wers and
(6) was evaluated on his ability to profit from a brief
training analogue.
The purpose of this complex screening procedure v-ras
I·-·-···--------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - __ ______ _
..
,
15
~~--·-··---··· ·-···--·~---·-··-···-.
~· ~--··-··-·-····-----··
·-· · ---·--·--·-
·-···~-
. . -··- . . . . . -·----·· -· ·
-···~
···-·-···---~
-· ---·-·1
I
Ito compensate for inadequicies in any single measure.
I!Trainees
selected were at significantly higher levels of
'
!overall functioning (p.) .05) tha~ those rejected.
i
The pro4
!
l
!gram was rated successful after one year of operation.
,
The!
I
i Human Relations Specialists were evaluated by students; prilflcipals and administrative staff, teachers and counselors.
1
'
I
I
,~One
exception was associated with the resistance of a prin-
I
i
•
1•
: clpa
The screening procedures described are an example of
!
i
'
jthe thoroughness that can be achieved when necessary. It i
i
!doubtful whether this thoroughness is of use in screening
i
\graduate school applicants.
i
A study by Arthur, D'Augelli and Danish (1976) was
I
i
!;
!designed to test the construct validity of the accurate
'
!empathy
scale used both by Truax and Carkhuff.
1
ltion
wa::~
':f.lhe conten-
that accurate empathy may not be measuring the
lability to understand and respond to the feelings of the
I
!client.
Their evidence for arguing this point is that the
I
jraters of the responses do not hear the client's response
iwhen measuring level of empathy,
Their findings indicated
khat raters made significantly different judgements about
I
!level
of theranist
empathy depending on the unit of therai
~
~eutic interaction presented, but client's response did not
i
jaffect the ratings.
Thus, in measuring accurate empathy
~he rater may be more important than the client in judging
i
~he counselor's responses.
This is seen as a contradiction
l._ .-------·-···--·----·--------·------~-------·--. ----·---~---··--·---'
16
r---
--~-----~-----~----------~-~-----
------ ------- ------- ---- -----
-~---
----------- --------
to the conceptual importance. of the client in clientcentered therapeutic approaches.
This possible short-
coming in the rating system raises questions about the
meaning of empathic understanding, especially when it is
defined in terms.of accurately communicating this understanding to the client.
The studies by Burstein and
Carkhuff (196.S) and Cannon and Carkhuff' (1969) present the
basis for another argument.
Their contention is that
raters who are functioning at a high level of empathy can
make more accurate judgements of a counselor's level of
empathy than an untrained client.
The client is assumed
not to be functioning at as high a level of empathy.
They
do not see this is a valid criticism.
Anthony, Gormally and Miller (1974) compared traditional and nontraditional selection indexes as predictors
of human relations training outcomes.
GPA, GRE-Verbal, GRE.
1
l
; Quantitative, and MAT scores accounted for a very minor
i
1
amount of the variance in ratings of performance on the
I
I criterion interview.
!
I and a client.
!
The inter,.riew v1as between a trainee
Carkhuff's trainability index accounted for
\most of the predictive variance.
This trainability index
i
! differs from the one used in the original study.
I
It con-
I sisted of having the subjects read a brief explanation of
I
I
the concept of empathy, along with the usual examples of
l------··---·-----·---------·
I
·-----·----·-----------------··-·-·--·-J
1'7
------
----~---- ----~--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
-------------~
!
I
various counselor responses._ Then subjects were asked to
J
respond as usual in writing to client statements and then
to rate their ovm responses on a five-point empathy scale.
Each trainee was case_ in the helping role for a 45
minue standard client intervie·w prior to training (precommunication score) and after training (as a measure of
training
outcome)~
Although several studies have found
precommunication scores to be moderately correlated with
human relations training outcome this study found prei
communication scores did not contribute significantly to the
predicted variance.
This does not support Carkhuff's basic
assumption that the best predictor of future functioning as
a counselor is present functioning in that role.
Also,
another unusual finding vms a significant relationship
between the Discrimination Index and final outcome.
The
authors suggest the selfdiscrimination index is a more
relevant factor than discrimination of another's responses.
Generalizations from this study are very limited.
