oaces final ppt

Assessing Student Dispositions in Counselor Training Programs:

Implications for Supervision, Program Policy, and Legal Risk Management

Julie L. Williams, MS. Ed., PC-CR, Turning Point Counseling Center, Youngstown, OHDemetrius D. Williams, MS. Ed., PC-CR, D & E Counseling Center, Youngstown, OH

Melanie Kautzman-East, MS. Ed., PC-CR University of Akron (doctoral candidate)Alicia L. Stanley, (master’s candidate), Youngstown State University

William J. Evans, Ph.D., LPC (PA), Slippery Rock UniversityKenneth L. Miller, Ph.D., PCC-S, Youngstown State University

Presented at the Ohio Association for Counselor Education and Supervision Winter MeetingJanuary 31, 2014

Columbus, OH

Learning ObjectivesUnderstand the role of dispositions as a critical variable for consideration in admissions, retention, and dismissal decisions in counselor education programs

Understand the role of dispositions in the context of a Model of Fitness for Professional Duty

Understand the process of developing an instrument designed to measure dispositions

Know implications of the use of dispositions assessment for supervision, program policy, and legal risk management

Evolution of Our Research2009 – Initial discussions about apparent but unaddressed problems related to counseling student and faculty impairment

2010 – Development of the Survey of Personal/Professional Impairment (SOPPI, Student and Faculty Versions) - data collected

2011 – Presented SOPPI findings at a national conference – “impairment focus” challenged by attorney in the audience

2012 – Changed focus from “impairment” to “fitness” and ultimately to “dispositions”

2012-2013 - Development of the Professional Dispositions Scale (Student and Faculty Versions)

2014 – A National Study of Counseling Student and Faculty Dispositions will commence in February

Phase 1: A Study of Counselor Impairment

TWO FORMS OF IMPAIRMENT

• Easy to define & identify• Strong support for dismissalAcademic

• Difficult to define & identify• Varied support for dismissalNon-Academic

NON-ACADEMIC IMPAIRMENT

Numerous authors have identified various personality factors, interpersonal

variables, and behavioral indicators that suggest non-academic impairment

Lack of agreement on a universal term

Lack of agreement on a universal definition

General agreement that a problem exists

12 Constructs from Professional Literature that Define Personal/Professional Impairment

Inability/Unwillingness

to accept supervisory

feedback

Unprofessional/

Inappropriate professional

behavior

Poor personal/professional boundaries

Violations of professional

ethical standards

Violations of laws/organizational policies

Substance abuse/depend

ency

Mental/Emotional Disorders

(Axis I)

Personality Disorders

(Axis II)

Inappropriate emotional

reactions that interfere with professional functioning

Deficient interpersonal

skills

Personal/Professional immaturity

Any problematic behaviors related to

suitability for the profession

SUBJECTS

Institution AMidsized

Public University

Master’s Level

Counseling Students

Faculty

Institution BSmall

Liberal Arts College

Master’s Level

Counseling Students

Faculty

SUBJECTS: STUDENTS Students: 53 students provided usable surveys (40 from Institution A, 13 from Institution B)

White n=49; Black n=3; Hispanic n=1

Female=47 (89%); male=6

Average age=30 years (range 22 to 50)

Median income $40,000 to $50,000

Single n=27; married n=25

12 (23%) held Master’s Degree

46 (87%) reported personal experiences that created a greater awareness of psychological problems

26 (49%) reported involvement as a client in counseling/psychotherapy (mean=13.46 months)

About 1/3 of subjects identified “School Counseling”, 1/3 “Clinical Counseling”, and 1/3 of Other (e.g., Addictions, College, Community)

SUBJECTS: FACULTY

13 faculty provided usable surveys (9 from Institution A, 4 from Institution B)

White n=11; Black n=1 , No response n=1

Female=9 (69%); male=4 (31%)

Average age=41.5 years (range 30 to 64)