Jones (1974) studied the relationship of current
level of interpersonal functioning as measured by Carkhuff's
I
Indexes of Comnmnication 2.nd Discrimination and a variety of
thirty nine personality characteristics measured by the
I
;
18
r-------------·-.,.. ------------------------------------·--· ------------------------------------------------------- --1
j
1
J
Patterson (1968) for criticisms of use of personality tests
in screening.
i Communication
1
Tolerance for ambiguity and the Index of
correlated significantly with empathic under-
r. .Iany characteristics commonly assumed to be
standing.
I associated with the criterion were not supported by this
I
l study.
1
See the study for significant negative correlations
Support was given for further use of the Index of
I
i
I Communication and further investigation of the Index of
Discrimination.
Jones suggested taping of responses 1n
order to be able to rate tonal quality of the respondents.
Jones questions the grossness of Carkhuff's rating system
and its ability to account for genuineness, empathy and
He sees these variables as relatively independent!
!
I
A very thorough analysis of core qualities made by Tien
I
I
Teh-Lin (1971) does not support this contention.
Tien l"fleh-!
-
.
Lin studied the correlation of many affective measures
I
I
including genuineness, empathy and respect and found those
three to be unidimensional.
Anthony and· tiain (1971) conducted a study on thirty-i
I
one Army medical corpsmen. ( ll} males, 17 females) •
They
compared two assumptions to see which was the better pre-
I
I
I
dictor of success in counseling training. Assumption 1 vms!
i
that prospective trainees present level of communication isi
a good predictor of the extent he will benefit from train- I
I
ing (as in this study).
Assumption 2, the best index of
I
L_ ___ ------------·-- ---- -·
--·------~--
i
J
lQ....
-~
r---------------_------------------------------------------ ------~------------------- -------------------------------------------1
I
I
I
I trainability is present ability to gain from a brief train-/
1
I ing
I
experience.
training outcome.
Both methods correlated significantly withl
The training analogue (assumption 2)
correlated r. 67 and ability to communicate (assumption 1)
35 with outcome measures.
correlated
These two corre-
lations were significantly different from one another
(t=l.?2, p).05). The points with which they support the
training analogue are substantial and deserve further
i
consideration.
Osipow and Walsh (1973) report the findings of two
studies which are based on the Tests of Social
Intelligenc~
l
i
These tests were based on the three-dimensional theory of
intelligence developed by Guilford (1959).
The first study was designed to establish that the
Tests of Social Intelligence measured a facet of intelli-
gence which differed from traditional intelligence measures
ji
Results supported this hypothesis.
The second study hypothesized that Social Intelligence was related to ability of relatively untrained potential counselors to discriminate between counselor res_ponses which vary in facilitative effects on clients.
The assumption for screening is that present functioning
as a facilitator is the best predictor of future functioning as a facilitator.
iI
Ratings of facilitative responses
to the Discrimination Index were used.
Il ________________
~-------
-----
One test of Social
1
I
I
t
I
I
20
Intelligence correlated significantly with Carkhuff's
measures of discrimination ability.
These results point
out interesting relationships v.rhi.ch possibly may yield new
directions of research for the screening field.
A study by Jones (1974) compared the qualities of
genuineness, respect and empathy measured by Carkhtlff' s
Communication Index and the Counselor Evaluation R<rtlng
Scale (CERS) developed by Meric and Kelly (1971) as a
screening device.
The CERS was developed to be a more
comprehensi're measure than Carkhuff's Indexes.
Results
indicate that the CERS needs revision in order to be used
as a screening device.
It is presently not significantly
related to empathy, genuineness or respect.
Mandell (1972) developed an instrument to measure
potential trainee's discrimination ability of emotional
states.
Subjects responded to forty-five audio tape ex-
cerpts as to emotional state expressed by each.
came from television dramas.
Excerpts
Validity was determined by
comparing mean scores of several high and low criterion
groups.
One criterion used was Carkhuff's Empathic Under-
standing Scale.
Another vms level of professional
trainint;~
In another test, Mandell correlated the independent
rankinc.:r;;;'I
of each practicum supervisor's assessment of student's
ability to empathize accurately and scores on the instrument.
High sensitive groups were getting between 60-75%
I
I
~~
~~··~
-~
--·~
------ -·
-~--~
--
~-----·-·~----
~~-~-
--~
.-
~-
·---~
..