Median income $80,000 to $90,000

Single n=4; Married n=8; Other n=1

INSTRUMENTATION

Survey of Personal/Professional Impairment-Student Version (SOPPI-S)• 34 Items

Survey of Personal/Professional Impairment-Faculty Version (SOPPI-F)• 28 Items

Student Survey Results: Frequency

Top 5 Ranked Indicators of Student Impairment

1. 37.7% (n=20) Personal/Professional Immaturity

2. 26.4% (n=14)* Inability to accept supervisory feedback

26.4% (n=14)* Deficient Interpersonal Skills

26.4% (n=14)* Any problematic behaviors that question

suitability for profession

3. 17.0% (n=9) Inappropriate emotional reactions

Notes. N = 53. Frequency Observed was Occasionally or Often. *Tied Rank

Student Survey Results: SeverityTop 5 Ranked Indicators of Student Impairment

1. 26.4% (n = 14) Personal/professional immaturity

2. 24.5% (n = 13) Any problematic behaviors that question suitability for profession

3. 22.6% (n=12) Deficient interpersonal skills

4. 13.2% (n=7) Inability/unwillingness to accept supervisory feedback

5. 11.3% (n=6)* Inappropriate emotional reactions

11.3% (n=6)* Unprofessional/inappropriate professional behavior

Notes. N = 53. Severity was either moderate or severe. * Tied Rank

Student Survey Results: Student Perceptions of Faculty Awareness

and Response to Impaired Behaviors

Top 3 Ranked Indicators of Student Impairment

1. 20.8% (n=11) Inability to accept supervisory feedback

2. 13.2% (n=7)Personal/professional immaturity

3. 11.3% (n=6)* Unprofessional/inappropriate professional behavior

11.3% (n=6)* Any problematic behaviors that question suitability for profession

Note. N = 53. *Tied Rank

Percent of students in your program who meet one of more of the 12 criteria of impairment.

StudentsN (%)

Faculty N (%)

0-20% 48 (91%) 12 (82%)

21-40% 4 (8%) 1 (8%)

41-60% 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

61-80% 1 (2%) 0 (0%)

81-100% 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Student & Faculty Survey Results about Student Impairment

Phase 2: From Counselor Impairment to Counselor Dispositions

Assessing Student Dispositions: Literature Review

Student trainees in counselor education programs are expected to demonstrate personal and professional competency beyond theory and basic skill acquisition (Kerl, Garcia, McCullough, & Maxwell, 2002).

The process of gatekeeping is designed to ensure that those who matriculate throughout the program and graduate are competent and ethical in their interactions as a professional counselor (Miller, J. J., & Koerin, 2001).

It has long been an ongoing and evolving process for professionals to regulate their standards and ethics (Enochs, 2004).

Gatekeeping is a process that begins at admission (Miller & Koerin, 2001) and requires attention to all aspects of student performance, including those not linked to grades (Crawford & Gilroy, 2012).

Kerl et al. (2002) called for the inclusion of clear behavioral definitions of personal and professional attitudes and clinical behaviors throughout counselor education programs to insure that potential clients are protected from possible harm and that impaired student trainees are identified and addressed.


While monitoring the competency of student counselor trainees has always been important, little has been published regarding effective policies and procedures for student review and retention, in light of the subjective nature of evaluating personality characteristics and non-academic performance (Lumadue & Duffey, 1999).

Elman and Forest (2007) noted that the term impairment had been the most common term used to describe performance and behavioral problems among trainees, although Shepherd, Britton, and Kress (2008) noted that impaired and incompetent are used throughout the literature to refer to students demonstrating substandard performance.

J. J. Miller and Koerin (2001) emphasized the need for consistent terms and definitions of counseling student trainee impairment in order to improve the effectiveness of policy and procedure regarding intervention, remediation, and dismissal of impaired students.

Huprich and Rudd (2004) reported that only 58% of doctoral training programs in counseling, clinical, or school psychology indicated a formal program or policy to manage trainee impairment.


Gaubatz and Vera (2006) pointed out that a missing key perspective, the student trainee’s, could offer invaluable insight regarding the design of effective gate-keeping interventions.