-- ·-
~-~~---
---)
I
I
correct, while low sensitive groups were getting
below correct.
Norms are being developed.
4o%
I
and
The instrument )
II
is being used for training.
Remer and Sease
I
i
(197L~)
report on their development
I
of a standardiz.ed criterion instrument for counselor selection.
I
i
I
Their goal was to develop an instrument that
measured interpersonal competence.
I
l
The;y· JJroposed to do thiC'-l'
in a work-sample situation using simulated problem solving
situations.
1
Their eE1phasis was on the development of con-·
struct validity.
l
Longitudinal studies and predictive valid+
i ty are still in process.
A drav1back of this instrument is
the length of time needed to administer it.
an hour and forty-five minutes.
An average of
When I administered this
'
itest
to applicants for admission in counselor education,
Ia
general high level of frustration v1as experienced by the
! subjects.
I
or interest
is their findings comparing the effect-
I
I iveness of typescript, audio and audiovisual presentations
!
i of the instrument.· Contrary ·'-o
l1
0
'"-oecta+
~·..J-l. one
-•·-'f
C::--\...0.:
"-'--a""E'
~r}'
cl 0
V .~~t:!\JlJ
lJ-:.,.
i
;
I
I
l''8.C'!
YH D~
i
I not found to be significantly superior to typescript presI
i' enta t'
-lon. Audiotape was also not found to be superior to
i
I
r
i
I
ltyp~script
I
\
,
presentation.
An article by Suggs and Kandor (1976) discusses the
USE~
of the audiotape as an instrument to measure facilitat-1
I
I
I
. iveness. A variety of research problems are proposed which!
I~-·-------~----~~~--·-·--·---~~--- ~---~--~-~----·~----~~----~~ ---------------~-~--- ---------·--- ~---~-----·--~----- -~-~----- ---·~-~--~
---
------
-- ------------- ---------- -- --- ------- -------- ---- --------- -- -- -- ---- --------- -------- --- ---------------- ·---- --------------------- - - -- ---- ·-- -· ---- -------- ----1
may effect the validity and reliability of presenting
client excerpts via the tape recorder.
The need for a ch2nge in emphasis in traditional
screening procedures is exempllfied by the study by Bloch.er
( 1963).
He studied the relationship betvreen many under-
graduate measures including: (1) grades, (2) recommendation
(3) intervievr,
(L!-) MAT score,
(5) l\TJJEA Comprehensive Exam
score and (6) score on Kuder Preference, F'orm D.
The re-
lationship of these measures with rankings of level of predieted performance as counselors by four staff members was
compared at the end of a year-long training program.
See
Ohlsen (1968) for criticisms of the ranking process.
The
multiple r of scores on one and two was .37.
A question may
·be raised as to VJhy Blocher grouped grades and recommendations together.
The multiple r of scores on measues five
i
and six with the criterion was .71.
Number five correlated:
!
.67 with first quarter grades but only .29 with criterion
rankings and -.01 with peer rankings.
Peer rankings at the!
end of the first quarter correlated .62 with criterion
rankings.
See Ohlsen (1968) and Patterson (1968) for dis-
cussions of the use-of peer rankings.
The acdition of
I!
grades did not add significantly to the multiple r of .77 o:e'
i
the other three variables. Blocher's conclusions were that!
I
I
apparently measures available prior to entrance would not
particularly effective selectors.
1
b~
1
'-~--------------~------~-------------------~------~----------------------------~----------_]
Although findings are often contradictory, there is
a focus that is becoming clear.
Researchers cited have
emphasized the relationship the counselor or trainee establishes as the primary concern.
Now, it is necessary to develop objective criterion
measures based on this relationship.
These measures need
to discriminate between potentially effective counselors
and those who may be less effective or even damaging.
Studies on the Communication Index and the Discrimination
Index have been presented as important steps in this direction.
CHAPTER III
rT:::·: ?ODS
AND PHOCEDURES
Subjects
seven men between the ages of nine-
Nine women
teen and twenty-fi--s and having undergraduate status at
CSUN
volunteered
a:pprox:ima tE':ly
trained as
f~~
fift.~·
O?erators.
~sd
inter~~t
professed an
reason for being
One
counselors.
The Helpline is a phone
by paraprofessionals.
Voluntee:cs
in working with people as their
t~:~e
-P_··~:-·.:::o.le
dropp2~
because she
.p
O ..L
:::'ctldents vv-ho v:ere being screened and
Helpli~~
crisis service st2.:=
They came from a group
the study.
and none had previous training as
f;UbJ·ect did not comn,.Jlete:;
-
out of the training program.
-~,~c·+i11"'
L..c:;u v.-.
b
Although
part:Lal data was o·:-_ -':.::.ined, it vms nat complete enough to ·ce
included.
One mal<":.:
-,.·2_f;
unvnllJ.ng to corrcolete
the discrim...
!
:
\]
ination part of t~s ~est so data analysis on the subject is!
Thi::~
only partial.
;_::-:c:·oup did not represent a random sample:
i
of Helpline applic~~~s.
Findings in this study are limi·tedl
to nonprofesfdonal:-~ :_:~terested in counseJ..ing and also those!
who are highly moti··:::::.-:ed.
This is assumed by their interes·t;
I
!
in volunteering for
-~~e
study.
Procedures
Subjects
section they
V!e-::·~:
-::ested in groups.
v\'ere ;:::~s:::ented
In the communicatio:n
with s:i.xteEm taped exerpts
I (aunrov~m~tPlV two :~~~utes each) and were instructed to
L____ :_ ~-----=~~-~'-'
-~-~----~~---
..
-··--·------·---------------·· ·- ------------------- --- --~·-·----·-·---'
make written responses to each in the manner they felt
would be most helpful to the speaker.
various content problem areas:
Excerpts covered
(1) social-interpersonal,
(2) educational-vocational, (3) child-rearing, (4) sexualmarital, (5) confrontation of counselor.
Content areas
were crossed with affect areas including : (1) depressiondistressr (2) anger-hostility, (3) elation-excitement.
In the discrimination section, subjects were given
the same excerpts on paper and asked to choose one of four
responses they felt would be most helpful.
Subjects did
this section at home and returned by mail.
f
'
Responses to the taped excerpts (communication scoreF;)
were evaluated on a five-point rating scale developed by
Carkhuff ( 19_9B-)~;--- Haters had a • 92 interrater reliability
(product-moment correJation) at the end of training.
rater reliability on the results ranged from
reliability was .86.
IntEn:'-··
.55-.95, mediah
A .84 mean interrater reliability was
computecl v;hen the highest and lowest correlations were
dropped.
Discrimination scores were also rated on a fivepoint scale.
Weighting of each response had already been
estab11shed by Carkhuff (1968) and his key was used.
Both
Indexes and scoring procedures are thoroughly discussed by
i
I
Carkhuff (1968, 1969).
L_ -·---·- -·-·-- --·- --·. - ._____________. -------.----·--- --·- -----·---- ----..·--.. -----------..... _________________._______....__________ -
26
Method of Comparing Data and Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted in two steps.
The
(ommunication and Discrimination Indexes are presented and
!
lthe analysis of the trainers ratings is presented.
Index scores:
Subjects were assigned to a high or
ilow group according to their scores on the Communication
i
!Index. Seven subjects were assigned to the high group and
'
\seven subjects were assigned tq the low group. To ascertaiJ
i
!
:whether there was a significant difference between the high
i
'and lov1 group, the ~3tudent' s t test was used to compare the
!
:high group to the low group. A significant difference be!
I
!tween the mean group scores on the Communication Index at
i
I
'
;the . 05 level
was found.
See Table 1 for scores and stan,-
!dard deviations.
The total sample was then grouped using the Discrimiination Index scores.
i
This resulted in two groups of seven
;
~ubjects each.
Subjects were assigned to either a high or
~ow scoring group.
Then, the Student's t test was applied
i
~o
ascertain whether the groups differed significantly.
!
~here was a significant difference between mean group scores
~t
the
.05
level.
See Table 1 for scores and standard
deviations.
Appendj_x.
l
I
l
- -·---------·
Their information for rating the subjects was to
... -·-··-----------~---------------------------- --------- ---
..
-- i
be based on the ten week, three hour per week training,
screening period.
This period was spent hearing lecturee,
doing role playing and conducting· interviews.