Foster and McAdams (2009) also highlighted the notion that student perceptions and perspectives are lacking in the literature.

Overall, research on impaired counselors, as well as student counselors, is limited (Enochs & Etzbach, 2004).

Counselor educators and supervisors should be wholly invested in the identification, intervention, and dismissal (if necessary) of impaired student counselor trainees due to ethical mandates of nonmaleficence and potential legal ramifications (Fame & Stevens-Smith, 1995).

Despite having legal and ethical mandates, there is a lack of common agreement and uniform approach in how to best address intervention and remediation among impaired student counselor trainees (Bemak, Epp, & Keys, 1999).

Assessing Student Dispositions: Relevant CACREP Standards

K. Admission decision recommends are made by the academic unit’s selection committee and include consideration of the following:

Each applicant’s potential success in forming effective and culturally relevant interpersonal relationships in individual and small-group contexts. Each applicant’s aptitude for graduate-level study. Each applicant’s career goals and their relevance to the program (CACREP Standards 2009).

P. The program faculty conducts a systematic developmental assessment of each student’s progress throughout the program, including consideration of the student’s academic performance, professional development, and personal development. Consistent with established institutional due process policy and the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) code of ethics and other relevant codes of ethics and standards of practice, if evaluations indicate that a student is not appropriate for the program, faculty members help facilitate the student’s transition out of the program and, if possible, into a more appropriate area of study (CACREP Standards 2009).

Assessing Student Dispositions: Relevant CACREP Standards

AA. Program faculty members engage in continuous systematic program evaluation indicating how the mission, objectives, and student learning outcomes are measured and met. The plan includes the following:

A review by program faculty of programs, curricular offerings, and characteristics of program applicants.

4. Assessment of student learning and performance on professional identity, professional practice, and program area standards (CACREP Standards 2009).

Assessing Student Dispositions: Relevant ACA Ethical Standards

F.5.a. EvaluationSupervisors document and provide supervisees with ongoing performance appraisal and evaluation feedback and schedule periodic formal evaluative sessions throughout the supervisory relationship.

F.5.d. EndorsementSupervisors endorse supervisees for certification, licensure, employment, or completion of an academic or training program only when they believe supervisees are qualified for the endorsement. Regardless of qualifications, supervisors do not endorse supervisees whom they believe to be impaired in any way that would interfere with the performance of the duties associated with the endorsement.

Definition

For purposes of this study, we used the following definition:

Dispositions - A person's inherent qualities of mind and character.

Role of Dispositions in a Proposed Model of Fitness for Professional Duty

1. Physical FitnessPhysical ability to meet essential communication/interaction competencies for the profession

2. Moral FitnessPeriodic Criminal Background Checks and reporting criminal convictionsAssessments of Moral ReasoningEthical Code Compliance

3. Academic FitnessGRE Scores Grade Point Average Writing SampleComprehensive Exam Scores

4. Psychological FitnessInterviewAssessment of Psychopathology - MMPI, MCMI, etc.Assessment of Normal Personality – NEO-PI-R, 16PF, etc.

5. Dispositional FitnessBased on 8 Core Areas of CACREP Accreditation StandardsDispositional Measures – Professional Dispositions Scale

Counselor Dispositions Study: ParticipantsParticipants selected for inclusion in this study were drawn from a national

cluster sample of U. S. states. The U.S. Federal Regions Map, which consists of ten regions, was examined to determine states in each federal region. Within each region, one state was randomly selected and all CACREP-

accredited counselor education programs within that state were selected for inclusion in this study. Faculty and students in these programs were subjects

in this study.