Each of the
six trainers had the opportunity to work with each
trainee.~
Subjects were assigned to the more effective group or the
less effective group according to the subjectws total ratings by all trainers.
The group contained fourteen
subjects and was divided equally with seven members grouped
as more effective and seven grouped as less effective.
Comparison of several poss:i..ble relationships between Indexes were comnuted and are described in the Results
Section.
Commu:nj_cat:i.on Incl.ex
mean
high
sd
scorers
2.05
• L~j
low
scorers
1. J!~.
·35
·-------- -·--- ----------- ----- ------
~-----··-
--------------···
Discrimination Index
mean
------------------------------------~------------
sd
• J.ll-5
----------- -------- ------ ______ ______ _
,
;··----~----
· - - · - - - · - - · - - - - · - - · · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - -----·---------·
~---
··--------·----------
CH_APTER IV
FINDINGS
Hypothesis I:
Subjects who scored in the high
group on the Index of Communication will also be rated as
more effective by trainers while subjects scoring in the
low group will be rated as less effective.
Fisher Exact Probability Test, high scorers
Using the
were compared
with those subjects rated as more effective by trainers.
Subjects who scored in the low group were compared to those
rated less effective.
Results were nonsignificant, thus
the null hypothesis was not rejected.
Hypothesis II:
Subjects who scored in the high
group on the Index of Discrimination will be rated as more
effective by trainers while subjects who scored in the low
group will be rated as less effective by trainers.
The
comparison betv:een high scorers and those rated as more
effective and low scorers and those rated as less effective
'Was computed using the Fisher Test.
Results indicated a
nonsignificant relationship between the two variables.
Table 2
summarizes the comparisons made.
r\1ean communication scores were compared with mean
discrimination scores for each subject, correlation was .51:
iI
nonsignificant (product-moment correlation).
Comparison ofi
rankings of the communication and discrimination scores
j
were likewise nonsignificant,
.45, using the
S~earman
.
L __ ,___________ -------------------------------------·----------------------------~
28
29
Rank Test.
The Discrimination
Ind~x
was broken down into its
basic components of activity and empathy.
TIO
There was almost
correlation .13 between the two components in this group
Eaters of the Communication Index also rated responses as
to high or low activity (interrater reliability .BJ),
Activity ratings on the Communication Index correlated vdth
activity ratings on the Discrimination Index at ,64, thus
nonsignificant.
Comuarison of
Rating§_~Trainers
Communication Index
High
J-'ovr
a.ncl Index S_c_9res by Groun
Discrimination Index
High
Low
Seen as:·
1
1
More
Effective
5
2
4
J
Less
Effective
2
5
J
3
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
L.____ ··-------·--·--·----·-·-·-----------------------------··----------·----------·--·---·-----···-·.J
·····-·--·------·
------------ ------··--·--·--·-
-·.
---.------·-- -------------------·------------- ----------
·---~---
----------·--- --- .. ·-··------ ---···----
CHAPTER V
CONCI,USIONS Al'·ID RECOf.'INiEI'fDATIONS
Lit~rature
indicates that Carkhuff's Indexes are
among the more promising screening tools.
The purpose of
!this study was to ccmpare test results on these Indexes
'
iwith Helpline screening procedures based on role playing
l
!an.d interviews.
The hypotheses tested \'!ere based on this
!relationship.
I
i
Although both test results and trainer's ratings
I
:(based on the interviews and role playing) resulted in
i
i
!distinct high and low rated groups, these groups did not
i
I
!correlate significantly.
A larger sample size may have
I
I
[nfluenced these nonsignificant results.
I
-
!
I
!
It is possible that the paraprofessional trainine of
!
4;he trainers may have resulted in a less sophisticated
l
!
•
•
rat1ng- reperto1re. Trainers who have more knowledge as to
I
!
t.
e f.O~ec-lve
qua 1'1t.1es in the counselor may have rated the
!
~rainees
!
differently.
It is possible that this difference
I
would be more in line with Carkhuff's Indexes.
I
Communication and Discrimination scores did not
borrelate significantly.
!
This is in line with Carkhuff's
t
tfindings that communication and discrimination are re1ativel:f
i
imrelated in low-functioning communicators. Trainees are
!
ponsidered low-level functioning communicators.
Ratings of high or low activity level were made by
•
I
[ _______ .________ ·--··--·- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · · - - - - - - - - - · - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - - - - - - - - - - - - - ______________ _j
30
:n
- -- -
--- - ----- --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - ------ ---------------- ··--------------------------------···· -----·-1
raters of the Communication Index.
Then these ratings were:
compared with the usual Carkhuff ratings of activity level !
on the Discrimination Index.
other studies.
l
This had not been reported in[
The correlation was nonsignificant, but
the relationship deserves future study.
The assumption
would be that a relationship would exist between 2ctivity
level on the
Communication Index and the Discrimination
Index.
Although results of this study were decisively nonsignificant, the value of the Indexes as a screening device'
is not altered since these results have not been supported
by any other studies.
Considerably more research must be done on the use
!of
more objective, relevant and reliable screening devices
l
I
!than those currently being used.
I
Carkhuff's Indexes of
!Communication and Discrimination provide a valuable source
Ilof
information in the field of screening of potential
I
jcounselors.
l
I
It is not re-commended that an objective test be
lused exclusively, but in conjunction with other screening
i
I
~easures.
I
Interaction with potential trainees can give
!essential information.
Minimal levels of intelligence and
~ersonality scores may also be of value.
I
By using these
•
•
.
-'-.
I
!screening procedures simultaneously and gleen1ng 1nforma~1o~
l_
~rom a number of sources, screening procedures could become
i
!
J
L ____________________ ---------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------- ·--·
32
r----------.------------·---- . -----· -·-- ------- -- -------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------- --------
I more objective, more relevant and better predictors of
I future
-~-----1
I
I
I
I
I
functioning o.s a counselor,
I
I
!!
I
I
I
I
I'
I
l_____
------------~--------------------------- ----------------------- - --- -- ~---- ~-- _j
··-··-- -·- ··--
------- ·--·------··-···- --
...
---·- -··-------·· ·-·--- -~----·
-· --·-----·-·-
·--- ----·
-····-· ··-
---·-- ----·--·----- ------ ·-·- ---
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
i
R,q "b er t _ R, • , V
•
H
R
•
•
_le_1})lng
s.nc'I "-,uman
_ e_1 a T., J.ons:
L~ P· runer
for J~aY and Profess1ona-l HeJ:psrs, New York, Holt,
\ ._,a.r1c
r'' ' h ur_,_,
"'-"'
1
'
lTfnenarr,· \~ins-ton, 1969.
Carkhuff, Robert R. and Truax, CharlesB., Toward Effective
~~eling <:.nd Psychotherapy, Chicago, Aldine ,-19w.1
, Farwell, Gail and Gamslcy, Neal, editors, The Coun;::~elor s
Ha::Idbook, Nevr York, r,1athiew and Coughtonw 197Ii~~.----
i
-------
'
1
Hill, George E., "Selection of Counselors," J:i'u:ndamenta1s o:f
Couns'eline;, edited by Shertzer, Bruce and ::;,tone,
~~heTTey~ Boston, Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1968.
McGowan, John, Counseljng: T? 8 _c...-,. . •.·r1 i_l"')O'C!
in Theroy__al]_c1 Pract }ce,
C?'--'
--...-::-;--edl. ted Schrrndt,
I,yle, Ne\v Yod::, Holt, Rinehart and
1;Jinston, 196.3.
! • ..
r,~osher,
Hal ph L. , "Teacher Effectiveness Research" Impli-cations for Research on Counselor Selection and
Effectiveness," Research i~1 Counseling, edited b:y
Whitely, John~., Ohio, Charles E. Merrill, 1968.
Patterson, Charles H., "The Selection of' Counselors,"
Research in Counseling, edited by Whitely,John M.,
"'7"\"f:--~:;:::,
.~.-~
. . . . 11 , 1968
u1llO, '"nar .. es :;,.
t·;errl
--,- •
Tatiana, I,avirence, Discussion," Research in Counselin_g,
edited by Whitely, John M., Ohio, Charles E. Merrill,
1968.
Truax, Charles B., ''An Approach to Counselor Education,"
Counseling and Psychotherany, edited by Hendrickson,
Tfo:narcr; New York, Charles E. Merrill, 19?2.
Journals
i
i
!