Counselor Dispositions Study: Participants

States randomly selected for inclusion in this study are:1. Vermont 2. New York3. Kentucky 4. Maryland5. Ohio6. New Mexico7. Iowa8. Utah9. Arizona10. Oregon

Development of the Professional Dispositions Scale: Instrumentation

The Professional Dispositions Scale-Counseling Student Version (PDS-CSV) is a 74-item (11 Demographic items; 59 Survey items; 2 Ratio items; and, 2 Confidence items) survey designed to collect the following types of data for counseling student respondents:

(a) demographic data;

(b) data on professional education and experience;

(c) evaluations of the extent to which counseling program students and faculty demonstrate 59 dispositions identified in the Professional Dispositions Scale (PDS); and,

(d) a determination of the ratios of Suitable/Unsuitable (as defined in the PDS) students and faculty in selected counselor education programs.

Development of the Professional Dispositions Scale: Instrumentation

The Professional Dispositions Scale-Counseling Faculty Version (PDS-CFV) is a 76-item (13 Demographic items; 59 Survey items; 2 Ratio items; and, 2 Confidence items) survey designed to collect the following types of data for counseling faculty respondents:

(a) demographic data;

(b) data on professional education and experience;

(c) evaluations of the extent to which counseling program students and faculty demonstrate 59 dispositions identified in the Professional Dispositions Scale (PDS); and,

(d) a determination of the ratios of Suitable/Unsuitable (as defined in the PDS) students and faculty in selected counselor education programs.

Development of the Professional Dispositions Scale: Procedures

• C0-principal investigators will email a hyperlink to the survey for students and faculty to the department chair of each identified counseling program, with a request to utilize only university email to forward the link to students and faculty for participation.

• A hyperlink for the PDS-CSV will be included in emails to all students and a hyperlink for the PDS-CFV will be included in emails to all program faculty in all of the counseling programs identified above during the week of February 10, 2014.

• These emails will include a brief description of the study and an invitation to participate.

• Exactly one week after the initial email is sent (i.e., February 17, 2014), a reminder email will be sent to all respondents reminding them of the opportunity to participate in this study. Exactly one week later (i.e., February 24, 2014), a final reminder email will be sent to all respondents requesting their participation.

Development of the Professional Dispositions Scale: Data Analysis

Researchers will use Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, V21) to analyze data. Microsoft ® Excel software will be used to report results graphically.

Analyses will include: Descriptive statistics Determinations of disposition score differences for student and

faculty respondents Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Determination of factor and instrument reliability coefficients Determination of student and faculty confidence levels in disposition

assessments

Implications for Clinical SupervisionDispositional expectations should be:

Criteria for successful counseling/clinical performance Clearly communicated to supervisees

Dispositional assessments should be:Included on all clinical supervision evaluation formsDevelopmentally sensitive and used along the continuum of counselor development throughout career

Results of dispositional assessments should be:Used with other assessment data to develop individual professional development plans as well as systemic professional trainings

Implications for Program PolicyDispositional expectations should be:

Clearly indicated in program policies and admission materials

Dispositional assessments should be:Administered during the admission processIncorporated into evaluation procedures throughout the counseling program at regular intervals

Results of dispositional assessments should be:Used to make admissions, retention, and dismissal decisionsUsed with other assessment data to develop individual Professional Development Plans

Implications for Program Policy

Training programs should develop policies and procedures

for students to report inappropriate student, faculty, or staff

behaviors that may suggest dispositional incompetence,

without penalty or prejudice for the reporting student.

Implications for Risk ManagementDispositional assessment instruments must:

Possess psychometric properties (i.e., reliability and validity coefficients) appropriate for making individual decisions

Be used in compliance with current ethical standards and legal statutes

Have consensual faculty, staff, and institutional support

Supervisors and Faculty must:

Clearly delineate uses of dispositional assessments in department policies and procedures

Demonstrate competence to administer and evaluate dispositional assessments

Provide due process rights to students/supervisees

ConclusionsProblematic, non-academic behaviors demonstrated by counseling students and supervisees are commonplace.

Ethical standards require gatekeeping through evaluating performance, including those intangible variables (e.g., dispositions) that may lead to counselor “impairment.”

There are currently no reliable and valid measures of counselor dispositions.

The Professional Dispositions Scale (PDS) is designed to remedy this problem.

Questions and Answers

oaces final ppt

Documents