!Anthony, VJilliam A. , Gormally and E. Niller 1 "Predic"t ion of
I
Human Helation:::; Training Outcome by Traditional and
1 l. t1· on"'l
nc,-nJ. .....l, .,...,.,(
c·eJ '""C .....l, --1. on- Tnc1l" c~'"'C• t " 0 ol1"'""elor "'d"l"a-'-i
~n'
-'1c..l..
l. \__. c l.J _._ u
.
..,n.:1
C!·v.·')"'·~~ri
cJ·
ov--.
(necambn-.-.
1971' ') 1 ] 05-J-l--1-------------;
o.
U. '·--"
tj_r. v
. ..!.it
, .. .,.,
.. l
t;L t
.!. '\
I
J-
0..
A.-
··-~
--~_:,
-----------·
}....i
.
~ ~ c:;:
...1..
.,..c_~
•
t:.:;
\...1
"i'"'
~d
-l. }.0
~~-
..L'l
"
..1...
1
I
!Anthony, v'Jilliam A and J. H. \'Jain, "Two Nethod s of Select ion
j
of Prospective Helpers," Jo.:._..!r:na1 of Counseli1}_g
,
Psycholo_,g_y, (September) 1971), 155--156.
'·-----------------------~~--- --------------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------------------~---~-----J
.33
······--------- --- ·-·······--·----------- -------. --- --------····----- ··---···---------------------------·------ -- -····---··· - ··---- -··- -·· ····--- ·--- ·-·- -----·1
i
Avery, Arthur VJ. , Anthony D 'Augelli and Steven Danish, "An
Empirical Investig9-tion of the Construct ValicU ty of
Empathic Understanding Ratings," Counselor Educatj.QJl.
and Sunervision, (March,l976), 177-183.
Blocher, Donald H., "A T'11u1 tiple Regression Approach to
Predicting Success in a Counselor Education Program,"
Counselor Education and Sunf_Ivi.siol1t (Fall, 1963),
19-22.
Burstein, J.W. and R. R. Carkhuff, "Objective Therapist and
Client Ratings of Therapist Offered Facilitative
Conditions of Moderate to Low Functioning Therapists,"
Journal of Clinical Psychology, (Fall, 1968), 240-241.
Cannon, ,J .F. and R. R. Carkhuff, "Effects of Rater Level of
Functioning and Experience Upon the Discrimination of
Fa?i~.itati ve Conditions_,"
Jov1~1)_al
C?nsul ting and
ClJ.nJ.cal Psychology, ( Novem1:::er, 1969 , 189-19Lt-.
?f
~
Carkhuff, Robert R., "Effects of Professional Training:
Com1'nunication and Discriminationof Pacili tative
Conditions, " ,Journal of Counseli:115 Psychology,
(July, 1968), DB~
Carkhuff, Robert R., "The Prediction of the Effects of
Teacher-Counselor Training: The Development of
Communication and Discrimination Selection InC!exes,"
_Counselor Education and ~Su;:Q_ervision, (Summer, 1969).
Carkhv.:ff, Robert R. and Andrew Griffin, "The Selection and
Training of Human Helations Specialists," _:I_ournal of
Counseling Psychology, {May, 1970), 443-450.
Carkhuff, Robert R., "Helper Communication as a Function of
Helpee Affect and Content, 11 ..Tourn..sJ-~of Counseling
Psychology, (February, 1969), 126-131.
Fiedler, Fred, "Concepts of Ideal Therapeutic Relationship 1
Journal of Consulting Psychology, N·ovember, 1950),
":?.J9- 2L~ 5 •
'·"'·
.
Goldberg, Herb, 11 Traclitional Academic Experience and the
California School of Professional Psychology: A
To"rnr1] of' P-ro-f'ecoc i 0""'""1 Psych 0 1 0 f!;;L t
co·n
Cor,,lD'"'r;
l 0~
~.:J
f II
I
1
(August, 1973} , 303-388.
..l.
-
U
I...A. • _,.,.:·_:.·
•
;··""
•
.I-
.L
U •-• -··
l J.u.-
Jones, Lawrence K., "Counselor Evaluation Rating Scale" A
Valid Criteria of Counselor Effectiveness?, 11
:
Counselor Education and Sunervision, (December, 1974),
I
112-116-.
---I
1
1
I
!
L-----·---····~~------- -~----~----------- ---·-·-·--·- ---------------····---------.--------------~-----------______!
35
:~-----.---------- -~-- ~---------------
i
- - ------- ~- ------~- ---- ------------·
!Jones,
Lawrence K., "Toward More Adequate Selection
1
Criteria," Counselor Education and Supervision,
(September, 197L~), 13-21.
·
1
-l
1
1
I
j Osipow,
1
/
1
I
-
Samuel and Bruce \'Jalsh, "Social Intelligence and
Selection of Counselors," Journal of Counseling
Psychology, (March 1973), Jb6-369.
1
/Redfering, David and Frank :Siasco, "Selection and Elim:i.n.
at ion of Candidates in Counselor Education Prograrr.s, 11
Counselor Education and Sunervision, (June, 1976),
j
I
I
'298-303.
Remer, Rory and 1!Jilliam Sease, ''The Development of a Criteri9n
Instrument for Counselor Selection," r~~easurement and i
Evaluation in Guidance, (October, 1974), 150-155.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Suggs, Robert C. and Joseph Kandor, "The Audiotape as an
Instrument to l\1easure Facili tati veness," Counselor.
Education and Supervision, (September, 1976).
Tien-Teh Lin, "Revision and Validation of the TruaxCarkhuff Relationship Questionnaire," Heasurement
and Evaluation in Guldance, (July, 1973), 82-86.
Truax, Charles B., "The fi:eaning and Reliability of Accurate
Empathy Ratings: A Rejoinder," Ps:rchological Bulletin,
(Fall, 1972), 397-399.
Wicas, E. A. and T. t·J. rt~ahan, "Characterie.tics of Counselors Rated Effective by Supervisors and Peers,"
Counselor Education and Supervision, (Fall, 1966),
50-56.
Reports
"Counselor Preparation: Recommendations for r~1inimum
Standards," Professional Training, Licensing and
Certification Committee, American Psychological and
Guidance Association, 1958.
l!npublished Materials
Frankel, Paul, "The Effects of Group Interactional Interviews Upon the Selection of Interviev,rees," California
School of Professional Psychologists,(May, 1976).
Kaplan, M. S., ''Responses of Fifteen Universities to the
Problem: Retention of Students ,in Counseling, mimeo,
I
Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, 1970.
'
L
i
i
i
-·----------------------~----~------J
.36
-----------------
~------
------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------------------------------
----~
i
r.1cKee I ._T. E.' . "Waster Degree Level Admission Policies and
Procedures in Counselor Education Departments,
unpublished doctoral thesis, Indiana University,
Bloomington, Indiana, 1973.
t1andell, Robert, "New Selection and Training Procedures
for Counselor Training Programs," paper presented
1972 APGA Convention.
I
I
!
I
II
l
I
-------------------------------------------------------~------------------------_.1
APPE.NDIX
I
!
II
I
I
I
I
l··-----------··---·-----------···------·----·· ------37
I
_______________!
-
-
-----~-
- - ------ - - - - - - - - -
-----~--
- - - - - - ----- - - - -
-
~-----------------------~----
- - - -··-··---·----- -·· ------ • ---------------- "l
i
I
II
December 2, 1976
IiDear
Helpline Trainer,
I
Over the month of November I have administered a
II screen1ng
•
test to volunteer trainees.
My original r,7asters
\
I
lnroposal was to correlate scores on this test and
~~
i
accentanc~
~
i
I
ior rejection by the Helpline. I have run into a problem.
I
)The majority of my subjects have been accepted. Thus I
I
I
l
)need another measure with which to correlate screening test
\
I
1scores.
I
I
need your help for this.
First, results will be
!kept strictly confidential, second your name is not necessari-
IIY•
I
would like you to rank the following people on who
j
lyou would most like to answer the Hotline if you called in
\with an"emergency.
If you haven't had enough contact with
i
I
j
I
Ii
1an individual please indicate your inability to rank him/her.
I
I
III
l
Please return to me vri thin the vmek.
I deeply appreciate your cooperation.
Bonnie Carter
would most like
Ito have answer -
I
f would
least like
,to have answer -
I
L---------------~---·----·--------------~--------
38